BAC'S boy chavez stealing more companies

Taichiliberal said:
Originally Posted by Southern Man
To intelligent folks, the words "seize" and "takeover" have a simple interpretation. You're not intelligent.....you STILL cannot produce any evidence of "theft". I'll dumb it down for you......you have to produce evidence that the legal procedures in Venezuela for nationalization were not followed, and/or that the owners of said businesses woke up one morning and suddenly found their themselves kicked to the curb. It's not about whether you agree with nationalizaton or not, it's about YOU or the other genius logically proving theft in the literal sense.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher...582332&start=5

Yeah, coupled with this tidbit, you can understand why this is a current problem...but not unsolvable

http://origin.foxnews.com/wires/2008...zBanks,00.html



Sorry, but waving the flag and jingoistic posting won't counter the FACT that I gave you infromation which shows that Chavez's policies are not perfect, but not unattainable. Are you aware that in America there is a policy of "imminent domain"...where if a corporation/company can prove to city/state officials that they can turn major profit, then they can literally move you out of your house (with a nominal payoff to you). YOU DON"T HAVE A CHOICE, but it's LEGAL. So again, if you or anyone else can show me where Chavez's gov't didn't follow Venezuelan legal procedure in nationalizing those companies, then please do. Otherwise, the accusation of "theft" is unfounded.
Click to expand...

IMMINENT DOMAIN.

Excellent point.
 
blackascoal said:
My brother .. you should save your "Jah" persona for someone who doesn't know the Rastafarian movement. You do not even know what Jah represents.

You worship money. It is your God. You are the epitome of everything Jah stands against.

Do you even know Haile Selassie, Leonard Howell, Marcus Garvey, Walter Rodney?

Do you know what is meant by Babylon? YOU, my brother, are Babylon. You worship corporations. Rastafarians .. real ones .. stand against Babylon.

Your opinion of me is every bit as flawed of your perception of the Rastafarian movement .. which you see as nothing more than an excuse to smoke weed.

Between tokes, try finding out what you claim to believe.
Click to expand...
I'm not the business owner claiming to be ok with governments stealling assests. YOU are.
Not only that at least I'm a democrat, you have no party that can win.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Originally Posted by Southern Man
To intelligent folks, the words "seize" and "takeover" have a simple interpretation. You're not intelligent.....you STILL cannot produce any evidence of "theft". I'll dumb it down for you......you have to produce evidence that the legal procedures in Venezuela for nationalization were not followed, and/or that the owners of said businesses woke up one morning and suddenly found their themselves kicked to the curb. It's not about whether you agree with nationalizaton or not, it's about YOU or the other genius logically proving theft in the literal sense.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher...582332&start=5

Yeah, coupled with this tidbit, you can understand why this is a current problem...but not unsolvable

http://origin.foxnews.com/wires/2008...zBanks,00.html



Sorry, but waving the flag and jingoistic posting won't counter the FACT that I gave you infromation which shows that Chavez's policies are not perfect, but not unattainable. Are you aware that in America there is a policy of "imminent domain"...where if a corporation/company can prove to city/state officials that they can turn major profit, then they can literally move you out of your house (with a nominal payoff to you). YOU DON"T HAVE A CHOICE, but it's LEGAL. So again, if you or anyone else can show me where Chavez's gov't didn't follow Venezuelan legal procedure in nationalizing those companies, then please do. Otherwise, the accusation of "theft" is unfounded.
Click to expand...

Actually, its called Eminent Domain, and as far as the Feds are concerned, the property must then be used for public purposes- it cannot be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken". Many States have similar provisions.

But my argument is not that socialism won't work, but that it doesn't work as well as free market capitalism; but more importantly, that capitalism means that the People have more freedom. So again, I believe in freedom, don't you?
 
Topspin said:
I'm not the business owner claiming to be ok with governments stealling assests. YOU are.
Not only that at least I'm a democrat, you have no party that can win.
Click to expand...

You're a democrat.

Wow, that's impressive .. given that it's so difficult to pass the exam.

By the way, I don't claim to be Rastafarian and don't use it as some bullshit excuse to smoke weed .. however, I at least know what the Ratsafarian movement represents. YOU sir, do not.

