bareboards2, your arguments all, may be condensed into one barrel of the same bilge.
Inflammatory rhetoric tinctured with convenient appeals to some idyllic world where assholes don't exist.

How bout some wake-up news from June of this year?? Hugo (Penn's best buddy) Chavez, cocksucking "president" of Venezuela, did what all great "leaders" do when they want no dissent and a country full of obedient and easy-to-control automatons:
-Outlawed all private ownership of guns, except of course for the military, the police, and certain private security monkeys. Their judicial system is total shiet, do some reading-up on how completely fucked it really is-

He's been in office since 99', "elected" once again by "popular" vote (give me a break), and if cancer doesn't kill him he'll probably die in office.

Guns are not the problem, society in decline, culture in decline, morality, ethics out windows, retarded ego-maniacal control-freak paranoids asshole douchebags in power..THIS is a much more pressing problem that mentally-retarded idgits raised by the developmentally-disabled twisting-off and going on killing sprees. If this recent shit happened in Inglewood or South-Centra-LA, there would not be a national uproar. It happened in a hamlet in Connecticut and the kid was living in his out-to-lunch, survivalist mother's home that was loaded with a massive collection of guns.

Didn't some Chinese guy twist \-off a few months ago and walk into a school and kill about 30 kids....WITH A FUCKING KNIFE!!?? Crazy fucks are the problem sir, firearms in their hands simply let's them reach-out and touch someone else with crazy. SO, keep guns in the hands of citizens with judgement and restraint and sound minds...Or go live in some shit-hole where only cops, soldiers, and officers of the King have weapons...How about Vatican City?? Bet that place is safe enough for ya??

Sorry Maynard, keeping my guns until I expatriate to a country without retarded fuckers being bred like tadpoles!

This is great. I have been so sick of all the propaganda about Venezuela because America does not want socialism as a hot topic for the working class and poor. The same people who conduct disinformation on socialism are the ones who have it: the rich and huge corporations.

The following are 20 facts about Wal-Mart that will absolutely shock you….

#1 The average U.S. family now spends more than $4000 a year at Wal-Mart.

#2 In 2010, Wal-Mart had revenues of 421 billion dollars. That amount was greater than the GDP of 170 different countries including Norway, Venezuela and the United Arab Emirates.

#3 If Wal-Mart was a nation, it would have the 23rd largest GDP in the world.

#4 Wal-Mart now sells more groceries than anyone else in America does. In the United States today, one out of every four grocery dollars is spent at Wal-Mart.

#5 Amazingly, 100 million customers shop at Wal-Mart every single week.

#6 Wal-Mart has opened more than 1,100 ”supercenters” since 2005 alone.

#7 Today, Wal-Mart has more than 2 million employees.

#8 If Wal-Mart was an army, it would be the second largest military on the planet behind China.

#9 Wal-Mart is the largest employer in 25 different U.S. states.

#10 According to the Economic Policy Institute, trade between Wal-Mart and China resulted in the loss of 133,000 manufacturing jobs in the United States between 2001 and 2006.

#11 The CEO of Wal-Mart makes more in a single hour than a full-time Wal-Mart associate makes in an entire year.

#12 Tens of thousands of Wal-Mart employees and their children are enrolled in Medicaid and are dependent on the government for healthcare.

#13 Between 2001 and 2007, the value of products that Wal-Mart imported from China grew from $9 billion to $27 billion.

#14 Sadly, about 85 percent of all the products sold at Wal-Mart are made outside of the United States.

#15 It is being reported that about 80 percent of all Wal-Mart suppliers are in China at this point.

#16 Amazingly, 96 percent of all Americans now live within 20 miles of a Wal-Mart.

#17 The number of “independent retailers” in the United States declined by 60,000 between 1992 and 2007.

#18 According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Wal-Mart spent 7.8 million dollars on political lobbying during 2011. That number does not even include campaign contributions.

#19 Today, Wal-Mart has five times the sales of the second largest U.S. retailer (Costco).

#20 The combined net worth of six members of the Walton family is roughly equal to the combined net worth of the poorest 30 percent of all Americans.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/utica-ny/T1FQDFUL3PUDLIA4V

>> ^kymbos:

@jimnms - link for your last para?
Meanwhile, I think you're missing the point: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/america-is-a-violent-coun
try/
Over to you and your next move: the 'data must be wrong' argument.


Here's your source, and it didn't come out of my ass like Bill's shit.

What point I'm missing? Your linked article doesn't mention guns anywhere, it shows that America is more violent than other advanced countries, which is even more of reason to carry a gun for self defense. I think you're the one missing the point.

