Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on September 18, 2006, 05:32:20 am
-
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20060918/2006_09_17t184729_447x450_us_iran_venezuela.jpg?x=342&y=345&sig=t0.PMXCCwCtF3IhU3WLfQw--)
Honestly, I don't know why, other than shear parranoya, that Chavez would be so chummy with Iran. This is also a continuation of my other thread, that I can't find now, 'beady eyes socialists'.
-
Why exactly do we not like Chavez? Other than showing his big brass ones in constantly and repeatedly flipping America the bird, what exactly is so devilish about the jolly bastard?
-
I don't find it disturbing because I don't even know this Chavez fella. :p
-
I DO NOT have a problem with his being a socialist. I DO NOT have a problem with Chavez flipping the US the bird and out right attempting to constantly embaressing the US as well, while crying that he expects an invasion.
What I do find disturbing is the fact that he is trying to create some sort of alliance of developing nations, some of which are quacks, ala Iran and North Korea [especially NK as the main reason it is a total sespit is its own doing]. The the problem with the enemy of my enemy is that you can get burned in the process.
-
What I do find disturbing is the fact that he is trying to create some sort of alliance of developing nations, some of which are quacks, ala Iran and North Korea [especially NK as the main reason it is a total sespit is its own doing]. The the problem with the enemy of my enemy is that you can get burned in the process.
Ah, I get it. You dislike Chavez because his nation is forming diplomatic ties with the "black sheep" of the world - Iran, North Korea, etc. - where he could quite possibly influence future dimplomatic decisions of said nations for the better.
I take it you would instead advocate completely and forcefully isolating nations with unfriendly leadership from the rest of the world until they implode from internal pressure?
-
I doubt he is making alliance with black sheep for reasons other than paranoya.[Please show me solid evidence to the contrary] But then hey, he and his country are free to make WHATEVER diplomatic decisions they so desire.
Oh I love your ability to twist words around.
-
I doubt he is making alliance with black sheep for reasons other than paranoya.
I don't quite understand. Could you elaborate?
Oh I love your ability to twist words around.
Yep, i've been practicing. Thanks for noticing. :)
-
I doubt he is making alliance with black sheep for reasons other than paranoya.
do you have any basis for that statement beyond the conditioned response administration mouthpieces have tried (and succeeded) in instilling in you?
and what the **** is it your business that they're socialist? you don't seem to understand the concept of that economics system it appears. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. This is not neccesarily good or bad - but just like capitalism it can be either one. Remove your cranium from your anus about differen economic systems and stop acting like people who aren't anarcho-capitalists are mass murdering pyschopaths.
-
do you have any basis for that statement beyond the conditioned response administration mouthpieces have tried (and succeeded) in instilling in you?
and what the **** is it your business that they're socialist? you don't seem to understand the concept of that economics system it appears. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. This is not neccesarily good or bad - but just like capitalism it can be either one. Remove your cranium from your anus about differen economic systems and stop acting like people who aren't anarcho-capitalists are mass murdering pyschopaths.
I DO NOT have a problem with his being a socialist.
Let's not start a flamewar here, eh? Can't we keep it to friendly sniping?
-
do you have any basis for that statement beyond the conditioned response administration mouthpieces have tried (and succeeded) in instilling in you?
and what the **** is it your business that they're socialist? you don't seem to understand the concept of that economics system it appears. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. This is not neccesarily good or bad - but just like capitalism it can be either one. Remove your cranium from your anus about differen economic systems and stop acting like people who aren't anarcho-capitalists are mass murdering pyschopaths.
I DO NOT have a problem with his being a socialist.
Let's not start a flamewar here, eh? Can't we keep it to friendly sniping?
Thank you.
And in regards to mouthpiece nonsense, these are my own thoughts on the matter. Besides I don't recall the Bush Administration or Fox News or anyone going around saying stuff about Chavez. Not that I watch, fox news or listen to the bush administraction, But I don't. So unless they are brainwashing me while I play BF2, in which case I wonder why Ford Prefect is not affected, these are my own thoughts on the matter.
Back on subject though, I think Chavez is mostly ignored, lol.[which honestly, pisses Chavez off IMO] I think sometimes he wants to provoke a response out of the US, which is only a suspicion. But, I am only stating that I think he is making a mistake.