You're ok with the government stealing money from everyday people to prop up failed businesses.

I like my side of the fence better.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, its called Eminent Domain, and as far as the Feds are concerned, the property must then be used for public purposes- it cannot be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken". Many States have similar provisions.

But my argument is not that socialism won't work, but that it doesn't work as well as free market capitalism; but more importantly, that capitalism means that the People have more freedom. So again, I believe in freedom, don't you?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "free market."

It does not exist anywhere except in the wet dreams of the libertarian mind.
 
Southern Man said:
Its all relative; the more free the market, the more free are the People. Why don't you like freedom?
Click to expand...

That's the most ignorant bumper-sticker phrase ever invented.

The reason why there is no such thing as a free market .. practiced nowhere on planet earth .. can be easily determined by a simple casual study of the Robber Barons.

I like freedom AND intelligence.

Why don't you like intelligence?
 
blackascoal said:
That's the most ignorant bumper-sticker phrase ever invented.

The reason why there is no such thing as a free market .. practiced nowhere on planet earth .. can be easily determined by a simple casual study of the Robber Barons.

I like freedom AND intelligence.

Why don't you like intelligence?
Click to expand...
Intelligence is understanding that limited government and free markets yield the maximum amount of freedom. So why don't you like to maximize freedom?
 
Southern Man said:
Intelligence is understanding that limited government and free markets yield the maximum amount of freedom. So why don't you like to maximize freedom?
Click to expand...

I have a question .. have you ever met AssHat?

Did you guys compare dick sizes?

If not, how do you know you have a bigger dick .. and what kind of a freak touts the supposed size of his dick?
 
blackascoal said:
I have a question .. have you ever met AssHat?

Did you guys compare dick sizes?

If not, how do you know you have a bigger dick .. and what kind of a freak touts the supposed size of his dick?
Click to expand...
1. We have never met.
2. Nor compared dick sizes.
3. "Dick" in this case refers to personalities; quite obviously.
4. Many males brag about their physical dick sizes in a jovial manner. Surely, as a black male, you should understand that. Have you heard the joke about the two black guys who pissed off a bridge?
 
blackascoal said:
Or they're lovers.

I realized I was debating the value of intelligence with someone who claims he has a bigger dick than someone he's never met.

That's not too intelligent of me.
Click to expand...

Apparently your not intelligent enough to stand up in a debate so you call your opponents gay.
 
Southern Man said:
1. We have never met.
2. Nor compared dick sizes.
3. "Dick" in this case refers to personalities; quite obviously.
4. Many males brag about their physical dick sizes in a jovial manner. Surely, as a black male, you should understand that. Have you heard the joke about the two black guys who pissed off a bridge?
Click to expand...

4. Naw, I haven't heard that .. probably because I don't live in Buttfuck. I've never joked with another man about the size of my dick and would find such converstion more than a bit creepy.

3. Nothing "obvious" about dick = personality and it's not something one would expect from an adult .. unless they're gay.

2. See 3.

1. That's too bad. You two have so much in common.
 
Southern Man said:
Apparently your not intelligent enough to stand up in a debate so you call your opponents gay.
Click to expand...

:lmao:

I've been spanking your ass all day.

YOU sir are the one who mentions the size of another man's dick .. yet you feign offense when I ask why?

I doesn't matter if you're gay or not. I have no problem with gay people.

My problem was that I was debating intelligence with someone who claims he has a bigger dick than someone he has never met.

Wouldn't that be like debating the orgins of life with someone who sees God in a baloney sandwich?
 
blackascoal said:
4. Naw, I haven't heard that .. probably because I don't live in Buttfuck. I've never joked with another man about the size of my dick and would find such converstion more than a bit creepy.

3. Nothing "obvious" about dick = personality and it's not something one would expect from an adult .. unless they're gay.

2. See 3.

1. That's too bad. You two have so much in common.
Click to expand...

blackascoal said:
4. Naw, I haven't heard that .. probably because I don't live in Buttfuck. I've never joked with another man about the size of my dick and would find such converstion more than a bit creepy.

