This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Venezuelan Protesters Sum It All Up (In One Banner)
Via Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
The following quote written on a piece of cardboard from the ongoing protests in Venezuela basically summarizes how the oligarchs, or the 0.01%, and their political henchmen rule in all countries around the world at the moment. Then they cry like little welfare babies when people criticize their behavior.
Powerful stuff:
They speak like Marx
Rule like Stalin
And live like Rockefellers
While the people suffer
»
- 14800 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
From the mouths of babes...
It could be said in a dozen different languages and be just as apropos!
DaddyO
.....taken a step back form ZH lately to lurk and watch from afar, the growing global storm that so many have been talking about for the last 5 years. If history repeats itself it looks more and more like this is 1938 all over again
In 1938 countries were lining up as Axis or Allies. I don't see that happening now. I see people rejecting government, but when replaced the new government is just as bad or worse as the old (Libya, Egypt, Syria).
To solve this issue, government must be redefined as to it's proper role, and even more limited than what the Founders created. To me, this means a Second Constitutional Convention, after of course, the current scoundrels are deposed and thrown into a deep dark dungeon.
If history repeats itself it looks more and more like this is 1938 all over again
The current Constitution can handle this situation. Human Nature ..and even "central" banking...has not fundmenatlly changed in the last 230 years.
"The current Constitution can handle this situation. Human Nature ..and even "central" banking...has not fundmenatlly changed in the last 230 years."
I agree with those who oppose a constitutional convention and see it as dangerous. Given those in D.C., fundamental rights would be attacked. - - - Given that those in government are violating the existing US Constitution and breaking the law, nothing would be gained by a CC and much could be lost. (though the constitution only recognizes existing God given, natural human rights, - it does not grant them)
They speak like Marx
Rule like Stalin
Live like Rockefellers
And are elected by insufferable idiots.
Look in a mirror to see the real problem, idiot sign holder.
And it was the woman's fault for saying, "Please don't rape me" ...
One polly promises to rape you. The other promises not to rape you. You know the second one is a liar but there is no way you want the first one in power. You hope the second one will at least be hamstrung by a need to put up a front. That is how the sheep are led to the pens. Take the US, for example. You really think the opposition couldn't find anyone better than Romney?
No, but walking unaccompanied through downtown Harlem late at night dressed in a short skirt and heels with her suspenders sticking out makes her a goddamned idiot.
Yeah, I guess it would be like a business man walking down the same street, wearing a tux, a Rolex, gold rings and chains and a great wad of $100 notes hanging out of his pocket.
But back to the original premise. While I understand that "voting only encourages them", I don't blame the sheeple for their actions at the voting booth. They will be blamed no matter what they do, whether it is, "You voted for the wrong guy", "You had your chance to have your say but you chose to remain silent" or "You shouldn't have chosen violence, you should have just voted them out at the next election" (Does any other employee in the world get to keep his job for four years after his incompetence has been thoroughly demonstrated?)
While many sheeple deserve what they get for choosing ignorance, the few who try to ignore the stampede can easily get trampled by the rest of the herd. I'd still rather ignore the short-comings of the herd and keep the spotlight trained on the wolves.
Sounds like Obamunism. We have our own shit to deal with, right?
Constitutional Convention is a MISNOMER. The framework needs not be the product of any convention, nor is any involvement required on the part of the Federal government.
The process for amending the Constitution is the same as that for replacing it. The problem is lack of leaders skilled in reaching consensus and compromise. However, where values are in short supply this obstacle can be overcome with greed and self interest.
The process of drafting a new constitutional framework can simply be for a group of individuals with proper and diverse political connections in various key States to create a draft constitution that transfers significant authority from the Federal to State Executives and Legislatures and get 2/3 of the legislatures to convene a convention to tweak it (which is relatively easy with only a 2/3 hurdle and the State's self interest being advanced), then it must be approved by 3/4 of the States' legislatures or conventions (which is actually a much higher bar when proposing wholesale change).
There were a whole bunch of competing drafts of the Federal Constitution that were developed prior to the 1787 convention (thank God we didn't get stuck with Hamilton's version)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-19/ukraine-military-reveals-protes...
Democracy must be redefined. The entire notion of a "representative" government had relevancy when we asked men to get on their horse, and go on a three week journey to Washington to represent our interest.
Since I can chat with a billion people on the other side of the planet in real time, this notion of representative democracy is irrelevant.
Why do we need people to vote for us? If something has to be voted on....let the people vote. Democracy is not soverign and violates the natural law of humanity that we all know and believe in our heart....but if things must be voted on....let us vote.
Washington DC is at the top of the worlds parasitic community. Every ounce of wealth you see as you drive around the beltway is extracted from hard working Americans.
The American founders studied and understood history. They knew that democracies are dangerous - - - they are the perfect vehicle for an everlasting tyranny. People have been easily swayed since ancient times. 'Two wolves & a sheep voting on what to have for lunch." So instead, they formed a republic.
The propagandist Bernays said/wrote that 'they' would use propaganda to shape what the public was even able to think. By taking over 'schooling' and the media - the tyrants have been very successful. They have been able to manipulate the people to become slaves without even recognizing the fact.
Even though they constantly are getting screwed over, people continue to vote in the same people into office. They vote based on slogans and 30sec ad spots. Most people have no idea of the most basic facts about American history, government, or money. (Just today I heard someone interviewing/asking college students on campus what the Bill of Rights were. Most had no idea. This is no accident.) Until the American people take control of their own education and the media they feed their minds on . . . . they will never be free no matter who does the voting.
