Venezuela's, Hugo Chavez, dies at 58!

Iolo · Mar 9, 2013

Mermaid said:
dictator ?

hehe .)))

stone ,do you have global firms ?

only those globalists can hate this guy

and dont forget democracy is a two faced game .elections dont mean anything as long as teh ones being elected belong in teh same group.

So we should discount American capitalist governments, right? I already do, thanks.

David · Mar 9, 2013

Mermaid said:
bush cant be nationalist ,nationalism against imperialism is a good thing
he was just an imperialist moron

l think he is the stupidiest president l have ever seen:giggle:

No, I mean he nationalized several businesses at the end of his term (AIG, GMC, Chrysler, etc.). My point being that didn't make him a dictator any more then it did Chavez.

Mermaid · Mar 12, 2013

David said:
No, I mean he nationalized several businesses at the end of his term (AIG, GMC, Chrysler, etc.). My point being that didn't make him a dictator any more then it did Chavez.

yes İ agree

tecoyah · Mar 12, 2013

To Nationalize I would think one would need to take something from private to national....as in owned by the nation. I use the post office as example.

That worked out well.

Stonewall · Mar 15, 2013

tecoyah said:
To Nationalize I would think one would need to take something from private to national....as in owned by the nation. I use the post office as example.

That worked out well.

Worked out so well, the PO is broke and deficient. While the UPS and Fed Ex's of the world expand.

Stonewall · Mar 15, 2013

Mermaid said:
is it dictatorship or justice ?

l think l will never understand teh rightists who always support globalist firms

Then I submit that you may not understand property rights nor rights endowed.

And it was a dictatorship, not justice. thanks.

David · Mar 15, 2013

Stonewall said:
Worked out so well, the PO is broke and deficient. While the UPS and Fed Ex's of the world expand.

You do realize the USPO has a multi-million dollar surplus right? The 'deficit' comes from the Repubs forcing them to guarantee pensions for people not born yet so that they look bad.

Stonewall · Mar 15, 2013

David said:
You do realize the USPO has a multi-million dollar surplus right? The 'deficit' comes from the Repubs forcing them to guarantee pensions for people not born yet so that they look bad.

Postmaster General BURLESON has issued an official denial of Senator HARDWICK'S statement that the Post Office is running behind by $80,000,000 a year. Mr. BURLESON says the fact is there would be an $81,000,000 surplus, except for the loss of $80,000,000 on second-class mail.

THE POST OFFICE SURPLUS. - Editorial - NYTimes.com

myp · Mar 17, 2013

David said:
You do realize the USPO has a multi-million dollar surplus right? The 'deficit' comes from the Repubs forcing them to guarantee pensions for people not born yet so that they look bad.

They haven't had to be bailed out several times because of future liabilities...

David · Mar 17, 2013

myp said:
They haven't had to be bailed out several times because of future liabilities...

Mind clarifying your point? I can't really respond without knowing the context of your point.

myp · Mar 17, 2013

David said:
Mind clarifying your point? I can't really respond without knowing the context of your point.

They were bailed out because they couldn't cover current operating costs, not because of the bleak projections 10 years down the road. Their pension, etc. costs are already too high- the projections don't even matter.

Stonewall · Mar 18, 2013

David said:
Mind clarifying your point? I can't really respond without knowing the context of your point.

Mind clarifying this one?

"The 'deficit' comes from the Repubs forcing them to guarantee pensions for people not born yet so that they look bad"

David · Mar 18, 2013

Stonewall said:
Mind clarifying this one?

"The 'deficit' comes from the Repubs forcing them to guarantee pensions for people not born yet so that they look bad"

In the Lame Duck session in '07, before they went home, Congress held a vote (initiated by the Republican Party) on several issues. As most Dems had already gone home, the Repubs had the majority and were able to pass a handful of measures they had been wanting to take care of. This included a 78 year pension guarantee for the USPO.

Stonewall · Mar 21, 2013

David said:
In the Lame Duck session in '07, before they went home, Congress held a vote (initiated by the Republican Party) on several issues. As most Dems had already gone home, the Repubs had the majority and were able to pass a handful of measures they had been wanting to take care of. This included a 78 year pension guarantee for the USPO.

How the Postal Service began prefunding retiree health care and fell into a deep hole | Save the Post Office

Might you provide a link, thanks.

Mermaid · Mar 22, 2013

Stonewall said:
Then I submit that you may not understand property rights nor rights endowed.

And it was a dictatorship, not justice. thanks.

capitalism provides justice for you ?

Stonewall · Mar 23, 2013

Mermaid said:
capitalism provides justice for you ?

No. And I was unaware I was to look to the opportunities capitalism has provided for 'justice.' It's a free market concept, I find it odd you'd first expect justice, I trust you'll probably find it should you give it first.

It happens to be the only economic system possible in regards to free men and women. The right to pursue happiness, the endowed rights and the American concept that we the governed are actually the individuals who actually give our consent to be governed..not the other way around.

David · Mar 23, 2013

Stonewall said:
No. And I was unaware I was to look to the opportunities capitalism has provided for 'justice.' It's a free market concept, I find it odd you'd first expect justice, I trust you'll probably find it should you give it first.

It happens to be the only economic system possible in regards to free men and women. The right to pursue happiness, the endowed rights and the American concept that we the governed are actually the individuals who actually give our consent to be governed..not the other way around.

You clearly haven't read up on socialism. Plenty of free market socialists around, used to have 1 here in fact.

Stonewall · Mar 24, 2013

David said:
You clearly haven't read up on socialism. Plenty of free market socialists around, used to have 1 here in fact.

Socialism a broad term David, there are plenty of free market conservatives as well...who support some social programs. What I speak to of course is private property. Private capital.

David · Mar 24, 2013

Stonewall said:
Socialism a broad term David, there are plenty of free market conservatives as well...who support some social programs. What I speak to of course is private property. Private capital.

When you say private property do you include or exclude personal property (the house you live in, the car you drive to work, the cloths you where, etc.)?

Stonewall · Mar 25, 2013

David said:
When you say private property do you include or exclude personal property (the house you live in, the car you drive to work, the cloths you where, etc.)?

Includes the property you have every right to own, the business sitting on that property that no government should have the right to nationalize or negatively influence as long as laws aren't being broken. It includes the private property of taxpayers too, a government for and by the people....not a dictator deciding on winners and losers, nationalizing oil and bank industries, and mandating over free and fair elections.

Why do I get the feeling you're about to go off on another tangent?

Venezuela's, Hugo Chavez, dies at 58!

Similar threads