potpourri of articles of possible relevance

[thx1138]

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/ss_media0117_02_10.asp & http://www.safehaven.com/showarticle.cfm?id=12578&pv=1 & http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_08/lee021009.html & http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/business/05real.html?_r=2&hp & http://lonestartimes.com/2009/02/11/militarizing-police-depts-with-your-bailout-money/ &
http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2009/02/11/inside-source-reveals-fema-dhs-prepairing-for-mass-graves-and-martial-law-near-chicago/ & http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article8724.html

[hippifried]

1) Ramblings of those who would have paranoia broadcast exclusively, & decry dealing with markets on a global scale. Irrelevant.

2) More ramblings. This time whining about the horrible things that happen without the global markets. Partialky relevant.

3) Us currency being compared to Zimbabwe. Irrelevant.

4) Office vacancies? I imagine that may have a lot to do with some of the commercial forclosures. Relevant as evidence that this has been going on for several years & it takes Wall St at least 2 years to figure out what's going on in the real economy.

5) Crying wolf over stimulous mony being spent on domestic security. Bt the figures & totals cited in the article, 7/10 of 1%. Irrelevant.

6) Part o FEMA's mandate is having contingencies preplanned for emergencies. It's necessary to work with the localities & have them in the loop. They're the first responders. After all the gripes about lack of coordination when Katrina hit, this article is griping about efforts to correct that. I mean really, is it a big secret where the bridges are? Irrelevant.

7) A series of over the top dumbass analogies that show nothing but how inane the author is & low his esteem of the general public is. The lay public isn't really that gullible or stupid. Irrelevant.

[thx1138]

Eastern Europe on the brink of a financial meltdown: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/4623525/Failure-to-save-East-Europe-will-lead-to-worldwide-meltdown.html

[thx1138]

possible social unrest In europe: http://www.prisonplanet.com/european-economic-collapse-%e2%80%9cit-may-already-be-too-late-to-prevent-social-unrest%e2%80%9d.html

[chefmike]

Leave it to thxtinfoil to step in shit and call it potpourri...now there's a shocker...

[hippifried]

Eastern Europe on the brink of a financial meltdown: Aren't they always? Comes with the territory, being in between the rivals that can't stop starting wars with each other.

But seriously, the current problem isn't localized at all. There's no regional problems here. This bank business is global. There isn't any one single spot that anybody's going to be able to point at & say "it was them". Irrelevant.


possible social unrest In europe:More irrelevance. Mass disasters don't create social unrest. Targeted injustice does. The culprits in this mess are public record, & nobody's blaming the small inner-city shopkeepers. Nobody's paying attention to Chicken Little.

[thx1138]

The relevance is: western Europe gov'ts can't allow these countries to revert to socialist type entities. Therefore they will explode their money supplies to prevent these and generating a continent wide hyperinflation in the process.

[thx1138]

Hippie once again demonstrates his lack of ability in connecting the dots.

[Oli]

Hippie once again demonstrates his lack of ability in connecting the dots.

And your projecting patterns onto a random series of dots.

You should look into the flexibility countries retain economically once they join the EU and embrace the Euro. Returning to 'socialist type entities' isn't possible-they already are socialist. They can only return to Communism, which they all know is a failure.

And if you'd like a little perspective, look for news articles about the Asian meltdown of the late 90's and you'll see the same things written then. "The world economy will collapse if we don't save Korea et al." (BTW Korea at the time probably produced more than all of Eastern Europe does now)

[chefmike]

El Nino: Mike has NO proof. His only job here is to shout insults and denigrate people. What a way to earn cigarette money! No ethics, no brains.

You are a fool and a laughingstock like your buddy El Ninny. The loony links that you two clowns post are quickly debunked, derided, and dismissed by anyone who bothers to read such nonsense.

You'll even stoop to outright lies when your conspiracy fantasies aren't working:
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=42192&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30



Mike has yet to refute anything coming from a reputable source posted here.Reliable source? LMAO. This from the buffoon who said Ted Turner was a paid disinformationalist for the NWO. You mean to say that you and your handful of fellow laughingstocks have ever posted anything but absurd BS from the likes of Alex Jones et al? I wonder if anyone ever noticed it. Not bloody likely, simpleton.


He's the same guy that said 2 years ago the economy was in great shape.

Note the date thx registered on this site. More fantasy from the acorn academy alumnus. Produce a quote and URL, slick.

That's what I thought.

You clowns are pathetic.

[hippifried]

Hippie once again demonstrates his lack of ability in connecting the dots.What dots? The cold war's over. It was never anything but artificial anyway, & eastern Europe wasn't part of the Soviet bloc voluntarily.
Translation: Nobody gives a rat's ass about socialism & never really did.

[BrendaQG]

nobody gives a rats ass about socialism? Really?

Chavez Wins: "Socialism" Or Death!, Via Huffington post. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-cooper/chavez-wins-socialism-or_b_167281.html)

During the days of the Pinochet dictatorship there was that joke about the Chilean dictator going on a state visit to Bolivia, a long-time rival of his own nation.

At a state dinner, the Bolivian President introduces his Chilean counterpart to Senor so-and-so, Secretary of the Bolivian Navy. Feeling slightly mocked by the leader of the landlocked nation, Pinochet raises his eyebrow and says "You have a Minister of the Navy?"

The Bolivian President doesn't bat an eyelash and responds, "What's the problem? After all, you have a Minister of Justice."

