Hillary Clinton on Bolivia and Morales

DC · 3rd December 2008, 11:29 PM

http://www.democracyctr.org/blog/arc...r_archive.html

Quote:

I believe we should have done much more to support Morales

I am sure this will scare the ones that honestly belive Obama to be a socialist.
But what will this mean in reality?

What do you think about Morales and the US relationship?
especially considering Morales's position on Coca. Or in cases like Larsen beeing taken away his land without compensation?

I think Land redistribution without Compensation is wrong, while i dont know exactly the Circumstances when the Larsens buyed the land.

About Coca, i can understand the Coca farmers, especially considering this plant has a 2000+ years tradition in Bolivia. But i think more cooperation is needed to get the Cocain problem solved. Destroying Coca Farms is not the solution, especially not for the people that are dependend on those plants to make a living. And Morales is not so wrong when he says, that we have to take care there is no demand for it.

gtc · 4th December 2008, 12:03 AM

I get the impression she was saying that if the US had done more to befriend Morales he wouldn't have been so quick to turn to Chavez.

DC · 4th December 2008, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by gtc

I get the impression she was saying that if the US had done more to befriend Morales he wouldn't have been so quick to turn to Chavez.

i guess that is indeed what she ment.
But i doubt that to be correct. Morales his MAS has alot in common with the other Socialist leaders in that region. It is just normal that they kinda stick together.

But i think there will be atleast more dialogue to get better relationships under Obama. Obama and Morales have something in common, they both belive in a society of dialogue.

gtc · 4th December 2008, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

i guess that is indeed what she ment.
But i doubt that to be correct. Morales his MAS has alot in common with the other Socialist leaders in that region. It is just normal that they kinda stick together.

The same argument that Clinton seems to be making could be applied to Chavez - if the US had befriended him he wouldn't have been so quick to befriend Castro. And if the US had befriended Castro, Castro wouldn't have been so quick to befriend the USSR.

The argument has some merit but I agree - it is natural that they stick together.

DC · 4th December 2008, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by gtc

The same argument that Clinton seems to be making could be applied to Chavez - if the US had befriended him he wouldn't have been so quick to befriend Castro. And if the US had befriended Castro, Castro wouldn't have been so quick to befriend the USSR.

The argument has some merit but I agree - it is natural that they stick together.

But i think it is not easy for Politicans to search the dialogue.
The Socialists are Nationalising things that is been seen as property of US and other Western countrys Companys.

The Socialists politicans and press in Latin America are demonizing the USA.

the US Politicans and Press are Demonizing the Socialist governments in Latin America.

hard to get a good picture of what is going on for the average joe plumber.

Darth Rotor · 4th December 2008, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

http://www.democracyctr.org/blog/arc...r_archive.html

I am sure this will scare the ones that honestly belive Obama to be a socialist. But what will this mean in reality?

What do you think about Morales and the US relationship? especially considering Morales's position on Coca. Or in cases like Larsen beeing taken away his land without compensation?

I think Land redistribution without Compensation is wrong, while i dont know exactly the Circumstances when the Larsens buyed the land.

About Coca, i can understand the Coca farmers, especially considering this plant has a 2000+ years tradition in Bolivia. But i think more cooperation is needed to get the Cocain problem solved. Destroying Coca Farms is not the solution, especially not for the people that are dependend on those plants to make a living. And Morales is not so wrong when he says, that we have to take care there is no demand for it.

Get rid of demand? Oh, right, Nancy Reagan figured that out: just say No!

Quote:

Hillary Clinton on Bolivia and Morales

Your thread title evokes Mercutio's Political Porn thread in the Humor sub forum.

DR

DC · 4th December 2008, 07:36 AM

it was actually not ment to be a funny thread.

also the Coca / Cocain problem is not so funny.

ETA: aah lol i think now i get why the title is funny, maybe, forgot that kind of humor

was last used in school as a teenager.

Darth Rotor · 4th December 2008, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

it was actually not ment to be a funny thread. also the Coca / Cocain problem is not so funny.