Government is a monopoly on the use of force, and unless 24 million clones of you occupy all the jobs in government, you are going to end up being a slave.
just to clear up: all govt employees are slaves, in their minds and in their souls. ALL of them; no exceptions.
Unless they become whistleblowers, ALL of them are clueless slave zombies.
True, they do have the abilities and behaviors of worker ants.
Obey the wiring in their heads and crush any resisters. Very ant-like.
Why would direct democracy be any better than indirect democracy?
The fundamental democratic problem is the ignorance of voters. They can be conned into voting for the wrong proposition as easily as they're conned into voting for the wrong representative. Makes no difference.
If you want to improve democracy, make voting expensive. It doesn;t matter how. It could be a poll tax, a literacy test, or making voters do 100 sit-ups. The point is to discourage voting. That will weed out the low-motivation voters, who are also generally the low-information voters.
Alternatively, or additionally, limit the franchise to those who pay net taxes.
Make voting expensive? So only the rich / strong have a say? You haven't changed anything.
Limit voting to those who pay taxes? So the unemployed don't have a voice? That will work if the voters want help in paying all them taxes. It won't work if the voters want cheap labour. It won't work if you can eliminate the opposition by sending them bankrupt.
You're getting warm, but it still needs a little clean-up.
"Make voting expensive? So only the rich / strong have a say?" -- No, so only the more informed have a say.
"You haven't changed anything." -- Sure I have, I've disenfranchised a bunch of morons.
"Limit voting to those who pay taxes? So the unemployed don't have a voice?" -- It would be much harder to raise taxes if only those who paid net taxes could vote, that's the goal.
GENERAL QUESTION: what on Earth makes you think everyone should 'have a voice' anyway?
You are correct that too many morons are allowed to vote. If you can find a way to ensure that only the informed have a say, then I guess I will have to agree with the system you propose. But your suggestions seem to do nothing more than concentrate power in the hands of those who already have it.
At first glance, "only taxpayers can vote" seems like an excellent idea. 1. As you said, the taxpayers won't vote for a tax increase unless they really, really need it and 2. Rich people would have to send a couple of bucks to the tax office in order to vote. But my concerns still stand. Unemployed people will have no chance of re-entering the system because they will have no representatives. Rich people really won't change their behaviour - they will only send a couple of bucks through the tax system because "lobbying" is a more effective way of using their dollars to vote.
In fact, coming to think of it, I would say that your system is already in place. The only "votes" that are counted are the "votes" of the rich. All votes at the polls are assumed to be from the uninformed and therefore ignored ( apart from deciding which puppet is going to read from the teleprompter ) and the "rich" and the "informed" use "other means" to cast "votes" that are actually counted.
I have seen political parties make decisions that are only consistent with the ideals of their opposition and I have seen referendums ignored by both the media and the politicians. The every day vote does very little. It can buy a couple of years of time at the best.
The problem with democracy is the same as with all other forms of government: it doesn't work except to transfer wealth from its rightful owner to some wrongful other owner.
Of course, but some forms of government are worse than others. Some tend to engage in more looting than others.
John Wilmot, you are intriguing; I would not think a knowledgeable person who genuinely believes in Democracy (representative, participatory, pluralist, etc.) throws out such a statement. Besides, your proposals are too historically relevant to be coincidental.
What the hell, I am feeling frisky...and expansive. I'll bite.
For starters, I can tell you that historical road was traveled long ago, and poll taxes, literacy tests, tax requirements, etc., have historically been used for disenfranchising citizens. The taxes proposal was relevant in the early days of the republic as a way to maintain political power with the moneyed elite.
It took us hundreds of years to get past them, and yet, here you are, proposing just that!
Let's talk a little US history through the eyes of two guys: Charles Beard and Howard Zinn. Specifically, a small segment of Zinn's essay- A Kind of Revolution.
Mr. Zinn subscribes to Charles Beard’s idea that the framers of the Constitution had direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government without disturbing the relation of wealth and power that had developed over 150 years of colonial history. He essentially sees it as the work of certain groups trying to maintain their privileges, while giving just enough rights and liberties to small property owners, for middle-income mechanics and farmers, to build a broad base of support to ensure passage.
Zinn also points to other provisions of the Constitution, like the clause forbidding states to "impair the obligation of contract”, and asks us to consider that contracts made between rich and poor, between employer and employee, landlord and tenant, creditor and debtor, almost invariably favor the more powerful of the two parties. Thus, to protect these contracts is to put the great power of the government, its laws, courts, sheriffs, police, on the side of the privileged; and to do it not as in pre-modern times, as an exercise of brute force against the weak, but as a matter of law.
The fundamental problems of democracy in the post-Revolutionary society were the disparity in wealth and power, and the implementation of a government. A small elite had great wealth and great influence; they had the land, the money, the newspapers, the church, the educational system etc. The only direct voting was for the “lower” house of Congress, the House of Representatives. In addition, the qualifications to vote were set by the state legislatures (which as you suggest, required property-holding for voting in almost all the states), and excluded all women, all indentured servants, men without property, and all slaves. This group constituted the vast majority of the population, and they had no voice or say at all in government.
