# Wow, new video shows what it looks like in Venezuela. Scary to think govt is capable of this



## sakinago

Video Shows Tank Running Over Protestors

I say it's scary to see governments capable of this, but it comes as no surprise to me at least. Maduro needs to go, I hope the citizens oust him without much bloodshed, and stay the hell away from socialism. 

Remember when the left was all about Chavez and the socialist utopia he set up...well it looks like the faster socialism progresses, the faster it collapses. Remember this is a country very rich in oil, and should have a leg up on most of the other South American countries surrounding it. Chavez took over oil, and pretty much screwed the pooch on it over night. I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.


----------



## pwjohn

I guess you're to stupid to understand that crapazula  is a third world toilet. They always have been and they always will be. They will never realize their wealth in oil so they will forever remain that third world toilet.


----------



## yiostheoy

More scary is the rioting.

I can deal with a corrupt government.

It is almost impossible to deal with riots however.


----------



## sakinago

pwjohn said:


> I guess you're to stupid to understand that crapazula  is a third world toilet. They always have been and they always will be. They will never realize their wealth in oil so they will forever remain that third world toilet.


You must not be old enough to remember the praise Chavez received for the bang up job in Venezuela. They made movies about him up until a few years ago. One of them is on Netflix now with micheal Pena. And venezuelas is not 3rd world, that's just a cop out, they have plumbing, cars, roads, electricity, etc. they're no more 3rd world than Spain.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

sakinago said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you're to stupid to understand that crapazula  is a third world toilet. They always have been and they always will be. They will never realize their wealth in oil so they will forever remain that third world toilet.
> 
> 
> 
> You must not be old enough to remember the praise Chavez received for the bang up job in Venezuela. They made movies about him up until a few years ago. One of them is on Netflix now with micheal Pena. And venezuelas is not 3rd world, that's just a cop out, they have plumbing, cars, roads, electricity, etc. they're no more 3rd world than Spain.
Click to expand...


  But they're trying.....


----------



## sakinago

yiostheoy said:


> More scary is the rioting.
> 
> I can deal with a corrupt government.
> 
> It is almost impossible to deal with riots however.


I mean people are starving to death for the first time in their life, can you really blame them for going ape shit on a government that has taken over almost everything, and they can't even get enough food for one person (let alone their whole family) for an entire day. I don't blame them at all. They did not cause this, their all knowing government has caused this, and they're watching their children starve to death before their eyes.


----------



## pismoe

i don't know , everywhere you  look south of the USA border everything is messed up .   Poverty , violence , crime and all kindsa things that shouldn't be imported into the USA .


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

sakinago said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> More scary is the rioting.
> 
> I can deal with a corrupt government.
> 
> It is almost impossible to deal with riots however.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean people are starving to death for the first time in their life, can you really blame them for going ape shit on a government that has taken over almost everything, and they can't even get enough food for one person (let alone their whole family) for an entire day. I don't blame them at all. They did not cause this, their all knowing government has caused this, and they're watching their children starve to death before their eyes.
Click to expand...


  In a way they did cause it.
Venezuela didnt head down the socialist path by itself.


----------



## pismoe

sakinago said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you're to stupid to understand that crapazula  is a third world toilet. They always have been and they always will be. They will never realize their wealth in oil so they will forever remain that third world toilet.
> 
> 
> 
> You must not be old enough to remember the praise Chavez received for the bang up job in Venezuela. They made movies about him up until a few years ago. One of them is on Netflix now with micheal Pena. And venezuelas is not 3rd world, that's just a cop out, they have plumbing, cars, roads, electricity, etc. they're no more 3rd world than Spain.
Click to expand...

-------------------------------------------   They oughta riot , rip out their government by the roots and get rid of the big shots .   Actually , they shoulda done what i describe before they were disarmed !!


----------



## HenryBHough

Thanks for the vision of the Hillarymerica bullet we dodged!