What is funny is that you didn't cotton on to the absurdity of your statement about controlling demand. You are invited to look up Nancy Reagan and Just Say No as part of the War on Drugs policy in the US, if you please. Also an absurdity, on the face of it. Controlling demand. Funny as hell.

Quote:

And Morales is not so wrong when he says, that we have to take care there is no demand for it.

If I didn't know better, I'd call that deliberate parody.

DC · 4th December 2008, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

What is funny is that you didn't cotton on to the absurdity of your statement about controlling demand. You are invited to look up Nancy Reagan and Just Say No as part of the War on Drugs policy in the US, if you please. Also an absurdity, on the face of it. Controlling demand. Funny as hell.

If I didn't know better, I'd call that deliberate parody.

maybe you notice that i actually did not say, Morales is correct when he says....

i do think he is not completly wrong.

Also the demand problem need to be worked on. They will find other sources to get drugs if the supply from one source stopps.

leftysergeant · 5th December 2008, 04:17 AM

I have no problem with a nation's nationalizing its resources if those resources are under foreign ownership as a result of force.

There is a lot of mineral wealth in Bolivia, and a lot of it is under foreign control. I saw the same thing in Libya in the 1960s. It is abusive to human rights and a bad deal for the people of the nation who do not own their resources.

The land on which the peasants are raisng coca is not of much use for anything else. Perhaps if they had access to other resources to earn a living, they would stop growing coca.

The colonial period is over. We have no standing to tell the people of other countries that they just have to go on living as second-class citizens in their own lands because our ancestors had more fire power than theirs.

DC · 5th December 2008, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I have no problem with a nation's nationalizing its resources if those resources are under foreign ownership as a result of force.

There is a lot of mineral wealth in Bolivia, and a lot of it is under foreign control. I saw the same thing in Libya in the 1960s. It is abusive to human rights and a bad deal for the people of the nation who do not own their resources.

The land on which the peasants are raisng coca is not of much use for anything else. Perhaps if they had access to other resources to earn a living, they would stop growing coca.

The colonial period is over. We have no standing to tell the people of other countries that they just have to go on living as second-class citizens in their own lands because our ancestors had more fire power than theirs.

what a comment. You keep debunking prejudices against Americans

can only agree.

Privatisation of natural resources was very very strange made, very corrupt. and ways to cheap. I know of a swiss company that buyed a mine in Bolivia, they didnt want to accept its nationalisation by Morales. But when you read true the whole process that mine went true from the time it belonged to the Bolivian people untill it was in the hand of a shady swiss company you can come only to one conclusion, give it back and do no demand compensation.

About the Coca problem, i dont blame them to grow it, they would be stupid to not do it.
But i think there is International cooperation (not profit making) asked to find a solution to the problem. destroying the plants from some farmers will not help anything than make them upset and poorer as they are already.

moon1969 · 9th December 2008, 12:19 PM

"There is a lot of mineral wealth in Bolivia, and a lot of it is under foreign control."

So? Maybe many of the wealth is controlled by honest businesses? Just because Evo Morales and the communist claim that it is bad doesn"t mean it really is. Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin claimed alot of things and so did Pol Pot. Evo Morales is not Pol Pot, Lenin or Stalin but Evo Morales is a radical who wants to change the constitution and steal other peoples lands with his land reforms.

"I saw the same thing in Libya in the 1960s. It is abusive to human rights"

So Muammar al-Gaddafi was not abusive to human rights?

"and a bad deal for the people of the nation who do not own their resources."

And communism and Nationalization is even worse and more evil. And Evo Morales doesn"t want the people to own their resources. Morales is just like Nicolae Ceauşescu or Josip Broz Tito and soon dictator Morales will use the methods that Erich Honecker used in DDR.

Darth Rotor · 9th December 2008, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

There is a lot of mineral wealth in Bolivia, and a lot of it is under foreign control. I saw the same thing in Libya in the 1960s. It is abusive to human rights and a bad deal for the people of the nation who do not own their resources.