This majority was also not represented in the Philadelphia convention where the Constitution was hammered out, so the final constitutional product did not reflect important interests of those groups.
The Constitution as ratified was lopsided, because it provided for Senators to be elected by the state legislators, for the President to be elected by electors chosen by the state legislators, and for the Supreme Court to be appointed by the President. The Executive, the Judiciary, and half of the legislative branch was controlled by the moneyed elite, who could essentially pick, negotiate, and appoint candidates who would not be accountable to the mass of people.
This almost monolithic dominance was by design. If one were to put it mathematically, the elite had control of 5/6 or 83% of the government (Executive, Judiciary, and half of Legislative). The other 17% of government was elected by property owning white males, whose interest was often aligned with the elite’s.
Zinn concludes that when one looks at the economic interests and the social backgrounds of the makers of the Constitution, the disorder they feared is the disorder of popular rebellion against those monopolizing the society's wealth. The founding fathers in fact, did not want a balance, except one which kept things as they were; a balance among the dominant forces at that time. They most certainly did not want an equal balance between slaves and masters, property-less and property holders, or Indians and white.
It took us hundreds of years to improve upon these shortfalls and inequalities. Surely you are not proposing going back to square one!
As you can see, we have been down that road before, but as the great philosopher Yogi said, when we came to a fork in the road....we took it!
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnkin5.html
http://www.yogiberra.com/yogi-isms.html
"I would not think a knowledgeable person who genuinely believes in Democracy (representative, participatory, pluralist, etc.) throws out such a statement." --- I don't believe in democracy.
"poll taxes, literacy tests, tax requirements, etc., have historically been used for disenfranchising citizens" -- Indeed, that's their purpose, and that's what I'm suggesting: disenfranchising as many of the ignorant as possible.
"Howard Zinn" -- was a Marxist idiot who wrote bad history
"Zinn also points to other provisions of the Constitution, like the clause forbidding states to "impair the obligation of contract”, and asks us to consider that contracts made between rich and poor, between employer and employee, landlord and tenant, creditor and debtor, almost invariably favor the more powerful of the two parties." -- voluntary agreements favor both parties, that why they (ahem) AGREE to them
As to the rest of it, you're simply assuming that direct democracy means greater accountability of the government to the people, greater control of the government by the people, but that's just not true. The people have to know what the government is doing to hold it accountable, but they never do. Democracy is not rule of the people, it's rule of the demagogues. It amazes me that anyone can say otherwise with a straight face. Have you ever...um...talked to people? Go to the comments section on Yahoo, or strike up a political conversation with some random person on the street. If you aren't horrified by the ignorance they display...well, that probably means you're one of them. ;-)
Oh yeah, I almost forgot; it would also require an ammendment to the Constitution of the United States to implement your ridiculous poll tax.
XXIV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
"it would also require an ammendment to the Constitution" -- That's right.
And while we're at it, repeal the 17th amendment.
in 1938 countries were lining up as Axis or Allies. I don't see that happening now.
but what you do see is a WHOLE lotta people missing the fact that a 100 million plus death parade was about to commence much like ALL those who missed the same signs in 1938...guess you missed the analogy too!!....dirt nap for you too, if you can't see the same analogy, guess what I'm sayin is WAKE up!! It's cummin...... (that's another analogy)
are you swallowing......?
small government always leads to big government.
limited government always ends up being oppressive government
there is no reform to fix government.
it needs to be abolished completely.
Especially English
ANIMAL FARM
Ever notice how faggy Obama looks in his little golfing shorts. Fucking Cakeboy
The whole first family are little more than demonic shape-flammers.
Well we know the Wall Street Fraternities motto... “Dum vivamus edimus et biberimus,”; Latin for “While we live, we eat and drink.”
This sign could easily apply to Zero (BHO) and his ilk.
Cheers big ears!
-Choppah
So damn true. First!
Freddy, we don't do that here; you can write "Gold Bitchez" or "Fuck you Bernanke" at the top for extra points.
doesn't rhyme...
cadence is off a bit...
but yeah, i like it.
Not for long though.
http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/eternal-father-will-prevent-new-wo...
Wonder, what his name here on the hedge is...
Sounds a bit like the Obamas...
Sure as hell does.
"Eat your soybeans, the steaks are for us."
....and there are plenty of prime cuts for our dogs, too! Aren't they cute, sitting at the WH dining room?
What breed is Hollande?
Severely inbred Toy Poodle.
And the wagyu beef is for Her Royal Highness Queen ME-Chelle.
Yes! Are you guys sure this is not some guy in LA?
Golf, anyone?
ZH please do not be State dept. Stooge!
I only have 2 theory's
1.) That being PRO AIPAC maximizes the nickel clicks, .e.g. in order for ZH to be on the top of the google search order, they must be PRO AIPAC, make no mistake GOOGLE is NSA, and NSA is AIPAC, ... and if ZH were not PRO NSA bullshit their ranking would fall and quick.
2.) That ZH is owned by ABC-MEDIA, and they're simply part of the AIPAC oligarchy.
*
Look at the story's here today on world wide revolution, every story is PRO CIA, the worst here is 'Banzai', many times I have called him on his ignorance, but all I get is ZH death sentence. Thus Banzai may create great graphics, but his 'TEXT' is all written by an AIPAC bot in an Indian Call Center.