The only reason that I was saying the 'beady eyed socialist' was that I wanted to continue that thread but couldn't find it via search.
-
I DO NOT have a problem with his being a socialist. I DO NOT have a problem with Chavez flipping the US the bird and out right attempting to constantly embaressing the US as well, while crying that he expects an invasion.
What I do find disturbing is the fact that he is trying to create some sort of alliance of developing nations, some of which are quacks, ala Iran and North Korea [especially NK as the main reason it is a total sespit is its own doing]. The the problem with the enemy of my enemy is that you can get burned in the process.
Well, if Country A, B and C are all under attack (political, economic, rhetorical etc) by Uncle Sam, wouldn't it be logical for them to form some sort of loose alliance? Safety in numbers and all that. Besides, I think Chavez buddying up to Syria and North Korea is more for show, they don't really have a lot to offer in return, and that his partnerships with the likes of India, China and Brazil are more concrete, real alliances.
-
And I don't have a problem, with what you referred to as concrete alliances. I also will NOT dispute the actions in the past such as Panama and Grenada, although those are slightly defendable. Now the war in Iraq is not at all defendable. But even these alliances for "show" are risky. Not just for how the US sees them, but the rest of the world.
-
Well, I think you have to think about whether this is an anti-American alliance, if indeed an alliance exists and is not merely sensationalism by the media, or a pro-themselves alliance. Here's the way I see it. Venezeula, Syria and Iran (not NK, they're ****ing crazy) can't be said to be anti-American, because they're not out to "get" America. They're not the ones who attacked New York, they're not assassinating leaders and financing seperatists or waging economic warfare or anything like that. These nations only oppose US influence in their region, which is a completely legitimate stance. As far as I'm concerned, the US shouldn''t have any influence in the Middle-East or Latin America to begin with, and efforts to dictate to these places how things should go are bull****. If America pursued a non-interventionist foreign policy, as all nations should, it's very likely that the grievances these guys have would disappear and they wouldn't be able to rally popular support.
I have particular beef when poeople say that for example Iran is anti-American. Projecting US power, or any country's power, across the world is not a right, and when someone calls you on it he's not attacking America, he's attacking the idea of America is a the world's judge, jury and executioner.
-
I am not all gun ho about mind your borders and we will mind ours, but the US has been misusing its power for years. That is not a democrat or republican issue, it is a foreign policy issue. I would disagree and say that Iran and Syria is moderatly whack and but do have a right to be pissed off and defensive. But mainly, I am most concerned about Iran's leader. But aside from that, having their conference in NK is insane and stupid.
-
I'm on the same page with Rictor. Any doings they have with NK is solely to royally piss off the States. That's what I'd do, and laugh my self to sleep every night. And what the hell does a small country in middle east have to fear from small country in east-asia? At worst the crazy ass four-eyes gets pissed too, and then one would end up laughing all night long.
I wouldn't be surprised to see more countries giving US the finger. Now's the time for that since they are barely keeping all their illegally invaded territories in order. Not to mention their own backyard. Now's also time for Europe to pull its **** together and start acting like they got a pair. No wait, that's not going to happen. Forget it.
-
I don't find it disturbing because I don't even know this Chavez fella. :p
He is pretty normal democratically elected leftist populist. Slightly questionable one, since he has media in pretty iron grasp and there are cries about election fraud, so pretty normal autocrat. Amnesty lists stuff that's not nice but pretty standard - threats, assasination attempts, so on. Asshole, but minor asshole.
What's funnier is that US rightists are completely pissed off about him - guess Chavez's rhetorics attract rightists like rotten meat attracts flies - and constantly drum up about how dangerous he is. I don't really know why, maybe because Venezuela's silly antics have an impact of oil prices because they produce that stuff. Or maybe some people just need an external enemy, no matter how laughable - China is out of question, Russia is passé, Iraq and Afghanistan are done, terrism war is a failure, Iran is too big to swallow right now, NK is scary and does not only threat US but Japan and ROK too. So let's hate some South American populist instead!
Ahmadinejad is pretty lol too, but he is in more dire situation where stakes are higher. I don't know how seriously one should take his rhetorics - propably not very, because cleric councils have all the power in Iran and don't want to lose that precious power.
