Is a 2 term max for a president un-democratic?

[Johnny]

The way I see it is that its not democratic for a president to be limited to 2 terms. For me what it says is not "You can only run twice" It says to me "You the people are only allowed to vote on this person twice.

Its taking away the peoples right to vote for him

At the same time any president that is elected a second time has 4 years as the countrys leader with nothing to lose. 4 whole years where he does'nt have to be worried about what the people thinks of him as he cannot be elected again.

Although the idea is nice that we will be rid of Bush soon. I cant help but wonder what he will do his last weeks in office.

[Gertlex]

Although the idea is nice that we will be rid of Bush soon. I cant help but wonder what he will do his last weeks in office.

Ohh this sounds like fun.

I think he'll legalize *** chimp marriage.

[thejdawg2]

You mean...un-republican? As you elected leaders are by-products of republics?

See what I did there?

[{KOW}Spazed]

We can impeach Presidents we don't like, they can be removed from power.

The limit is to stop any one person from having too much power in the grand scheme of things and entrenching his ideals too deeply in government/law.

It does take away from true democracy, but no one has ever really had a true democracy.

[TakeMyCrabs]

We can impeach Presidents we don't like, they can be removed from power.

The limit is to stop any one person from having too much power in the grand scheme of things and entrenching his ideals too deeply in government/law.

It does take away from true democracy, but no one has ever really had a true democracy.

Wouldn't true democracy be defined as anarchy?


I believe that limitation has it's benefits. Just look at Putin and voter fraud which is a result of his regime's power which has increased waaaay more than it should've because he stayed in office for so long.

[garublador]

We can impeach Presidents we don't like, they can be removed from power.
I could be wrong, but I don't think you can impeach a President just because you don't like their policy. I thought they had to actually do something illegal to be impeached.

The President only has so much power. If he starts straying too much then the other two brances of the government have things they can do to overrule him. Remember government class, checks and balences.

The two term limit is somewhat undemocratic but we aren't really run as a full-on democracy anyway. If the people really like how a President is doing his job then the next President will most likely have many of the same policies as his predecesor.

[Merick]

I think presidents should have 1 6-year term, but not for this reason.

When Clinton and Bush were running for reelection, they spent quite a huge amount of time campaigning. Time not spent doing presidential duties. Not that president seems to be a full time job anyway, months of vacation is more than most people in the country get.

[WildBerry]

The way I see it is that its not democratic for a president to be limited to 2 terms. For me what it says is not "You can only run twice" It says to me "You the people are only allowed to vote on this person twice.

Its taking away the peoples right to vote for him

At the same time any president that is elected a second time has 4 years as the countrys leader with nothing to lose. 4 whole years where he does'nt have to be worried about what the people thinks of him as he cannot be elected again.

Although the idea is nice that we will be rid of Bush soon. I cant help but wonder what he will do his last weeks in office.

So you think we Finns were very democratic in voting the same guy for president 4 times in a row and he would've made it to fifth if his health wouldn't have failed (6-year terms at that)? :laugh:

I don't think it's any more undemocratic than any nature of elected institutions. Not all countries even vote for their president in a direct vote. Although I think it's unnecessary to a degree - on the other hand, I can see it as a precaution against dictatorial cementation of power.

[prion]

Its taking away the peoples right to vote for him



well it was "the people" who implemented this rule so... :tongue:

[AeroJonesy]

It's a check on the system. If the president has been in office for 8 years, he is in a unique position of power to work the next election in his favor.

Look at Venezuela. They elect Chavez and then he uses his position of power to extend his term, and now he's trying to abolish term limits so he can stay in office forever. Term limits give people a choice, and I think it empowers the populace when they know that they are getting a new guy. I'd wager most of the American voters are somewhat excited at the prospect of having a new guy in the White House (even if it's still a Republican). In that sense, I find it more democratic than not having term limits.

[Croup]

I think presidents should have 1 6-year term, but not for this reason.

When Clinton and Bush were running for reelection, they spent quite a huge amount of time campaigning. Time not spent doing presidential duties. Not that president seems to be a full time job anyway, months of vacation is more than most people in the country get.

Better to put limits on the time spent campaigning instead of extending the years in a term. Many democracies will not allow their candidates to start campaigning until two months before the election and that works out just fine.

[Stevinator]

Wouldn't true democracy be defined as anarchy?


I believe that limitation has it's benefits. Just look at Putin and voter fraud which is a result of his regime's power which has increased waaaay more than it should've because he stayed in office for so long.

No. a true democracy would have all citizens voting on every issue. it's impractical, but it would not be called anarchy. Anarchy would be called anarchy. we would call it a true democracy.

The term limits make it easier for the other party to move in every so often.

[S Z]

It's a check on the system. If the president has been in office for 8 years, he is in a unique position of power to work the next election in his favor.

Look at Venezuela. They elect Chavez and then he uses his position of power to extend his term, and now he's trying to abolish term limits so he can stay in office forever. Term limits give people a choice, and I think it empowers the populace when they know that they are getting a new guy. I'd wager most of the American voters are somewhat excited at the prospect of having a new guy in the White House (even if it's still a Republican). In that sense, I find it more democratic than not having term limits.

Isn't that a compelling argument for the adoption of American-style separation of powers rather than term limits on the President period in office? Term limits will always be a moveable feast if the Head of State can get his grubby fingers on a pen to amend the constitution, and so a strong and adversarial legislative branch becomes necessary to stymie his ambitions.

Anyway, given a Presidential system it makes sense to me that term limits should apply to the President. I've always found it curious though that the members of the Supreme Court don't have term limits though given their influence in the nations laws.

[Module88]

Anyway, given a Presidential system it makes sense to me that term limits should apply to the President. I've always found it curious though that the members of the Supreme Court don't have term limits though given their influence in the nations laws.

SCJ's are appointed for life. How would they have a term limit, and more importantly, why should they? Congress has way more influence on the nations laws than the SC does as far as I'm concerned.

[S Z]

SCJ's are appointed for life. How would they have a term limit, and more importantly, why should they? Congress has way more influence on the nations laws than the SC does as far as I'm concerned.

