[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Obviously your post is incomprehensible partisan gibberish and does nothing to answer the points.

Obviously you can not address my points and resort to calling my points incomprehensible, partisan gibberish. Nice. I would prefer arguing with facts, but each to it's own.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

From your partisan position, it appears your head is going to explode if you have to honestly concede the obvious, that being that the United States of America is no where near to or interested in militarily "invading Venezuela" as the Chavez has been scaremongering.

How many times has the US invaded a country and full out publicized it's decision to do so beforehand? Doesn't that go against basic warfare, taking away the whole element of surprise? The fact remains that you have just as much proof that the US isn't going to invade Venezuela as I do for the opposite. The only advantage I have is history, which isn't much, but it's more than what you have.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

That's the only point I made. Others brought up coups to which I blithely and accurately noted that it would take one to know one.

I am willing to say that there are coups that can be just. Just like there can be just wars. If you have an oppresive dictator, obviously a coup would be a good idea. And since we know that democratic elections are taking place and that Chavez is NOT a dictator, obviously it is the will of the people. Now, look at everything Chavez has accomplished for his people, obviously the decision to overthrow the government was a good one.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Second, the links very obviously support the point that without a platform that encourages the investment of outside capital, both Mexican and Iranian oil production will decline, taking their petro economies with them in all probability as well as any programming that might exist for the poor.

No, that's not very obvious from the links at all. That's obviously what you decided to take from the links. I took a completely different message from the links. The fact remains that if Iran was nationalized they wouldn't have a reason for concern if foreign investment left, as they would have the infrastructure in place to continue on. And in the case of Mexico, pemex is a very successful company that has enabled a 500% increase in state bank credit, amoung other things since 2000, plus is the only reason why Mexico's economy would stay afloat if foreign investment left thus preventing a recession and ensuring future projects will be completed.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

In the end, that probably means the socialist will be hated by the poor.

Yeah, from the title of this thread, it really looks like the poor Venezuelians really hate Chavez...

Plus, when you have Venezuelian oil companies giving out oil for heating American homes who can not afford it, it looks like the socialist is adored by the poor, even in the US:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...157172,00.html

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You'll note in my sentence in my first post in this thread, that I thought spreading Venezuelan petro wealth around to the poorer folks was a good idea.

So, unless big oil to you is considered the poorer folks, I'm not sure about your contradiction...

Originally Posted by Cowperson

However, I said its a stupid idea to scare away investment capital, particularly when, as our friend Lurch supports, you're spending all your petro dollars on corruption and the poor instead of allocating something to reinvestment so the non-renewable resource can continue to flow and support programs.

Again, I take those wonderful links you provided by pointing out what Mexico has been able to accomplish through it's oil revenue. In fact, Fox has taken a very Conservative approach, rather than "silly social programs". Pemex is the world's fifth largest oil company, you don't think their profits are enough to reinvest? Jeez, if Pemex can't afford it, what hope is there for any of us?

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The wisest leader would probably be letting private oil companies take all the risk of developing and exploiting oil and gas fields while taking a cut to use in programs for the poor . . . . the depth of that cut obviously too much in Iran, where it appears to discourage involvement and some might say too little in Alberta where development is going overboard.

Yes, let's look at the Albertan economy. First of all, what is the economy's role within society? A Conservative would probably say foremost to provide jobs for it's citizens. So, flying workers in from say, the other side of the country like Newfoundland would then mean the economy is very inefficent. A shortage of workers would lead one to believe the economy is inefficent. Economically, does it make sense that the province that is the source of Canadian oil, has the highest utility rate in the country? Highest health-care premiums? Highest insurance rates? So, you're saying the "wisest" leader would agree to have such an inefficent economy?

That's just crazy talk!

Okay, but you said the development in Alberta is overboard. Touche. I agree.

But, the argument that allowing big oil to "take all the risk and give a cut to the poor" has no foundation. Because, we all know what that leads to, huge, HUGE profits for the oil companies and people who can not afford to heat their homes. Again, I point to the fact that thousands of American homes rely on Venezuelian oil, that Venezuela gives away for free, while American oil companies are amoung the richest in the world. Is this just? Does this make sense to you? Why should big oil capitalize on what a state owns anyway? Why shouldn't the state capitalize on it for it's own people rather than giving hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign oil companies, never letting that money going to the people who need it? The system that you speak of is already being done all around the world, and if you're happy with the way the world is looking out from your perch in Calgary, you're completely oblivious to the injustices that are taking place as a result of the oil industry.

I, personally, hate the disparity. The wars. The economic, political, cultural games. I am not happy with the way things are going currently, and I welcome changes to this system. Big oil are the most morally incomprehensible on the planet. But, Chavez can achieve great things for his people from the oil industry and can give a good name to at least one oil company.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Hey, this is kind of cool . . . . I'm actually in an argument for about the second time in a year.

Cowperson

This is about my second argument today...