Venezuela's Chavez Signs Cheap Oil Deal with Massachusetts

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Theben


Considering the circumstances, that's would've been an exellent idea.

But Vermont's poor are just poor. And poor in a 1st world nation.

Venezuela's poor are really ****ing poor, and poor in the 3rd world sense.

Sticking it to Bush can be fun but 1) it's hardly needed, and 2) your own people will remember your grandstanding while they are still in poverty. Let's see, which would stick it to the capitalists more: A. a communist regime that uses it's sudden wealth badly or, B. a communist regime that provides for all it's people, in that they are all healthly, weathly, and well-educated?

Venezuelan's poor don't freeze to death. They don't starve.

Your arguments are patently false. This is not a "Communist Regime" using its sudden wealth badly. This is the only oil refining business in the US who is giving a little back to the people; that it happens to be owned by a foreign country should be an embarrassment. That it happens to be owned by a harsh critic of Bush is just plain funny.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

The lying charge is

but not for the capitalist US companies who lied to Congress last week.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Section. 10.

Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

And an economic deal is which one of those now?

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
but not for the capitalist US companies who lied to Congress last week.

Sorry, misunderstood which lie...

They lied about meeting with Cheney's energy panel at the White House...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Theben
Considering the circumstances, that's would've been an exellent idea.

But Vermont's poor are just poor. And poor in a 1st world nation.

Venezuela's poor are really ****ing poor, and poor in the 3rd world sense.

Sticking it to Bush can be fun but 1) it's hardly needed, and 2) your own people will remember your grandstanding while they are still in poverty. Let's see, which would stick it to the capitalists more: A. a communist regime that uses it's sudden wealth badly or, B. a communist regime that provides for all it's people, in that they are all healthly, weathly, and well-educated?

C) a communist regime that can correctly use "its" and "it's"

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And an economic deal is which one of those now?

How is a deal directly between the State of Massachusetts and Venezuala (which this actually isn't, AIUI) not a treaty at least in spirit?

[JohnT]

JohnT's post was so misinformed that we did him the favor of ignoring it. (The fuel will still be delivered by Americans; Citizens Energy has been delivering fuel to needy families for many years, etc.)

Well, no ****ing duh, TMM, the point is it won't be delivered by those Americans, who just got purposefully undercut by a grandstanding politician.

Unless they make everything right by subsidizing the oil suppliers on the lost sales because of the Communist subsidy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
How is a deal directly between the State of Massachusetts and Venezuala (which this actually isn't, AIUI) not a treaty at least in spirit?

A treaty? No, I'm sorry, solely economic agreements are not treaties. The only economic agreements that can be considered treaties are those that that require a change in law (such as NAFTA - though under US law, NAFTA is not considered a treaty).

Treaties are political agreements. Economic deals are not (even if there is some politics behind the scenes.. such as buying oil from X country to show support for them).

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Theben


Considering the circumstances, that's would've been an exellent idea.

But Vermont's poor are just poor. And poor in a 1st world nation.

Venezuela's poor are really ****ing poor, and poor in the 3rd world sense.

Sticking it to Bush can be fun but 1) it's hardly needed, and 2) your own people will remember your grandstanding while they are still in poverty. Let's see, which would stick it to the capitalists more: A. a communist regime that uses it's sudden wealth badly or, B. a communist regime that provides for all it's people, in that they are all healthly, weathly, and well-educated?

This is chock full of assumptions, eg. the state of the poor in Vermont and Venezuela. It also ignores the foreign policy issues which are driving the whole thing. Chavez, under threat of an American engineered coup or even invasion, is trying to build a base of support among the American people.

Second, in an alliance with Fidel Castro, he is directly competing with American economic plans for Latin America. This gesture will have enormous impact among the masses in the region, who will see it as a demonstration of moral superiority over the US. Castro tried the same strategy with Cuban doctors after Katrina. Chavez just has something the US wants more. I think it's a brilliant foreign policy move.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by techumseh


This is chock full of assumptions, eg. the state of the poor in Vermont and Venezuela. It also ignores the foreign policy issues which are driving the whole thing. Chavez, under threat of an American engineered coup or even invasion, is trying to build a base of support among the American people.

But at the same time he's doing it in a state, MA, which isn't exactly pro-Bush or pro-Iraq War anyways. And he's planning on doing it again in New York, which is the same deal.

I think Chavez would be better served to do this in a "red state", where people might actually be forced to rethink some things.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
chavez is awesome

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
but poverty has actually increased during the chavez government, he is not a good administrator

venezuela is blessed with lots of oil, and the prices are ridiculously high now, he should be spending the money in venezuela investing in education, science, why not some mega projects, like dams, you know those things, but he wastes his money in propaganda crap like this.

he has a great chance to do great things for venezuela, he has the money, dont waste it doing this to irritate the americans, or giving castro free oil, or buying bad argentine bonds to be latin americanist friendly.

Thank you for your regional insight. It seems to support my previous, hastily made assumptions.

Oh, and it's pretty amusing to see how liberal Americans are trying to stick it to Bush by rhetorically supporting a corrupt and an incompetent third-world dictator.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by JohnT

JohnT's post was so misinformed that we did him the favor of ignoring it. (The fuel will still be delivered by Americans; Citizens Energy has been delivering fuel to needy families for many years, etc.)

Well, no ****ing duh, TMM, the point is it won't be delivered by those Americans, who just got purposefully undercut by a grandstanding politician.

Unless they make everything right by subsidizing the oil suppliers on the lost sales because of the Communist subsidy.

Shouldn't you be happy that the "Communist" is taking money out of his pocket and putting it in yours?

Who is he undercutting? Not the working class fuel delivery people, as you claim. American delivery drivers still get the same $. CITGO is undercutting the American-owned oil companies who refine and supply the heating fuel. But they should be happy too, because they don't want to sell fuel that cheaply, and in their capitalist system, surely they can't cry foul for a competitor setting their own price?

[Sava]

Originally posted by VJ

Thank you for your regional insight. It seems to support my previous, hastily made assumptions.

Oh, and it's pretty amusing to see how liberal Americans are trying to stick it to Bush by rhetorically supporting a corrupt and an incompetent third-world dictator.

He is not a dictator.

Chavez was democratically elected... TWICE

He was elected in elections that were probably more legitimate and less corrupt than what happened in Florida during the 2000 election. And he has more public support among his population than Bush does in America.

but since you mention it, I think Chavez is awesome because he is an amusing character... not because of his politics.

I don't follow Venezuelan politics, so I can't really comment on how he is running his country. However, all things being equal, I'd rather see Chavez in power than a right-wing leader. At least with Chavez I think he is genuinely interested in improving the lives of his people. Honestly, I don't think he will be able to improve things for Venezuela that much. But that is because Venezuela is a poor country. Period. No leader will change that, left-wing, right-wing, etc...

I don't understand why dumbass rightwingers hate Chavez so much. He's the President of Venezuela. It's not like this is an important country we are talking about.

It is just amusing to watch the righties' heads spin when Chavez does something.

[Ramo]

I like how he derides capitalism while at the same time being a member of a cartel which tries to keep the price of oil as high as possible.

Not really. OPEC primarily tries to achieve stable oil prices, not high oil prices.