In that respect, if Hugo Chavez wants to call himself a socialist and pretend that the armed forces that currently hold the levers of power in his country and who swear an oath to defend the fatherland, revolution and socialism are the armed representatives of the working class, I suppose that's his right. After all, if Dick Cheney can call himself a defender of democracy, why can't Hugo claim to be a tribune of socialism?

There have been worse characters in history who have claimed the title of socialist. From Stalin to Pol Pot to the younger Mussolini.

But Chavez is hardly in their league. He's much more of a cross between Peron and Fidel with a dash of the Woody Allen character in Bananas. Make that two tablespoons.

I, on the other hand, venture to believe that Mssrs. Marx and Engels had a rather different species in mind when they were theorizing about a post-capitalist world and who might lead it.

But then again, Venezuela is hardly post-capitalist. If what Chavez has got going there has anything to do with the democratic and egalitarian notions that have inspired generations of socialists throughout history, please count me out.

No question that Chavez --utilizing all the state resources of an incumbent that controls ALL branches of the government, much of the media and manipulates the levers of oil-financed patronage-- won a clear victory Sunday in the referendum that will allow him to indefinitely run for re-election when his current term (and his FIRST 15 years in power) expires in 2013.

In broad terms, the vote can be called democratic. More or less the same as what passes for democracy in many places of the world. And Chavez was democratically re-elected president last time out. And, in case, anyone attempts to put some unsanitary words in my mouth, Chavez is the legal and constitutional ruler of Venezuela. Duly elected, lawfully elected.... and so on.

But he is the ruler. As none of the above negates or contradicts the rather obvious fact that Chavez intends to never leave office -- at least, not alive. His usurpation of any pluralism, of any semblance of debate and consensus in the most important levels of government is something that merits no celebrations and certainly bodes nothing very uplifting about the Venezuelan future.

Legal or not, democratic or not, Chavez is bent on and has effectively already achieved one-man rule. And that, brother, ain't got nothing to do with socialism.

Socialism should mean more democracy, not less. More transparency, not less. More distribution of power, not centralization in the hands of an ego-maniac who lends himself to five hour Sunday TV spectacles and who refers to any and all critics as "squalid...terrorists...and fascists."

No question that when Chavez initially came to power, his opposition was led by rather doltish and corrupt representatives of a corrupt and discredited oligarchy. What a gift to a demagogue like Chavez!

But things have changed in Venezuela in the last five years. The opposition has broadened and deepened, now extending far beyond its original right-wing and sometimes hysterical base. There are plenty of democrats, centrists, and even leftists (and socialists) in what is now a much more mature and pluralistic opposition.

And it's now their move. They have a limited historical window in which to pull it together and forge a credible, progressive, and attractive alternative to the brutish Chavez. Either that, or they should be prepared to have their grandchildren listening to Chavez rants and raves thirty years from now.

P.S. I am now going to contradict what I just wrote. I am willing to bet real cash that Chavez will not make it for another decade. He has given far too much power to the Venezuelan military and that will be his eventual downfall. The world economic recession and the plummeting price of oil, Chavez' failure to invest in a diversified economic development program, rampant corruption (and a horrific murder rate), will inevitably -- and probably sooner rather than later - lead to massive discontent. I would guess that such popular disillusionment (of the sort that usually lends itself to a yearning for an iron fist) will kick the doors wide open for a military coup by one or another general not anxious to go down with Chavez' dingy. This seems a more likely end to this story than an opposition victory anytime soon. I would not cheer nor support such a coup. It would probably produce something worse than the status quo. I just find it the most likely of outcomes.

(what I find most interesting is that the blogger, id's some of the people in the oppostion as democrats, and others as right wing. Seeming to fail to understand that just what those mean differ's from place to place. Certainly from one country to the next.)

[hippifried]

Yeah, really. Bush is gone. Nobody but McCarthyites has ever been worried about Hugo Chavez. Regardless of what anybody thinks about his economic theories, the people of Venezuela don't seem to have a problem with him at all.

Marc Cooper's full of shit. Venezuela's not a military dictatorship. It's not a banana republic. They've been a democratic republic for a long time. The people of Venezuela aren't stupid or illiterate. They understand their own system, even if we refuse to. All they did was remove "term limits", who's merits are debatable.

Call him a socialist if you like, but all he's really doing is distributing the oil revenue. As far as I know, Venezuelan oil has never been in private hands. Chavez didn't nationalize it. Socialism? They do the same thing in Alaska.

So what's the socialist threat?

[chefmike]

Nationalized oil?

YES!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy

[thx1138]

Irish protest: http://www.prisonplanet.com/over-120000-march-on-dublin-in-protest-of-irish-economy.html

[thx1138]

Latvian government collapses: http://www.prisonplanet.com/latvias-government-collapses.html

[thx1138]

The US is a socialist state; ever hear of social security? Bank bailouts? etc. etc. Not much difference between communism and socialism and communism. A matter of degree, really.

[hippifried]

Capitalism is just privatized socialism with a narrow scope.

[thx1138]

Here's my guess on all this: Russia gave up eastern europe knowing that in the long run the west would bankrupt itself trying to hang on to it.

[hippifried]

Here's my guess on all this: Russia gave up eastern europe knowing that in the long run the west would bankrupt itself trying to hang on to it.Well that could be. But the reason they took & held eastern Europe in the first place was to create a buffer between them & the insane Germans who kept invading them. Hanging onto occupied territory is a giant pain in the ass & always ends up breaking the occupier*.
(*occupier, occupant...?)

[thx1138]

German debt crisis: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/4800828/German-CDS-debt-spreads-hit-record-as-economy-crumbles.html