Ninety percent of violent crimes are committed by persons not carrying handguns. This is one reason why the mere brandishing of a gun by a potential victim of violence often is a sufficient response to a would-be attacker. In most cases where a gun is used in self-defense, it is not fired. Can the average citizen be trusted to judge accurately when he or she is in jeopardy?...

A nationwide study by Don Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high." [source]

As for the U.S. vs other countries in gun homicides, the U.S. isn't #1:

Of course, it is not surprising that where there are more guns, there tends to be more gun-related deaths, but northern Latin America (Brazil in particular) breaks from this trend in a major way. The area has a massive homicide by firearm rate, with some of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world and the highest homicides by firearm count...

Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela and Ecuador combine for more homicides by firearm than Mexico, the United States, South Africa, the Philippines, Honduras, Guatemala, India, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Bangladesh, Argentina and Jamaica put together. That is every other country with over 1,000 homicides by firearm. You would imagine that gun control would be very lax in the area, but as the top chart here illustrates, that is not the case. Brazil, for example, has roughly 255 million fewer guns (and about 115 million fewer people) than the United States and a much more strict and effective set of firearm regulations. So, while it is true that where there are guns, there is gun violence, that is clearly not the only determining factor. [source]

Several other sources [1] [2] show pretty much the same data.

>> ^criticalthud:

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.
But, let's look at some geopolitics.
In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.
Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).
So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.
Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.


Your armchair analysis is pretty thin.

One of your main premises is about how Israel occupies a bunch of 'worthless desert'? And you then believe that is a strong driver in Israel's interest in Iranian oil reserves?

Middle East politics goes a lot deeper than that. The 'worthless desert' Israel occupies is BAR NONE the most sought after and fought over piece of land in the entire middle east over the last century. You can not ignore the importance of the cultural and religious pressures in the region that make up the complex relationship between Israel-Iran-Saudi-Syria-Egypt-... and on and on.

Survival is still Israel's driving focus. Iran openly and proudly supports Hezbollah and Hamas and their attacks on Israel. If Israel even suspects that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, that is a very short path to a very legitimate concern for Israel to be taking very seriously. Sure, it's 90% likely that Iran isn't foolish enough to give a nuclear weapon to Hamas or Hezbollah, but that remaining 10% is still understandable enough cause for Israel to be nervous and considering their options.

>> ^criticalthud:

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.
But, let's look at some geopolitics.
(1) In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.
(2) Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).
(3) So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.
Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.


(1) True, but nevertheless it is only ~11% of the world's proven oil reserves:

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

(2) Going from point 1, Iran hardly holds a control on the monopoly of oil. Furthermore all developed countries have an interest in ensuring steady supply to oil. If for example Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz, they would attract opprobrium from far more than just Israel and the US.

Oil trade in US dollars is surely a big part of the contributor to the strong US dollar, but the currency is used as a global trade and reserve currencies for its pre-eminence as a global economy not as a result of oil.

Also, even if the US dollar value were to collapse (which is hardly something likely in the next decade), I would bet that aid to Israel would be one of the last things to go because of the religious ties, the power of AIPAC in the US as a lobbying group and the history between the two countries.

(3) I think there's little denying that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and I agree that geopolitics and influence in the region is surely a reason they are seeking it. But considered simply from the standpoint of Iran's autocratic leaders that it's simply a deterrence to outside intervention from the US.

Right now it seems implausible especially under Obama that the US itself would launch an attack on Iran, but when GWB invaded Iraq and the US economy was in much better shape that was hardly a fantasy. Iran's leaders have a genuine reason to fear this and while in the short term they risk a pre-emptive attack from Israel, in the long term they benefit immeasurably from the kind of deterrence that NK now has. Keep in mind that Iran's nuclear program is hardly the machinations of right wing ideologues like Ahmadinejad. Mousavi, the de facto leader of the green movement supports nuclear development and was instrumental in the inception of the program as previous prime minister.

So I really think it's that and not a long term play for energy independence. Oil is going to be with us for many decades to come and if this wiki is correct, Iran has a 100 years of supply available. With the economy the way it is and our current dependence on dirty fuels, we're hardly going to jump on the green train any time soon.

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

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.

But, let's look at some geopolitics.

In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.

Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).

So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.

Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.

Communism is great!

Except in Russia, China, Finland, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, and North Korea. It was a disaster there, but not because there's anything wrong with communism. They all just did it wrong. However I remain convinced that if we do it correctly, following the precise wishes of a political philosopher who died a century ago, it will work out this time.

Who's with me?>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Any questions?
On Garbage Day, which anarchist is going to pick up the trash and for what wage?

