I thought this was a shrewd PR coup on Chavez part.


Politics or Not, Bronx Warmly Receives Venezuelan Heating Oil


By Michelle Garcia
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 8, 2005; A08

NEW YORK -- A green Citgo tanker truck chugged up a hill with a grim view of tenement buildings, elevated subways and treeless sidewalks to deliver Venezuelan heating oil, a "humanitarian" gift from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Moments before the orange-gloved worker snaked the hose to a Bronx tenement, Eartha Ferguson, a manager and resident of a low-income building, said: "I call it a gift of survival. It comes at a good time, a very needed time."

Chavez's gift, which arrived on Tuesday and is being distributed this week, may be nothing more than a chance to tweak the nose of the Bush administration, which has long opposed the South American leader. But few residents in the South Bronx, where 41 percent live on incomes below the federal poverty line, are inclined to worry about international politics.

Citgo Petroleum Corp., which is controlled by the Venezuelan government, signed a deal with three Bronx housing nonprofits to sell 5 million gallons of heating oil at 45 percent below the market rate, an estimated savings of $4 million. The discounted oil will heat 75 Bronx apartment buildings, housing 8,000 low-income working poor and elderly tenants.

Officials with Mount Hope Housing Co., Fordham Bedford Housing Corp. and VIP Community Services -- which have organized tenants and rehabilitated low-income apartments for several decades -- say savings from the cheap oil will allow them to reduce rents temporarily and invest in neighborhood social programs.

"A lot of families are struggling," said Lenice Footman, who hopes her $600 monthly rent will be reduced. Neighbor Dionne Morales agreed, saying she is overlooking the criticism directed at Chavez. "If he can give oil to my country and help the lives of my community, I'm impressed," she said.

Chavez has sold the discounted oil in two U.S. markets, New York and Massachusetts. Citizens Energy Corp., a Boston-based nonprofit cooperative, bought 12 million gallons at a steep discount after U.S. oil companies ignored its written plea for help. Similar oil deals are in the works for other parts of New York and some New England states.

Americans face record prices for heating oil this winter, with a gallon selling for $2.41 -- a 38 percent increase from this time last year. Congress declined to provide additional funding for the federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and Citizens Energy and other housing advocates expect that families, especially in the Northeast, will exhaust their benefits by Christmas.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in a recent briefing that the Bush administration expects the recently passed energy bill and efforts to expand capacity to help address the shortfall. "All of us have a role to do to help address high energy prices," he said. "And we are taking action to do so."

But on the second snow day in the Bronx, where scrawled graffiti warns pedestrians of rats, fleas and maggots, it did not escape the notice of tenants that a foreign government stepped in after Congress did not.

"The government should have done it," said Shirley Manuel, 52, a tenants' rights activist, wrapped up tightly in her wheelchair. "This is their country, this is their people -- they should be taking care of their own."

Rep. Jose E. Serrano (D-N.Y.), who brokered the oil deal, brushed aside suggestions that Chavez was playing petro politics.

"To those who say this is to score political points," he told a shivering crowd when the first oil arrived, "I invite any American corporation that wants to score points with my community to start this afternoon."

But, in fact, politics is very much part of this deal. The Bush administration has made no secret of its dislike for Chavez and his populist, left-wing politics, nor of its desire to see him turned out of office. Chavez, in turn, was a featured speaker at a demonstration in Argentina this year, in which he denounced President Bush's policies in Latin America.

Last week, Citgo bought full-page ads in The Washington Post and the New York Times, lauding Venezuela's role in heating the homes of the nation's poor. El Diario/La Prensa, New York's major Spanish-language newspaper, published a front-page photo of Chavez wearing a Santa Claus hat above the words, a "Gift from Chavez to the Bronx."

In September, Chavez traveled to the Bronx and spent several hours with 17 community groups. Flanked by Serrano and Jesse L. Jackson, Chavez proposed selling heating oil at below market rates and laid out plans to invest some of Venezuela's oil revenue in health and environmental programs in the Bronx.

"I fell in love with the Bronx and New York," Chavez said that day. "I have met the soul of the American people."

good article, too.