I don't understand your theory #2. How do you come up with a connection between ABC Media, LTD, and AIPAC?
i think what he's referring to is how zerohedge is a fight club only in biline rather than substance since abc media ltd took over
http://aboutthissite.com/www.zerohedge.com
there's been a very noticeable shift in attitude towards commenters who were not politically correct. especially if commenters point out that the central banking criminals running the greatest con ever are jews, or pretend to be jews, gets them banned because such 'truths' are not allowed here. to bring up such truth is deemed anti-semitic. somebody. perhaps voltaire, said that to find out who rules you, you need to find out who you are not allowed to criticize. since any mention of financial crimes at the central bank level linked to jews gets commenters banned on zerohedge, perhaps that is where satoshi makes the logical leap to aipac. but i am just guessing...
that was some superb trolling! People under heavy meds would make great trolls.
Who is the sign supposed to be understood by? Doubtful that the average Venezualan has a clue who Rockefeller was.
Sounds like a catchy slogan that was perhaps penned by a US govt employee or contractor whose job it is to foment insurrection. No shortage of those nowadays.
What? The US government for formenting unrest in an oil rich country? Who would believe such a thing?
Btw-The demonization of Chavez in this country wasn't a fucking accident.
I know this is hard for people to grasp, but there are no good guys in this game. Chavez was a piece of shit socialist thug. The rulers of the US are also piece of shit socialist thugs, though their thuggery is more subtle. The geopolitical contest between the US and Venezuelan regimes has nothing to do with good or evil, it's simply about power, between two vicious gangs of criminals.
When two garbage-raiding rabid raccoons get into a fight, nobody stops to ask which is the "good one" and which is the "bad one".
This sign is obvious and blatant microaggression directed at Sean Penn.
There was also one saying something like "Don't underestimate the idiot, he may one day be your president."
WHo in your mind is the 'idiot', in my mind the only idiot is the MUSHROOM(zh's) being FED Simon Black BULLSHIT.
*
Please as 4yr immortal TYLER you tell us WHO is the idiot?
I know, it was such an universal warning that it should be stamped on the moon.
[can't find the picture now...]
how come you didn't translate the first line?
"These Castro-Chavez"
Everytime there is a POST on ZH, its the ZH that twists the story such that the RICH are the good guys and the poor is the bad guys.
Now that CHAVEZ is dead the CIA is working hard to fill the void, many think that the CIA murdered CHAVEZ, e.g. created his cancer.
Just like the CIA killed Bob Marley years ago.
Anytime REAL leadership comes forward to FUCk the rich for real, they die, .... every fucking time.
Then there is FAUX REVOLUTION and a new SOMOSA, NORIEGA, or HUSSIEN is inserted by CIA/MOSSAD.
What? You don't believe Marley's toe cancer was legitimate?
Tinfoil hat wearer!
Bob Marleys Toe Cancer came after a trip in Paris, where he was forced to have an innculation in his foot, and the doctor he was forced to see had direct control from the FBI office.
Back in the day, the CIA/FBI was murdering anybody all over the world, ... from the John Lennon, ... to Malcolm-X, MLK, anybody that could rally the mass.
Bob Marley brought thoughtful concious music to the world that demanded CHANGE, and the PTB were scared to SHIT of marley, so they killed him.
This is a FACT, not even a conspiracy.
A conspiracy is an act of silence. The fact that the FBI had its gunsites on all LEADERS worldwide is a public fact ( not secret ), ergo NO conspiracy.
Just plain old MURDER, just like the CIA (AIPAC) murdered CHAVEZ cuz he demanded his GOLD from AIPAC.
Your knowledge of Oncology is remarkable.
Do you mind explaining to me how, whatever an innculation is, caused his Acral lentigious melanoma?
Reports indicated that before that match in Paris, he announced that he had previously injured the toe and the injury was off and on. Similar to the symptoms associated with Acral lentigious melanoma, if found in the nail bed.
Can you teach me about Rastafarian belief's as well, specifically how they feel about the use of western medicines?
-Having two extremely close friends from the Islands, they refuse to see physicians and only use herbal remedies on pretty much everything.
You have any sources for the CIA owned doctor?
Speaking of oncology:
We had back to back sex scandals in DC with Clinton:Lewinsky then Condit:Levy. Calculate these odds:
The chances of randomly picking 2 US citizens and having them both be 19-25 yr old jewish females from California is about 10 billion to 1. Now toss in this little known fact: BOTH of their fathers were oncologists.
Oy, then cohencidence. Now we're talking some truly staggering odds - kinda like winning the Powerball back to back and then being attacked by sharks and then struck by lightning and then seeing Elvis. sonds more like Misters Lewinsky and Levy might have been part of the same sayanim group.
Granted, the odds diminish when considering the offestting probabilites of a poltical sex scandal involving a young female, and when considering that incidence of jews amongst both californians and oncologists, so you can erase the Elvis portion.
"The CIA doe NOT intervene in the affairs of other countries. Neither do we stage or foment revolutions. We also do not mine their harbors. And even if we did mine their harbors - which we deny - we'd name the culprits to (the hideously misnamed) US Institute for Peace and other similar organizations, and we'd even see to it that one of the got a Nobel Peace Prize."