Those two are cuddling up because they don't like USA and, after all, are in relatively similar strategic position and on the same side of the fence. Giving a finger to USA is pretty satisfying, as long as you're untouchable. And it scores easy points too! (USA is eeeevil, now I get hot semihippie chicks!)
-
And I don't have a problem, with what you referred to as concrete alliances. I also will NOT dispute the actions in the past such as Panama and Grenada, although those are slightly defendable. Now the war in Iraq is not at all defendable. But even these alliances for "show" are risky. Not just for how the US sees them, but the rest of the world.
Pretty much no one outside the USA really gives a **** about Chavez - the worst thing he can do to outside world right now is to ruin his own economy by ****ing with his own oil production. UN is trying to deal with Iran which is not exactly easy, geopolitical situation of the Middle East being what it is.
-
This whole subject reminds me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Help help I am being repressed." (http://repress.ytmnd.com/)
-
And I don't have a problem, with what you referred to as concrete alliances. I also will NOT dispute the actions in the past such as Panama and Grenada, although those are slightly defendable.
Grenada was a massive **** up from beginning to end. It's even less defensible than Iraq where at least you can fall back on the fact that Saddam is a complete bastard.
In Grenada you don't even have that. The only time the students were in any danger anyway was when the US opened fire on the building they were in.
-
What worries me is if NK decides to hand out thermonuclear weapons as party favors...rather like Israel did with South Africa and Taiwan back in the day.
-
eh, keep in mind that they had a 10,000ft runway they had constructed and all of their neighbors were nervous and asked the US to help them intervene. To simply say they had a right to is as misleading as to simply say Castro and the USSR had a right to store ICBMs in Cuba. Yes, Grenada is/was tourist dependant and the runway would have assisted them with their local economy. But from the standpoint of the US atleast, with the past experiences such as the Cuban Missle Crisis didn't and shouldn't trust the hardline communists which had taken over the country. I am not really going to defend this action any more than this because there is hardly any other than this and if I were cogniscent of all the facts and cogniscent to percieve these things [I was 3 years old] I would have opposed it.
-
No one was nervous except Ronald Reagan.
Had Grenada been any kind of real threat the US would have started gathering information on it long before the invasion occured. The fact that the the US pushed so hard to invade that they ended up having to plan the invasion on a map from a petrol station because they didn't have time to find anything better should be proof of how ridiculous the entire thing was.
Oh and as for the neighbours asking for help, other states have since said that they did this because America asked them to ask for help so as to provide a cause for the invasion. The entire thing was based on nothing more than American paranoia. There was no real danger there at all.
-
Got a link, please? I am interested because everything I have ever read said differently.
-
Unfortunately I'm mostly going on what I heard in a TV series called something like "Classic Military Blunders"
The invasion of Grenada got half a program to itself.
I did manage to find this (http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2003/10grenada.htm) however which does seem to support the majority of what the program said about the politics involved.
-
I have no idea what grenada was about either, all I know is it's a relitively minor military action that happened somewere to the south that get's brought up alongside veitnam and bay of pigs.
-
Let's ask Clint Eastwood
-
The first part of that movie was almost decent entertainment. But once the training was over, it was boring at best.
-
Unfortunately I'm mostly going on what I heard in a TV series called something like "Classic Military Blunders"
The invasion of Grenada got half a program to itself.
I did manage to find this (http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2003/10grenada.htm) however which does seem to support the majority of what the program said about the politics involved.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but some of what is in there is outright politically charged. I cannot say either way, whether or not they are right though.
-
I doubt you'll find many sites on the matter that aren't politically charged or puff pieces saying how great the military are. Even the wikipedia page has had its neutrality challenged.
Like I said I've heard from less politically inclined sources that the entire thing was a blunder by RR.
-
I DO NOT have a problem with his bein' a socialist... and really bad eggs. I DO NOT have a problem with Chavez flippin' th' US th' bird an' out starboard attemptin' t' constantly embaressin' th' US as well, while cryin' wot he expects an invasion
I remember you said something quite different in the other thread.
Ah, I get it, pass the grog! Walk the plank! Ye dislike Chavez on account o' his nation is formin' diplomatic ties with th' "black sheep" o' th' world - Iran, North Korea, etc.