It's negotiable.

Ah, so kind of like what they have in Somalia.
If I can ask an honest question of you Blankfist, do you see the existence of a middle ground between Statism and Anarchy?
I don't mean it to be offensive, but it seems your constant advocacy is to simply burn all institutions to the ground and the public will be better for it.

No, Somalia has other problems. Mainly that you cannot jump from government to no government overnight.
I do see a graduation from statism to anarchy, so there's certainly a middle area. Go read the Thoreau quote on my profile page. That pretty much sums it up for me as well.

@dystopianfuturetoday

I wouldn't call anything in here untruthful, only one-sided (I agree with Engels on that). He treats Chavez with kid gloves (for example lightly glossing over Chavez taking control of the country for 18-months when he by-passed parliament or Chavez's increasing move away from capitalism towards socialism). But I suspect, as I said in the last post, that's because the film is meant to be counter-point rather than a "truth-finding" film. The truth most likely lies somewhere in between these two portraits (Western media and the film) and to find it I would rather rely on more unbiased information such as that from Amnesty International.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'the enemy god yanomamo yanomami venezuela' to 'the enemy god, yanomamo, yanomami, venezuela' - edited by eric3579

@rougy, I'm not sure Venezuela is the bastion of social utopia you crave.

You wrote: "I don't want to hear any malarkey about "creating jobs" when that is the last thing that rich people or capitalists want to do. You weren't going to hire people to create jobs, you were going to hire people to do your work for you and make you richer."

You obviously don't know me at all. But you're proving day-by-day to be the king of misguided assumptions.

I'm not rich so I was hardly in a position to make myself richer. I don't come from a well-to-do family and I've paid my way every step. I worked in a textile mill while in college. Does that sound rich? I'm not sure why I feel you're wanting me to justify my humble roots. It's not important where I came from or how much I make.

I will say I was hoping for a successful company, and I was working around the clock making next to nothing while freelancers made a mint from the work I had to hire out. I realized it didn't make financial sense for me to continue especially since I stood to make much more as a freelancer.

The point was, I did create jobs, and if you ever spent a day in your life building a small company from the ground up, you'd realize how difficult and prohibitively expensive it really is. You may take in $200k in a year, but have to pay out $175k, and you're working harder than anyone else.

You can't help the employee (or the unemployed) by destroying the employer.

@blankfist, well, we need to start trying some new systems on for size, first and foremost, and that's not going to happen as long as people like you, Kubric, and the ultra rich and the trans-national finance institutions that they own are more than willing to strangle those new systems like babes in the cradle.

I don't want to hear any malarkey about "creating jobs" when that is the last thing that rich people or capitalists want to do. You weren't going to hire people to create jobs, you were going to hire people to do your work for you and make you richer.

Where capitalism does create jobs is in the sweatshops of the hell holes that dot the Pacific rim of Asia.

You've retreated into this cocoon of idealism that has completely skewed your view of reality. You've gone so far as to resurrect antiquated definitions of political and social movements and rebrand them to suit this idealistic, and very unrealistic, view of the world.

You've gone so far as to call yourself a liberal and to accuse GW Bush of being a leftist.

That is a disconnect with reality that I think you would do well to reevaluate.

I can't give you a better system than capitalism, but that does not mean that one does not exist, that one can not be found, established, perfected. Things are better for the people of Venezuela, Brazil, and Bolivia since they've moved to a more socialistic system. Few could argue otherwise.

There is a better way. It's out there, waiting to be born.

Americans buy ten thousand gallons of gasoline a second, without giving it much of a thought. All this gas takes a one-hundred thousand mile journey from local gas stations to oil fields half a world away. From the most off-limits places on earth: the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the New York Mercantile Exchange’s crude oil market, oil fields from Venezuela, to Texas, to Chad, and even an Iranian oil platform where the United States fought a forgotten one-day battle, the story is at once surreal and alarming, as lonely workers on a Texas drilling rig, an oil analyst who almost gave birth on the NYMEX trading floor, Chadian villagers who are said to wander the oil fields in the guise of lions, a Nigerian warlord who changed the world price of oil with a single cell phone call, and Shanghai bureaucrats who dream of creating a new Detroit are pieced together in the mammoth economy of oil, and these stark warning signs for American drivers.

Love it.

The UN should move out of the USA to Venezuela.

They should kick out all of the bullies. The should have done it years ago.

^Netrunner is right. FOX has no interest in objective journalism. They are a right wing propaganda outfit and Chavez understands this. FOX doesn't give a shit about the holocaust, they dislike Chavez because he nationalized Venezuela's petroleum industry.