Speaking of AIPAC, does anyone else wonder why agents from that "shitty little country" which is hardly a sliver on the map...manages to be found pretty much everywhere in S.A. and Central America (ofc and everywhere else), and, hey, they even get busted with guns and explosives in the Mexican Congress a few weeks after 9/11. Nope, no, story there. Well at least not if your only source of news at the time was US and ISR MSM. (Is that redundant?)
"Anytime REAL leadership comes forward to FUCk the rich for real, they die, .... every fucking time"
Chavez wasn't living in a mud hut so his people could be rich. He's not anyone I would bring forth as someone who believed in truth, liberty, or freedom.
You don't know a goddamn thing about Chavez or the particulars of Venezuela before or after the man.
"The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time...One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair."
"But the crucial figure around the coup was Abrams, who operates in the White House as senior director of the National Security Council for 'democracy, human rights and international operations." Yep, up is still down in Zio-Satanic speak. I wonder what that sounds like backwards*.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela
"...the U.S.-backed military coup in Chile that ousted democratically-elected Salvador Allende in 1973 and led to a 17-year repressive dictatorship led by General Augusto Pinochet."
http://www.democracynow.org/special/1973_chilean_coup
* probably sounds like Sarah Silverman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyDPxNhPGJo
FUCK THAT BITCH AND HER WAGON-CIRCLING CO-RELIGIONIST FILTH.
The Venezuelan Constitution ratified under Chavez makes the US version look like it was written by a bunch of slave holders!
Sympathy for the stupidest sort of populist socialism (Chavez), the sort that makes even the leftiest of the left academics at Yale blush in shame, coupled with 1960s vintage Marxoid attacks on the founding fathers -- yes, you have imbibed deeply of the koolaid.
You seem to know a lot about Venezuela.
Please, by all means, describe the Venezuelan Constitution and its expanded human rights. Maybe you can talk intelligently about Jose Marti and Simon Bolivar's influence in its jurisprudential and political norms. Also explain the concept of Public Defender, the highly original additional two powers, the "social state of law and justice" and anything else about it that strikes your fancy. Don't hold back. Regale us with your analysis and insight.
You can also elaborate on the "stupidest sort of populist socialism" in Venezuela. Don't hold back, get into, you know, actual facts. Grace us with a detailed narrative of the Venezuelan government's actions and legislation since 1998. Also include the actual facts and reasons behind any expropriations by the government, in detail. Make sure you address US involvement in the 2002 coup, US Policy as revealed by Wikileaks diplomatic cables, the economic warfare details, the oil strike, USAID/NED destabilization efforts, CELAC, ALBA, MERCOSUR, and a whole slew of other relevant issues.
I really look forward to discussing all this with you.
Bring it.
This has more to do with political philosphy. Free markets vs centrally planned. Rich vs poor. Nah. The truth is that Venezuala has become poorer under these Marxist thinking politicians. Just like we will here eventually if we keep following economic policies of people like Obama, Schumer, and Pelosi.
BULLSHIT
OBAMA, SCHUMER, and PELOSI are right-wing LIKUD nazis on AIPAC leash,
CHAVEZ wanted his gold back from AIPAC, and that got him killed.
Free market is just libertarian theology for ZeroHead's, not a fucking thing to do with what's going on.
*
The reason that Venezuela economy is fucked, is just like IRAN, its fucked because the CIA engineered a collapse.
When CHAVEZ first got elected he made MEDICAL available to all for almost free, ... sure he's HATED by the AMA and ZH.
You got to make some screwy conclusions and hypocritical arguments to make that work. Most of this is simply socialism failing as it has time and time again all over the world and history is littered with examples.
Socialism didn't fail the big banks or financial services industry. They socialized themselves $23 trillion of our money. That's what 2008 was all about. A classic bait and switch. Trillions of private debt were moved to public balance sheets.
Oh, and please stop talking about Venezuela. You clearly have no idea what your talking about.
Yep, its funny how these Indian Call Center Bot's twist shit around.
Let's GO back to FIRST PRINCIPAL HERE.
1.) AIPAC biz model - SOCIALIZE LOSS, PRIVATIZE PROFITS
2.) WARREN BUFFET Model - COLLECT PREMIUM, DENY CLAIMS
*
Then they run the western world to the fucking ground and who do you blame "SOCIALISM", ... fucking god-damn fucking funny. Of course the INDIAN CALL CENTER Bot's don't give a fuck, cuz they don't have to live in the west with the corpses left by the AIPAC/BUFFET Robbery of the western-world.
Yep -ism don't mean SHIT.
AIPAC & BUFFET-INC., are running a KLEPTOCRACY. A wiorld ran by common criminals.
You just might be the biggest ____ that I've run into on this message board.
socialism/fascism/marxism= Too much government = statism
WHO was it that bailed out the banks(their buddies)? gubmint.
Without the government, the banks would have failed. Broke. The next bankers wouldn't be so quick to do the same bullshit.
Self-regulation.
Government is ALWAYS the problem.
When the banksters didn't like the laws, they lobbied and got the laws changed. First they lobbied for de-regulation, eg dismantle Glass-Steagall.
Self-regulation was the problem right up until the point where the banks got bailed out.
Where were the laws preventing banks from lending to idiots???
"Oh, we don't need laws like that! The banks would never be stupid enough to lend out money that couldn't be repaid with enough interest to make a profit" ...
"Oh, if people have bad credit histories then we will just charge more interest to cover the risk" ...