One imagines that a term limit would mean that they were no longer appointed for life. As for why should they have term limits, why not? What inherently makes it okay for an appointed official at the top of the the Court system to have a life term but not an elected official? A Supreme Court Justice is one of nine ultimately charged with interpreting law, a US Governor is one of ~400 (?) deciding on new law or new funding to be passed which can then be vetoed. The difference in influence is open to interpretation but I think we can all agree that both roles are enormously influential in of themselves, and deserve separate justifications as to why they should and shouldn't have term limits.

[I also note that some States specify a term limit for their elected officials in Congress. It would be interesting to know why they have chosen to enact term limits and other States have not.]

All I'm asking for is a justification of the status quo, I'm not really advocating a change. I suspect it may be down to an attempt to safeguard judicial impartiality, but I would have to be convinced of that argument and how it is worthwhile at the loss of accountability.

[AeroJonesy]

One imagines that a term limit would mean that they were no longer appointed for life. As for why should they have term limits, why not? What inherently makes it okay for an appointed official at the top of the the Court system to have a life term but not an elected official? A Supreme Court Justice is one of nine ultimately charged with interpreting law, a US Governor is one of ~400 (?) deciding on new law or new funding to be passed which can then be vetoed. The difference in influence is open to interpretation but I think we can all agree that both roles are enormously influential in of themselves, and deserve separate justifications as to why they should and shouldn't have term limits.

[I also note that some States specify a term limit for their elected officials in Congress. It would be interesting to know why they have chosen to enact term limits and other States have not.]

All I'm asking for is a justification of the status quo, I'm not really advocating a change. I suspect it may be down to an attempt to safeguard judicial impartiality, but I would have to be convinced of that argument and how it is worthwhile at the loss of accountability.

It is to safeguard judicial impartiality. If Supreme Court justices have term limits, do we keep the current system for keeping them in office? Because then you have the danger of having new presidents try to bring in a whole new Supreme Court every term. This would lead to many more inconsistent rulings than the Court issues now, and would create confusion for Congress and state legislatures.

And also don't forget that the executive branch nominates a justice and then the legislative branch confirms the justice. So both sides do have a check on Supreme Court. And it's not like it's "fire and forget" either. Judges don't make the law, they interpret the law. It's not uncommon for a court decision to come down one way, and then have Congress immediately pass a new law or change a law that was in question.

The only time I can think of where Congress can't effectively overrule a Supreme Court decision is when the Court finds a constitutional right that can't be abridged by the state (like in Roe v. Wade). But even this has a check in that if the people don't like it, the Constitution can be amended.

I'm almost starting to wish I had taken a separation of powers class.

[Module88]

One imagines that a term limit would mean that they were no longer appointed for life. As for why should they have term limits, why not? What inherently makes it okay for an appointed official at the top of the the Court system to have a life term but not an elected official? A Supreme Court Justice is one of nine ultimately charged with interpreting law, a US Governor is one of ~400 (?) deciding on new law or new funding to be passed which can then be vetoed. The difference in influence is open to interpretation but I think we can all agree that both roles are enormously influential in of themselves, and deserve separate justifications as to why they should and shouldn't have term limits.

All I'm asking for is a justification of the status quo, I'm not really advocating a change. I suspect it may be down to an attempt to safeguard judicial impartiality, but I would have to be convinced of that argument and how it is worthwhile at the loss of accountability.

The justification? That's easy. Judges, in the US, and the Supreme Court, are supposed to put their foot down when the going gets tough. When the majority believes in doing something that's not Constitutional or not okay (ie. interning Japanese Americans during WWII without evidence, so on), the judges are supposed to step in and do their job, even if that means they rule against the majority.

So what do term limits have to do with that? Imagine if judges had to be elected, or appointed on a regular basis. Then what happens? They have to campaign. They have to curry favor from certain politicians. They are open to outside influence that would affect their ability to make the right call. Instead of saying, "is this Constitutional," they'd have to ask, "is this going to piss off the guy that's responsible for making sure I'm going to be a judge tomorrow"? They would be no better than Congressmen that are open to influence by the masses and corporations when they're supposed to be the last governmental line of defense against unconstitutional actions.

[Dondrei]

Wouldn't true democracy be defined as anarchy?

Not at all, in true democracy the majority rules on all matters. It's like despotism, but without the accountability.


I think presidents should have 1 6-year term, but not for this reason.

When Clinton and Bush were running for reelection, they spent quite a huge amount of time campaigning. Time not spent doing presidential duties. Not that president seems to be a full time job anyway, months of vacation is more than most people in the country get.

Not an entirely terrible idea. Six years is kind of long to go without an election though.


Better to put limits on the time spent campaigning instead of extending the years in a term. Many democracies will not allow their candidates to start campaigning until two months before the election and that works out just fine.

But then they start wriggling around the definition of "campaigning". Our old government spent most of its term shoving political advertising down our throats (at taxpayers' expense) in the guise of informing us about policy changes.


How would they have a term limit, and more importantly, why should they?

I dunno, so they don't think they can do as ****ty a job as they please and no-one can do a thing about it maybe.


It is to safeguard judicial impartiality. If Supreme Court justices have term limits, do we keep the current system for keeping them in office? Because then you have the danger of having new presidents try to bring in a whole new Supreme Court every term. This would lead to many more inconsistent rulings than the Court issues now, and would create confusion for Congress and state legislatures.

Why have the Justices appointed by the executive branch (and approved by the legislative) at all? I say let the judicial branch appoint its own. There are already far better checks and balances in place, I believe you mentioned them. Far from being a check on the judicial branch, appointment has turned into a way for the executive to select ideological allies (which hasn't always worked out for them after all, but still).

[WildBerry]

Not an entirely terrible idea. Six years is kind of long to go without an election though.

Indeed. Evely plopel Japanese man shourd have hald-on at reast evely foul yeals.

[DurfBarian]

Indeed. Evely plopel Japanese man shourd have hald-on at reast evely foul yeals.

That was . . . stupid

OMG JDAWG SIGHTING *takes picture*

[Stevinator]

how about allowing a president to demote them as well as appoint them?