Lefty, can you explain that a bit for me? Under foreign control? What do you mean by that?

As to ownership of resources: I live in Texas, and I don't seem to own the oil here. Should I? Do "the people" of Venezuela actually own the oil there? Do the people of Saudi Arabia actually own the oil there? Do the people of Norway actually own the oil in the North Sea? The people of Scotland?

Who are you kidding, other than yourself?

DR

moon1969 · 9th December 2008, 12:42 PM

"The colonial period is over. We have no standing to tell the people of other countries that they just have to go on living as second-class citizens in their own lands because our ancestors had more fire power than theirs."

And they will not live as second-class citizens in the workers paradise Evo Morales is trying to create. Evo Morales supports the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and like George Orwell said "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

moon1969 · 9th December 2008, 12:44 PM

"Morales aide faces terrorism charges; Peru leadership seeks extradition.(WORLD)"

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-159603898.html

moon1969 · 9th December 2008, 12:54 PM

Still Evo Morales has done alot of good things to Bolivia. Morales still is a communist radical just like his best friend Hugo Chavez.

DC · 10th December 2008, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Lefty, can you explain that a bit for me? Under foreign control? What do you mean by that?

As to ownership of resources: I live in Texas, and I don't seem to own the oil here. Should I? Do "the people" of Venezuela actually own the oil there? Do the people of Saudi Arabia actually own the oil there? Do the people of Norway actually own the oil in the North Sea? The people of Scotland?

Who are you kidding, other than yourself?

DR

Goni sold out the country for some peanuts. Even water got privatized, poor people ended up not beeing able to buy water etc.

the National oil company was quickly sold just before the coup.

i know about a mine that was sold by goni extremly cheap to some shady companys including a swiss one.

Morales is just geting back what belongs to the people.

And yes, the Oil in Venezuela and Bolivia belongs to the people, which is writen down in the constitution. Also Norway has a national oil organisation and a very inovative investment fond because they are running out of oil and gas, so they try to prevent loosing wealth.
Dunno about scotland, i guess it belongs to the queen.

DC · 10th December 2008, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by moon1969

Still Evo Morales has done alot of good things to Bolivia. Morales still is a communist radical just like his best friend Hugo Chavez.

Morales is not radical, nor is he a communist, nor is Chavez a communist.
Morales is a very inteligent, yet not educated man. He has an ability to bring together good people. He has a very clever and well educated vice president, Linera, a University professor and 30 years political analyst inspired by Marx.

Puppycow · 10th December 2008, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Get rid of demand? Oh, right, Nancy Reagan figured that out: just say No!

funk de fino · 11th December 2008, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

And yes, the Oil in Venezuela and Bolivia belongs to the people, which is writen down in the constitution. Also Norway has a national oil organisation and a very inovative investment fond because they are running out of oil and gas, so they try to prevent loosing wealth.
Dunno about scotland, i guess it belongs to the queen.

Norway has it written into law that the oil is for the good of the people of Norway and they have a large oil fund like the middle east countries.

The North Sea has just as much oil left in it than has been taken out, it is just more difficult to get to but american companies have the technology to get to it and the tech is improving all the time. The wells being drilled now could not have been drilled 7 years ago.

Scotland oil was done differently. The UK govt own prts of the North sea and sold licences to companies for sections of the sea. These companies then drilled for oil and payed taxes/revenues to UK govt. The bulk of the money went outside the UK. If Scotland had been independant and we had setup like Norway we would have been much better off.

Again DC shows ignorance about the Queen.

DC · 11th December 2008, 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Norway has it written into law that the oil is for the good of the people of Norway and they have a large oil fund like the middle east countries.

The North Sea has just as much oil left in it than has been taken out, it is just more difficult to get to but american companies have the technology to get to it and the tech is improving all the time. The wells being drilled now could not have been drilled 7 years ago.

Scotland oil was done differently. The UK govt own prts of the North sea and sold licences to companies for sections of the sea. These companies then drilled for oil and payed taxes/revenues to UK govt. The bulk of the money went outside the UK. If Scotland had been independant and we had setup like Norway we would have been much better off.

