Actors.........Fuckin Morons

Who said anything about nation building?

Many people simply lament the sad fact that a nation which by all rights should be successful and prosperous has been taken down a road toward ruin.

And everyone (whether a "true conservative" or not) should "give a rat's ass" about how other nations are governed. (That statement is not tantamount to saying that we should intervene in their affairs!)

The reason is that it's in our interest to have stable and prosperous trading partners, especially if they're also significant oil exporters.

Don't forget that Venezuela is a reasonably important export market for our capital goods and certain types of medical devices, among other things.

And it would be a much better market if good governance allowed its economy to come closer to living up to its potential. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

All true but in the end , none of our concern. Each country should govern themselves without interfere by our country. At least that is the true Conservative perspective. Unless of course you love 'blowback' and all the monetary costs that entails. Just from looking at our debt and the true cost of military intervention around the world, hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

All true but in the end , none of our concern. Each country should govern themselves without interfere by our country. At least that is the true Conservative perspective. Unless of course you love 'blowback' and all the monetary costs that entails. Just from looking at our debt and the true cost of military intervention around the world, hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Originally Posted by WTF

That's just a couple more non sequiturs of the type that are so commonly your wont.

I clearly stated that no one mentioned "nation building," and said the statement that we have interests that are affected by the malfeasance of other nations is obviously not tantamount to saying that we should intervene. What part of that can you possibly have failed to understand?

That's just a couple more non sequiturs of the type that are so commonly your wont.

I clearly stated that no one mentioned "nation building," and said the statement that we have interests that are affected by the malfeasance of other nations is obviously not tantamount to saying that we should intervene. What part of that can you possibly have failed to understand? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I clearly stated "All true..." what part of that was hard to understand? I then went on to discuss political reality....which is how does one go about doing what one thinks is in the best interest of this country and is that in fact (long term) the best interests of this country. Or just a certain few.

I clearly stated "All true..." what part of that was hard to understand? I then went on to discuss political reality....which is how does one go about doing what one thinks is in the best interest of this country and is that in fact (long term) the best interests of this country. Or just a certain few. Originally Posted by WTF

Then why did you deem it necessary to launch into silly statements such as, "Unless you love blowback...," etc.? Who loves blowback? And who said anything about nation-building or aggressively intervening in Venezuela? No one has even hinted at an argument in favor of anything like that.

And concerning "political reality," you will note that I simply said the situation in Venezuela is clearly not good. I did not say that we could (or should) try to change it.

Nevertheless, you should understand that what goes on in other countries affects us all. And it should be clear to you that a strong and stable Venezuela would be good for us, even if you personally "don't give a rat's ass."

Economic, currency, and trade interactions are things that people who want to be successful global investors need to make an effort to understand.

It always amazes me how the Liberal Left idolizes such dung heaps as Hugo Chavez, knowing full well that if he was in power here, the first ones to be "put against the wall" would be liberals.

Thank god for Cancer, or Chavez would still be in power 30 years from now, just like his mentor Fidel.

I make no apologies for my attitude toward "leaders" such as Chavez. He was nothing but a tin horn dictator who conned enough "poor" people in his Country to vote for him. He then set out to remake the Country in the same manner as most left leaning pieces of shit.

Like I said in another thread. There seems to be a lot of that "populous pandering" crap going around.

Then why did you deem it necessary to launch into silly statements such as, "Unless you love blowback...," etc.? Who loves blowback? And who said anything about nation-building or aggressively intervening in Venezuela? No one has even hinted at an argument in favor of anything like that.

Then why try and paint Hugo as bad? Especially if his people elected him and love him?

And concerning "political reality," you will note that I simply said the situation in Venezuela is clearly not good. I did not say that we could (or should) try to change it.

Clearly not good for who? There are parts of our country where the situtation is not good.

Nevertheless, you should understand that what goes on in other countries affects us all. And it should be clear to you that a strong and stable Venezuela would be good for us, even if you personally "don't give a rat's ass."

They had a 'strong and stable Venezuela' , under Hugo. We got our oil but our oil companies did not get their cut. Therefore he was vilified.

Economic, currency, and trade interactions are things that people who want to be successful global investors need to make an effort to understand. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

People that want to be successful global investors need to understand current/future political reality/trends.



If you do not think that we meddle on other countries affairs so that global investors can make a better return on the money....well then you would not understand my point. My point was we do and it is very costly, IMHO.

And did you also consider yourself "prosperous" during the last four years of the Clinton Administration? Or does that not factor in? Originally Posted by bigtex

Yes, right up until March 2000. The dot.com bubble blowing up was nowhere near as painful as the 2008 economy crash. Not even in the same ballpark.