[Stevinator]

Well and here's a good reason to have term limits.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aVKNJK43MiOo&refer=news

[AeroJonesy]

Well and here's a good reason to have term limits.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aVKNJK43MiOo&refer=news



Look at Venezuela. They elect Chavez and then he uses his position of power to extend his term, and now he's trying to abolish term limits so he can stay in office forever. Term limits give people a choice, and I think it empowers the populace when they know that they are getting a new guy. I'd wager most of the American voters are somewhat excited at the prospect of having a new guy in the White House (even if it's still a Republican). In that sense, I find it more democratic than not having term limits.

This guy's a genius!

(I know, it's the third time this month that I've done that.)

[Voorhees]

I don't think Chavez gives a crap what the world or the world bank thinks of him. I actually give him kudos for that. Whether or not that ends well, we'll just have to see I guess.
As far as term limits, ofcourse it's not democratic. Which is not really surprising considering we're not a democracy. Incorporating certain aspects of democracy into a government isn't a bad idea. It can work nicely, but make no mistake, democracy is not freedom friendly. Quite the opposite actually.
That being said, I think terms limits are completely necessary. Look at the senate since we switched them over to popular election without installing term limits to replace of the implied limits already in place. We've got people who are in office 20 or 30 years and represent their constituents very little.
People are stupid and lazy when it comes to voting. Incumbents have very high odds of retaining office just because people are too lazy to inform themselves on how stuff is going and generally end up voting for which ever name is more familiar. It has destroyed the senate and is destroying the country. If presidents were also unlimited, it would be the same sitation and only speed up the downward spiral this country is in.

[llad12]

Is a 2 term max for a president un-democratic?

Term limits are almost as democratic as the "one-man one-vote" electoral college.

[Stevinator]

I don't think Chavez gives a crap what the world or the world bank thinks of him. I actually give him kudos for that. Whether or not that ends well, we'll just have to see I guess.

he may not care what we think, but he's managed to f-up venezuela's oil production, the reason he's making so much on the oil is the price of it--which he doesn't control--he's reduced his output through rampant firings and decimated the state ron oil company. with crude dipping under 90 today, and talk of it coming back down near 80, even some saying near 70, he'll soon be feeling some heat.

Not to mention the 6 hour work day will destroy his productivity. He's stomping all over the things that were working in his country and it can only end badly for him.


This guy's a genius!

(I know, it's the third time this month that I've done that.)

I had totally forgotten that you brought that up. But I am taking the genius comment to heart. I have printed that page and taped to my wall of compliments.

[llad12]

he may not care what we think, but he's managed to f-up venezuela's oil production, the reason he's making so much on the oil is the price of it--which he doesn't control--he's reduced his output through rampant firings and decimated the state ron oil company. with crude dipping under 90 today, and talk of it coming back down near 80, even some saying near 70, he'll soon be feeling some heat.

Not to mention the 6 hour work day will destroy his productivity. He's stomping all over the things that were working in his country and it can only end badly for him.

How dare Chavez nationalize our oil fields! That is so rude! It appears to be time for the CIA to stage another covert coup; get rid of these Pinko Commie scum by whatever means, and return our arrogant upstart neighbor to its rightful place --> a subservient banana republic.

[WildBerry]

That was . . . stupid


Yeah I know.

I just haven't been able to resist those jokes after I realised Japo-Finns actually talk like that - given that our "R" is more pronounced than English. A friend of my wife once sent her family hilveesti telkkuja, and the replacement of the letter made it sound like he wanted to send my in-laws-to-be a load of televisions in stead of greetings.

[Dondrei]

That was . . . stupid

OMG JDAWG SIGHTING *takes picture*

I'm sure he's so solly.

[AeroJonesy]

I had totally forgotten that you brought that up. But I am taking the genius comment to heart. I have printed that page and taped to my wall of compliments.

I was referring to myself. :sad2:

[TakeMyCrabs]

How dare Chavez nationalize our oil fields! That is so rude! It appears to be time for the CIA to stage another covert coup; get rid of these Pinko Commie scum by whatever means, and return our arrogant upstart neighbor to its rightful place --> a subservient banana republic.
So if the people are worse off than they were before (because of significant decrease in efficiency), nationalization of the oil fields is still a good thing?

[llad12]

So if the people are worse off than they were before (because of significant decrease in efficiency), nationalization of the oil fields is still a good thing?

Some might say that it all depends upon your point-of-view.



During Chávez's presidency from 1999 to 2004, per-capita GDP dropped 1–2%, but with the help of rising oil prices, the end of the oil strike, and strong consumption growth, recent economic activity under Chávez has been robust. GDP growth rates were 18% in 2004, 9% in 2005 and 9.6% in the first half of 2006, with the private sector growing at a 10.3% clip.

From 2004 to the first half of 2006, non-petroleum sectors of the economy showed growth rates greater than 10%. Datos reports real income grew by 137% between 2003 and Q1 2006. Official poverty figures dropped by 10%. Some economists argue that this subsidized growth could stop if oil prices decline, but the government argues its budget uses 29$ a barrel and 60 billion dollars in reserves as a cushion for a sudden drop.

Some social scientists and economists claim that the government's reported poverty figures have not fallen in proportion to the country's vast oil revenues in the last two years. The president of Datos said that, although his surveys showed rising incomes because of subsidies and grants, the number of people in the worst living conditions has grown. "The poor of Venezuela are living much better lately and have increased their purchasing power… [but] without being able to improve their housing, education level, and social mobility," he said. "Rather than help [the poor] become stakeholders in the economic system, what [the government has] done is distribute as much oil wealth as possible in missions and social programs."

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez)

But, then again, so what? We don't like Chavez. He cavorts with Fidel. He is a populist and a Pinko. Besides, Chavez is a thief. He is stealing all that oil we found. On top of that, he badmouths the United States and our beloved/esteemed president. Chavez calls us devils and imperialists.

How rude ...

So what if he is right? Who cares anyway? We are the big boys on the block. Teddy Roosevelt knew it. He even admitted it. Gunboat diplomacy worked then. It works now.

Everybody knows what America, the land of the free and home of the brave, does to to people like Chavez. Well, everybody should know. Our record of coups, mayhem, terrorism, and assassinations in Central and South America speaks volumes.

Chavez better keep selling oil or we will get his butt this time around. No more pansy internal CIA-supported coup or crummy recall elections. We will assassinate that lousy little turd next time around and stick in our brand of government.

Pax Americana ... do what we say or we will kill you.



Oh, I almost forgot.