It's so interesting to have political discussions with pirate speak on......
-
I don't have a problem wot th' people o' Venezuala elected wot scurvey dog a socialist. I don't have an issue wot he has chosen t' be a socialist. I do have an issue with socialism in general.
-
Also, looking back, what I said is I don't trust Chavez and Socialists in general.
-
Praytell, what do you base your hatred of Socialists upon?
-
A. Fire th' cannons, pass the grog! I don't hate socialists, by Blackbeard's sword.
B. I only disagree with them, with a chest full o' booty.
C. I don't think Socialists Systems are e'er really equal
D. I don't think Socialists can always deliver what they promise
E. I don't think th' auld socialist dogma wot th' ends always justify th' means always is applicable.
F. Walk the plank! Walk the plank! I don't think wot socialist societies, taken t' their ultimate ends, really allow economic freedom. Drink up me hearties, yo ho! Yarrrrr! An' hoist th' mainsail! If anythin', it oblitherates it, and a bucket o' chum.
E. Socialist Societies are not really self sufficient, but rely on others t' boost their economy. Yarrrrr, by Blackbeard's sword! For Cuba, it is tourism. For Venezuala, it is Oil.
F. Socialism in SA is only a reaction o' discontent o' bein' screwed o'er by first world countries. That being the case I don't blame Venezuala for voting in a populist.
-
E. Socialist Societies are not really self sufficient, but rely on others t' boost their economy. Ahoy! Yarrrrr, by Blackbeard's sword! For Cuba, it is tourism. For Venezuala, it is Oil.
And for China it's cheap goods, and for Japan and America high tech goods, your point? Because those countries recognized the advantage they had (tourism, oil, whatever) they have to try to milk all they can out of those advantages. It has nothing to do with socialism, it's called having a brain!
-
The point is that it can't stand on its own 2 feet.
-
The point is wot is can't stand on its own 2 feet.
So according to you, no economy can stand on its own two feet, be it capitalist or socialist?
Interesting.
-
My point is wot I ca hardly judge it as bein' truly sucessful when it is dependent on someone else, bein' another economic system.
Hell, I th' US economy, is entirely dependent on th' generosity o' others.
I also wonder what will happen when oil drys up from venezuala.
-
My point is wot I ca hardly judge it as bein' truly sucessful when it is dependent on someone else, bein' another economic system.
Hell, I th' US economy, is entirely dependent on th' generosity o' others.
I also wonder what will happen when oil drys up from venezuala.
There are no successful economic systems?
Also, how do you actually define socialist.
-
Socialism varies in degree.
-
Socialism varies in degree.
That does not help at all!
You talk about socialist countries and how they adopt selected politics, but if you are not able to define socialism in any practical sense then how can you really talk about socialist countries' tendencies to [whatever]?
Define it or the discussion is useless. Do social democracies count as socialistic countries? Do modern China and former USSR both qualify? If NK is socialistic country - which is pretty easy to say, seeing how they follow very strict form of communism -, then how does Venezuela rate as one? What?
-
God Dammit this Pirate talk is ****ing annoying. Pure socialism that absolutly controls the means of production is a great hinderance for a number of obvious reasons. Now socializing an entire industry, is a great hinderance to economic reasons. It creates innefficiencies. I know the "reason" Chavez nationalized oil industry is he fealt they were getting screwed. BUT, I do wonder if he even attempted to negotiate [I do admit, I don't know the whole story]. But being as starchly against capitalism as I know Chavez to be, I can only imagine how much of a hard-liner socialist he is.
-
E. Socialist Societies are not really self sufficient, but rely on others t' boost their economy.
Explain Sweden, Germany, France, Finland, and all those other socialist countries.
Now socializin' an entire industry, is a great hinderance t' economic reasons.
The Scandinavian economies are doing quite well last I heard, best in the Eurozone and some of the best in the world.
An' fer China it's cheap goods
China is anything but a socialist country. Those days are long gone.
-
Socializing an industry can introduce inneficiencys. The best example of this could be the Coal Mining industry in England during the 80s.
Many of those European countries also rely on capitalism and really high taxes. It is hard to say socialism as a economic system can truly sustain its self.
The problem I have with socialism is that further that socialism is taken, the greater the chance economic freedoms are threatened.