In my opinion he's a tyrant, but that was nice of him to do that. That doesn't mean i support Pat Robertson's notion of the U.S. "taking him out", but i don't think he's meant to be trusted.

Do you know he's democratically elected by the Venezualan people? Do you know more people in Venezuala are going to post-secondary school than ever before? Seriously, Univision, CNN and Fox News will not give you any perspective on Chavez.

...who consitutue the old Venezuelan oligarchy, and who are financially harmed by the Chavez government's agrarian and oil policy, he may look like a "tyrant". As for the mestizo majority, a friend of mine was recently in Caracas, and he told me that Chavez enjoys mass support among the urban poor. This Los Angeles Times article (http://www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/001209.php) confirms that anecdotal evidence. Remember, Chavez and his party won internationally monitored elections by landslide margins in both 1998 and 2000. (Unlike some presidents, he did not squeak into office by virtue of a court decision.) His popularity ratings, depending on whether you consult Venezuelan domestic or international polling data, show support for him at between roughly 60% and 80%.


Support for Chavez Unwavering in Slums of Venezuelan Capital
By Ken Silverstein
Los Angles Times

Monday 16 August 2004

CARACAS, Venezuela — The rich hate him, saying he has stirred up class warfare. The privately owned media, closely aligned with his political opponents, pillory him daily as an enemy of democracy. And the Bush administration, which supported those who briefly overthrew him in 2002, describes him as a dangerous leftist.

But in the shantytowns here in the capital, President Hugo Chavez is revered as a national savior.

"Our hope is with Chavez," said Carlos Contreras, who urged residents to support the president in Sunday's recall vote. "All of our other presidents promised to help the poor, but he's the first one who has kept his word."

Chavez's support is concentrated among the poor, who make up a majority of this country's 25 million people. The soaring price of oil, a major export, has flooded the national treasury, allowing the government to spend heavily on social programs and fund what Chavez calls a "Revolution for the Poor."

Like many in the winding, hillside shantytown of brick-and-tin shacks in Catia district, Contreras has no steady work. He owns a truck and occasionally is hired as a mover or for other odd jobs.

Even so, he said life had improved dramatically since Chavez was elected in 1998. From a spot that offers a sweeping view of the neighborhood, Contreras pointed to a new health clinic staffed by Cuban doctors. The government has also opened several nearby markets that sell subsidized food to the poor.

There are new literacy programs, and Contreras, who is 47 and hadn't studied beyond third grade, now attends a school built by the government. He hopes to earn a high school degree.

If the opposition has support here, it does not readily show its face other than a handful of "Yes" signs scattered about the neighborhood. The walls of the shantytown and windows in homes are covered with red signs urging a "No" vote in the recall referendum.

"This whole street is Chavista," Contreras said as he led a tour through the neighborhood. "Maybe one in a hundred is for the opposition."

Nationwide, voters are divided over the recall, but in poor neighborhoods like this one, the president appears to have overwhelming support.

The opposition and the Bush administration have attacked Chavez for his close friendship with Cuban leader Fidel Castro, but that relationship doesn't bother poor Venezuelans who receive free treatment at government health clinics from Cuban doctors. Before, the poor had, at best, little access to healthcare.

"Chavez has love for the people," Contreras said. "He was poor and he understands the needs of the poor."

Chavez also benefits from poor Venezuelans' skepticism of his opponents, whom they see as remnants of the country's discarded political past.

Before Chavez won power, two elite parties exchanged power for four decades. Those governments were widely considered corrupt and squandered much of the country's oil wealth.

Nelson Ortiz, a stocky man standing in front of a store where he sells live chickens, said he planned to vote for Chavez.

"There are good things and bad things about the government, but with another president things would be worse," he said. "I have to thank this man because he is the first one who has used our oil for the poor."

Similar sentiments were voiced in a number of other Caracas shantytowns, which have benefited from the same social programs seen in Catia.