Again DC shows ignorance about the Queen.

north sea peaked

sorry for my ignorance about your monarch.

*formal curtsy*

funk de fino · 11th December 2008, 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

north sea peaked

I'm glad you think its funny. With new reservoirs being found there is enough oil in North Sdea for more than 30 years yet. I will be retired by then.

Originally Posted by DC

sorry for my ignorance about your monarch.

*formal curtsy*

Shame it was not all you were ignorant of.

Darth Rotor · 11th December 2008, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

And yes, the Oil in Venezuela and Bolivia belongs to the people, which is writen down in the constitution.

Does each citizen get a royalty check annually as their share of the resources harvested by various oil companies, as is done in Alaska in the US?

Quote:

Also Norway has a national oil organisation and a very inovative investment fond because they are running out of oil and gas, so they try to prevent loosing wealth.

OK, similar thought, is this the same as Alaska's royalty check, or is it manifested by a reduction in taxes?

Quote:

Dunno about scotland, i guess it belongs to the queen.

*Begins humming Scotland the Brave. *

Beware the blue faced wielder of the claymore, my friend, lest ye lose thine head!

leftysergeant · 11th December 2008, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

As to ownership of resources: I live in Texas, and I don't seem to own the oil here. Should I? Do "the people" of Venezuela actually own the oil there? Do the people of Saudi Arabia actually own the oil there? Do the people of Norway actually own the oil in the North Sea?

It belongs to the countries under whiuch it is located. Our corporations seem to think that it belongs to the corporations because wee have the military might and the money to coerve or corrupt governments into giving the corporations the right to haul it away.

3rd December 2008, 11:29 PM	#1
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,675	Hillary Clinton on Bolivia and Morales http://www.democracyctr.org/blog/arc...r_archive.html Quote: I believe we should have done much more to support Morales I am sure this will scare the ones that honestly belive Obama to be a socialist. But what will this mean in reality? What do you think about Morales and the US relationship? especially considering Morales's position on Coca. Or in cases like Larsen beeing taken away his land without compensation? I think Land redistribution without Compensation is wrong, while i dont know exactly the Circumstances when the Larsens buyed the land. About Coca, i can understand the Coca farmers, especially considering this plant has a 2000+ years tradition in Bolivia. But i think more cooperation is needed to get the Cocain problem solved. Destroying Coca Farms is not the solution, especially not for the people that are dependend on those plants to make a living. And Morales is not so wrong when he says, that we have to take care there is no demand for it.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it Last edited by DC; 3rd December 2008 at 11:39 PM.

4th December 2008, 12:11 AM	#3
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,675	Originally Posted by gtc I get the impression she was saying that if the US had done more to befriend Morales he wouldn't have been so quick to turn to Chavez. i guess that is indeed what she ment. But i doubt that to be correct. Morales his MAS has alot in common with the other Socialist leaders in that region. It is just normal that they kinda stick together. But i think there will be atleast more dialogue to get better relationships under Obama. Obama and Morales have something in common, they both belive in a society of dialogue.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

4th December 2008, 01:00 AM	#5
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,675	Originally Posted by gtc The same argument that Clinton seems to be making could be applied to Chavez - if the US had befriended him he wouldn't have been so quick to befriend Castro. And if the US had befriended Castro, Castro wouldn't have been so quick to befriend the USSR. The argument has some merit but I agree - it is natural that they stick together. But i think it is not easy for Politicans to search the dialogue. The Socialists are Nationalising things that is been seen as property of US and other Western countrys Companys. The Socialists politicans and press in Latin America are demonizing the USA. the US Politicans and Press are Demonizing the Socialist governments in Latin America. hard to get a good picture of what is going on for the average joe plumber.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it Last edited by DC; 4th December 2008 at 02:34 AM.