----------



## sakinago

HereWeGoAgain said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> More scary is the rioting.
> 
> I can deal with a corrupt government.
> 
> It is almost impossible to deal with riots however.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean people are starving to death for the first time in their life, can you really blame them for going ape shit on a government that has taken over almost everything, and they can't even get enough food for one person (let alone their whole family) for an entire day. I don't blame them at all. They did not cause this, their all knowing government has caused this, and they're watching their children starve to death before their eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a way they did cause it.
> Venezuela didnt head down the socialist path by itself.
Click to expand...


This is true, but at the same time as Chavez took control our left was cheering him on. We actually named streets after him. I just visited Greece a year and a half ago, and it was bad over there, not this bad though. Chavez was the epitome of socialism, and had total control. Now tanks are rolling over starving masses.


----------



## toobfreak

sakinago said:


> Video Shows Tank Running Over Protestors




Damn.  I bet Obama and Hillary are watching that thinking they wish they could get away with that.  I know Hillary would certainly like to do that to all of her opposition!  Too bad she can't even figure out how to get through a turnstile much less drive a tank!


----------



## OldLady

Those poor, poor people.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

sakinago said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> More scary is the rioting.
> 
> I can deal with a corrupt government.
> 
> It is almost impossible to deal with riots however.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean people are starving to death for the first time in their life, can you really blame them for going ape shit on a government that has taken over almost everything, and they can't even get enough food for one person (let alone their whole family) for an entire day. I don't blame them at all. They did not cause this, their all knowing government has caused this, and they're watching their children starve to death before their eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a way they did cause it.
> Venezuela didnt head down the socialist path by itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is true, but at the same time as Chavez took control our left was cheering him on. We actually named streets after him. I just visited Greece a year and a half ago, and it was bad over there, not this bad though. Chavez was the epitome of socialism, and had total control. Now tanks are rolling over starving masses.
Click to expand...


  I still blame the voters. They allowed it to happen by giving up their firearms.


----------



## Tehon

sakinago said:


> I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.


Socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production. That is how it has translated thus far but it misses the mark. It is not Socialism.

What is happening in Venezuela is a nightmare......Maduro should be hung.


----------



## hjmick

pwjohn said:


> I guess you're to stupid to understand that crapazula  is a third world toilet. They always have been and they always will be. They will never realize their wealth in oil so they will forever remain that third world toilet.





Do yourself a favor...


If you're going to call someone "stupid" proofread your post before you hit "Post Reply." It could save you from looking like a fool.


It should have been "too" not "to."


But perhaps you're *too* stupid *to* know such things...


----------



## Norman

It's nothing compared to stalinist Russia or Maoist China.

That being said, it literally may be the shittiest place on earth. Given the toilet paper crisis and all. Socialism is indeed, shit.


----------



## sakinago

HereWeGoAgain said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> More scary is the rioting.
> 
> I can deal with a corrupt government.
> 
> It is almost impossible to deal with riots however.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean people are starving to death for the first time in their life, can you really blame them for going ape shit on a government that has taken over almost everything, and they can't even get enough food for one person (let alone their whole family) for an entire day. I don't blame them at all. They did not cause this, their all knowing government has caused this, and they're watching their children starve to death before their eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a way they did cause it.
> Venezuela didnt head down the socialist path by itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is true, but at the same time as Chavez took control our left was cheering him on. We actually named streets after him. I just visited Greece a year and a half ago, and it was bad over there, not this bad though. Chavez was the epitome of socialism, and had total control. Now tanks are rolling over starving masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still blame the voters. They allowed it to happen by giving up their firearms.
Click to expand...


