Chavez steals millions from foreign companies.

[Agathon]

The whole reason for the popularity of Chavez and the general leftward shift in Latin America is the continued shafting of the common man.

Who are you sir, and what have you done with our friend, MichaeltheGreat??!!!?!!!

I agree. Chavez' popularity is solely due to the fact he's the only Venezuelan leader I can think of who's actually done something for the ordinary Joe and Janes.

And, he's not a communist. He's really just a New Dealer.

My own view is that he's no economic wizard and there probably is a lot that could be done better in Venezuela. But it's better to keep someone who tries to do the right thing not so well, than someone who will enact policies that **** over the poor and enact them with brutal efficiency.

Anyway, poor people in Philly have Chavez to thank for heating their homes.

[Dinner]

Ok dumbass. Here is a BBC article which shows the output at exactly what I've said it to be. It is older (from 2002) but it perfectly shows the trends and backs up the numbers from the other website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2549589.stm

Face the facts.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by techumseh
My source was not the site you say. It was linked in an article on a site by the Centre for Media and Democracy, here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stratfor

So you're saying a wiki site (that anyone, anywhere can edit as they wish) directly quoting a biased blog is a more reliable source than said blog?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Ok dumbass. Here is a BBC article which shows the output at exactly what I've said it to be. It is older (from 2002) but it perfectly shows the trends and backs up the numbers from the other website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2549589.stm

Face the facts.

There's no need to call people names, Oerdin.

So, I guess I'll have to face the fact that you can't come up with any reliable stats to back up your argument that oil production is declining in Venezuela since the US instigated oil strike. You do know that the strike started at the END of 2002, the last year shown on your graph, right? So it doesn't indicate crude oil production increases SINCE the strike ended.

I was curious about the source of the stats on the (outdated) BBC article. It indicates that the EIA is the source. It turns out this is the Energy Information Agency of the US government. http://www.eia.doe.gov/ Of course, I'm sure it's completely free of bias.

[notyoueither]

You're relying on a blog and impugning the BBC? You don't think they think about their sources and do a little more verification than 'pfff, that was a US govmint stat, it must be ****e'?

You are a wonder, techumseh.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Darius871


So you're saying a wiki site (that anyone, anywhere can edit as they wish) directly quoting a biased blog is a more reliable source than said blog?

I didn't realize at first that it was a wiki site. I didn't post it as an absolute authority, but rather to provide a critique of Stratfor, lest people fall into Oerdin's trap and take Stratfor's pronouncements at face value. People can evaluate the arguments on the site (and it's links) and make up their own mind.

[notyoueither]

Incidently, OPEC accepts the pie in the sky numbers all of it's member states report, like Saudi Oil reserves which are likely far lower in reality.

Accepting OPEC numbers on oil would be like accepting big tobacco information on cigarettes. Can you say self-interest?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You're relying on a blog and impugning the BBC? You don't think they think about their sources and do a little more verification than 'pfff, that was a US govmint stat, it must be ****e'?

You are a wonder, techumseh.

I do more research and provide more backup for my arguments than you ever have, nye. It doesn't even occur to you to question the source of information provided by mass media. You'd rather regurgitate the media lines you're fed than come up with your own ideas.

[notyoueither]

You prefer a blog to the BBC?

[Saras]

at thread

[techumseh]

Here's source you might find more to your taste: the CIA factbook, which estimates 3.081 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
:http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/ve.html

Here's Oerdin's "expert" (that anesthesiologist guy):

The official oil production from Venezuela is pegged at 3.2 million barrels per day. According to intelligence service Stratfor.com, independent analysts, including OPEC's own, estimate that the actual figure is more like 2.6 million barrels.

The discrepancy is nearly half a million barrels a day. Who ya gonna trust - the good old CIA, or some wannabe private intelligence outfit?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by techumseh
I didn't realize at first that it was a wiki site. I didn't post it as an absolute authority, but rather to provide a critique of Stratfor, lest people fall into Oerdin's trap and take Stratfor's pronouncements at face value. People can evaluate the arguments on the site (and it's links) and make up their own mind.

I don't think anyone reasonable would take stratfor's word as gospel, but they're certainly no less reliable than the OPEC stats you posted, which simply regurgitate Venezuela's "official" stats (about as objective a source as Bill O'Reilly).

Can either side provide something both definitive and up-to-date please?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by techumseh


There's no need to call people names, Oerdin.

So, I guess I'll have to face the fact that you can't come up with any reliable stats to back up your argument that oil production is declining in Venezuela since the US instigated oil strike. You do know that the strike started at the END of 2002, the last year shown on your graph, right? So it doesn't indicate crude oil production increases SINCE the strike ended.

I was curious about the source of the stats on the (outdated) BBC article. It indicates that the EIA is the source. It turns out this is the Energy Information Agency of the US government. http://www.eia.doe.gov/ Of course, I'm sure it's completely free of bias.

EIA is pretty damned reliable, yup.

Do you also question US Census data?

[Imran Siddiqui]

He questions anything within a 100 mile radius of the US government or a US corporation, while he wears his tin foil helmet and tries to convince the rest of the world of his conspiracy theories.

So the answer is probably yes.

[techumseh]

And you Imran, never have the courage to take on the main argument, and are merely content to wait for an opening to jump in with your little putdowns. You're gutless.