Quantcast

My main Indian

rockwool

Turbo Monkey
Apr 19, 2004
2,658
0
Filastin
...Hugo Chaves gives Arbusto and his Big-Oil buddies another one up the Gary for the third consecutive year.

Including some well spoken words of Joseph Kennedy:

The conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal harshly criticized the program last year for assisting "an anti-American tyrant at the expense of the Venezuelan people".

But Joseph Kennedy, a former Democratic congressman whose nonprofit Citizens Energy Corp is a major distributor of the heating oil, said the program has nothing to do with politics.

"The politics side of this is absurd," said Kennedy, the nephew of former president John F. Kennedy.

He noted that more than 10 percent of U.S. gasoline supplies come from Venezuela anyway, along with most of the heating oil and jet fuel in the United States.

"No one is saying any of that should be given up," Kennedy told Reuters. "The only time this discussion comes up is when we're talking about discounted heating oil for the poor."

Venezuela to donate more heating oil to U.S. poor

December 10th 2007, by Reuters

BOSTON, Dec 10 (Reuters) - Standing on the deck of an oil tanker in Massachusetts Bay on Monday, Venezuelan energy officials kicked off the third year of a controversial program of delivering subsidized home-heating oil for the U.S. poor.

A Houston unit of a state-owned company backed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a foe of the Bush administration, will supply oil at 40 percent below market prices in 23 states, an expansion from 16 states last year.

The donations by Citgo Petroleum Corp, owned by Venezuelan state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela, are worth about $147 million at market prices.

Deliveries began arriving at homes just as a deadly ice storm swept the U.S. Plains and many Americans start to grapple with record heating bills to heat this winter.

"This is the biggest social program any oil company has ever done in this country," Citgo Petroleum president Alejandro Granado told reporters at a port in Braintree, Massachusetts.

"We didn't stop and think about politics. We need to share a little bit of our tremendous profits."

Flush with funds from soaring oil prices, Chavez has used Venezuela's petroleum wealth to secure closer ties with South American neighbors and in 2005 proposed the U.S. heating oil program to trim costs for America's poor -- a group he says President George W. Bush's government has neglected.

Chavez, who last year called Bush "the devil" in a speech to the United Nations, has called the heating oil donations "humanitarian aid" although Venezuela's per capita income is about 1/10th that of the United States.

The conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal harshly criticized the program last year for assisting "an anti-American tyrant at the expense of the Venezuelan people".

But Joseph Kennedy, a former Democratic congressman whose nonprofit Citizens Energy Corp is a major distributor of the heating oil, said the program has nothing to do with politics.

"The politics side of this is absurd," said Kennedy, the nephew of former president John F. Kennedy.

He noted that more than 10 percent of U.S. gasoline supplies come from Venezuela anyway, along with most of the heating oil and jet fuel in the United States.

"No one is saying any of that should be given up," Kennedy told Reuters. "The only time this discussion comes up is when we're talking about discounted heating oil for the poor."

"The price of oil has gone up 130 or 140 percent in the last four years and there are now hundreds of thousands of low-income folks who need this oil," he said.

Venezuela, the world's No. 5 crude exporter, supplies about 15 percent of U.S. oil imports.

The Venezuelan heating oil program comprises 112 million gallons of oil and is intended for 235,000 families drawn from low-income home energy assistance programs in the 23 states.
"To the degree that they have reduced the cost to the elderly and those who cannot afford it, this program is a good thing," said Sarah Emerson, managing director at Energy Security Analysis in Wakefield, Massachusetts.


Gotta change my signature after reading this...
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,860
1
SoMD
Nah, this doesn't smack of propaganda at all. He's doing purely out of his love for american poor. Having been to his country several times, maybe he could use some oil profits to build some nicer buildings.

But, as long a folks that need some help with heating are getting it, who cares where it comes from?

when you said indian, do you mean feather or push button?
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Of course it's propaganda. It's also one of the reasons I'm critical of Chavez...because he should be helping his own people instead of poking his thumb in the US eye.

He's making Bush look stupid. Not that you have to be an Einstein to do that, of course.
 

rockwool

Turbo Monkey
Apr 19, 2004
2,658
0
Filastin
Push button?

Sure, it could be to make Bush look bad, which that rich cvnt deserves, but he has clearly shown he cares for little man, in V as well as in the rest of L.A. The one thing doesn't exclude the other. But for propaganda? Those recepients of that subsidized oil are hardly people with any power to make their voices heard so that it would have an effect on US policies towards V.