They did, and this would not happen in America with armed protesters on the street. But make no mistake, socialism is very sexy among mellenials. I think the cry for gun control has gone down in America, but in 10 years...who knows what America will look like


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

sakinago said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> More scary is the rioting.
> 
> I can deal with a corrupt government.
> 
> It is almost impossible to deal with riots however.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean people are starving to death for the first time in their life, can you really blame them for going ape shit on a government that has taken over almost everything, and they can't even get enough food for one person (let alone their whole family) for an entire day. I don't blame them at all. They did not cause this, their all knowing government has caused this, and they're watching their children starve to death before their eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a way they did cause it.
> Venezuela didnt head down the socialist path by itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is true, but at the same time as Chavez took control our left was cheering him on. We actually named streets after him. I just visited Greece a year and a half ago, and it was bad over there, not this bad though. Chavez was the epitome of socialism, and had total control. Now tanks are rolling over starving masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still blame the voters. They allowed it to happen by giving up their firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did, and this would not happen in America with armed protesters on the street. But make no mistake, socialism is very sexy among mellenials. I think the cry for gun control has gone down in America, but in 10 years...who knows what America will look like
Click to expand...


  This of course is brought on by our liberal school program from K to College.
  They are a cancer in America.


----------



## sakinago

Tehon said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production. That is how it has translated thus far but it misses the mark. It is not Socialism.
> 
> What is happening in Venezuela is a nightmare......Maduro should be hung.
Click to expand...


Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them.  So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?


----------



## Tehon

sakinago said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production. That is how it has translated thus far but it misses the mark. It is not Socialism.
> 
> What is happening in Venezuela is a nightmare......Maduro should be hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them.  So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?
Click to expand...

Chavez carried out a populist agenda.

Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a social democrat . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.


----------



## Divine Wind

sakinago said:


> Video Shows Tank Running Over Protestors
> 
> I say it's scary to see governments capable of this, but it comes as no surprise to me at least. Maduro needs to go, I hope the citizens oust him without much bloodshed, and stay the hell away from socialism.
> 
> Remember when the left was all about Chavez and the socialist utopia he set up...well it looks like the faster socialism progresses, the faster it collapses. Remember this is a country very rich in oil, and should have a leg up on most of the other South American countries surrounding it. Chavez took over oil, and pretty much screwed the pooch on it over night. I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.


Gotta love Socialists and their tanks!


----------



## sakinago

Tehon said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production. That is how it has translated thus far but it misses the mark. It is not Socialism.
> 
> What is happening in Venezuela is a nightmare......Maduro should be hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them.  So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chavez carried out a populist agenda.
> 
> Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.
Click to expand...

No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro. 

And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?


----------



## sakinago

sakinago said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production. That is how it has translated thus far but it misses the mark. It is not Socialism.
> 
> What is happening in Venezuela is a nightmare......Maduro should be hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them.  So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chavez carried out a populist agenda.
> 
> Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.
> 
> And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?
Click to expand...

What we are seeing in Venezuela was an experiment in socialism unopposed, one man (with the best of intentions) using government as the biggest and end all hammer to do right for his country. It has collapsed within our own lifetime, like so many have before it (I don't know how much more history we need). Can we pleeeeeassse not say that government is/should be the answer to all our problems.


----------



## BluesLegend

That's not Venezuela its Obama's old neighborhood in Chicago.


----------



## Rexx Taylor

now we wait and see who Pelosi and what video Hillary blames it on


----------



## Tehon

sakinago said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production. That is how it has translated thus far but it misses the mark. It is not Socialism.
> 
> What is happening in Venezuela is a nightmare......Maduro should be hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them.  So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chavez carried out a populist agenda.
> 
> Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.
> 
> And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?
Click to expand...

I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

OldLady said:


> Those poor, poor people.


Those poor people actually voted for this. Much like what the Sanders people were for.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Tehon said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production. That is how it has translated thus far but it misses the mark. It is not Socialism.
> 
> What is happening in Venezuela is a nightmare......Maduro should be hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them.  So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chavez carried out a populist agenda.
> 
> Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a social democrat . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.
Click to expand...

Oh FFS, are you seriously trying to deny this is exactly what we would end up with under a Sanders admin?


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Tehon said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production. That is how it has translated thus far but it misses the mark. It is not Socialism.
> 
> What is happening in Venezuela is a nightmare......Maduro should be hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them.  So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chavez carried out a populist agenda.
> 
> Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.
> 
> And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

Well, you're kinda dumb then.