4th December 2008, 07:25 AM	#6
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney http://www.democracyctr.org/blog/arc...r_archive.html I am sure this will scare the ones that honestly belive Obama to be a socialist. But what will this mean in reality? What do you think about Morales and the US relationship? especially considering Morales's position on Coca. Or in cases like Larsen beeing taken away his land without compensation? I think Land redistribution without Compensation is wrong, while i dont know exactly the Circumstances when the Larsens buyed the land. About Coca, i can understand the Coca farmers, especially considering this plant has a 2000+ years tradition in Bolivia. But i think more cooperation is needed to get the Cocain problem solved. Destroying Coca Farms is not the solution, especially not for the people that are dependend on those plants to make a living. And Morales is not so wrong when he says, that we have to take care there is no demand for it. Get rid of demand? Oh, right, Nancy Reagan figured that out: just say No! Quote: Hillary Clinton on Bolivia and Morales Your thread title evokes Mercutio's Political Porn thread in the Humor sub forum. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

4th December 2008, 07:36 AM	#7
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,675	it was actually not ment to be a funny thread. also the Coca / Cocain problem is not so funny. ETA: aah lol i think now i get why the title is funny, maybe, forgot that kind of humor was last used in school as a teenager.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it Last edited by DC; 4th December 2008 at 07:38 AM.

4th December 2008, 12:03 AM	#2
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	I get the impression she was saying that if the US had done more to befriend Morales he wouldn't have been so quick to turn to Chavez.

4th December 2008, 12:39 AM	#4
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney i guess that is indeed what she ment. But i doubt that to be correct. Morales his MAS has alot in common with the other Socialist leaders in that region. It is just normal that they kinda stick together. The same argument that Clinton seems to be making could be applied to Chavez - if the US had befriended him he wouldn't have been so quick to befriend Castro. And if the US had befriended Castro, Castro wouldn't have been so quick to befriend the USSR. The argument has some merit but I agree - it is natural that they stick together.

4th December 2008, 08:11 AM	#8
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney it was actually not ment to be a funny thread. also the Coca / Cocain problem is not so funny. What is funny is that you didn't cotton on to the absurdity of your statement about controlling demand. You are invited to look up Nancy Reagan and Just Say No as part of the War on Drugs policy in the US, if you please. Also an absurdity, on the face of it. Controlling demand. Funny as hell. Quote: And Morales is not so wrong when he says, that we have to take care there is no demand for it. If I didn't know better, I'd call that deliberate parody.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

4th December 2008, 08:16 AM	#9
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,675	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor What is funny is that you didn't cotton on to the absurdity of your statement about controlling demand. You are invited to look up Nancy Reagan and Just Say No as part of the War on Drugs policy in the US, if you please. Also an absurdity, on the face of it. Controlling demand. Funny as hell. If I didn't know better, I'd call that deliberate parody. maybe you notice that i actually did not say, Morales is correct when he says.... i do think he is not completly wrong. Also the demand problem need to be worked on. They will find other sources to get drugs if the supply from one source stopps.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

5th December 2008, 04:17 AM	#10
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	I have no problem with a nation's nationalizing its resources if those resources are under foreign ownership as a result of force. There is a lot of mineral wealth in Bolivia, and a lot of it is under foreign control. I saw the same thing in Libya in the 1960s. It is abusive to human rights and a bad deal for the people of the nation who do not own their resources. The land on which the peasants are raisng coca is not of much use for anything else. Perhaps if they had access to other resources to earn a living, they would stop growing coca. The colonial period is over. We have no standing to tell the people of other countries that they just have to go on living as second-class citizens in their own lands because our ancestors had more fire power than theirs.