One things for sertain, no one can complain about that Cuba gets subsidized oil from V as the US does it too. Besides, the rich do need to share a little of their wealth as the president of Citgo said.
 

rockwool

Turbo Monkey
Apr 19, 2004
2,658
0
Filastin
Ohh, push button, the mark on their fore heads? No, feather of course as Chavez seems to have part Indian blood in him. Isn't the correct term for that "mestise" or something similar?
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,860
1
SoMD
Not to say that it's good to help folks in need, such as with discounted heating oil, but my problem is people that "help" the less fortunate and stand up in front of the world and trumpet their great doings. True charity is done quitely and for the right reason. It is pure propaganda, not for the sake of the receipients, but for the world media. Just as bad as Shaun Hannity who crows on Tv about all the stuff he does for our troops and then says, but it's not about me. As soon as you say that, it IS about you.

Also, why do some thing that the wealthy should "have" to share their wealth? If they work for it and earn it legally, why should they have to share it? If they want to, great, if not, it's their wealth, who are we to say they should have to share it with anyone?
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
Also, why do some thing that the wealthy should "have" to share their wealth? If they work for it and earn it legally, why should they have to share it? If they want to, great, if not, it's their wealth, who are we to say they should have to share it with anyone?
So you rather be taxed more than the wealthy - that's very generous of you:brows:
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Also, why do some thing that the wealthy should "have" to share their wealth? If they work for it and earn it legally, why should they have to share it? If they want to, great, if not, it's their wealth, who are we to say they should have to share it with anyone?
Ooh, one of my favourites!

There's lots of angles to this one, let's start with looking at the poor:

Few, if any, people choose to be poor, many poor people work mch harder than most yet are trapped in a situation where they receive little reward for their efforts. These people are effectively exploited in order for others to gain more from their efforts.

Now look at the rich:

From whence does their wealth come? A great deal of rich people are rich because they inherited wealth (as many more also inherit poverty). There are not that many ways of getting rich without doing so on the backs of others, this is not necessarily immoral but once it reaches the level of exploitation then it becomes at best questionable. Other ways of getting rich are via investment or financial speculation; the latter in some cases can create poverty for large numbers of people (currency speculation is an example).

Now look at society:

Wealth is only possible in a society where property is respected and protected. In order to exist in such a society there is a necessary for infrastrsucture that is funded by all. Furthermore the fabric of the society must be be suited to wealth creation; is it fair that those who benefit most should not carry the greater part of the burden of such a society?

There's plenty more but that should be sufficient to start an argument..
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,860
1
SoMD
These people are effectively exploited in order for others to gain more from their efforts.

It's called free enterprise. There are those that work and those that they work for. Everyone has the oppurtunity to advance to whatever level they can. It may not be easy and may require hard work and sacrifice, but it has been done before.

Few, if any, people choose to be poor,
No, but a large majority like to remain poor and recieve government entitlement and bitch about how those that are providing thier entitlement are holding them down


level of exploitation
What is considered explotation? Do these people not work knowing what is involved in the system?

Wealth is only possible in a society where property is respected and protected. In order to exist in such a society there is a necessary for infrastrsucture that is funded by all. Furthermore the fabric of the society must be be suited to wealth creation; is it fair that those who benefit most should not carry the greater part of the burden of such a society?
So just because someone makes more money, they should pay more for infrastructure? Do wealthy people use the roads any differnetly or more than poor people? Use their electricity differently? Funny, I don't see different price schedules in the grocery store for food items based on income. Oh wait..that;'s right you do see it because it's disguised as an entitlement. I pay my share for my food and my taxes on my "wealth" pay to subsidize the food stamps the poor dude in front of me is using.
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
You still haven't addressed the wealthy getting tax breaks. Everyone below them is forced to "donate" for them.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
These people are effectively exploited in order for others to gain more from their efforts.

It's called free enterprise. There are those that work and those that they work for. Everyone has the oppurtunity to advance to whatever level they can. It may not be easy and may require hard work and sacrifice, but it has been done before.
Really? Have you ever looked into how many wealthy people earned their wealth and how many either inherited it or gained from investing wealth they already had. It is very difficult for someone who is on a low income to become wealthy.

You talk of people having the opportunity to advance to the level that they can, but people are not created equal, nor are they given equal opportunities so the level to which they can advance is not the same either. If you think that someone holding down more than one job is not working hard and making sacrifices then who is?

Unrestrained free enterprise is a recipe for exploitation; the more poor people there are, the less you need to pay them hey?