-
The problem I have with socialism is that further that socialism is taken, the greater the chance economic freedoms are threatened.
On the other hand look at it this way, are people in those European countries happier and more satisfeid with their lives than in the US?
-
Socializing an industry can introduce inneficiencys. The best example of this could be the Coal Mining industry in England during the 80s.
Many of those European countries also rely on capitalism and really high taxes. It is hard to say socialism as a economic system can truly sustain its self.
The problem I have with socialism is that further that socialism is taken, the greater the chance economic freedoms are threatened.
I am just going to repeat myself and ask for your definition of socialism. And no, answers like "socialistic countries do things" don't qualify.
-
Socializing an industry can introduce inneficiencys. The best example of this could be the Coal Mining industry in England during the 80s.
Oh yeah, Maggie fixed them up good.
-
At the same time you cannot just send people around to dig ditches for no reason. Sometimes changes have to be made. Sucks as it must have been for the coal miners, it was a horrible innefficiency. The economics and public administration were no less tragic considering the fact that the nationalized industry was allowed to grow to become what it was. The postal system in Japan is another example or was I should say. Say what you would like about Margaret Thatcher and how she went about doing what she did. But the simple fact is that it would have been irrespocible to have done nothing at all.
-
C. I don't think Socialists Systems are e'er really equal
No political System will ever be equal. Democracy is NOT (not anymore at least. Money buys votes, you know that), Socialism is not, Monarchy is obviously not, Communism is not.
D. I don't think Socialists can always deliver what they promise
Because Democrats (as a general term, I'm not refering to the US political party) sure do... COME ON. Are you living in a dream or what?...
E. I don't think th' auld socialist dogma wot th' ends always justify th' means always is applicable.
Oh yea? Go tell that to your Boss next time he wants to know why your weekly ROI (return on investment) hasn't improved.
E. Socialist Societies are not really self sufficient, but rely on others t' boost their economy. Yarrrrr, by Blackbeard's sword! For Cuba, it is tourism. For Venezuala, it is Oil.
Someone already replied to that... Self sufficient economies are no more since... well, basically 2000 years.
F. Socialism in SA is only a reaction o' discontent o' bein' screwed o'er by first world countries. That being the case I don't blame Venezuala for voting in a populist.
So, France, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Italy (now with a left-wing party in power). Finland, basically all of Europe, really are just "second grade countries".... Nice view of the world, no, i really mean it.
-
All I have time to respond to this early in the morning is that South America socialist are in power because of first world countries. Its not a view of the world, just an observation. Don't twist words and don't look for ways to be offended.
-
All I have time to respond to this early in the morning is that South America socialist are in power because of first world countries. Its not a view of the world, just an observation. Don't twist words and don't look for ways to be offended.
He didn't twist anything, he made sensible conclusions from your somewhat silly reasons for disliking Socialism. From what i've seen thus far, i'd safely put down your anti-Socialism stance to what you've been told to believe, as you can't seem to come up with any solid reasons to justify your belief.
-
For purely a question of economic and efficiency standpoints I am against it. In the end I guess it depends on what you value. I value economic efficiency and the ability to freely pursue wealth. This has nothing to do with being told what to believe. His comments that I have a perverted perception of the world is what bothered me.
-
Socializing an industry can introduce inneficiencys. The best example of this could be the Coal Mining industry in England during the 80s.
Perhaps the Coal Mining Industry sucked because the government were stupid and ineffcient but what about British Rail then. Did privatising it do any good? Nope. It sucked more as a privatised operation in fact. Efficiency didn't improve. In fact it got worse in many cases.
While government run it never had major rail crashes due to poorly maintained track. Railtrack on the other hand caused at least three. Once the rail network itself was renationalised again the problem stopped.
Wanna explain that one to me?
-
Can't, I don't know anything about it. But I can also say that nationalized industry have difficulty reacting to change. Especially when they cannot fire or layoff workers or adopting technology.[Private Industry can do that same thing, like the US Steel industry] It basically ignores the market mechanism.
-
There are plenty of privatised businesses that have the same problem though. And if you give them a monoploy as many of the privatised companies have they simply deal with the problem by going cap in hand to the government for a handout.