Have a nice day,

Llad :thumbsup:

[WildBerry]

I'm sure he's so solly.

Agleed, vely solly indeed.

[Bortaz]

Man, it's been a while since you've made a post that sweet, llad old buddy. I've missed you.

[AeroJonesy]

Who cares if Venezuela is making lots of money? That doesn't mean it's going to the people. Llad, I find it ironic that you seem to support someone who has taken away more of the people's rights than Bush has done with the Patriot Act. In fact, I find it ironic that any liberal supports Chavez. He butchers his people's rights and the liberals stick up for him. Bush has unwarranted wiretaps and the liberals go crazy. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

[Voorhees]

Chavez does what he does with overwhelming support from his people, however right or wrong you may see it.
Bush does what he does despite the people. See the difference?

[AeroJonesy]

Chavez does what he does with overwhelming support from his people, however right or wrong you may see it.
Bush does what he does despite the people. See the difference?

Chavez has uneducated extremely poor masses.

[Dondrei]

I've never understood left-wingers' double standard when it comes to people from other cultures committing the sins they despise in ours.


Chavez does what he does with overwhelming support from his people, however right or wrong you may see it.
Bush does what he does despite the people. See the difference?

Chavez is a democratic dictator? They're the worst kind.

[Sir EvilFreeSmeg]

Chavez doesn't have the overwhelming support of his people. Ignore what CNN is saying, look at the polls. And try to buy a gallon of milk there. You can't.

Dondrei, you know better. Double standards are all they stand for/against

[Dondrei]

Oh wow, you've converted me!

[AeroJonesy]

And try to buy a gallon of milk there. You can't.

That's becomes it comes in 2-liter boxes. Stupid Parmalat.

[SaroDarksbane]

I think people should be able to elect the same person as many times as they want.

I also think the system needs to be set up in such a way that the person in charge can't legally manipulate the vote (See: Redistricting).

How dare Chavez nationalize our oil fields!
You just wait 'till Mexico nationalizes the San Sebastian line. James is going to be blindsided by it.

[Voorhees]

Chavez doesn't have the overwhelming support of his people. Ignore what CNN is saying, look at the polls. And try to buy a gallon of milk there. You can't.

Dondrei, you know better. Double standards are all they stand for/against
As if I would watch CNN. And I NEVER pay attention to polls. Polls only have the POTENTIAL to work when integrity is involved, not when people are trying to make a point and poll accordingly. Besides, if your not going to trust the democratic process of elections, why are you going to put so much faith in the democratic process of polls?
I was judging by the fact that people have tried to take him from power and his people fought to get him back in.
That's not just electing someone, that's meaning it.

Chavez has uneducated extremely poor masses.
In America, we may not be poor, but don't mistake our masses for being well educated.
And did you ever stop to think that this might be why so many people in Latin
America hate us? This arrogance that for some reason we are more prepared to make the right judgments of their situations than they are. They don't like us. They don't want to live like us. And they certainly don't want our input, forced or otherwise, about how to go about their business. They don't want our black ops coups. They don't want our financial pressures. They don't want to be part of the corporate world bank world that we so desperately want everyone to conform to. In fact, I think we can thank our actions in Columbia over the years for the complete lack of cooperation from Venezuela. I mean, who wants there elected officials to be puppets for another country?
If we truly want relative world peace, I mean really want it and not just say we want it, then we are going to have to stop trying to assimilate everyone into our way of doing things and have a little respect for other cultures and their sovereignty, no matter how stupid or barbaric you may see it.

[AeroJonesy]

In America, we may not be poor, but don't mistake our masses for being well educated.
And did you ever stop to think that this might be why so many people in Latin
America hate us? This arrogance that for some reason we are more prepared to make the right judgments of their situations than they are.

If the vast majority of Americans were dirt poor, they'd vote for whoever promised them money. And Chavez has control of the military and has removed the rights of citizens. They put him in office on his promises and he is taking away their power to do anything about it should he fail to meet those promises.

edit: Why do so many liberals put blind faith in the fact that someone was elected? If putting blinders on makes you happy, go for it, but don't get up in arms when someone looks at the whole picture and dares to criticize you.

[buttershug]

edit: Why do so many liberals put blind faith in the fact that someone was elected? If putting blinders on makes you happy, go for it, but don't get up in arms when someone looks at the whole picture and dares to criticize you.

I think you are skirting pretty close to invoking Godwin's rule.

[AeroJonesy]

This has nothing to do with Nazis.

Crap, now I have satisfied the rule, I think.

[buttershug]

This has nothing to do with Nazis.

Crap, now I have satisfied the rule, I think.

Blind faith in someone elected?
Usually when someone wants to give an example of an evil person that was elected, they name Hitler.

I'm sure either you or Dondrei will explain why he's not a good example to use.

And I should have said incited not invoked.

[Stevinator]

Some might say that it all depends upon your point-of-view.



Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez)

But, then again, so what? We don't like Chavez. He cavorts with Fidel. He is a populist and a Pinko. Besides, Chavez is a thief. He is stealing all that oil we found. On top of that, he badmouths the United States and our beloved/esteemed president. Chavez calls us devils and imperialists.

How rude ...

So what if he is right? Who cares anyway? We are the big boys on the block. Teddy Roosevelt knew it. He even admitted it. Gunboat diplomacy worked then. It works now.

Everybody knows what America, the land of the free and home of the brave, does to to people like Chavez. Well, everybody should know. Our record of coups, mayhem, terrorism, and assassinations in Central and South America speaks volumes.

Chavez better keep selling oil or we will get his butt this time around. No more pansy internal CIA-supported coup or crummy recall elections. We will assassinate that lousy little turd next time around and stick in our brand of government.

Pax Americana ... do what we say or we will kill you.



Oh, I almost forgot.



Have a nice day,

Llad :thumbsup:

Llad, all of that growth is because of this:

http://www.wtrg.com/daily/crudeoilprice.html
Not because redistribution works

And some heavy borrowing at some terrible rates:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aVKNJK43MiOo&refer=news

And doesn't factor in the inflation rate (whoops! you must've forgot)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html#Econ

In fact, they've had rampant inflation since he got there.
http://www.latin-focus.com/content/countries/ven_gifs/vencpi.gif
Ouch! it doesn't get under 20% very often.

and people are not going to want to continue to work with a guy that does this:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071130/NATION/711300324/1020
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2840333020071128
some clever lines, I thought. but hardly friendly. here's the long story if you're interested.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200711190214.html

In fact, they may not even let them into MercoSur
http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=12010&formato=HTML

Come on Llad, I've seen you do better.