Few, if any, people choose to be poor,
No, but a large majority like to remain poor and recieve government entitlement and bitch about how those that are providing thier entitlement are holding them down
Would that be the massed ranks of the unemployed? It's funny how so many more people suddenly chose to be poor during the great depression of the 1930's; personally I'd chose a boom to be unemployed but hey, that's just me, others seem to want to work when they can; I guess they're just dumb that way.

level of exploitation
What is considered explotation? Do these people not work knowing what is involved in the system?
So what option do they have, opt out and starve? They don't set the rules. You may want to step out of your comfort zone and look around you, even living in the richest country in the world you have poor people who don't want to be poor but just cannot seem to decide to be wealthy. Move outside the US and it gets worse. 45% of the world's population live on an income of less that $2 a day. You decide if that is exploitation
Wealth is only possible in a society where property is respected and protected. In order to exist in such a society there is a necessary for infrastrsucture that is funded by all. Furthermore the fabric of the society must be be suited to wealth creation; is it fair that those who benefit most should not carry the greater part of the burden of such a society?
So just because someone makes more money, they should pay more for infrastructure? Do wealthy people use the roads any differnetly or more than poor people? Use their electricity differently? Funny, I don't see different price schedules in the grocery store for food items based on income. Oh wait..that;'s right you do see it because it's disguised as an entitlement. I pay my share for my food and my taxes on my "wealth" pay to subsidize the food stamps the poor dude in front of me is using.
If they benefit more from the infrastructure why should they not pay more for it? And wealthy people do indeed use the infrstructure more and differently; they travel more, they consume more power, they eat better, they have access to better health care. These things do not run themselves.
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,843
114
Japan
The whole world is full of friggin' cockneys these days. At least you have some excuse, you're probably descended from cockney, low-life, thieving scum....:pirate2:
My grandfather was born in the East End in 1899. Now whether it was within earshot of Bow Bells I do not know. I can't remember him even having a Pommy accent but who knows, he told me he was born on troop ship off the coast of South Africa.
 

rockwool

Turbo Monkey
Apr 19, 2004
2,658
0
Filastin
Not to say that it's good to help folks in need, such as with discounted heating oil, but my problem is people that "help" the less fortunate and stand up in front of the world and trumpet their great doings. True charity is done quitely and for the right reason. It is pure propaganda, not for the sake of the receipients, but for the world media. Just as bad as Shaun Hannity who crows on Tv about all the stuff he does for our troops and then says, but it's not about me. As soon as you say that, it IS about you.

Also, why do some thing that the wealthy should "have" to share their wealth? If they work for it and earn it legally, why should they have to share it? If they want to, great, if not, it's their wealth, who are we to say they should have to share it with anyone?
And that's where your reason fails. It's not charity, it's politics. Charity you should do on your free time, distributing Mother Earths wealth equally among it's inhabitants is what politicians should do. As we all are equally worth, we should all have an equal proffit from what was given to us all. Not as it's been for millenias where the clever and the rich have used their abilities to fool the masses from what naturally belongs to us all.

They should share it just because they can. Peoples human rights have to some goddam time be taken serious and delt with, not just talked about. It's the right thing to do.
 

SlapheadMofo

Monkey
Jul 29, 2003
412
0
Westminster MA
There's no inherent problem in taking charity from a country/government at the same time you rail against it. The US sees the flip side of that scenario all the time; no reason not to play the other side of the fence for once.

Some people's forefathers managed to accumulate and pass down some wealth, so why the hell shouldn't their descendents benefit from that ? It's not the fault of the 'rich' person that no one in a 'poor' person's lineage ever had the luck or made the sacrifices (or took the risks) that removed them from poverty. You can blame circumstances, **** luck and your own family for the situation long before you can can blame someone who doesn't know you from a hole in the frigging wall simply because their bank account is in better shape than yours.

My folks were 'poor' by US standards. They busted their asses so I could live in better circumstances than they did. I'm trying to do the same for my kids. Capitalism works IMO.
 

rockwool

Turbo Monkey
Apr 19, 2004
2,658
0
Filastin
There are not that many ways of getting rich without doing so on the backs of others, this is not necessarily immoral but once it reaches the level of exploitation then it becomes at best questionable.
I beg to differ. If that wealth is made from others who are forced to sell their over capacity from work it is immoral. Why shouldn't their over capacity go to them selves? How can it be justified that one makes money that one hasn't worked for? It's just an evolved type of slavery.

People in dependency of leaderhip, etc, getting used by a person with some brainy skills, skills that he uses to exploit them. How would it be different if we took other persons who have been born with other strong abilites as muscles, instead of brains, and let them use them to exploit other people? It would be just as morally condemnfull as the other.

The difference is that in our world the "Brains" have, since day 1, written the laws and educated us that physical violence is wrong. Since day 1 those people have been using "mental violence" against us.

I know the word "violence" is the wrong one here but I'm dead tired and can think of a better expression right now.
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,860
1
SoMD
I beg to differ. If that wealth is made from others who are forced to sell their over capacity from work it is immoral. Why shouldn't their over capacity go to them selves? How can it be justified that one makes money that one hasn't worked for? It's just an evolved type of slavery.