-
National Industries will always be slow to change and expensive to run, Private industries will always be trying to save as much money for their shareholders as possible.
Railtrack themselves went cap-in-hand to the government on, I think 4 occasions, and they gave them money from the Lottery fund, of all things, that which was supposed to only go to charity.
The fact of the matter was that the Rail system was being drained from the top, till almost none filtered down to the actual Track maintenance. This will always be a problem in a Private enterprise. The managers want the money, that, after all, is what they went into business for, not the joy of management.
At least whilst the higher-ranks are under Governmental pay-scales, they know that they cannot simply grab a huge slice of pie and abandon the sinking ship, which is what Railtrack did.
-
That might in fact be an issue of privatised enterprises. I mean look at the airlines, once deregulation happened here in the US it shook things up. A Previously heavily regulated industry that was a ogolopaply[spelling?] was in shock. Only now are they able to adjust. Only time will tell if they are going to ask for a hand out.
-
National Industries will always be slow to change and expensive to run, Private industries will always be trying to save as much money for their shareholders as possible.
Railtrack themselves went cap-in-hand to the government on, I think 4 occasions, and they gave them money from the Lottery fund, of all things, that which was supposed to only go to charity.
The fact of the matter was that the Rail system was being drained from the top, till almost none filtered down to the actual Track maintenance. This will always be a problem in a Private enterprise. The managers want the money, that, after all, is what they went into business for, not the joy of management.
At least whilst the higher-ranks are under Governmental pay-scales, they know that they cannot simply grab a huge slice of pie and abandon the sinking ship, which is what Railtrack did.
Corporations don't try to save money, they try to generate profit. These two things are really worlds apart. And that's exactly why **** happens when you provatize a state industry and practically let them become a monopoly. In areas in which competition requires significant funds, be it in terms of infrastructure or even marketing, the monopoly corporation can simply ramp up prices and keep the service as the same. Or they can rise prices and lower the service, creating even larger profit!
You can see how this will lead to immense problems. Deregulating and privatizing small-scale industry which faces heavy competition can bolster the position of a customer, because he has lots of choices and does not need to use any one to actually live (at least on large scale).
And the problem of government simply handing out money to save failing enterprises is something the voters should analyze and decide. It's the government, ergo the voters have the final say. Also, it does not necessarily address the underlying problems, it's just patchwork. Really - if I had a company I would always try and beg money from the government, because if the idiots are so gullible to support my buttplug industry then too bad for them.
-
Generally true to be honest, but in the case of Railtrack, the government still capped the price they could charge for tickets, in order to make them get more people to use the train rather than drive, so they found areas to trim down in order to maximise what profit they did make.
-
That might in fact be an issue of privatised enterprises. I mean look at the airlines, once deregulation happened here in the US it shook things up. A Previously heavily regulated industry that was a ogolopaply[spelling?] was in shock. Only now are they able to adjust. Only time will tell if they are going to ask for a hand out.
They had been deregulated for a long time, and now all of them are either bankrupt, or have gone through bankruptcy.
-
With the exception of those that are new such as southwest.
-
Which is a great irony as Southwest is one of the ****tiest airlines ever.
-
Which is a great irony as Southwest is one of the ****tiest airlines ever.
They just don't provide much in the way of amneties (sp?) for a lower price, but for long ass international flights that simply won't work.
-
And they are successful at givinf ****ty flights. They almost have made passenger flight a commodity.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14928778/
On the flip side, private does not always equal better.
-
As anyone who's ever travelled Virgin trains will testify.......
-
Marvellous. 3 Terms of Blair claiming he's improving the NHS and now we're scoring worse than America! :mad:
-
Marvellous. 3 Terms of Blair claiming he's improving the NHS and now we're scoring worse than America! :mad:
Isn't it also in a big funding crunch right now?
-
I'm typing with my nose, cos my arms and legs fell off, Thats how bad the NHS is at the moment.
-
:lol: :lol:
I ****ing LOVE Chavez!
Read the full text of his speech at the UN.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092000893.html
I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil -- the devil, himself, is right in the house.
And the devil came here yesterday.
Yesterday, the devil came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of.
There's no other statesman like him on the planet. Not even Ahmadinejad had the balls to attack Bush like that. Bwahaha.