3. Nothing "obvious" about dick = personality and it's not something one would expect from an adult .. unless they're gay.

2. See 3.

1. That's too bad. You two have so much in common.
Click to expand...

blackascoal said:
:lmao:

I've been spanking your ass all day.

YOU sir are the one who mentions the size of another man's dick .. yet you feign offense when I ask why?

I doesn't matter if you're gay or not. I have no problem with gay people.

My problem was that I was debating intelligence with someone who claims he has a bigger dick than someone he has never met.

Wouldn't that be like debating the orgins of life with someone who sees God in a baloney sandwich?
Click to expand...

Let's re-examine this and your claim of intelligence.

1. AssHat's custom user title is "I'm a dick".
2. Mine is "A bigger dick that AssHat".

Please explain how a reasonably intelligent person interprets statement 1 as a physical description of the writer. Based on that, explain how statement 2 infers a comparison of physical characteristics.

Secondly, explain why "gay" is an insult? According to your liberal ideology, gay is normal, moral, natural and healthy. So this is like you saying: "Hey Southern Man, you're normal, moral, natural and healthy."

Third, this is all an obvious smokescreen by you to avoid my simple question, which once again is: “why don't you like to maximize freedom?”
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Originally Posted by Southern Man
To intelligent folks, the words "seize" and "takeover" have a simple interpretation. You're not intelligent.....you STILL cannot produce any evidence of "theft". I'll dumb it down for you......you have to produce evidence that the legal procedures in Venezuela for nationalization were not followed, and/or that the owners of said businesses woke up one morning and suddenly found their themselves kicked to the curb. It's not about whether you agree with nationalizaton or not, it's about YOU or the other genius logically proving theft in the literal sense.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher...582332&start=5

Yeah, coupled with this tidbit, you can understand why this is a current problem...but not unsolvable

http://origin.foxnews.com/wires/2008...zBanks,00.html



Sorry, but waving the flag and jingoistic posting won't counter the FACT that I gave you infromation which shows that Chavez's policies are not perfect, but not unattainable. Are you aware that in America there is a policy of "imminent domain"...where if a corporation/company can prove to city/state officials that they can turn major profit, then they can literally move you out of your house (with a nominal payoff to you). YOU DON"T HAVE A CHOICE, but it's LEGAL. So again, if you or anyone else can show me where Chavez's gov't didn't follow Venezuelan legal procedure in nationalizing those companies, then please do. Otherwise, the accusation of "theft" is unfounded.

Southern Man said:
Actually, its called Eminent Domain, I stand corrected and as far as the Feds are concerned, the property must then be used for public purposes- it cannot be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken". Many States have similar provisions.

Not quite:
Eminent domain refers to the power possessed by the state over all property within the state, specifically its power to appropriate property for a public use. In some jurisdictions, the state delegates eminent domain power to certain public and private companies, typically utilities, such that they can bring eminent domain actions to run telephone, power, water, or gas lines. In most countries, including the United States under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, the owner of any appropriated land is entitled to reasonable compensation, usually defined as the fair market value of the property. Proceedings to take land under eminent domain are typically referred to as "condemnation" proceedings. http://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/eminent_domain.html

But my argument is not that socialism won't work, but that it doesn't work as well as free market capitalism; but more importantly, that capitalism means that the People have more freedom. So again, I believe in freedom, don't you?
Click to expand...

Again, you AVOID the question: Can you prove that nationalization of the Venezuelan companies was done illegally? Also, as I pointed out above, how is eminent domain any better (or worse, for that matter) than nationalization?
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, its called Eminent Domain, and as far as the Feds are concerned, the property must then be used for public purposes- it cannot be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken". Many States have similar provisions.

But my argument is not that socialism won't work, but that it doesn't work as well as free market capitalism; but more importantly, that capitalism means that the People have more freedom. So again, I believe in freedom, don't you?
Click to expand...

Everyone seems to be overlooking the bit that there are several places where land tried to be taken, under the onus of Eminent Domain, and the local Governments LOST.
One of the most recent ones, that I can recall, was in Tempe, Arizona.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top