5th December 2008, 04:30 AM	#11
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,675	Originally Posted by leftysergeant I have no problem with a nation's nationalizing its resources if those resources are under foreign ownership as a result of force. There is a lot of mineral wealth in Bolivia, and a lot of it is under foreign control. I saw the same thing in Libya in the 1960s. It is abusive to human rights and a bad deal for the people of the nation who do not own their resources. The land on which the peasants are raisng coca is not of much use for anything else. Perhaps if they had access to other resources to earn a living, they would stop growing coca. The colonial period is over. We have no standing to tell the people of other countries that they just have to go on living as second-class citizens in their own lands because our ancestors had more fire power than theirs. what a comment. You keep debunking prejudices against Americans can only agree. Privatisation of natural resources was very very strange made, very corrupt. and ways to cheap. I know of a swiss company that buyed a mine in Bolivia, they didnt want to accept its nationalisation by Morales. But when you read true the whole process that mine went true from the time it belonged to the Bolivian people untill it was in the hand of a shady swiss company you can come only to one conclusion, give it back and do no demand compensation. About the Coca problem, i dont blame them to grow it, they would be stupid to not do it. But i think there is International cooperation (not profit making) asked to find a solution to the problem. destroying the plants from some farmers will not help anything than make them upset and poorer as they are already.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it Last edited by DC; 5th December 2008 at 04:31 AM.

9th December 2008, 12:19 PM	#12
moon1969 Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,288	"There is a lot of mineral wealth in Bolivia, and a lot of it is under foreign control." So? Maybe many of the wealth is controlled by honest businesses? Just because Evo Morales and the communist claim that it is bad doesn"t mean it really is. Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin claimed alot of things and so did Pol Pot. Evo Morales is not Pol Pot, Lenin or Stalin but Evo Morales is a radical who wants to change the constitution and steal other peoples lands with his land reforms. "I saw the same thing in Libya in the 1960s. It is abusive to human rights" So Muammar al-Gaddafi was not abusive to human rights? "and a bad deal for the people of the nation who do not own their resources." And communism and Nationalization is even worse and more evil. And Evo Morales doesn"t want the people to own their resources. Morales is just like Nicolae Ceauşescu or Josip Broz Tito and soon dictator Morales will use the methods that Erich Honecker used in DDR.

9th December 2008, 12:26 PM	#13
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by leftysergeant There is a lot of mineral wealth in Bolivia, and a lot of it is under foreign control. I saw the same thing in Libya in the 1960s. It is abusive to human rights and a bad deal for the people of the nation who do not own their resources. Lefty, can you explain that a bit for me? Under foreign control? What do you mean by that? As to ownership of resources: I live in Texas, and I don't seem to own the oil here. Should I? Do "the people" of Venezuela actually own the oil there? Do the people of Saudi Arabia actually own the oil there? Do the people of Norway actually own the oil in the North Sea? The people of Scotland? Who are you kidding, other than yourself? DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

9th December 2008, 12:42 PM	#14
moon1969 Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,288	"The colonial period is over. We have no standing to tell the people of other countries that they just have to go on living as second-class citizens in their own lands because our ancestors had more fire power than theirs." And they will not live as second-class citizens in the workers paradise Evo Morales is trying to create. Evo Morales supports the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and like George Orwell said "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

9th December 2008, 12:44 PM	#15
moon1969 Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,288	"Morales aide faces terrorism charges; Peru leadership seeks extradition.(WORLD)" http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-159603898.html

9th December 2008, 12:54 PM	#16
moon1969 Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,288	Still Evo Morales has done alot of good things to Bolivia. Morales still is a communist radical just like his best friend Hugo Chavez.

10th December 2008, 06:44 PM	#17
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,675	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Lefty, can you explain that a bit for me? Under foreign control? What do you mean by that? As to ownership of resources: I live in Texas, and I don't seem to own the oil here. Should I? Do "the people" of Venezuela actually own the oil there? Do the people of Saudi Arabia actually own the oil there? Do the people of Norway actually own the oil in the North Sea? The people of Scotland? Who are you kidding, other than yourself? DR Goni sold out the country for some peanuts. Even water got privatized, poor people ended up not beeing able to buy water etc. the National oil company was quickly sold just before the coup. i know about a mine that was sold by goni extremly cheap to some shady companys including a swiss one. Morales is just geting back what belongs to the people. And yes, the Oil in Venezuela and Bolivia belongs to the people, which is writen down in the constitution. Also Norway has a national oil organisation and a very inovative investment fond because they are running out of oil and gas, so they try to prevent loosing wealth. Dunno about scotland, i guess it belongs to the queen.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it Last edited by DC; 10th December 2008 at 06:46 PM.