People were especially enthusiastic in the January 23 neighborhood, which is dominated by huge, dilapidated apartment buildings built in the late 1950s. From the windows, laundry hangs alongside large banners painted with a popular Chavez campaign slogan, "No al Pasado" ("No to the Past").

"Here, you don't have to ask," a young woman said when asked how she would vote. "Everyone in this neighborhood is with the president."

Nearby, a crowd gathered on a square in front of a neighborhood school where Chavez was expected to vote.

Around noon, the presidential motorcade arrived, leading to a burst of fireworks and cheers from the crowd. As Chavez emerged from a blue sport utility vehicle, people began singing a campaign song, "Uh, Ah, Chavez No Se Va" ("Ooh, Ah, Chavez Isn't Leaving").

Pastora Sivira, a primary school teacher, was among those singing the loudest. "We know he will win," she said. "We have waited for this president for too long to lose him now."

<---Your 2005 SEC Champion University of Georgia Bulldogs

"Brother! Brother!" " He is not your brother.' "what is he then?" "A white man." --Amistad.

I see ya'll house niggas.

"To those who say this is to score political points," he told a shivering crowd when the first oil arrived, "I invite any American corporation that wants to score points with my community to start this afternoon."

To all those who say this is publicity, I find it funny how the richest country in the world can't even provide this level of security to its citizens, even in the name of publicity.

----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

its ours comrade... :)

Because shared reply = collectivist = socialist = communist = terrorist/fascist/requires "liberation"

The last part needs a little explaining, but lack of explanation/presence of a terrible explanation never stopped them before.



----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

<---Your 2005 SEC Champion University of Georgia Bulldogs

"Brother! Brother!" " He is not your brother.' "what is he then?" "A white man." --Amistad.

I see ya'll house niggas.

Disgraceful indeed.



>"To those who say this is to score political points," he told
>a shivering crowd when the first oil arrived, "I invite any
>American corporation that wants to score points with my
>community to start this afternoon."
>
>To all those who say this is publicity, I find it funny how
>the richest country in the world can't even provide this level
>of security to its citizens, even in the name of publicity.

how is stealing oil from a company in venezuela and practicaly giving it away make this man inspiring? how is taking away peoples freedom of speech, then pretending to care about the poor venzuelan farmer inspiring. how is nationalizing Coke, a US based company, inspiring? especially since workers in the US lost jobs over it...

That was under the Manuel Perez-Guerrero presidency, over twenty years before Chavez took office. Before 1976, Venezuelan oil was essentially under U.S. monopoly control. Under the rules of nationalization, the U.S. remains the biggest investor at 14.6% of foreign direct investment, closely followed by the Netherlands at 14.2% and then a long list of Latin American and Caribbean nations. Yes, Chavez has been making overtures to China and India, which he has every right to do. This may alarm the would-be monopolists in the U.S. energy sector (some of whom have offices on Pennsylvania avenue) who get a hard-on wherever there are oil wells, but they've hardly been "robbed". The notion that nationalization is "stealing" is nonsense anyway in the case of natural resources like oil, whose value on the world market far exceeds the capital necessary to build drilling and extraction facilities. We aren't talking about fucking soda pop. I mean, the CIA has backed dictatorial coups in Iran (1953) and Iraq (1963) after their leaders nationalized the oil, which had been owned by an Anglo-American oil condiminium, part of it directly invested in the British Treasury. Would the same be done of Fiji nationalized its coconut groves?


*edit* Also, about the notion that Chavez is cracking down on "freedom of speech" like some left-wing Joe McCarthy: the Venezuelan media is run by Henrique Otero, Gustave Cisnero and a handful of other right-wing moguls. They own all the TV channels and most of the newspapers, and their outlets all supported the failed coup against Chavez in 2002, which the population obviously opposed. Chavez continues to allow these outlets to broadcast in his country. So your argument is, to say the least, not very convincing.

