I have seen a lot of people who are trying to claim that socialism cant work because of what is happening in Venezuela,but it is always VERY EASY to tell when somebody just takes a few talking points they heard on FAUXnews,or on the rush Limbaugh show,and didn't do any actual research into something themselves!!!

The problem with socialism in Venezuela is the fact that the government was corrupt,and instead of using all of their socialist programs to help the normal citizens of its country,like they were SUPPOSED TO,they took all of the money and basically just gave it to the corrupt politicians that their government is infected with!
[maybe you have heard about the mobster who is currently the president who illegally rigged the election to keep himself in power?? ]
{you know...the one who has to 20 TON PILE OF GOLD in his vault that he is trying to ship out of the country before he loses power!!]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/venezuela-20-ton-pile-gold-022753684.html

so,in REALITY,by definition,Venezuela isn't a socialist country..it is an AUTHORITARIAN DICTATORSHIP!!!

in a toxic environment like THAT,though,where the government is corrupt,NO form of government is going to work!!!

just look at OUR country...

we live in a 'democracy',but now that the government has turned corrupt,and doesn't serve the PEOPLE anymore...just themselves,and the rich and powerful,WE aren't doing very well either,are we??
[and,its only going to continue to get WORSE,if we dont do something to take back control of it from the people who are running it only for the benefit of themselves,and the super wealthy,and powerful!!]

but,i think that it is par for the course that none of you fauxsters,or dittoheads talks about the FACT that VIRTUALLY EVERY OTHER MAJOR COUNTRY IN SOUTH AMERICA HAS ALSO PRACTICED SOCIALISM,AND MOST OF THEM ARE DOING JUST FINE!!!!

[I wonder WHY they never mention THOSE COUNTRIES on FAUX,or rush?????]
[NO,i dont!!!] lol

here...
have a little education!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/08/21/no-venezuela-doesnt-prove-that-socialism-will-bring-about-a-zombie-apocalypse/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.582051ff7385


"Since the turn of the century, every big country in South America except Colombia has elected a socialist president at some point. Socialists have taken power in South America’s largest economy (Brazil), in its poorest (Bolivia) and in its most capitalist (Chile). Socialists have led South America’s most stable country (Uruguay) as well as its most unstable (Ecuador). Argentina and Peru elected leftists who, for various reasons, didn’t refer to themselves as socialists — but certainly governed as such.

Mysteriously, the supposedly automatic link between socialism and the zombie apocalypse skipped all of them. Not content with merely not-collapsing, a number of these countries have thrived.

Take Peru. When Ollanta Humala, widely seen as one of the most radical hard-left leaders in the region, was elected president in 2011, 28 percent of Peruvians were poor. In office, Humala governed from the left, but sensibly, investing in the poor while nurturing economic growth. By the time he handed over power in 2016 (peacefully, to a right-wing successor), just 21 percent of Peruvians were poor.

Some argue that it was Humala’s relative moderation that averted disaster. But look across his southeastern border. In Bolivia, a hard-core socialist, Evo Morales, has been in power since 2006. Morales’s tenure lays waste to any notion that countries succeed only under “moderates” — he’s a proper extremist, a hard-leftist who nationalized the nation’s most lucrative industry, and it’s an incontestable fact that he has handled the nation’s finances with prudence and scored real social achievements along the way. According to the World Bank, under Morales poverty in Bolivia fell by a third, with none of the economic chaos Venezuela has seen."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/01/05/as-socialist-venezuela-collapses-socialist-bolivia-thrives-heres-why/?utm_term=.26f7d439b967

As socialist Venezuela collapses, socialist Bolivia thrives. Here’s why.

"Venezuela ran large budget deficits every year, even as oil prices skyrocketed between 2005 to 2014. That meant the country was piling on debt even as government revenue exploded — a senseless, pro-cyclical policy that left Venezuela up a creek without a paddle when commodity prices tanked.

In the meantime, Bolivia was running budget surpluses every year between 2006 and 2014. This allowed it to draw down the public sector’s debt, which fell from 83 percent of GDP in 2003 to just 26 percent in 2014, even as Bolivia built up its international reserves dramatically, from $1.7 billion in 2005 to $15.1 billion at the end of the boom in 2014."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEE!!...
socialism seems to be working out pretty well for THEM!!!
I wonder why the people trying to hold on to their power only want you to look through a pinhole at the very worst example,instead of letting you take the blinders off,and see the BIG picture??