10th December 2008, 06:58 PM	#18
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,675	Originally Posted by moon1969 Still Evo Morales has done alot of good things to Bolivia. Morales still is a communist radical just like his best friend Hugo Chavez. Morales is not radical, nor is he a communist, nor is Chavez a communist. Morales is a very inteligent, yet not educated man. He has an ability to bring together good people. He has a very clever and well educated vice president, Linera, a University professor and 30 years political analyst inspired by Marx.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

10th December 2008, 07:04 PM	#19
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,789	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Get rid of demand? Oh, right, Nancy Reagan figured that out: just say No!
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

11th December 2008, 02:02 AM	#20
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,795	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney And yes, the Oil in Venezuela and Bolivia belongs to the people, which is writen down in the constitution. Also Norway has a national oil organisation and a very inovative investment fond because they are running out of oil and gas, so they try to prevent loosing wealth. Dunno about scotland, i guess it belongs to the queen. Norway has it written into law that the oil is for the good of the people of Norway and they have a large oil fund like the middle east countries. The North Sea has just as much oil left in it than has been taken out, it is just more difficult to get to but american companies have the technology to get to it and the tech is improving all the time. The wells being drilled now could not have been drilled 7 years ago. Scotland oil was done differently. The UK govt own prts of the North sea and sold licences to companies for sections of the sea. These companies then drilled for oil and payed taxes/revenues to UK govt. The bulk of the money went outside the UK. If Scotland had been independant and we had setup like Norway we would have been much better off. Again DC shows ignorance about the Queen.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

11th December 2008, 02:35 AM	#21
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,675	Originally Posted by funk de fino Norway has it written into law that the oil is for the good of the people of Norway and they have a large oil fund like the middle east countries. The North Sea has just as much oil left in it than has been taken out, it is just more difficult to get to but american companies have the technology to get to it and the tech is improving all the time. The wells being drilled now could not have been drilled 7 years ago. Scotland oil was done differently. The UK govt own prts of the North sea and sold licences to companies for sections of the sea. These companies then drilled for oil and payed taxes/revenues to UK govt. The bulk of the money went outside the UK. If Scotland had been independant and we had setup like Norway we would have been much better off. Again DC shows ignorance about the Queen. north sea peaked sorry for my ignorance about your monarch. formal curtsy
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it Last edited by DC; 11th December 2008 at 02:37 AM.

11th December 2008, 03:18 AM	#22
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,795	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney north sea peaked I'm glad you think its funny. With new reservoirs being found there is enough oil in North Sdea for more than 30 years yet. I will be retired by then. Originally Posted by DC sorry for my ignorance about your monarch. formal curtsy Shame it was not all you were ignorant of.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

11th December 2008, 11:03 AM	#23
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney And yes, the Oil in Venezuela and Bolivia belongs to the people, which is writen down in the constitution. Does each citizen get a royalty check annually as their share of the resources harvested by various oil companies, as is done in Alaska in the US? Quote: Also Norway has a national oil organisation and a very inovative investment fond because they are running out of oil and gas, so they try to prevent loosing wealth. OK, similar thought, is this the same as Alaska's royalty check, or is it manifested by a reduction in taxes? Quote: Dunno about scotland, i guess it belongs to the queen. Begins humming Scotland the Brave.* * Beware the blue faced wielder of the claymore, my friend, lest ye lose thine head!
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

11th December 2008, 06:37 PM	#24
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor As to ownership of resources: I live in Texas, and I don't seem to own the oil here. Should I? Do "the people" of Venezuela actually own the oil there? Do the people of Saudi Arabia actually own the oil there? Do the people of Norway actually own the oil in the North Sea? It belongs to the countries under whiuch it is located. Our corporations seem to think that it belongs to the corporations because wee have the military might and the money to coerve or corrupt governments into giving the corporations the right to haul it away.