Anyway, Chavez is a nut and he's tearing the country apart. It's obvious. He's not even your type of lefty. Why defend him?

[AeroJonesy]

Steve, don't forget that Chavez has changed the name of the country, changed the coat of arms (and these necessitated printing new money to reflect the changes), and he's putting Venezuela in its own time zone.

[Stevinator]

Steve, don't forget that Chavez has changed the name of the country, changed the coat of arms (and these necessitated printing new money to reflect the changes), and he's putting Venezuela in its own time zone.

all of those articles are from within the last week, they came from google news.

[llad12]

Come on Llad, I've seen you do better.

Anyway, Chavez is a nut and he's tearing the country apart. It's obvious. He's not even your type of lefty. Why defend him?

I agree completely. We need Venezula to return to their banana-republic roots with a dictatoral government such as the one run by General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcos_P%C3%A9rez_Jim%C3%A9nez)Marcos Pérez Jiménez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcos_P%C3%A9rez_Jim%C3%A9nez). We really liked this fella. So much in fact, that we awarded him the Legion of Merit. So what if he embezzled $200 million while running the government and was a cruel, ruthless bad boy? Who cares that he fled the country after riots and an general uprising by the people? We didn't. We gave him sanctuary.

He was our kind of guy ...


--------



Who cares if Venezuela is making lots of money? That doesn't mean it's going to the people. Llad, I find it ironic that you seem to support someone who has taken away more of the people's rights than Bush has done with the Patriot Act. In fact, I find it ironic that any liberal supports Chavez. He butchers his people's rights and the liberals stick up for him. Bush has unwarranted wiretaps and the liberals go crazy. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

What I find ironic is people who directly or indirectly support our government's interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations while attempting to mask it by holding some stinkin' "high road". What we have done in South and Central America is nothing short of criminal.

[Stevinator]

I agree completely. We need Venezula to return to their banana-republic roots with a dictatoral government such as the one run by General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcos_P%C3%A9rez_Jim%C3%A9nez)Marcos Pérez Jiménez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcos_P%C3%A9rez_Jim%C3%A9nez). We really liked this fella. So much in fact, that we awarded him the Legion of Merit. So what if he embezzled $200 million while running the government and was a cruel, ruthless bad boy? Who cares that he fled the country after riots and an general uprising by the people? We didn't. We gave him sanctuary.

He was our kind of guy ...


Well sure, but I was thinking perhaps they could find a more moderate, business friendly sort who would focus on bringing businesses INTO venezuela to create jobs for all those poor unemployed folks just trying to get by, instead of tossing them out and firing people. I'd also like to see a press free enough to not have their TV stations relgated to cable, where most of the population can't afford to see it. but hey, if you'd rather play spin the wheel of despots, that's your opinion to have.

I'm not smeg. I'm not going to let you peg me as some sort of nut. I want to see venezuela join the rest of the developed world with a free stable economy. They have enormous potential with the resources there, and not just oil. Government handouts don't create sustainable economies. they create dependents (give a fish/learn to fish). The type of power that may be granted to chavez does not beget stable economies, it begets tyranny. This attitude that he's better than the last guy, or the guy before that, doesn't help the venezuelan poor tomorrow. Don't you want them to have a better future? do you really think handouts are the solution? And no, that's not a litmus test on you.

[Stevinator]

What I find ironic is people who directly or indirectly support our government's interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations while attempting to mask it by holding some stinkin' "high road". What we have done in South and Central America is nothing short of criminal.


don't chide me on empires. it was your generation that put those despots in power, not mine. I never condoned the choices, merely the principle that unfriendlies like chavez are bad for america. bad for venezuela. apparently back for spain, brazil, columbia, etc, etc too.

[AeroJonesy]

What I find ironic is people who directly or indirectly support our government's interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations while attempting to mask it by holding some stinkin' "high road". What we have done in South and Central America is nothing short of criminal.

Well that's nice, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The bottom line is that it is completely hypocritical to criticize Bush for taking away American freedoms and defend Chavez. Accuse America all you want, but finger pointing doesn't change the fact that supporting Chavez is supporting a man who has taken more from his people than Bush has.

[Bortaz]

But AJ, that runs counter to his "Hate Anything America" song and dance. Quit being silly, he'd never do that!

[Sir EvilFreeSmeg]

Face it, llad is a socialist/communist and nothing short of a frontal lobotomy will fix that. Yet he's a multi-millionaire because of capitalism. So that either makes him a liar or a fool.

[Stevinator]

Face it, llad is a socialist/communist and nothing short of a frontal lobotomy will fix that. Yet he's a multi-millionaire because of capitalism. So that either makes him a liar or a fool.

Or just principled.

[Bortaz]

Whether right-principled or wrong-principled is up for debate, though.

[Voorhees]

Well that's nice, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The bottom line is that it is completely hypocritical to criticize Bush for taking away American freedoms and defend Chavez. Accuse America all you want, but finger pointing doesn't change the fact that supporting Chavez is supporting a man who has taken more from his people than Bush has.
The point here is not whether we support Chavez or not, but whether or not it's even our place to support Chavez or not. And it isn't. We don't live there, we don't get a vote. His people chose him, and whether or not that ends up being misguided, it's their situation to deal with as a sovereign nation and it's not our place to get involved.
I don't get why you assume I'm a liberal. Because I disagree with you and you consider yourself conservative I guess. Conservatives used to be pretty minimalist when it came to foreign policy and now they just want to get all up in everyones business. Well if that's modern conservatism than I guess I am the opposite and fine with it.
And with that spiel about it being hypocritical to criticize Bush and defend Chavez for taking away freedom, I hope your criticizing Bush yourself because if you defend him while criticizing Chavez for taking away freedom, you'll be making yourself a hypocrite by your own logic.

