So what you are saying here, correct me if I am wrong, is that you basically have no money, have no real significant income, and do not really own anything. Becasue once people like Chavez get in power and start taking things away from you, you really can't understand my position. So please correct me if I am wrong. What do you do for a living and how much are you pulling in as taxable income?

Notice how TheMercenary makes massive leaping conclusions. Because Chavez promotes socialism, then everypone will have no money, have no real significant income, and not really own anything.

And since France is socialist, then Frenchmen don't have money, don't have real significant incomes, and do not really own anything.

TheMercenary is extremist. Therefore he replies to everything with 'black and white' perspectives. Clearly only 'good and evil' exist in his world. Only one perspective is valid - the 'good' perspective. Any other perspective must be evil. There are no moderates. Tolerance is weakness. His is a world of extremes. We also called that fascism.

TheMercenary will even misquote to promote a political agenda - another characteristic of an extremist. Example: TheMercenary has intentionally and blatantly misrepresented what piercehawkeye45 posted. Somehow TheMercenary has dumbed it all down to "Chavez will take away everything". piercehawkeye45 did not even suggest that. But TheMercenary cannot comprehend the world any other way. His political agenda demands only 'black and white' conclusions; that Chavez will take away everything. TheMercenary translated what piercehawkeye45 posted into something 'black and white'.

That translation automatically proves "Chavez is evil". TheMercenary's agenda that cannot comprehend a world that is tolerant and has numerous perspectives. 'Black and white' is also how Rush Limbaugh's fans believe. Notice how Rush defined Hilary - and TheMercenary also calls her Hitlery.

Watch TheMercenary insist that 'good and evil' always exist. No wonder TheMercenary so strongly assoicates with George Jr, Cheney, and Rush Limbaugh logic.

TheMercenary has intentionally misrepresented what piercehawkeye45 posted so as to avoid admitting reality - a world of perspectives.

Why would we attack them. Mr Chavez will be overthrown soon enough.

Why did we attack Saddam? He also was on the verge of collapse. However logic does not prevail when reasons are justified by emotion and the 'them evil; we good' mentality. Reason that a majority of Americans supported "Mission Accomplished"? Exact same reasoning created Nam.

What will stop us from making the same mistake with Chavez? Well it took 30 years for Americans to completely forget those lessons from Nam. It may take another decade for 'big dic' reasoning to have credibility again.

Meanwhile Chavez is only a threat because the current American government is so dumb as to make Chavez look credible. Notice the number of once strong American friends that are now even talking to Castro.

"Nam" was purely economic, Textron Industries is or was owned by Lady Bird. I got this from my Aunt Marie Johnson.

But Ike started it.

Don't you dare doubt the word of Aunt Marie Johnson.

Sorry Aunt Marie, I lost my head.

Pssssssssssssst... tw, this ain't about me.

Now back to the subject at hand. Chavez will take his country to the toilet.

Venezuela has never shown any intention of aggression to any country as opposed to Iran.

America has attacked numerous countries and they have nuclear weapons. Israel has attacked numerous countries and they have nuclear weapons. Russia has attacked numerous countries and they have nuclear weapons.

I find it ironic that the countries with the most nuclear weapons are the most aggressive countries in the world and they will limit countries to nuclear weapons because they say they are too aggressive.


And how is Chavez running his country into the ground. Even the fucking Economist will admit that he is doing well. They just don’t think it will last because of inflation and lowering oil prices. Time will tell…

Then why do you spin propaganda to promote an extremist political agenda? Remove you - and all that 'black and white' / ‘good verses evil’ reasoning disappears.

Chavez is irrelevant. Chavez will buy fighter planes. Chavez will buy submarines. Chavez will hunker down for the coming American attack. Chavez will say anything to get extremists upset. That emotion simply makes Chavez popular. Political agendas promoted by TheMercenary only play into Chavez's game of promoting Chavez.

Be a responsible nation; ignore Chavez, and Chavez will eventually self destruct. It is a well proven concept is called 'containment' that extremists just don't understand. We all remember 'containment'. That is what smart presidents did before George Jr. Extremists with a political agenda oppose 'containment'. TheMercenary is justifying 'pre-emption'. We all know what pre-emption created: "Mission Accomplished". TheMercenary, using hype and fear, is promoting Chavez as the next Saddam.

TheMercenary: it’s not about Chavez. He is irrelevant. It's about wacko extremist political agendas, hyped in fear, that promotes Chavez just like he were Saddam. It’s about your political agenda, hyped by fear, that promotes pre-emption and the 'Pearl Harboring' of sovreign nations.

It is unconscionable to leave Chavez alone when all the misery his government can engender can come to a screeching halt once Chavez suddenly dies.

And tw, since your advice on these matters is invariably to leave totalitarians and totalitarianism alone, we all know you for a fascistocommunistic antidemocratic anti-human. Here are where your sympathies lie. You never had any political acumen, and you've entirely too much sympathy for nondemocracies and their continuing oppressions. You are disgusting, not amusing, and you are disgusting by your own conscious choice. Not a smart decision, boyo, but a measure designed to foster contempt of tw. Nice if you enjoy a heavy burden of contempt.

Have you, tw, traced 85% of Venezuela's problems, present and incipient, to Chavez's top management? If not, why not?

If Chavez abruptly leaves power, do 85% of Venezuela's problems depart with him?

Sung to "Matilda:"

Hugo Chavez -- Hugo Chavez --
Hugo Chavez, he takes your money
And runs Venezuela!

Pierce, he'll run it into the ground because he's insisting on managing through the public sector that which runs far better in the private. Bureaucrats lack the needed motivation: their income and prosperity do not depend on how well economically the business they are managing is doing. When this is done systemwide, stagnation is the invariable result, and collapse is usually only staved off by abandoning the use of government bureaucrats to run the industry.

Who was it said "If the government were in charge of sand, there would be a shortage?" That which is not a free market does not efficiently provide goods or services.

Chavez will not notice nor react swiftly enough to downturns in oil prices or inflation, and these will be his Waterloo, and that of his largesse. This was all avoidable -- but to really avoid it, you have to avoid letting socialists into power in the first place.

Damn, I wish you'd grow a patch of common sense. Or is it that you're happy convincing me you're rather stupid? :headshake

Overly much of the planet is run by oligarchies, not democracies. This is not a satisfactory situation, and I've set forth why elsewhere. Socialist oligarchies are among the very worst, and I've seen this. What, dear laddie, have you seen? Your postings say not very much. There's no shame in being guided by somebody of more experience than yourself, you know.

Messing up oligarchies and disposing of socialists is how the world gets better, Pierce.

Arrogant is a term used by the weak of will or weakly motivated to disparage initiative and motivation of which they disapprove, most generally for reasons of infinitesimal worth, long before jettisoned as worthless by the one they're yelling at.

:bs:

All right, I'm throwing the BS flag. No one who has read your posts can mistake your political stance: it is hostile to democracies and friendly to authoritarian less-than-democracies. You have never to my knowledge been caught supporting a democracy in these forums. I have with reason called you a fascist sympathizer before; that assessment still stands.