>That was under the Manuel Perez-Guerrero presidency, over
>twenty years before Chavez took office. Before 1976,
>Venezuelan oil was essentially under U.S. monopoly control.
>Under the rules of nationalization, the U.S. remains the
>biggest investor at 14.6% of foreign direct investment,
>closely followed by the Netherlands at 14.2% and then a long
>list of Latin American and Caribbean nations. Yes, Chavez has
>been making overtures to China and India, which he has every
>right to do. This may alarm the would-be monopolists in the
>U.S. energy sector (some of whom have offices on Pennsylvania
>avenue) who get a hard-on wherever there are oil wells, but
>they've hardly been "robbed". The notion that nationalization
>is "stealing" is nonsense anyway in the case of natural
>resources like oil, whose value on the world market far
>exceeds the capital necessary to build drilling and extraction
>facilities. We aren't talking about fucking soda pop. I mean,
>the CIA has backed dictatorial coups in Iran (1953) and Iraq
>(1963) after their leaders nationalized the oil, which had
>been owned by an Anglo-American oil condiminium, part of it
>directly invested in the British Treasury. Would the same be
>done of Fiji nationalized its coconut groves?


but he hasnt change anything. so when he sells oil that isnt by right his, he is stealing it. nationalizing is robbing because it turns private property over to the public. it is taking something of value from someone by force against that persons will. that is the definition of stealing. nationalizing is just the public saying its ok, or better yet, the govt saying the public says its ok.

>
>*edit* Also, about the notion that Chavez is cracking down on
>"freedom of speech" like some left-wing Joe McCarthy: the
>Venezuelan media is run by Henrique Otero, Gustave Cisnero and
>a handful of other right-wing moguls. They own all the TV
>channels and most of the newspapers, and their outlets all
>supported the failed coup against Chavez in 2002, which the
>population obviously opposed. Chavez continues to allow these
>outlets to broadcast in his country. So your argument is, to
>say the least, not very convincing.

uh...you are not allowed to publicly campaign for office in venezuela. yes, you are allowed to express your political opinions but then how is someone who opposes chavez supposed to run for office when you cant publicly campaign...that being said private media outlets can rant and rave all they want about chavez injustice but nothing can ever be done about it.

...but it was carried out with OPEC supervision, under the auspices of the Venezuelan Petroleum Corporation (Corporación Venezolana de Petróleos), the brainchild of the Venezuelan national hero Rómulo Ernesto Betancourt Bello. It did not involve the siezing of foreign assets (I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary, btw), but the gradual phasing out of monopoly foreign oil concessions, starting with the 50% share granted to J. Paul Getty's Pacific Western under the corrupt Jimenez dictatorship.

But let's say that it had been illegal (although it wasn't), and let's judge foreign leaders by their fidelity to U.S. corporate investment in their countries. Who comes out on top? A bunch of murdeous military dictators: General Haji Mohammad Suharto (Indonesia), General Augusto Pinochet (Chile), Shah Reza Palavi (Iran), Rafael Trujillo (The Dominican Republic), Anastasio Somoza Portocarrero (Nicaragua), and dozens of others. Google those names, fox, and tell me what you find. U.S. corporations made a killing while they were making many, many killings, and it's shocking that you're not more incensed about that than Chavez's insufficient fealty to U.S. oil companies. Really, where are your morals?

>...but it was carried out with OPEC supervision, under the
>auspices of the Venezuelan Petroleum Corporation (Corporación
>Venezolana de Petróleos), the brainchild of the Venezuelan
>national hero Rómulo Ernesto Betancourt Bello. It did not
>involve the siezing of foreign assets (I challenge you to
>provide evidence to the contrary, btw), but the gradual
>phasing out of monopoly foreign oil concessions, starting with
>the 50% share granted to J. Paul Getty's Pacific Western under
>the corrupt Jimenez dictatorship.
>
>But let's say that it had been illegal (although it wasn't),
>and let's judge foreign leaders by their fidelity to U.S.
>corporate investment in their countries. Who comes out on top?
>A bunch of murdeous military dictators: General Haji Mohammad
>Suharto (Indonesia), General Augusto Pinochet (Chile), Shah
>Reza Palavi (Iran), Rafael Trujillo (The Dominican Republic),
>Anastasio Somoza Portocarrero (Nicaragua), and dozens of
>others. Google those names, fox, and tell me what you find.
>U.S. corporations made a killing while they were making many,
>many killings, and it's shocking that you're not more incensed
>about that than Chavez's insufficient fealty to U.S. oil
>companies. Really, where are your morals?

you can call it whatever you want and give it whatever definition you want, but he seized oil that was not his. if bush did that in this country you know there would be insanity.