How long was it between the reckless lending and the final implosion? During that time, good people were sacked or passed over for promotion, bad banks outperformed good banks, people who were good at maths went homeless as they were outbid by those who were bad at maths ...
... and finally, when it imploded, the banks went to the gubmint and got laws changed ... ( actually, aren't banks and gubmint interchangeable these days? ) ... point being, the banks had self-regulation right up until they imploded. Actually, given that they own govt, they still have "self-regulation"...
Sure, things would have been different if there was no grabmint.
Just like things would be different if there was no guns. Why don't we just settle everything with fist fights??? No way would anyone get too rich if they had to punch it out with the hardened, field worker. The one who works hardest in the field becomes the strongest, he can beat anyone else in a fight, especially silver-spoon nancy boys who never worked a day in their lives, so the strongest field worker gets a well-deserved break until such time as he is too lazy and the next field worker becomes stronger than him. Doesn't quite work that cleanly in the real world, does it?
Govt, like guns, is a power lever. Yes, the wrong people own the govt, just like a lot of "wrong people" own guns.
Telling the poor and weak they don't need govt is like telling them they don't need guns.
They do need guns. But they need guns that are on their side.
Having said that, if you owned a gun that kept exploding in your face every time you went to use it, then I guess you would be in a hurry to get rid of it.
Just curious - which parts require screwy conclusions?
I'm not defending socialism in the least, but that big John Wayne white hat is too big and fell over many eyes blinding them. We aren't always the good guys - no matter what the movies tell you. I'm not saying that you believe that we are, but you're making a good case for that.
When someone says something like this "Free market is just libertarian theology for ZeroHead's, not a fucking thing to do with what's going on...The reason that Venezuela economy is fucked, is just like IRAN, its fucked because the CIA engineered a collapse" it demonstrates that they haven't the foggiest fucking clue about economics.
Hur der, economics has nothing to do with....um, the economy...it's the CIA!
Go read a book.
On what basis do you make the stupid claim that the Venezuelan people today are worse off than when Chavez WON his first election?
Considering the IMF owned the nation under Perez, it seems clear who you represent!
I represent no one but myself fool. If you believe people are better off without the bare necessities like toilet paper than they were in years gone by then you are simply a red fucking communist.
So in other words you have nothing to back up your silly, stupid, ignorant assertion that things were better when the IMF ran Venezuela in the 80s and 90s.
No data.
No stats.
No information.
Not unlike the IMF, in other words.
Considering what the people of Venezula have endured since haveing the audacity to elect Chavez 15 years ago, a handful of supermarket-owning oligarchs hoarding toilet paper won't accomplish nothing (other than low-hanging-fruit humor for the oligarch fan club here at ZeroHedge).
For your CIA lackeys to have any success, they'll have to shut down PDVSA like Pinochet and your fascist Chicago-boys go to Chile's copper industry.
If you think the people of Venezuala are better off today then I would contend you simply do not know their history nor the history of any failed socialist country.
You could contend that if you want.
Do me a favor, before you make an even bigger ass of yourself: look up the Caracazo.
Educate yourself for 4 minutes. Then you can go back to spouting retarded platitudes and praying for Pinochet.
Do me a favor and explain this http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-reporter-venezuelan-cops-confiscated-our-equipment-at-gunpoint/
Oh my God: if CNN wasn't there covering the story, how could people ever get the facts?
If you think the people of Venezuela are better off today then I would contend you simply do not know their history nor the history of any failed socialist country.
I challenge you to provide one statistic that says people's lives were better in 1998, when the streets erupted in anti-IMF riots, than it is today.
I think you're a waste of time and quite possibly an economic dunce.
Ok. Think that.
If you think the people of Venezuela are better off today then I would contend you simply do not know their history nor the history of any failed socialist country.
Holy shit dude, enough already!
I am compelled to inform you that re-posting an ignorant statement over and over does not make it true.
The bottom line is that you do not know shit and cannot present an economic or political argument beyond "they are socialists!"
No, this has nothing to do with a political philosophy or some free market rhetorical bullshit. It's has to do with right and wrong, and wherever you are with the parasitic financial elite or everybody else. Pick a fucking side. There is no fantastical middle ground.
You have absoulutely no clue that Chavez and Madero socialism was doomed to fail from the start do you? Sooner or later you run out of money and resources to confiscate.
Capitalists have had little trouble stealing life, labor, wealth and time, for 500 years without letup!
Madero? What's a Madero? Oh you mean Maduro.
Please lecture the class some more. Your knowledge of the subject is simply unbelievable!
"But with annual inflation topping 50% and the government burning through hard-currency reserves, Chávez's successor, Nicolas Maduro, appears to have no choice. The government is spending more than $12bn a year to subsidise domestic gasoline sales, Venezuelan energy officials say. The projected price hike is likely to push gas closer to 17 cents a gallon, at unofficial exchange rates."
17 cents a gallon? Damn, those must be some bad times. Don't throw me into that briar patch.
P.S. the 'e' is nowhere near the fucking 'u', so don't bother saying it was a typo.
But ZeroHedge says that the oligarchs have cut off the toilet paper supply!
No wonder the whiteboys in Zulia are writing placards in English!
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-reporter-venezuelan-cops-confiscated-our-equipment-at-gunpoint/
Protesting what? A bad economy and crime. Wonder why? They have 17 cent gasoline. Stupid doesn't even come close to describing this waste of time on this subject with you all.
Play the game Harding.