I make no apologies for my attitude toward "leaders" such as Chavez... Originally Posted by Jackie S

And you shouldn't.

The ones who should apologize are the two guys who started going after you with clueless attacks and insults within the first four posts following your opening statement, even though they obviously had no understanding of the issue.

If you do not think that we meddle on other countries affairs so that global investors can make a better return on the money....well then you would not understand my point. My point was we do and it is very costly, IMHO. Originally Posted by WTF

I understood your "point" perfectly well. It's just that it appeared that you completely missed mine, or ignored it. Otherwise you would not have launched non sequiturs referencing "nation building" and "blowback," since it was clear that no one had recommended or even mentioned actions that could have produced such outcomes or consequences.

For those who are still fans of Chavez-style governance, here's a challenge:

Name an instance where a population living under a left-wing, socialist strongman has prospered relative to how it would be faring in a reasonably decent parliamentary democracy with sound and solid institutions. See what I mean? You can't.

And one sad but very simple truth is that, paradoxically, rich oil resources often turn out to be a liability for a country. The problem is that various types of dictators and tyrants, often cloaked in a phony form of "pseudo-democracy," can gain control of the resources and use them to pay off people who then keep them safely ensconced in power for long periods of time. We've seen it happen time and time again. Nations less gifted with natural resources cannot rely on such windfalls, and have to build sound institutions if they are to come even remotely close to prospering. Such has been the case with Botswana, as I mentioned earlier.

People like Danny Glover, Sean Penn, and Oliver Stone may be well-meaning, but the actions involving American celebrities cozying up to Chavez-style figures retards the potential for progress toward better governance and greater prosperity for countries like Venezuela. Bullies and tyrants who impoverish and repress the citizens suffering under their rule should not be granted fawning approval. It just strengthens their hand.

The term "useful idiot" may appropriately be applied to these celebrity buffoons.

How about this, I agree with you!

Yes, right up until March 2000. The dot.com bubble blowing up was nowhere near as painful as the 2008 economy crash. Not even in the same ballpark. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

speaking of the Clintons

Yes, right up until March 2000. The dot.com bubble blowing up was nowhere near as painful as the 2008 economy crash. Not even in the same ballpark. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

amen!

The funniest part of the story.

Sean Penn joining him on the campaign trail.

Yeah, he was certainly fighting hard to win those elections.

For those who are still fans of Chavez-style governance, here's a challenge:

Name an instance where a population living under a left-wing, socialist strongman has prospered relative to how it would be faring in a reasonably decent parliamentary democracy with sound and solid institutions. See what I mean? You can't.

And one sad but very simple truth is that, paradoxically, rich oil resources often turn out to be a liability for a country. The problem is that various types of dictators and tyrants, often cloaked in a phony form of "pseudo-democracy," can gain control of the resources and use them to pay off people who then keep them safely ensconced in power for long periods of time. We've seen it happen time and time again. Nations less gifted with natural resources cannot rely on such windfalls, and have to build sound institutions if they are to come even remotely close to prospering. Such has been the case with Botswana, as I mentioned earlier.

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Almost forgot to answer your question......while the example are few and far between , I suppose greed is woven in every culture, including ours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar

Qatar tops the list of the world's richest countries by Forbes. In 2010, Qatar had the world's highest GDP per capita, while the economy grew by 19%, the fastest in the world. The main drivers for this rapid growth are attributed to ongoing increases in production and exports of liquefied natural gas, oil, petrochemicals, and related industries. Qatar has the second-highest human development in the Arab World after the United Arab Emirates. In 2009, Qatar was the United States’ fifth-largest export market in the Middle East

Okay . . calling this a Crappy Country just caused me to load the shotgun! You need to open your eyes and maybe take a little trip abroad and look around.

The beauty of this country is that we have opportunity -- to voice our opinions, take stands and defend them -- and try to make a difference.

Dumbass comment about this being a Crappy Country, asshole!

Okay . . calling this a Crappy Country just caused me to load the shotgun! You need to open your eyes and maybe take a little trip abroad and look around.

The beauty of this country is that we have opportunity -- to voice our opinions, take stands and defend them -- and try to make a difference.

Dumbass comment about this being a Crappy Country, asshole! Originally Posted by MooneyFlyer

Do you realize what a moron you sounded like.

MooneyFlyer, "This country is great because we have opportunity -- to voice our opinions!"


Whomever MF thought said crappy country, " MooneyFlyer, this is a crappy country for some."

MooneyFlyer, "
I'm loading up my shotgun and shutting that SOB up!"


btw dickhead, who called this a crappy country?