>you can call it whatever you want and give it whatever
>definition you want, but he seized oil that was not his. if
>bush did that in this country you know there would be
>insanity.

In respect of oil, do you not think the US will benefit from the occupation of Iraq?

>>you can call it whatever you want and give it whatever
>>definition you want, but he seized oil that was not his. if
>>bush did that in this country you know there would be
>>insanity.
>
>In respect of oil, do you not think the US will benefit from
>the occupation of Iraq?

of course the US will benefit from the occupation of iraq. not just in terms of oil, but in also in regards to military bases and the like. believe me when i say oil was not the top reason to go to iraq. when iran keeps saying shit like the jews need to be vaporized one has to worry especially since they say they are close to nuclear capabilities. yea its nice to liberate a country that will help supply our country oil but given the immense improvements in technology just in the past 10 years we can look forward to a world where oil is no longer worth going to war over. this is why i believe the US wants to free the iraqi people not take all the oil.

>this is why i believe the US wants to
>free the iraqi people not take all the oil.

Really dude, get over yourself.

The Iraqis never needed the U.S.
to give them freedom since it is
something they could've fought
for on their own, had we not weak-
ened the general population with
eleven years of sanctions.

Further, U.S. subsidies increased
right around the time Hussein was
gassing the hell out of the Kurdish
population, therefore, your beloved
"democratic" heros in Washington never
had any intentions of liberating the
Iraqi people.

The funny thing is, everyone this side
of the universe is well aware of this
but you.

>
>>this is why i believe the US wants to
>>free the iraqi people not take all the oil.
>
>Really dude, get over yourself.
>
>The Iraqis never needed the U.S.
>to give them freedom since it is
>something they could've fought
>for on their own, had we not weak-
>ened the general population with
>eleven years of sanctions.

right...did you see iraq before the first gulf war? obviously not.

>
>Further, U.S. subsidies increased
>right around the time Hussein was
>gassing the hell out of the Kurdish
>population, therefore, your beloved
>"democratic" heros in Washington never
>had any intentions of liberating the
>Iraqi people.

that was then, this is now. your logic is severely flawed as always.

>
>The funny thing is, everyone this side
>of the universe is well aware of this
>but you.

what side of the universe? the one where all the morons live? honestly dont bother replying to my posts unless you choose to make cognitive sense. thanks.

>right...did you see iraq before the first gulf war? obviously
>not.

Um, yeah I did, what about it?

>>Further, U.S. subsidies increased
>>right around the time Hussein was
>>gassing the hell out of the Kurdish
>>population, therefore, your beloved
>>"democratic" heros in Washington never
>>had any intentions of liberating the
>>Iraqi people.
>
>that was then, this is now. your logic is severely flawed as
>always.

My "logic"... Hell outta here
with that horsecrap.

Yeah, that was "then", hotshot...
And there's a common thread that
runs through the past to the present:
U.S. motives.

If you would have me to believe
for one moment that by some quirk
of nature the U.S. just suddenly
decided to care about Iraqis, your
dumber than you already portray your-
self.

Let's examine the U.S. government's
legacy in Iraq. It warmly supported
Hussein during his most brutal acts
of genocide, and supplied him with
duel-use technology right up until
the invasion of Kuwait (Great Britain
as well).

And your assertion is that Washington
one day decided that after all the mass
murders, it felt morally compelled to
help Iraqis make a transition to a
democratic regime? Do better.

On the contrary, guru, Washington
decided to rid the Middle East of
Hussein after he decided he no
longer wanted to be a client of U.S.
"interests" -- much like Noreaga.

This is well understood in Washington
and had been reported in the foreign
press for years. Institutions and
Middle East experts you call morons,
'Mr. Foreign Affairs' expert.