You've been asked more than once to come up with some facts about the glorious days of Venzuela before Chavez and Madero (sic). Your brilliant rebuttal? 'You're stupid". Damn you must have been at the head of the debate class.
The only dog I have in this race is truth, and you can't even get out of the starting gate pal.
Tell us more about 'Madero'. Now THAT I can call stupid. QED.
If you think I'm scared to debate this subject you'd be wrong. I ignore ignorance and you take the cake. Venezuelans largely live off of a nationalized oil industry and economically this is not sustainable. This welfare in affect has bought both time and votes. Mostly votes. The majority of Venezuelans live off of welfare. What has Venezuela invented? Are their new technologies coming from Venezuelans? Is there anything that is greater for these people besides the loss of hope? People don't protest when things are going well and they certainly do not arrest the opposition's political figure. Now go tell me what you know sport. These are the assholes you back ... http://www.inquisitr.com/1140590/venezuela-beauty-queen-genesis-carmona-fatally-shot-during-massive-protest/
Yeah brain, he stole Venezuela's oil back from Exxon and the US.
BTW, with the largest proven oil reserves in the world, they should be able to "confiscate" for a fairly long time.
"No, this has nothing to do with a political philosophy or some free market rhetorical bullshit. It's has to do with right and wrong, and wherever you are with the parasitic financial elite or everybody else. Pick a fucking side. There is no fantastical middle ground."
If you haven't got a fucking clue about economics, you're in no position to judge which side is right and which is wrong.
Got it. You're with the big banks and financial services industry. Privatize the profits and socialize the loses. Tool!
No, I'm in favor of laissez faire...private profits AND losses.
...you dim red cunt.
That's right. I just read a long article written by Jacques Sapir, an economist that French mainstream accuses sometimes to be pro FN (far right, so he cannot be socialist at the same time...). He went to Venezuela for an assessment of the economy and reported how foreign forces and the "opposition" (the rich minority who lost their privilelges for being the puppets of the US) are destabilizing the country. Pity ZH can support Syria, Ukraine etc, but when it is about Venezuela, it's all the evil socialists fault.
it wasn't obvious?
These Castro-Chavistas
Ha I misread it.
Chavez had the guts to stick it to the Oligarchs, starting with those leechen of the Venezuelan people. You don't have to agree with everything he did or said to appreciate his courage.
The hack with the sign is an Oligarchial tool.
Thanks for POINTING tha out, now why does these ZH posts not say that?
Why do all the ZH posts always tell the story from the point of view of the bad guy ( aka AIPAC oligarchs )?
They don't always do that. I'd say that they rarely do that.
One slight exception is the mere mention of jew, ISR, Zio-anything, or AIPAC. Then you can count on at least a half dozen down arrows from Hasbara, the cognitive dissonent, and from those suffering fro Stockholm Syndrome.
Though his estimated net worth at the time of his death was over $1 billion.
Estimated by whom? The schmuck holding this stupid sign?
American foreign policy has always been support the interests of multinational corporations, and if the natives complain, kill the best and buy the rest.
Rather than steal oil money like the Saudi princes we love, Chavez spent that money bettering the poor people in his country. No wonder he was hated here.
Chavez nationalized large parts of the Venezuelan economy. You see that as "sticking it to the oligarchs," because you're an economic illierate. I see it as fucking the people of the country with yet another futile exercise in central planning.
I guess the term "central planning" doesn't cause grown men and women in Venezuela to quake in their boots and piss themselves with fear like you do.
They actually liked the (gasp! the horror!) expropriations. They are storing all the gold that comes out of their mines as national reserves, instead of seeing the multinationals rob them blind and ship it away. They see it as good and proper to use the oil revenue to improve the infrastructure, build hospitals, schools, or whatever the fuck they decide, rather than giving it away to EXXON and the multinationals for pennies on the barrel. One of the things they did with that revenue was to tell the IMF and world Bank to fuck off and sent their sorry asses down the road to hell, later establishing their own Bank of the South.
Chavez presented himself to the Venezuelan people 5 times and won every time, sometimes by landslides. His lowest winning margin ever was 9%. He also held referendums on the Constitution and other matters.
Funny how the Venezuelans could care less what it looks to an ignoramus like you, isn't it?
fucking socialists I tell you...
Ah yes, so if the masses of semi-illiterate Indian peasans with no grasp of economics thinks it's good, it must be.
The people always know what's best!
How could the people vote against their own interests!
...ROFLMFAO!
Economic illiteracy does run rampant, and you are a prime example. You spout some talk radio bullshit and then pretend you have it all figured out. You are just an Oligarchial tool advocating for more rent extraction from the middle class and poor.
Again, you don't have to agree with what Chavez always did or said, but he made the miserable existence of the Venezuelan people measurably better. And he did it by ransacking the Oligarchs.
Great slogan describing the ' isms '
The rule of the few over the many ... all the same.
He's got some balls.
I need to stop drinking so much. I thought the translation was different the first time I read it....
Rothchilds and Rockefellers - financial perverts; enemies of 7 billion people.
In this country, there are about 3000 of them running 320 million of us - straight into the ground. Something has to change very soon.
And you can be damn certain that the R&R gang wants Maduro out and another Pinochet to take charge. Then Venezuela will get some Chicago school economic sabotage!
And ZeroHedge will rejoice!