----------



## Tehon

Missouri_Mike said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production. That is how it has translated thus far but it misses the mark. It is not Socialism.
> 
> What is happening in Venezuela is a nightmare......Maduro should be hung.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them.  So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chavez carried out a populist agenda.
> 
> Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.
> 
> And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you're kinda dumb then.
Click to expand...

Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.

Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.


----------



## sakinago

Tehon said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them.  So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?
> 
> 
> 
> Chavez carried out a populist agenda.
> 
> Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.
> 
> And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you're kinda dumb then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.
> 
> Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.
Click to expand...


Ok I'm going to bring up different issues, but by principle still show the same stark lack of recognition of reality. Bernie did in fact question why the interest rates were so different on a home loan than a college loan, and he did so from a tweet from his twitter account. Now, does that sound like someone who is based in reality, especially in our day where we have so many "overeducated" yet unemployed? He actually questioned that, during a presidential campaign. And we're suppose to call him the socialist not a populist?


----------



## pwjohn

sakinago said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you're to stupid to understand that crapazula  is a third world toilet. They always have been and they always will be. They will never realize their wealth in oil so they will forever remain that third world toilet.
> 
> 
> 
> You must not be old enough to remember the praise Chavez received for the bang up job in Venezuela. They made movies about him up until a few years ago. One of them is on Netflix now with micheal Pena. And venezuelas is not 3rd world, that's just a cop out, they have plumbing, cars, roads, electricity, etc. they're no more 3rd world than Spain.
Click to expand...


And you must be a deeply stupid man.


----------



## Snouter

Yes, Mexico, Central and South America are disasters with filthy savages assaulting, murdering and raping each other daily.  But the rioters assaulted some of the military employees a few feet from the armored vehicle.  The armored vehicle did exactly what it should have.


----------



## Desperado

Pelosi and Shummer see this as their Democratic Utopia.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Tehon said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them.  So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?
> 
> 
> 
> Chavez carried out a populist agenda.
> 
> Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.
> 
> And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you're kinda dumb then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.
> 
> Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously so fucking stupid you don't know what socialism is?


----------



## Tehon

sakinago said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chavez carried out a populist agenda.
> 
> Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.
> 
> And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you're kinda dumb then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.
> 
> Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok I'm going to bring up different issues, but by principle still show the same stark lack of recognition of reality. Bernie did in fact question why the interest rates were so different on a home loan than a college loan, and he did so from a tweet from his twitter account. Now, does that sound like someone who is based in reality, especially in our day where we have so many "overeducated" yet unemployed? He actually questioned that, during a presidential campaign. And we're suppose to call him the socialist not a populist?
Click to expand...

I don't call Sanders a socialist and took exception to his calling himself one. It only adds to the confusion of Americans about socialism.

I think his message that you refer to was populist. His ignorance adds nothing to the discussion of socialism vs populism. Ignorance emanates from all parts of society these days.


----------



## Tehon

Missouri_Mike said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chavez carried out a populist agenda.
> 
> Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.
> 
> And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you're kinda dumb then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.
> 
> Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you seriously so fucking stupid you don't know what socialism is?
Click to expand...

I just defined it for you. Do you lack the ability to understand?


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Tehon said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.
> 
> And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you're kinda dumb then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.
> 
> Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok I'm going to bring up different issues, but by principle still show the same stark lack of recognition of reality. Bernie did in fact question why the interest rates were so different on a home loan than a college loan, and he did so from a tweet from his twitter account. Now, does that sound like someone who is based in reality, especially in our day where we have so many "overeducated" yet unemployed? He actually questioned that, during a presidential campaign. And we're suppose to call him the socialist not a populist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't call Sanders a socialist and took exception to his calling himself one. It only adds to the confusion of Americans about socialism.
> 
> I think his message that you refer to was populist. His ignorance adds nothing to the discussion of socialism vs populism. Ignorance emanates from all parts of society these days.
Click to expand...

Mostly emanates from people like you. He said straight up when asked he was a democratic socialist. How are you confused by that?


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Tehon said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.
> 
> And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you're kinda dumb then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.
> 
> Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you seriously so fucking stupid you don't know what socialism is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just defined it for you. Do you lack the ability to understand?
Click to expand...