[WildBerry]

Well sure, but I was thinking perhaps they could find a more moderate, business friendly sort who would focus on bringing businesses INTO venezuela to create jobs for all those poor unemployed folks just trying to get by, instead of tossing them out and firing people. I'd also like to see a press free enough to not have their TV stations relgated to cable, where most of the population can't afford to see it. but hey, if you'd rather play spin the wheel of despots, that's your opinion to have.

Generals often are, to be fair, very business friendly. They can be bought cheap.

With that reservation, I share your feelings. I think a moment of Chavez might've done some good in the sense of national pride - he gives some people some pride, some concept of the country standing up against the man - but he could use his money smarter and is infrining on liberties, like everyone before him, no matter what kind of support he does it with. I hope times are ripe for more free a society, in all respects.

That said...


The point here is not whether we support Chavez or not, but whether or not it's even our place to support Chavez or not. And it isn't. We don't live there, we don't get a vote. His people chose him, and whether or not that ends up being misguided, it's their situation to deal with as a sovereign nation and it's not our place to get involved.


This is what you need to remember. We're free to discuss his degrees of success and lawfulness, but we're not really that free to run him off his chair if we decide we don't like him.

Although that hasn't ever prevented anyone.



And doesn't factor in the inflation rate (whoops! you must've forgot)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html#Econ

In fact, they've had rampant inflation since he got there.
http://www.latin-focus.com/content/countries/ven_gifs/vencpi.gif
Ouch! it doesn't get under 20% very often.

To be fair, inflation has been a lot lower during his presidency than his predecessors, high as it is, yes? That peak over 100% wasn't during his terms...

[llad12]

Well that's nice, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

It's as relevant as anything you have said ...


The bottom line is that it is completely hypocritical to criticize Bush for taking away American freedoms and defend Chavez. Accuse America all you want, but finger pointing doesn't change the fact that supporting Chavez is supporting a man who has taken more from his people than Bush has.

as I really didn't defend Chavez, but rather criticized our own corrupt foreign policy.

We have no right to dictate who should be in power in their country.

None ... zero

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


don't chide me on empires. it was your generation that put those despots in power, not mine. I never condoned the choices, merely the principle that unfriendlies like chavez are bad for america. bad for venezuela. apparently back for spain, brazil, columbia, etc, etc too.

Try again, it was your grandfather's generation -- not mine. My generation was not leading the country during the 1950's, 60's & 70's. Today is a different matter ... but, as you well know, I don't care much for either our foreign policy or that fundamentalist-idiot of a president residing in the Oval Office.

[Bortaz]

Try again, it was your grandfather's generation -- not mine.

Those are the same thing, old yeller. :wink:

[tedglines]

We have a constitutional republic, rather than a democracy. And someone noted that it was "we the people" who made the term-limitation mandate, making sure that no one president could endlessly stay in office and create a dynasty for himself. Looking back at all of our presidents, there are only several who had the record and charisma to have carried off a third campaign for office. Even the extremely popular JFK could not have pulled it off because of voter-displeasure over the Bay of Pigs error.


Term limits give people a choice, and I think it empowers the populace when they know that they are getting a new guy.

So true!

[WildBerry]

there are only several

*scratches head*

[plasmo]

Remember, democracy isn't the ultimate goal of the US system.

The Bill of Rights is un-democratic. So is the Supreme Court, as it's goal is to ensure laws follow the Constitution. Otherwise, a 51% majority could enslave the approximately 150,000,000 others. And the Supreme Court is the trump card that overrules everything else (unless you count martial law, which you really shouldn't, because it's only for limited use and the people would revolt if it were invoked for long).

The same idea applies for term limits as for slavery; it's there to make sure people don't go overboard. Otherwise, the president might start thinking he's a king, and then we're back to England.

The main goal is to let everybody do what they want as long as they don't interfere with other people unless there is compelling state interest.

[WildBerry]

Otherwise, a 51% majority could enslave the approximately 150,000,000 others.

While this is useless nitpick, the amount of others is larger than that. It's 51% majority of those qualified to vote, which is way less than 50% of the populace. This gripe actually makes you even more right, since interestingly, majority mob rule doesn't need majority.

Otherwise, what you said right.

[buttershug]

While this is useless nitpick, the amount of others is larger than that. It's 51% majority of those qualified to vote, which is way less than 50% of the populace. This gripe actually makes you even more right, since interestingly, majority mob rule doesn't need majority.

Otherwise, what you said right.

If you are going to nitpick do it right.
It's 51% of the those that cast a valid vote.

On a side note, if everyone of African decent did vote and voted as a block would they have over 51% of the votes cast?

[Stevinator]

If you are going to nitpick do it right.
It's 51% of the those that cast a valid vote.

On a side note, if everyone of African decent did vote and voted as a block would they have over 51% of the votes cast?

I'm going to nitpick once more and say it's really less than that. its only 1 vote over 50%. but who's counting right?



Try again, it was your grandfather's generation -- not mine. My generation was not leading the country during the 1950's, 60's & 70's. Today is a different matter ... but, as you well know, I don't care much for either our foreign policy or that fundamentalist-idiot of a president residing in the Oval Office.

Okay that's fair. but this is where the agreement ends:


We have no right to dictate who should be in power in their country.

None ... zero


The point here is not whether we support Chavez or not, but whether or not it's even our place to support Chavez or not. And it isn't. We don't live there, we don't get a vote. His people chose him, and whether or not that ends up being misguided, it's their situation to deal with as a sovereign nation and it's not our place to get involved.


I agree that normally we would not have any say there, but if he cuts off oil exports to the US, that's economic warfare, and the gloves are off. We have to be prepared to defend a move like that.



Remember, democracy isn't the ultimate goal of the US system.

Yes, but what is the ulitmate goal? It's a little vague, "more perfect union". Leaves some room for interpretation...

[WildBerry]

I agree that normally we would not have any say there, but if he cuts off oil exports to the US, that's economic warfare, and the gloves are off. We have to be prepared to defend a move like that.


Does that mean that your economic protection customs against agricultural products is economic warfare as well? They're free not to sell you oil, amirite?

[SaroDarksbane]

I agree that normally we would not have any say there, but if he cuts off oil exports to the US, that's economic warfare, and the gloves are off. We have to be prepared to defend a move like that.
How so?

If they don't want to sell us oil, I'd say that's their choice.

