BAC'S boy chavez stealing more companies

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...

How do you piss off a bridge??
What do you do; insult it's girders, call it a footpath, compare it to the Golden Gate Bridge??
 
Taichiliberal said:
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.



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?
Click to expand...

Your question is irrelevant, as the Venezuelan government can pass a law claiming all private property now belongs to the state. History is littered with instances were states have denied rights to its people, even basic ones that we here in the US have found to be unalienable, and as long as they do it legislatively haven't broken any laws.

Your question should be, has Chavez denied his citizens unalienable rights? Te right to own property and do with it you see fit is one such right, and he has obviously violated that.
 
Southern Man said:
Your question is irrelevant, Just as I thought....you can't prove a damned thing. Just another willfully ignorant neocon clod who thinks his ideology, supposition and conjecture and beliefs are a substitute for facts and logic. So the rest of your bullshit is just that...bullshit. You're finished here, chump. Tell it to another neocon parrot who cares.... as the Venezuelan government can pass a law claiming all private property now belongs to the state. History is littered with instances were states have denied rights to its people, even basic ones that we here in the US have found to be unalienable, and as long as they do it legislatively haven't broken any laws.

Your question should be, has Chavez denied his citizens unalienable rights? Te right to own property and do with it you see fit is one such right, and he has obviously violated that.
Click to expand...

Say goodnight, gracie...shows over for you.
 
Whomever said:
In you opinion, others opinions may differ.
Click to expand...

then those opinions would be wrong.

governments only grant privileges. point blank and period.

rights belong to us simply for being alive.

to believe otherwise is submitting yourself to nothing more than the whims of those appointed above you.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
then those opinions would be wrong.

governments only grant privileges. point blank and period.

rights belong to us simply for being alive.

to believe otherwise is submitting yourself to nothing more than the whims of those appointed above you.
Click to expand...


That sounds socialistic. We have rights just for being born?
Yes we do if our govt and society grant those to us.
 
Whomever said:
That sounds socialistic. We have rights just for being born?
Yes we do if our govt and society grant those to us.
Click to expand...

don't try the newspeak, you don't do it well at all.

you have rights just for being alive. that 'right to life' and all.

if you want to live in a country where government grants rights, go live in England.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
don't try the newspeak, you don't do it well at all.

you have rights just for being alive. that 'right to life' and all.

if you want to live in a country where government grants rights, go live in England.
Click to expand...

OK tell me where is this all written down for all persons having certain rights for being born?
 
if you want to live in a country where government grants rights, go live in England.

so you argree they are not inalienable rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top