I will answer that question for you...its because they dont want you to have to REAL FACTS,because THEN,you wouldn't be so easily manipulated for their own purposes.

"Socialism" wasnt the problem in Venezuela...."CORRUPT POLITICIANS" were he problem!!

so,you might want to start actually doing the RESEARCH it takes to have a well informed opinion about things,instead of just swallowing the propaganda that people are feeding you to further their own agenda?

[GOOGLE is your friend!!!]

AlJazeera was among the first channels to cover 9/11 live!!
(Saw it in Saudi Arabia; thought it was some comic strip)

Ok, they seem to be neutral on both parties: Reps and Dems.
On world news, they do have some of their own agendas.

According to Reuters,
Pelosi delays State of Union address
(A much awaited event the world over)
Trump threatens, then accepts.







The way I see it, the President (in his own way) agrees with Speaker Pelosi

I haven't been following political news that much anymore.
It just seems more like a circus where the attempt is to trigger outrage than inform.

I mean:
"they leaked the raid in advance to CNN"
Who is "they?" Some Illuminati group? Pelosi? The head of the FBI? A single disgruntled FBI agent that hates Trump?
Was it leaked or did CNN learn about it some other way? Like CNN has an illegal/hacked/legal FBI/military/police frequency radio?
Was it actually leaked? Or was the FBI just slow and lazy? They showed up and some neighbor called CNN and they showed up during the multi hour process, or local news and CNN bought all the footage of local newshounds following swat vans?

"Then you seen thirty tacked up Federal Agents with guns drawn serving a warrant"
I was driving down in the hood for work not too long ago, saw a couple sheriff's vans and 3 cop cars pull up to a house, about 8-10 sheriff's deputies went up and served a warrant.
That was on a little ghetto house. I sat and watched them arrest 1 guy.

I don't know what kind of house or security Roger Stone has.
For all I know he has 30 personal security guards and a 1000 acre property.
That's going to take a lot of agents to secure.
I mean I lived in Colorado for a bit, adjacent to a billionaire with hundreds or thousands of acres of property. Whenever he planned on coming for a visit to his home, just a week or month visit, about a dozen security agents would precede him by a couple weeks and start investigating the community of about 1500 people, see if there was anyone new, check out the property, look for dangers.
Maybe all of those agents weren't for Roger Stone but a means to secure everyone else?

I don't know if he lives in a 1500 square foot bungalow on 1/8th of an acre in the middle of suburbia, or has a sprawling gated compound with a private army.

Also, I remember the raid on subway Jareds house. A ton of cops were sent there too, in order to prevent destruction of evidence, to seize computers and files, for child porno.

I don't know about "guns drawn" but they tend to not send agents in the field without guns, and there are policies and procedures in place in how to approach a place, secure it. Hard not to have "guns drawn" with assault rifles.


I agree.
Seems people being prosecuted are being prosecuted for stupid reasons, procedural reasons. Like Andy Bernard lawyering; "what about your lies david?! You sent a text: 'all is good, my wife has a cold,' well which is it? Is all good? Or your wife sick?!" Based on the Mueller probe he'd be arrested for lying under oath (if he worked for Trump).
And Cohen going to jail? Let's see, he went to a bank, and lied about his assets and income to get a loan. Hmmm, sounds so familiar, but I must be crazy, because there weren't millions of other people doing the same thing, influencing the housing crisis. Musta happened in my dream.

Seems like doing something similar to FBI agents standing around outside a medical marijuana dispensary in a legalized state waiting for someone who knows someone they don't like to come out in order to arrest them for violating federal drug laws.

I hate that movie but I liked the book.

yeah, plus there are 'other' references that can be gleaned from the work.


Yeah, I really didn't and haven't associated Scientology with LRH except in the proclaimed accountings by the followers.
Makes me think that if he were alive right now, he would disown the lot of them.
This makes me realize that people are batshiat crazy when it comes to belief systems.
But, if it gives you the inner peace you need for you to live life, who am I to criticize?
I mean, no matter which religion you subscribe to, its a purely personal endeavor or you are just a gullible fool.

If your belief system isn't giving you the inner peace for a contented life, I only ask why? But, really, its all your own decisions to believe what you will.

Personally, I have found that reality is the best for me. That's because reality is reality no matter who believes it and you can depend on it no matter the circumstances. It doesn't need elaborate explanations to explain it because it is whether it can be explained or not. It requires nothing and delivers nothing but itself.

HHHMMMMmmmmmm.......

a religion that was started by a science fiction/fantasy writer who actually wrote a book on what he would do if he started a religion....??????