[Stevinator]

Does that mean that your economic protection customs against agricultural products is economic warfare as well? They're free not to sell you oil, amirite?

Are you talking about farm subsidies, or our customs office?

I don't like farm subsidies, and would favor dropping them if we could get everyone else to too.

As for customs, we don't say we won't buy their food, we merely ask that the food we import is safe/clean. We don't do this to try to destroy the venzuelan economy, we do this to protect our populace from tainted produce.

It's also very different when a nationalized company just takes assets from a company from another country just because they don't like who that home company elected. Chavez is threatening to do that very thing with spain. read the news on him. He doesn't want to compete in the world market. he wants to pontificate. I don't care if he blows a lot of hot air, but if he starts to push it, we'll push back. this all doesn't happen in a vacuum. Llad can blame the US all day, for its empire building and regime changing and whatnot, but what he doesn't understand is we're not dealing with open laissez faire type economies. Some companies are controlled by government. they're not playing by the same rules. imagine playing chess and you have normal pieces, but the other guy has queens instead of pawns. We have to work to counteract that. Ideally, everyone would more to freer economies and tariffs and subsidies would be minimal. that's not going to happen so we have to have the will to interfere as necessary.

[WildBerry]

If you are going to nitpick do it right.
It's 51% of the those that cast a valid vote.


I stand corrected, I brainfarted that one.

[WildBerry]

Are you talking about farm subsidies, or our customs office?

I don't like farm subsidies, and would favor dropping them if we could get everyone else to too.

As for customs, we don't say we won't buy their food, we merely ask that the food we import is safe/clean. We don't do this to try to destroy the venzuelan economy, we do this to protect our populace from tainted produce.


I was talking about HTS, I am currently under impression that bringing certain agricultural products to your country has steepish tariff on it. Or am I mistaken? In either case, I don't see the point (not aimed at you but at U.S. foreign trade policy in general) in harsh words admonishing an economy of not supporting free trade, then subsidising your own agriculture by, what is it now, 20 billion $ or something? (my data might be a bit dated, from last year, as it is somewhat challenging to find accurate and up-to-date numbers)



It's also very different when a nationalized company just takes assets from a company from another country just because they don't like who that home company elected. Chavez is threatening to do that very thing with spain. read the news on him. He doesn't want to compete in the world market. he wants to pontificate. I don't care if he blows a lot of hot air, but if he starts to push it, we'll push back. this all doesn't happen in a vacuum. Llad can blame the US all day, for its empire building and regime changing and whatnot, but what he doesn't understand is we're not dealing with open laissez faire type economies. Some companies are controlled by government. they're not playing by the same rules. imagine playing chess and you have normal pieces, but the other guy has queens instead of pawns. We have to work to counteract that. Ideally, everyone would more to freer economies and tariffs and subsidies would be minimal. that's not going to happen so we have to have the will to interfere as necessary.

I don't like the open-ended term "interfere" there. Nationalisation of property, not even when it's held by company from another country, is not a casus belli as far as I'm considered. If you mean levying tariffs and such, then it's of course free game.

[Stevinator]

I don't like the open-ended term "interfere" there. Nationalisation of property, not even when it's held by company from another country, is not a casus belli as far as I'm considered. If you mean levying tariffs and such, then it's of course free game.

War is obviously always the last option. In this case we would just take out chavez long before we got to fighting, but I'm not saying if they yank oil, that we go in and invade or assasininate. I won't take it off the table, but certainly it could result in decades of protectionism, and possible embargos, and all sorts of non-market friendly behavior. both we and the venzuelans would suffer. I don't want that. i want chavez to grow up.

I'd also like to point out that oil is more strategically important than fruit. I'm not aware of any major fruit tariffs, perhaps after sunday funday I'll look into it for us. The bears are on soon.

[WildBerry]

I'd also like to point out that oil is more strategically important than fruit. I'm not aware of any major fruit tariffs, perhaps after sunday funday I'll look into it for us. The bears are on soon.

Bovine meats and furs are agriprods too. I did not mean the tariffs in respect to Venezuela but in general. Lemme know what you find.

[Voorhees]

I agree that normally we would not have any say there, but if he cuts off oil exports to the US, that's economic warfare, and the gloves are off. We have to be prepared to defend a move like that.
As if we're entitled to their oil? Unfortunately, you can't agree with the idea of sovereignty only when it's convenient. You either support the concept or you don't.

War is obviously always the last option. In this case we would just take out chavez long before we got to fighting, but I'm not saying if they yank oil, that we go in and invade or assasininate. I won't take it off the table, but certainly it could result in decades of protectionism, and possible embargos, and all sorts of non-market friendly behavior. both we and the venzuelans would suffer. I don't want that. i want chavez to grow up.

I'd also like to point out that oil is more strategically important than fruit. I'm not aware of any major fruit tariffs, perhaps after sunday funday I'll look into it for us. The bears are on soon.
Wow. Have you lost your mind? Removing a person from power does nothing. I would think in light of current events that would be more obvious then ever. We're not even done cleaning up our last mess and you want to go and do it again?
I'm sorry, I just don't understand how we can follow your line of thinking without finding ourself in constant conflict.

[Stevinator]

Bovine meats and furs are agriprods too. I did not mean the tariffs in respect to Venezuela but in general. Lemme know what you find.

I tried to lookup what the tariff is for fruit from venezuela. I discovered the easy tariff calculator is not so easy.

http://www.usaexportimport.com/usa-tariffs-duty-rates.php

perhaps you can make heads or tails of it. I use this, and plugged in fruit and i got a ridiculous list.

http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/gsp/gsp_tariff.asp

Honestly I don't know the specifics of our tariffs.

I tried to find some articles on this, I got this:
http://www.sice.oas.org/ctyindex/USA/ftbven2000_e.pdf
http://www.sice.oas.org/ctyindex/USA/ftbven1999_e.pdf
so fruit going from the USA to Venezuela is subject to a 15% tariff. going the other way, venezuelan exporters get some subsidies, from the article it looks as though they vary from 10%-15.5% depending on their classification.

I found this artcile that was complaining about venezuelan restrictions.
http://clinton2.nara.gov/Initiatives/FastTrack/costs.html

I also noticed in my search that there were a few targetted tariffs for very specific industries like canadian tomatoes
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2048
but had trouble finding any specific information on venezuelan fruit coming into the US.