-
Way to go Chavez! :yes:
-
It gets better. Now the Democrats are crying because only other Americans are allowed to condemn their president: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/chavez.ny/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/chavez.ny/index.html)
"I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president: Don't come to the United States and think, because we have problems with our president, that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our chief of state," Rangel said.
Christ. Deflate your head and shut the **** up.
"Our president is **** but u cant say that cuz ur not American LOL!"
-
On the flip side, private does not always equal better.
Anyone in California when they deregulated the power companies can tell you that...
-
It gets better. Now the Democrats are crying because only other Americans are allowed to condemn their president: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/chavez.ny/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/chavez.ny/index.html)
"I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president: Don't come to the United States and think, because we have problems with our president, that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our chief of state," Rangel said.
Christ. Deflate your head and shut the **** up.
"Our president is **** but u cant say that cuz ur not American LOL!"
You know, I don't think any Democrats called him the Devil. Course I may be wrong ;7
-
But they've made it obvious that what Chavez actually said isn't the basis for their lambasting him:
"If there's any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not," Rangel said at a Washington news conference.
Now don't get me wrong-- I wouldn't expect them to come out and endorse Chavez's colorful remarks, but it's so transparent that the Democrats are just enjoying this chance to masturbate with the American flag the way the Republicans do.
-
The Democrats never cease to amaze.......
-
But what would be truly surprising is if they did support him on this. I mean, c'mon, you will never ever get a political party which sides with a foreigner who comes in and calls your head of state the Devil. Not in America, not anywhere.
I was actually surprised by the applause. Looks like Hugo's right on the money, or at least a whole hell of a lot closer than Bush's "we greave for the poor people of Lebanon who were drawn into the crossfire when big bad Hezbollah attacked poor little Israel" speech. It's also funny how CNN dismissed "some people" that agreed with Chavez's anti-Americanism when reffering to the Non-Aligned Movement summit. Yeah, "some people" apparently means the leaders representing 75% of the world's population in 120 countries.
-
On the flip side, private does not always equal better.
Anyone in California when they deregulated the power companies can tell you that...
Except deregulation wasn't the root cause. IIRC, it is difficult to build any new powerplants because of the absurdly lengthy process of approvals. And of course ENRON's jacking up the power prices didn't help.
-
But they've made it obvious that what Chavez actually said isn't the basis for their lambasting him:
"If there's any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not," Rangel said at a Washington news conference.
Now don't get me wrong-- I wouldn't expect them to come out and endorse Chavez's colorful remarks, but it's so transparent that the Democrats are just enjoying this chance to masturbate with the American flag the way the Republicans do.
:lol: bad Visual Image. DAMN YOU.
-
Except deregulation wasn't the root cause. IIRC, it is difficult to build any new powerplants because of the absurdly lengthy process of approvals. And of course ENRON's jacking up the power prices didn't help.
Yes, and the AG was talking out of his ass when he sued hither and yon for violations of all kinds in relation to that...and won, no less.
-
:lol: bad Visual Image. DAMN YOU.
What are you talking about, man? The House of Representatives is hotter than the Playboy Mansion.
-
On the flip side, private does not always equal better.
Anyone in California when they deregulated the power companies can tell you that...
Except deregulation wasn't the root cause. IIRC, it is difficult to build any new powerplants because of the absurdly lengthy process of approvals. And of course ENRON's jacking up the power prices didn't help.
ENRON's playing with prices was directly tied to deregulation, so yes deregulation was the root cause.
Of course what it sounds like many want is deregulation of energy prices as well as deregulation of powerplant designs as well. Let the market decide is all good and fine until powerplants start exploding due to sub-par construction, which is why the 'lengthy process of approvals' was there to begin with.
-
No, it maybe the root cause of allowing them to charge high prices for transmitting power into California. That, iirc, did not cause the rolling blackouts. But, regulation of energy prices is just as insane not to mention unreasonable building regulations.
-
No, it maybe the root cause of allowing them to charge high prices for transmitting power into California. That, iirc, did not cause the rolling blackouts. But, regulation of energy prices is just as insane not to mention unreasonable building regulations.
If they were still regulated, they could never have done what they did. They deliberately caused the blackouts, if there was regulatory oversight it would not have happened. Period.