What's good for Goldman Sacks' is good for ZH lackey's worldwide.
Saboteurs! LOL The failue of socialism is always blamed on shadowy capitalist saboteurs. The line was invented by Lenin, and has been standard fare among the socialists and their sympathizers ever since. It's said often in relaton to North Korea, and Cuba, and now apparently Chavtopia too.
All over the WORLD CIA is running oppostion groups to DESTROY democractically elected governments.
FUNNY every story today on ZH, tells the story according to some GUBMINT SHILL ASSHOLE ( simon black, ... blitzkrieg ) that the revolution is coming from the people. It is NOT.
The revolution is coming from the USA/NSA/CIA/MOSSAD why? The only way to protect USD hegemony is world wide unrest.
Rich all over the earth are working hard to destroy all elected governments where RICH are not in control of that GOVERNMENT.
*
Not one fucking protest on earth is RAN by 'people' they're all RAN by the invisible dark forces of AIPAC.
What's funny is Chavez and Maduro won about 25 straight elections, despite relentless propaganda from the privatized media and CIA funded destabilization, and we get this clown on ZeroHedge talking total nonsense.
Here is some truth that demonstrates what his standing was in the real world (outside of the USA).
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/the-americas-blog/unprecedented-show...
Damn straight. No ordinary people got the resources to fund an Opposition or Revolt
Right ON
AIPAC only rules the world cuz they OWN the federal reserve for 100 years and have murdered the world, and PAUL-SINGER and AIPAC own ZH to brain-fuck you until they butt fuck you and then kill you, and then eat you.
Except in Thailand - the agrarian underclass was bought off with a govt guarantee to purchase rice at 30-40% above market rates - this was pure vote buying.
The Thai middle and upper class of course were not bought, and it is they who have been suffering under the Thaksin regime - and they are protesting it violently. I think the Thai's are going to win out here, it seems they have enough people in law, police and military to get the job done I think.
Additionally it seems the govt doesn't have the funds to pay out for the subsidy, and is borrowing - causing a mini bank run. Most thinking people here know the govt is not going to be able to keep this up, and is also likely to default on these bank loans - the banks offering those loans are going to be impaired. Maybe this is just going to be an excuse for the govt to bail them out - the question is, who is going to buy the Thai paper to solve this ridiculous bit of financial gymnastics?
Usually I disagree with you totally Satoshi - I truly dont understand you, on some things you are right on topic - but so many times you are completely off base - I think it is the way you portray your views that generally annoys me so much.
You don't have a fucking clue.
For 20 years SUTHEP never won an election.
Now he has destroyed elections forever in Thailand.
Suthep owns the court, and MIL, and all the money is behind him.
90% of thailand is poor and is RED, and support Yingluck, yep she promised a fair price for rice, but now SUTHEP will not let her make the payments so she is fucked,
but make no mistake that people like you are the SHIT of the earth
*
I hope someday we meet so I can mouth fuck you after I knock your teeth out.
Ah - now I see, you are a complete fuck wit. Yes I do have a clue, I live here in Thailand - dont try and tell me shit about which you dont know shit.
Yinluck did not promise a 'fair price' for rice - it was over market - and it was vote buying on behalf of her CIA trained brother Thaksin. Thaksin is CIA connected, and if you dont know that - you dont know anything.
I look forward to your attempt to knock my teeth out - because I will happily decapitate you and shit down your neck. You have beyond doubt proved you are a totally moronic retarded asshole.
That quote on the sign in the picture sounds...
just like the current administration and their supporters!
Just the other day Venezuela expelled the USA ambassaor office for training students to over-throw the elected gubmint, and not a mention of that fact here on ZH.
Funny,
Snide, Sarc, ... for what, ... ZH always says' the reason they talk in code, and come out and say what they mean is that they don't have to, ... but the truth is they either have no balls, or their only purpose is dis-information.
I think the truth is you didn't use a search bar in the upper left hand corner.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-17/venezuela-expels-3-us-diplomats...
Just sayin.
The truth is that any time a story is posted on ZH, its always the official version blessed by the PTB, e.g. AIPAC.
*
Its up to use commenters to correct any vital ommissions from the ZH posting of official AIPAC bullshit.
Sure they talk like marx and rule like stalin and live like kings, but .... they are only suffering all that for the good of the people.
Powerful stuff:
They speak like Marx
Rule like Stalin
And live like Rockefellers
While the people suffer
*
This message was brought to you by the USA State Department, aka Kerry, aka AIPAC.
Powerful stuff indeed.
Noam Chomsky, calls this ZH bullshit, .. he calls it "MAnufacturing Consent" read the book, and learn some real knowledge.
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0...
the state department water mark is clearly visible.
Noam Chumpsky is a pathetic utopian socialist of the sort that academia shits out on a regular basis. Don't waste your time with him. But if you must have crazed socialist rubbish, go for something more entertaining, like Fourier with his oceans of lemonade.
Fourier developed nice math, but his ideas are dated.
Far better to deal if the with the here and now, and listen to what wise me of today have to say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9CHtm2qK2g
Who Owns the World? Noam Chomsky on U.S.-Fueled Dangers ...I am telling you. Zerohedge is now the domain of one Paul Singer who has some debts to collect in good old Venezuela.
Those were the good old days before Chavez when poverty was 90% and the Tyler Durdens could do anything they desired to Venezuela in the name of the "free markets" and et al.