>>right...did you see iraq before the first gulf war?
>obviously
>>not.
>
>Um, yeah I did, what about it?

you couldnt say or do shit without a thousand saddam spies waiting to jump on your ass. how you gonna revolt for freedom when the majority are too scared to take a shit without asking.

>
>>>Further, U.S. subsidies increased
>>>right around the time Hussein was
>>>gassing the hell out of the Kurdish
>>>population, therefore, your beloved
>>>"democratic" heros in Washington never
>>>had any intentions of liberating the
>>>Iraqi people.
>>
>>that was then, this is now. your logic is severely flawed as
>>always.
>
>My "logic"... Hell outta here
>with that horsecrap.
>
>Yeah, that was "then", hotshot...
>And there's a common thread that
>runs through the past to the present:
>U.S. motives.
>
>If you would have me to believe
>for one moment that by some quirk
>of nature the U.S. just suddenly
>decided to care about Iraqis, your
>dumber than you already portray your-
>self.
>
>Let's examine the U.S. government's
>legacy in Iraq. It warmly supported
>Hussein during his most brutal acts
>of genocide, and supplied him with
>duel-use technology right up until
>the invasion of Kuwait (Great Britain
>as well).
>
>And your assertion is that Washington
>one day decided that after all the mass
>murders, it felt morally compelled to
>help Iraqis make a transition to a
>democratic regime? Do better.
>
>On the contrary, guru, Washington
>decided to rid the Middle East of
>Hussein after he decided he no
>longer wanted to be a client of U.S.
>"interests" -- much like Noreaga.
>
>This is well understood in Washington
>and had been reported in the foreign
>press for years. Institutions and
>Middle East experts you call morons,
>'Mr. Foreign Affairs' expert.

yea apparently you dont get the point of changing presidents every 4-8 years. could it be that one administrations views on the world could be different than the next?

>you couldnt say or do shit without a thousand saddam spies
>waiting to jump on your ass. how you gonna revolt for freedom
>when the majority are too scared to take a shit without
>asking.

Man, you are dumb as a second coat
of paint.

It wasn't fear that precluded the
Iraqis from revolting against the
Hussein regime, rather it was U.S.
military and financial support that
continued to strengthen Saddam's
grip on power, thereby impeding any
chance of an overthrow by the general
population.

And let's not split hairs, based on
a consistent and systematic pattern
of U.S. support for Middle Eastern
dictatorial regimes, Washington never
had any intention of allowing ordinary
Iraqis to chart their own destiny.

>yea apparently you don't get the point of changing presidents
>every 4-8 years. Could it be that one administrations views on
>the world could be different from the next?

You know what's really sad (but no
doubt comforting to you)? Most U.S.
citizens think exactly like you.

You honestly believe that a change in
presidential administrations changes
multinational corporate policy on a
large scale level?

No doubt Jimmy Carter's views on social
spending maybe have been radically different
from Ronald Reagan's, but that's fairly
inconsequential when ruling elites at a
high level of influence dictate domestic
and foreign policy.

There's some pretty good research on this
done by the likes of social researchers
like C. Wright Mills and Robert Dahl.

he also has a mandate from the majority of the population to engage in his policies. Its called democracy homes. Its not like in America where leaders do whatever the fuck they want. Besides, the workers of Venezuala who produce all the wealth of that country have all the right to decide what happens with their resources, not these investors whose wealth is derived from the labour of others.

>he also has a mandate from the majority of the population to
>engage in his policies.

But can you provide me with a source for this please?

>Besides, the workers of Venezuala who produce all the wealth
>of that country have all the right to decide what happens with
>their resources, not these investors whose wealth is derived
>from the labour of others.

But I assume there are floated companies in Venezuala. Doesn't this contradict the idea that the workers have a say in the distribution of resources/wealth?

>he also has a mandate from the majority of the population to
>engage in his policies. Its called democracy homes.

its called tyranny of the majority. freedom is freedom, it doesnt come with a mandate from the majority. if you really believe that then you have to accept that socialists are the minority in this country and if the majority sees fit you can be imprisoned for no reason other than being a douchebag.