-
Got proof that they diliberatly caused black outs? Period.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
In the 1970's, California had decided to end the development of nuclear energy. Following this decision, California failed to develop sufficient in-state electricity generation capacity and came to depend in part on the import of excess hydroelectricity from the Pacific Northwest states of Oregon and Washington. Legislation relating to clean air standards resulted in in-state electricity generation depending on natural gas, which linked together the gas and electricity markets. Rapid growth in demand for electricity, resulting from strong economic growth, ate into any excess capacity remaining in the system. In the summer of 2000 two events combined to worsen the situation: a drought in the North West states, and a large increase in the price of natural gas. In addition, the route where power was sent south, Path 15 had a major bottleneck (congestion) point which limited the amount of power that could be sent south to 3,900 MW.
Oversight or not, this would have happened. And the price caps in the deregulation bill for incumbents made it impossible to pass of the costs.
and is this is what gives you proof: "There is a single connection between northern and southern California's power grids. I heard that Enron traders purposely overbooked that line, then caused others to need it. Next, by California's free-market rules, Enron was allowed to price-gouge at will."[5] That was an allegation with out real proof.
But I need to finish reading the article as well.
-
Got proof that they diliberatly caused black outs? Period.
Yeah, I believe they called it "Operation Death Star" or something to that effect. There have been recorded conversations of Enron executives bragging about what they were doing.
-
That alone wouldn't cause the blackouts. It was only to reap further benefits and profits from California. At the same time, it was also poor planning having only one connection between north and south. Regaurdless, it was illegal and unethical.
-
That alone wouldn't cause the blackouts. It was only to reap further benefits and profits from California. At the same time, it was also poor planning having only one connection between north and south. Regaurdless, it was illegal and unethical.
Maybe it was poorly planned, but on the otherhand Enron did purposely overload that line. After the Enron scandal was over, does California still have rolling blackouts?
-
Got proof that they diliberatly caused black outs? Period.
Yeah, I believe they called it "Operation Death Star" or something to that effect. There have been recorded conversations of Enron executives bragging about what they were doing.
Source.
-
That alone wouldn't cause the blackouts. It was only to reap further benefits and profits from California. At the same time, it was also poor planning having only one connection between north and south. Regaurdless, it was illegal and unethical.
No, but if I recall,
Maybe it was poorly planned, but on the otherhand Enron did purposely overload that line. After the Enron scandal was over, does California still have rolling blackouts?
No, there was manipulation of the market, which was determined to be possible from poor planning and market design. Enron and other energy companies were manipulating the energy spot market for power. Meaning that there was a shortage and the power had to be purchased from outside the state for an inflated and manipulated price. Price caps also made it impossible to pass these costs to consumers. This was not really the cause of the blackouts but explains why they stopped once price manipulation was cracked down on. However, these black outs were a result of numerous factors coinciding.
-
Got proof that they diliberatly caused black outs? Period.
Yeah, I believe they called it "Operation Death Star" or something to that effect. There have been recorded conversations of Enron executives bragging about what they were doing.
Source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
-
Got proof that they diliberatly caused black outs? Period.
Yeah, I believe they called it "Operation Death Star" or something to that effect. There have been recorded conversations of Enron executives bragging about what they were doing.
Source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
The Death Star strategy was the name Enron gave to their practice of shuffling energy around the California power grid to receive payments from the state for "relieving congestion." According to the company's own memo they would be paid "for moving energy to relieve congestion, without actually moving any energy or relieving any congestion."
For example, if the California power grid was congested with energy flowing south, Enron would schedule energy to be transmitted north to Oregon. They would receive a payment from California for apparently relieving congestion on the grid. Then Enron would schedule the energy to be transferred back to its point of origin, but not through California. Ultimately the energy would end up right back where it started, and Enron would be paid by California without actually putting any electricity on their grid.
laffo
-
Never said Enron wasn't smart and enterprising. :p
-
Never said Enron wasn't smart and enterprising. :p
Smart enough to enterprise their way to bankruptcy and criminal trials.
-
Never said Enron wasn't smart and enterprising. :p
Smart enough to enterprise their way to bankruptcy and criminal trials.
Crime never pays.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkjuAYpxG9A&NR
"...his excelancy" ROFL