It's actually been defined throughout history. Socialism kills not only nations but millions of people. It never can work out any different. Venezuela will next see millions die because they chose this route. Why would we do that here?


----------



## sakinago

Tehon said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.
> 
> And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you're kinda dumb then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.
> 
> Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you seriously so fucking stupid you don't know what socialism is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just defined it for you. Do you lack the ability to understand?
Click to expand...

The guy who calls himself a democratic socialis? Am I not to believe what he says?


----------



## Tehon

Missouri_Mike said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're kinda dumb then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.
> 
> Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you seriously so fucking stupid you don't know what socialism is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just defined it for you. Do you lack the ability to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's actually been defined throughout history. Socialism kills not only nations but millions of people. It never can work out any different. Venezuela will next see millions die because they chose this route. Why would we do that here?
Click to expand...

Yes and I defined it properly. As it has been defined throughout history. The social ownership of the means of production. 

Who is calling for it to be done here?


----------



## Tehon

sakinago said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're kinda dumb then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.
> 
> Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you seriously so fucking stupid you don't know what socialism is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just defined it for you. Do you lack the ability to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The guy who calls himself a democratic socialis? Am I not to believe what he says?
Click to expand...

That is your choice, I judge actions not words.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Tehon said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're kinda dumb then.
> 
> 
> 
> Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.
> 
> Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you seriously so fucking stupid you don't know what socialism is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just defined it for you. Do you lack the ability to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's actually been defined throughout history. Socialism kills not only nations but millions of people. It never can work out any different. Venezuela will next see millions die because they chose this route. Why would we do that here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes and I defined it properly. As it has been defined throughout history. The social ownership of the means of production.
> 
> Who is calling for it to be done here?
Click to expand...

Well you seem to be just a bit pissed off that healthcare isn't going further socialist. And then there's this, a moment of clarity from a lefty.

When doesn't socialism lead to that?

Socialism, communism, Nazism. All of them mean the government owns everything and doles it out to the fools as they see fit. Look at Venezuela and toilet paper, and oil, and healthcare.

Do you really not get this? You can't have socialism without the government running everything. If they don't it's not socialism.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Tehon said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're kinda dumb then.
> 
> 
> 
> Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.
> 
> Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you seriously so fucking stupid you don't know what socialism is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just defined it for you. Do you lack the ability to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The guy who calls himself a democratic socialis? Am I not to believe what he says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your choice, I judge actions not words.
Click to expand...

Only a complete fool ignores the words.


----------



## Tehon

Missouri_Mike said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.
> 
> Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously so fucking stupid you don't know what socialism is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just defined it for you. Do you lack the ability to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's actually been defined throughout history. Socialism kills not only nations but millions of people. It never can work out any different. Venezuela will next see millions die because they chose this route. Why would we do that here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes and I defined it properly. As it has been defined throughout history. The social ownership of the means of production.
> 
> Who is calling for it to be done here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you seem to be just a bit pissed off that healthcare isn't going further socialist. And then there's this, a moment of clarity from a lefty.
> 
> When doesn't socialism lead to that?
> 
> Socialism, communism, Nazism. All of them mean the government owns everything and doles it out to the fools as they see fit. Look at Venezuela and toilet paper, and oil, and healthcare.
> 
> Do you really not get this? You can't have socialism without the government running everything. If they don't it's not socialism.
Click to expand...

Lol, I don't recall ever getting in on a healthcare debate.

State control is not socialism. It merely replaces one oppressor with another.


----------



## Tehon

Missouri_Mike said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.
> 
> Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously so fucking stupid you don't know what socialism is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just defined it for you. Do you lack the ability to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The guy who calls himself a democratic socialis? Am I not to believe what he says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your choice, I judge actions not words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a complete fool ignores the words.
Click to expand...

Words without action are meaningless. Didn't you learn that as a kid. Sticks and stones......


----------



## basquebromance

watch protestors tearin down statue of Hugo Chavez earlier this week...

Breaking911 on Twitter


----------

