Great Story on Hugo Chavez

Youre finally getting the right idea, skip!

 

WOW Point calm down or you’ll bust a blood vessel

I’ve read your last post and I think I’ve seen your problem.

I think you haven’t actually debated for so long that you’ve forgotten how. You don’t seem to be able to understand arguments, questions, and don’t even seem capable of constructing a reasonable reply or counter-argument.

Example One

Well I’ve mentioned that the US has stepped in to change regimes, even democratically elected regimes, when they thought that in their opinion that the regime was ‘bad’. We have discussed this before in relation to Chile and you seemed to understand this even seemed to give it tacit approval to the US backed coup. Saying that Allende was a bad leader who was not good for Chile because he increased public spending and nationalised industries and had caused “falling foreign investment”, whereas Pinecetts, in your opinion, had been good for Chile.
Again, where did I "honestly" say that it would be better if the US decided who ruled Venezuela? I didn't. You need to explain why you fabricate views on my behalf, becaus that is the question that is being dodged. Is this how you debate?

My inquiry is quiet simple but you don’t seem able to grasp its meaning at all.

I’ll try to explain even more simply

In you opinion Allende was a bad leader and was bad for his country.

The US government of the time also thought this and helped topple him.

The person they installed was Pinochet.

You think Pinochet was good for Chile.

Got it, is that clear?

Now – In you opinion Chevez is a bad leader and is bad for his country.

The present US government also thinks that (and have already given support to one coup that tried to topple him)

It seems clear that in your opinion it would be better for Venezuela if someone else was in charge of the country?

So would you support the US government if it in any way tried to destabilise Chevez’s government or used its power to bring down Chevez?

It is very interesting that you have not answered this question that you keep ducking out of it, I mean think about you replies so far.

You claim that you haven’t expressly said you support US involvement in the affairs of Venezuela or in other Latin American countries.

Yet you have expressed some strong preferences in the past, you have called leaders that were toppled (or have been attempted to be toppled) by the US, clowns, bad leaders, etc and praised policies of governments that the US help set up in their place.

As I said this seems very much like tacit agreement with US policies, is it.

**

Example Two

Quote:
LOL, maybe, but a simple question that you have just tried to dodge.
It is a useless rhetorical question. Don't waste my time.
Quote:
Even more laughs, it is a question and one you seem reluctant to answer.
What complete crap. What it comes down to is that you couldn't care less about Venezuelans and what happens to their country, so long as Chavez keeps bashing Bush.

You continue to dodge the issues being raised –

Should the interests of the poor be improved and in what ways should they be improved? And who should benefit from Venezuela’s oil (or any other country’s resources), a minority or majority of the people?

These are basic and fundamental political ideas, high school level (or lower) and so it surprises me that you seem unable to give an opinion.

As to the add on “you couldn't care less about Venezuelans and what happens to their country, so long as Chavez keeps bashing Bush”

It is unworthy of you and I can only guess that your frustration at being unable to think of a reasonable argument is getting you down.

When talking about the people of Latin America, knowledge of the involvement of the US in the politics of the region is essential. That often-malevolent influence means that many leaders gain popularity by attacking the US. If you don’t understand this and wish for me to suggest some reading I’d be happy to oblige.

**

Example Three

No the Uk wasn’t as dependent on the oil
So you admit it was a bad comparison? Why would you deliberately try to mislead us with a comparison you now admit is unsound?

This is such a fundamental mistake.

Every teacher or lecturer drums it into students – Read the whole question/passage and make sure you are clear that you think you understand it before making a comment.

It is so obvious here that you read that first line half line and flew off some reply, (maybe even punching the air and crying “I have him”).

But the problem is that if you had read on you would have realised just how silly your comments are.

You originally said -

“Even though Chavez essentially won oil lotto, there are people that are going to pretend that he somehow came up with the money through left wing economics and the goodness of his heart”

And maybe you have forgotten but I actually agreed with you.

But I tried to point out that this is nothing new, having oil resources it just one ‘cash cow’ in a long line of such resources that have been used by rulers and governments to help them implement certain projects or programmes. It is not exactly a startling theory in fact it is closer to being a truism.

I mean if you discover a gold mine on your property you are going to be a lot more able to do the things you and your family wants to do than if you didn’t.

So Chevez can implement his programmes because he has money from the oil.

I could have given many examples from history such as the discover of a rich seam at the Laurion silver mines the money from which Themistocles persuaded the Athenians to spend on a fleet that made them a great navel power and sowed the seeds of their Imperial power. But I chose a more recent example of the revenue from the North Sea oil. But the argument remains the same it is unaffected by either example.

What is your argument?

To say the example is not some kind of exact comparison doesn’t mean anything, in what way is it ‘bad’ in what way does it not support the theory?

It doesn’t as far as I can tell.

It seems to me that you so wanted to ‘get’ me that you forgot to think.

**

Come on Point with post like this it is very hard for me to defend you against Skips charge that you are just a troll attacking people because you personally don’t like them, rather than wanting to get into a debate about their views.

 

I'll note that you didn't deny this statement. Does that mean it is true?

Seem ridiculous? That's how you debate. You accuse people of "either or" and then demand to know if they are for helping the poor or against it. You ask ridiculous rhetorical questions, condemn people for not answering them, but feel no obligation to answer them yourself.

I was imitating you. It is sad that you can't see that, but there you have it.

This is your response to someone else in another thread. If that is the standard set by moderators, by what standard am I a troll?

I'm sorry Balbus, but like I said before your style of debate is pedantic. You railroad discussions and rely on personal insult. You set double standards. Its just not worth the effort.

I'm always happy to debate, but you really need to change your attitude. Think of this as constructive criticism. You can hardly accuse me of being the problem - I debate practically everyone here.

 

These are all things Ive pointed out about PB many times, skip. Thank you for finally seeing him for the troll he has always been and finally taking some action.

 

Why is it ok for men in power to do the wrong thing and not suffer YOUR criticisms just because they are doing it privately? Why are you here trying to tell us how stupid we are? What threat do we present? and again, how is giving excessive power to large multinational corporations (mini communes) which have the power to run countries into the ground different to giving it to a state?

 

Great...lets get back to constructive discussion.