Its not
>like in America where leaders do whatever the fuck they want.

whatever they want? our system isnt perfect because there is too much govt. that is what socialism is, lots of govt.

>Besides, the workers of Venezuala who produce all the wealth
>of that country have all the right to decide what happens with
>their resources, not these investors whose wealth is derived
>from the labour of others.

who says? if i own an oil company it is mine. i have absolute say over how much i pay workers and who i do business with. thats what makes me the owner. i took the risk, i did the investing and leg work, i got people to work at the oil company in the first place. the workers job is to work, that is what they are paid for. if they dont want to work they dont have too. they can go try and dig their own oil. pretty simple.

>whatever they want? our system isnt perfect because there is too much govt. that is what socialism is, lots of govt.



----------------------------
Some of my photos from Cuba:
www.flickr.com/photos/workshopvisuals/sets/729092/

www.printroom.com/pro/workshop

www.myspace.com/rawsouthpaw

MORALLY SPEAKING: What is the real difference between a country nationalizing the properties (of foreign and hostile nations) and our own country displacing thousands of people from their homes EVERY DAY for property development & company infrastructure in the name of "the greater good"? (see: Chicago-Cabrini Green & other PJs, ATL-Olympics, PJs, and new Hartsfield Runway, etc...)

>MORALLY SPEAKING: What is the real difference between a
>country nationalizing the properties (of foreign and hostile
>nations) and our own country displacing thousands of people
>from their homes EVERY DAY for property development & company
>infrastructure in the name of "the greater good"? (see:
>Chicago-Cabrini Green & other PJs, ATL-Olympics, PJs, and new
>Hartsfield Runway, etc...)

there is none! that is why i oppose any govt use of force on the people. you cant go around saying, well this policy is good and this one isnt. just because our republic democracy says its ok doesnt make it so.

Their personhood is granted by the govenrn. The government gives them their rights. Artificial people or persons do not have inalienable rights.

-----------------------------------
"I don't blame Tiger Woods, but I overstand the mental poison that's even worse than drugs" -nas poison

"Fuck the Lone Ranger. Where's Tanto. That's underground." -KRS ONE

>you can call it whatever you want and give it whatever
>definition you want, but he seized oil that was not his. if
>bush did that in this country you know there would be
>insanity.

>>you can call it whatever you want and give it whatever
>>definition you want, but he seized oil that was not his. if
>>bush did that in this country you know there would be
>>insanity.
>
nah that wasnt me. any govt policy or action that impedes the freedom of a human being is unjust and must be severely dealt with in a court of law or through war to preserve the right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

----------------------------
Some of my photos from Cuba:
www.flickr.com/photos/workshopvisuals/sets/729092/

www.printroom.com/pro/workshop

www.myspace.com/rawsouthpaw

>...but it was carried out with OPEC supervision, under the
>auspices of the Venezuelan Petroleum Corporation (Corporación
>Venezolana de Petróleos), the brainchild of the Venezuelan
>national hero Rómulo Ernesto Betancourt Bello. It did not
>involve the siezing of foreign assets (I challenge you to
>provide evidence to the contrary, btw), but the gradual
>phasing out of monopoly foreign oil concessions, starting with
>the 50% share granted to J. Paul Getty's Pacific Western under
>the corrupt Jimenez dictatorship.

I'll bet you anything from a
diddle-dad Joe to a damned if
I know, he wasn't even slightly
aware of this fact, which is
why he never bothered to provide
a solid retort.

>I challenge you to
>provide evidence to the contrary, btw

From dollars to donuts, he won't
accept the challenge (just read
his response). LOL!

n/m

>nationalizing is robbing

- Those fuckers at the post office are stealing from me!

The man is helping those he said he'd help.And who need it most.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for him.
____________________
www.myspace.com/chamilton


Home - is where I want to be
But I guess I'm already there
I come home - -she lifted up her wings
Guess that this must be the place

I don't understand. Are you suggesting it is criminal to agree with his policies or criminal to disagree?