I DO have to admit,though...

it makes JUST AS MUCH sense as the belief that a jewish zombie that was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh,and telepathically accept him as your master so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because the rib woman was convinced by the talking snake to eat from the magical tree!!!

I think that the simple fact that there is absolutely no evidence that ANY of 'gods',or 'supreme beings' exist,except for the fact that a HUMAN BEING who has NEVER met or seen them,or even KNOWS anybody that knows anybody that knows anybody that knows anybody [TIMES A MILLION!!] who has ever met,or seen them tells you that they are real pretty much disproves ALL religions,doesnt it?
[including scientology!!]

I can tell you that the sky is green,and that fire doesn't REALLY burn you if you sit down in it and go to sleep,but,even if I write a book claiming that,and get a 100 million other people to repeat this story,that STILL doesn't mean that it is true.
it just means that there are 100 million people out there who are repeating something thst they heard FROM ANOTHER HUMAN BEING who has an overactive imagination,and is probably trying to manipulate you for their own purposes.
[like L Ron Hubbard!!]

I read Battlefield Earth, enjoyed it.
I read Dianetics, didn't.
I did find certain aspects of it interesting but most of it struck me as bullshiat.

I remember a big stink years ago when Tom Cruise was jilted because of his views about Scientology.
Personally, I don't give Scientology and more credence than any other religion.
To me, all religions do the same thing, convince others on how they should behave and think based on unfounded beliefs.

All that being said, I also have no issue with anyone's belief in their chosen religion. So, if you are a Scientologist, good for you. I hope you find the contentment you need to live with inner peace.

Yea, the only reason i'd lean one way is, way too much abuse in the past


We have a long history with such religious groups bringing in millions, paying no taxes, no payroll and sit on multi million dollar properties. tsk tsk

It seems like they're not getting away with low wages here


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/church-of-scientology-underpaying-staff-1.4972447

As mentioned before, I am not a fan or critic of Scientology. I kind of see it as a group of people with like goals and values, like a religion such as JW, or Catholics or Jewish, or Christian, or Muslim, or like a non religion like atheists.

I do hear criticism of them, but of those I know are members, they seem to be living pretty upstanding productive lives. I dont know any personally, only those reported on. Every religion and non religions is made of individuals, and these individuals can make poor choices. But I dont think that should reflect on the group unless it is shown that in the groups public philosophies, they are encouraging or mandating those choices.

all that is to say, for those who have documented information from more than just x-members negative claims or current members praises, I am curious what is the negative or positive Documented information about this group as a whole.

This thread is the first ive heard of this and i need to learn more .
But if she stands by her opinion i wouldnt vote for her . But she is correct that the judge in question has no buisness being on the bench with his bias views .
As i said im not religious but deffend anybody's right to believe what they want to believe

What has Scientology Church done, Not just the claims, but actually proven to have done?

sorry to disappoint you,but the difference between kavnaugh,and
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is that when they dug into kavanaugh's past,THEY FOUND SOMETHING in his past!
[several somethings,actually!!]

in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's past,all hey could come up with was the video of her dancing!!

so,your comparison is basically the equivalent of trying to compare mother Teresa with Adolph hitler.
[or,should I say,mother Teresa with donald trump?]

so,once again...

would you rather have a politician who is so morally,and ethically above reproach that a video of her dancing when she was in college is the most embarrassing thing that they can find on her,or somebody whose whole life has been nothing but an ethical,and moral train wreck?

it is REALLY a VERY simple question,with a VERY simple answer!

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn't officially a member of Congress yet, and she is already having a temper tantrum.

From The Hill, 31 December 2018:



Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's problem isn't that she is a Democrat or a Socialist.

Her problem is that she believes that her election equals a mandate from all Americans.

No, it doesn't.

She was elected to speak on behalf of the residents of her congressional district.

She doesn't speak for everyone else in the USA.

It is bad enough that she is woefully naive about the complications involved in converting all America to 100% renewable energy.

Has she told her constituents just how much her Green New Deal would cost them? Of course not! She doesn't know how much it would cost. It is as if she doesn't know where New York City gets its heat during winter. Perhaps she doesn't.

Then there is this from economist Dr. Charles N. Steele: "Scientific economic analysis suggests radical responses are unnecessary, even if we accept the basic models of global warming. Economics also shows that attempts by government planners to redirect the economy will result in unsustainable catastrophe, not sustainable development."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez still has much to learn about reality.