Originally posted by no1marauderI've already presented an argument. You're entire case has yet to be anything but a blind belief in an erroneous truism.
Grow up. That's the best argument you can present? No wonder why no one takes you seriously.
Hamilton was ignorant is certainly a unique point of view. Apparently the rest of the Framers shared his ignorance lacking the enlightened brilliance that you possess (in your own, and only your own, opinion).
In fact, various sta ...[text shortened]... eration had included term limits, so Hamilton and the Framers were hardly "ignorant" of them.
Make a case that doesn't require a leap of faith, you cute little zealot, you.
Originally posted by MerkLMAO! What are these claims but "truisms" based on nothing more than a "leap of faith"???
I've already presented an argument. You're entire case has yet to be anything but a blind belief in an erroneous truism.
Make a case that doesn't require a leap of faith, you cute little zealot, you.
Merk: A lack of term limits tends to produce politics that are more dynastic, hence corrupt. Whereas in contrast, term limits would reduce corruption, Thereby slowing the natural decay of a democracy into the dictatorship that arises when a democracy collapses under it's own excess.
Again, LMAO! Somehow the country without any congressional term limits has managed to avoid sliding into dictatorship so far, no matter the level of hysterical clatter raised by the Merks of the world.
Originally posted by no1marauderwithout any congressional term limits
LMAO! What are these claims but "truisms" based on nothing more than a "leap of faith"???
Merk: A lack of term limits tends to produce politics that are more dynastic, hence corrupt. Whereas in contrast, term limits would reduce corruption, Thereby slowing the natural decay of a democracy into the dictatorship that arises when a democracy c ...[text shortened]... torship so far, no matter the level of hysterical clatter raised by the Merks of the world.
Chavez is not a lawmaker, he's the president, therefore term limits are necessary.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't think my opinion binds Venezuelans, but why do you think Chavez is good merely because half the population likes him? Let's judge him on the actual policies he has put in place.
So you say. Why the opinion of a Dutch boy should be binding on Venezuelans is beyond me. The majority of them, so far, seem to feel that Chavez is an asset, not an evil.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLike reducing poverty and freeing his country from economic domination by foreign rich guys?
I don't think my opinion binds Venezuelans, but why do you think Chavez is good merely because half the population likes him? Let's judge him on the actual policies he has put in place.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOK, here's a study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research regarding the Venezuelan economy under Chavez. The Executive Summary states:
I don't think my opinion binds Venezuelans, but why do you think Chavez is good merely because half the population likes him? Let's judge him on the actual policies he has put in place.
Among the highlights:
The current economic expansion began when the government got control over the national
oil company in the first quarter of 2003. Since then, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP has nearly
doubled, growing by 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually.
Most of this growth has been in the non-oil sector of the economy, and the private sector
has grown faster than the public sector.
During the current economic expansion, the poverty rate has been cut by more than half,
from 54 percent of households in the first half of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008.
Extreme poverty has fallen even more, by 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash
income, and does take into account increased access to health care or education.
Over the entire decade, the percentage of households in poverty has been reduced by 39
percent, and extreme poverty by more than half.
Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, has also fallen substantially. The index has fallen
to 41 in 2008, from 48.1 in 2003 and 47 in 1999. This represents a large reduction in
inequality.
Real (inflation-adjusted) social spending per person more than tripled from 1998-2006.
From 1998-2006, infant mortality has fallen by more than one-third. The number of primary
care physicians in the public sector increased 12-fold from 1999-2007, providing health care
to millions of Venezuelans who previously did not have access.
There have been substantial gains in education, especially higher education, where gross
enrollment rates more than doubled from 1999-2000 to 2007-2008.
The labor market also improved substantially over the last decade, with unemployment
dropping from 11.3 percent to 7.8 percent. During the current expansion it has fallen by
more than half. Other labor market indicators also show substantial gains.
Over the past decade, the number of social security beneficiaries has more than doubled.
Over the decade, the government’s total public debt has fallen from 30.7 to 14.3 percent of
GDP. The foreign public debt has fallen even more, from 25.6 to 9.8 percent of GDP.
Inflation is about where it was 10 years ago, ending the year at 31.4 percent. However it has
been falling over the last half year (as measured by three-month averages) and is likely to
continue declining this year in the face of strong deflationary pressures worldwide.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf
Sure sounds like a lot of "evil", doesn't it?
EDIT: How was Venezuela's economy doing before Chavez? Go to page 7: From 1978-1998, Venezuela’s per
capita GDP declined by 21.5 percent.
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Economic_and_Policy_Research
OK, here's a study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research regarding the Venezuelan economy under Chavez. The Executive Summary states:
Among the highlights:
The current economic expansion began when the government got control over the national
oil company in the first quarter of 2003. Since then, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP ...[text shortened]... Chavez? Go to page 7: From 1978-1998, Venezuela’s per
capita GDP declined by 21.5 percent.
Advocacy
On a number of occasions, CEPR staff members have defended Hugo Chavez and his policies.[1][2][3]
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=34bf1ee4-f535-4fd4-a22a-9d1161ca8216
The UN’s Dictator Tour 2006
By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, September 25, 2006
...
Unmentioned by the Journal was the CEPR, and Weisbrot in particular, are longtime apologists for leftist dictators, most prominently Hugo Chavez. Evidence for this charge is not wanting. When in 2003 the Chavez regime established a U.S.-based lobbying group, the Venezuela Information Office, Weisbrot instantly emerged as the effort‘s leading backer, urging the “progressive funding community” to bankroll Chavez’s undisguised PR agency in the interest, of all things, of Venezuelan democracy. Weisbrot himself has been a tireless publicist for Venezuela’s would-be president-for-life, having previously attacked the country’s grassroots democratic opposition as “mostly managers and executives.” In a 2005 article, he held up Venezuela’s government as “the way democracy is supposed to work,” a curious assessment of a regime that, among other infringements of civil liberties, has introduced 20-month prison sentences for the crime of “offending the authorities” and consistently rigged the electoral vote in its favor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Economic_and_Policy_Research
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) is a progressive economic policy think-tank based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by economists and current co-directors Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot in 1999, according to the organization's website.
hahahaha. stupid liberal tricks!
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=34bf1ee4-f535-4fd4-a22a-9d1161ca8216
Many on the Left agreed. Indeed, Ahmadinejad became something of an overnight celebrity among New York’s liberal establishment. The venerable center-left think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), invited him to attend a special question and answer session. The diplomatic gesture backfired disastrously, as Ahmadinejad took the occasion to call for “more impartial studies to be done” to determine whether the Holocaust actually occurred, defended Iran‘s “right” to enrich uranium, and chastised his hosts -- among them insurance mogul and Holocaust survivor Maurice Greenberg -- for being puppets of the Bush “government position.” CFR‘s communications director, Lisa Shields, nevertheless defended the council’s decision to grant Ahmadinejad yet another forum to promote his cause: “We’ve had Castro. We’ve had Arafat, and Mugabe. We’ve had Gerry Adams,” she noted, an explanation that did not reflect nearly as well on the center as she may have supposed.
Originally posted by zeeblebotCan you find somewhere in wikipedia (apparently the only reference source you are familiar with) that refutes the economic numbers cited?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Economic_and_Policy_Research
Advocacy
On a number of occasions, CEPR staff members have defended Hugo Chavez and his policies.[1][2][3]