I was talking about HTS, I am currently under impression that bringing certain agricultural products to your country has steepish tariff on it. Or am I mistaken? In either case, I don't see the point (not aimed at you but at U.S. foreign trade policy in general) in harsh words admonishing an economy of not supporting free trade, then subsidising your own agriculture by, what is it now, 20 billion $ or something? (my data might be a bit dated, from last year, as it is somewhat challenging to find accurate and up-to-date numbers)

generally, it is was my understanding that most of our tariffs are low, but that there are some spot tariffs that can be very high. I recall a story about a relative of a senator who managed to get a 40% tariff on lamb meat from new zealand. I specifically remember it raising the ire of one of my econ professors.

yes, all these subsidies and tariffs are bad for worldwide efficiency. it's a tough thing, I'd like to call for dropping them, but I doubt we'd see the same from the EU, or really anywhere.


As if we're entitled to their oil? Unfortunately, you can't agree with the idea of sovereignty only when it's convenient. You either support the concept or you don't.

I specifically said it was a last resort, but i would support the government stepping in when the other country is not playing on a level field. that complicated system of tariffs we have is one line of defense. we have other economic weapons, we can subsidize, we can cut off other exports to that country, etc.

However, in some cases, an errant leader may try to attack our economy, and in that case we need to leave a military solution on the table.

I don't think this is such a radical idea, most of the world powers have these same policies. The EU was formed in part to be a trading bloc of economic allies large enough to take on the USA if it needed to. do you think their version of the CIA in other countries don't have agents working in other countries? what do you suppose they do there? Are you really so naive that you think that the world works as it should in our ideologies? If only! think if the lives that would have been saved all over the world if the world worked as I wish it could. think of what humanity could have accomplished.

So I guess to respond to your bold statement, I'd love for things to work out that way, but the world is not so black and white. You can dismiss me as some sort of terror, and llad can post something about war drums, but I think I've been here long enough for people to know that's not what I'm all about.


Wow. Have you lost your mind? Removing a person from power does nothing. I would think in light of current events that would be more obvious then ever. We're not even done cleaning up our last mess and you want to go and do it again?
I'm sorry, I just don't understand how we can follow your line of thinking without finding ourself in constant conflict.

sigh. please read the above.

[Dondrei]

Looking back at all of our presidents, there are only several who had the record and charisma to have carried off a third campaign for office. Even the extremely popular JFK could not have pulled it off because of voter-displeasure over the Bay of Pigs error.

Well, he was also significantly less charismatic with his brains splattered all over a limo.


War is obviously always the last option. In this case we would just take out chavez long before we got to fighting, but I'm not saying if they yank oil, that we go in and invade or assasininate. I won't take it off the table, but certainly it could result in decades of protectionism, and possible embargos, and all sorts of non-market friendly behavior. both we and the venzuelans would suffer. I don't want that. i want chavez to grow up.

I'd also like to point out that oil is more strategically important than fruit. I'm not aware of any major fruit tariffs, perhaps after sunday funday I'll look into it for us. The bears are on soon.

If a baker refused to sell you a loaf of bread, would you shoot him? Or just shop at a different bakery?

[Voorhees]

I specifically said it was a last resort, but i would support the government stepping in when the other country is not playing on a level field. that complicated system of tariffs we have is one line of defense. we have other economic weapons, we can subsidize, we can cut off other exports to that country, etc.

However, in some cases, an errant leader may try to attack our economy, and in that case we need to leave a military solution on the table.

I don't think this is such a radical idea, most of the world powers have these same policies. The EU was formed in part to be a trading bloc of economic allies large enough to take on the USA if it needed to. do you think their version of the CIA in other countries don't have agents working in other countries? what do you suppose they do there? Are you really so naive that you think that the world works as it should in our ideologies? If only! think if the lives that would have been saved all over the world if the world worked as I wish it could. think of what humanity could have accomplished.

So I guess to respond to your bold statement, I'd love for things to work out that way, but the world is not so black and white. You can dismiss me as some sort of terror, and llad can post something about war drums, but I think I've been here long enough for people to know that's not what I'm all about.



sigh. please read the above.
Sigh, indeed. You tried a little harder to make your point but your point fails. It's not that I didn't get your point, it's that your point of view is wrong.
You can't agree with the idea of sovereignty only when it's convenient. You either support the concept or you don't. I know I already said it but it obviously didn't sink in.
It doesn't matter how much of a last resort force is, the very idea of even using force at all is a complete lack of respect for sovereignty. We are not entitled to their oil. Period. I realize I failed to make that point by posing it as a question so I'll just say it flat out. We are not entitled to their oil!
I realize there are people in our government and several others who disagree. They're wrong. You're wrong. That's all there is too it. We can't keep going on treating other countries and peoples as if the world is ours and they're only in it to make cheap toys for Walmart and Mcdonalds.

[SaroDarksbane]

You're off base here, llad. A person can criticize Chavez without endorsing any particular US-sanctioned puppet regime.

Face it, llad is a socialist/communist and nothing short of a frontal lobotomy will fix that.
So you're saying the only way to make llad more like you is to remove half his brain?

I guess I really can't argue there . . .

[KillerAim]

Getting back on topic:

Does anyone else find it ironic that we have a term limit on the one person we can all vote out of office but no term limits for 482 out of 485 Senators and Congressmen who we cannot vote out of office? (I can vote for two out 50 senators and one out of 435 Congressmen).

[DurfBarian]

What does the collective "we" have to do with it? You have the chance to vote all your representatives out of office.

[Dondrei]

It's not really ironic, the measure is clearly designed to restrain democracy.

[DurfBarian]

Yes, as is the measure that keeps me from voting in Australian elections.

[Dondrei]

That would be durfocracy.

I think it comes from the ancient Greek root *durfos meaning "Mac-using freak who knows more than is healthy about the internet".

[WildBerry]

I think it comes from the ancient Greek root *durfos meaning "Mac-using freak who knows more than is healthy about the internet".

Don't you litterate that durphos?

[DurfBarian]

Your bizarre ideas about spelling make me lauph.

[Dondrei]

Don't you litterate that durphos?

It's Attic Greek.