People in dependency of leaderhip etc getting used by a person with some skills that he can use to exploit them. How would it be different if we took other persons who have been born with other strong abilites as muscles, instead of brains, and let them use them to exploit other people? It would be just as morally condemnfull as the other.

The difference is that in our world the "Brains" have, since day 1, written the laws and educated us that physical violence is wrong. Since day 1 those people have been using "mental violence" against us.

I know the word "violence" is the wrong one here but I'm dead tired and can think of a better expression right now.
Life in a Bob Marley song in a town where Peter Tosh is mayor.....
 

rockwool

Turbo Monkey
Apr 19, 2004
2,658
0
Filastin
It's called free enterprise. There are those that work and those that they work for. Everyone has the oppurtunity to advance to whatever level they can. It may not be easy and may require hard work and sacrifice, but it has been done before.
As you admit, everybody doesn't have the same oppurtunity to advance to the same level, there will always be a pyramid of people exploiting other people if we continue to support this system. It's like the "Muscles and the Bruce Lee's" would rule the world and tell everybody that they have the same opportunity as them to become good fighters and climb the economic ladder. It's impossible, mankind isn't meant to be competing against each other. We have diverse talents and capabilities to different extents which are meant to complete each other. Not compete.

No, but a large majority like to remain poor and recieve government entitlement and bitch about how those that are providing thier entitlement are holding them down
Ain't that a wifebeater speaking the "truth" of why his wife still "loves" him and therefore continues to stay with him.

What is considered explotation? Do these people not work knowing what is involved in the system?
In this case, a person using his superior skills (read brains) to get what he wants from others while he with the same God given (read born) furtunate skills justifies his actions and has human tools helping him upholding his power for him. Everything is about luck; he's lucky he's born in a family of wealth, education and higher social stance, in a rich country far away from deseases and, soon to come, desert waste lands (due to climate changes).

Some know but most haven't educated them selves enough, or correctly, to question or even grasp that this system is wrong. Few of these people can afford the luxury of not having to continue selling their overproduction to their bosses as they barely or just enough get by economicly. How many around you do you know that aren't the smallest bit afraid to quit their jobs not fearing how to find a new one quick enough and having trouble paying their bills? That thing quiets a lot of people up, forcing them to accept things they normally wouldn't do.

So just because someone makes more money, they should pay more for infrastructure? Do wealthy people use the roads any differnetly or more than poor people? Use their electricity differently? Funny, I don't see different price schedules in the grocery store for food items based on income. Oh wait..that;'s right you do see it because it's disguised as an entitlement. I pay my share for my food and my taxes on my "wealth" pay to subsidize the food stamps the poor dude in front of me is using.
Funny how those wealthy people want the poor masses to pay for the the wars, those very poor masses solely have to fight, which are started only so that those wealthy people can get higher dividends from the boosting sales that their companies do because of them wars. Talk about subsidizes (and not even mentioning those souls in those victim countries)...

Think about it, they always want us to collectivly pay for those things that will uphold their evil system, as well as those that they can gane proffits from while they're denying even denying those masses their human rights some times.
 

rockwool

Turbo Monkey
Apr 19, 2004
2,658
0
Filastin
Would that be the massed ranks of the unemployed? It's funny how so many more people suddenly chose to be poor during the great depression of the 1930's; personally I'd chose a boom to be unemployed but hey, that's just me, others seem to want to work when they can; I guess they're just dumb that way.
You're one of them infamous RM smartasses, aren't you?
 

rockwool

Turbo Monkey
Apr 19, 2004
2,658
0
Filastin
Some people's forefathers managed to accumulate and pass down some wealth, so why the hell shouldn't their descendents benefit from that ? It's not the fault of the 'rich' person that no one in a 'poor' person's lineage ever had the luck or made the sacrifices (or took the risks) that removed them from poverty. You can blame circumstances, **** luck and your own family for the situation long before you can can blame someone who doesn't know you from a hole in the frigging wall simply because their bank account is in better shape than yours.
You forgot to mention the small factor that nature has of this.

My folks were 'poor' by US standards. They busted their asses so I could live in better circumstances than they did. I'm trying to do the same for my kids. Capitalism works IMO.
Yeh, that's why so many starve and can't get their other human rights fullfilled.
 

rockwool

Turbo Monkey
Apr 19, 2004
2,658
0
Filastin
Quite simply.


Bullsh1t.
We consider our selves to be higher beings that the rest inhabitants of this planet. We sort us out collectively amongst each other through how high civilizations we live in, and individually through how high ethics we have. Not sure about if the last sentence is true for all of us, some just seem to be looking for "status". What ever that is.

As long as one can speak eloquently about him self, his actions don't have to live up to his words as most people won't notice or bother.