WSJ: The End of Bolivian Democracy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Io sono Italiano, anche no parlo niente! :toast

---

:toast cento anni paesan !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

actually a true postmodernist professor would never push any marxist doctine at all since the basic underpinning of postmodernism is that there are no absolutes are certainties.


again, perhaps you should actually read up on some deconstructionalism or postmodernism. i'd love to see your google based takes on derrida or garcia marquez.

---

It comes as no surprise to me that you are knowledgable on postmodernism and derrida. Going by all the points you make would have to take out any empirical evidence. Andrew Roberts writing about Postmodernists as "'merely disillusioned ex-Marxists who, despairing at the failure of the socialist experiment, have sought refuge in apathetic solipsism." I will take his take on it over yours. I can only assume that it is like the liberals blindly following communist lies throughout history, even as it goes against their beliefs.

rjv, what is your opinion about what is going on in Venezuela and Argentina? not that they are related mind you, but I want to know how much you know on the subject. Specially considering your opinion that Latin America is evolving towards democracy :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

The funny part is that you probably missed completely the fact that I am actually criticizing Morales, and not the other way around.
FWIW, I came back from the region 2 months ago, so while it might not be talked about too much here in the US, doesn't mean it's not talked about in the region itself.

---

It is worth absolutely nothing. So because you visited there and rjv has family from somewhere else, you two know the economic stability of central america. good job idiots.:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

It is worth absolutely nothing. So because you visited there and rjv has family from somewhere else, you two know the economic stability of central america. good job idiots.:lol

---

Well they certainly seem to know a whole lot more than you in that regard. What you are definitely missing is you're arguing against two different points of view. They are not of the same mind. Did you even grasp that? or are you too busy spewing your talking points as usual?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

It is worth absolutely nothing. So because you visited there and rjv has family from somewhere else, you two know the economic stability of central america. good job idiots.:lol

---

Not sure I'd run them into the same ditch, SnC. I see two distinct viewpoints. Don't you?

MNMNA beat me to it. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

It is worth absolutely nothing. So because you visited there and rjv has family from somewhere else, you two know the economic stability of central america. good job idiots.:lol

---

Wow... First of all, Bolivia is in South America.
Second, I'm actually arguing against his point.

Just wow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

It comes as no surprise to me that you are knowledgable on postmodernism and derrida. Going by all the points you make would have to take out any empirical evidence. Andrew Roberts writing about Postmodernists as "'merely disillusioned ex-Marxists who, despairing at the failure of the socialist experiment, have sought refuge in apathetic solipsism." I will take his take on it over yours. I can only assume that it is like the liberals blindly following communist lies throughout history, even as it goes against their beliefs.

---

i know about derrida because i double majored in math and philosophy and so postmodernism was one of the subjects covered in a contemporary philosophy class. andrew roberts is a historian and not a philosopher and his take on postmodernism is a take on the academic spin-offs that resulted from an adherence to the basic tenant, of the postmodern school, of relative ambiguity in truth. it has nothing to do with the actual philosophy of postmodernism itself.

do not pretend that you are hear to discuss the merits of poststructuralism, relativism, idealism, deconstructionalism and such as they pertain to the overall "postmodernist" school because we both would know you are not capable of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

MNMNA beat me to it. :lol

---

:lol

yeah. not even the most committed postmodernist thinker would go so far as to question the geographical certainties of the world, so spursncowboys allocation of bolivia to central america can not even be attributed to a refusal of fact, just an ignorance of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc

rjv, what is your opinion about what is going on in Venezuela and Argentina? not that they are related mind you, but I want to know how much you know on the subject. Specially considering your opinion that Latin America is evolving towards democracy :lol

---

truthfully, my knowledge of argentina is limited to the peron era and up until the alfonsin presidency. i know little beyond that and the of course the great contribution to the NBA made by the land of the pampas.

venezuela and chavez? he may be on his way to being the protagonist from the novel "autumn of the patriarch". i am almost always for the nationalization of resources from foreign investement in latin america because of the need for latin america to determine its own economic fate but chazez is on the brink of evolving into castro. of course, the portrayal of chavez here in the states is still very much abbetted by a good dose of hyperbole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

truthfully, my knowledge of argentina is limited to the peron era and up until the alfonsin presidency. i know little beyond that and the of course the great contribution to the NBA made by the land of the pampas.

---

Fair enough. Suffice to say, the people that are leading Argentina today are no Alfonsin. I encourage you to read and inform yourself about the state in which we Argies find ourselves now. That is if it interests you. We certainly are NOT evolving towards a more democratic state. Ours is more a gradual descent towards a socialist dictatorship.

Quote:

---

venezuela and chavez? he may be on his way to being the protagonist from the novel "autumn of the patriarch". i am almost always for the nationalization of resources from foreign investement in latin america because of the need for latin america to determine its own economic fate but chazez is on the brink of evolving into castro. of course, the portrayal of chavez here in the states is still very much abbetted by a good dose of hyperbole.

---

I don't have a problem with nationalization of resources from foreign investment either. That is except for the fact that every time a south american nation does it, everything turns to fucking crap. Venezuela is just the latest example in a long line, and probably the clearest as well. If there is something we should be thanking Chavez for is providing us with a clear example of what the populist left here in Latin America is all about.

The problem with leftist in the US is that they equate their set of values and ideals to that of "leftists" in Latin America. In reality, they are nothing alike. Chavez, Correa, Morales, Zelaya... you think any of them gives a fuck about their people? really? I won't argue the circumstances weren't bad in the past, but damn if we as Latin Americans haven't chosen the wrong fucking solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Not sure I'd run them into the same ditch, SnC. I see two distinct viewpoints. Don't you?

---

I wouldn't say distinct. One seems to be a Morales follower and thinks he is the economic wizard ( idk where that data about Bolivia is from) of s. america. the other is an apoligists and thinks morales although not his first choice is not as bad as the others and then in turn is ok. I reread their posts, and that is what I got.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc

Well they certainly seem to know a whole lot more than you in that regard. What you are definitely missing is you're arguing against two different points of view. They are not of the same mind. Did you even grasp that? or are you too busy spewing your talking points as usual?

---

I brought this up already. However no matter how coined a phrase is, if it is valid and factual, what is wrong with it. What is so better of an idea if it is heard less?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

I wouldn't say distinct. One seems to be a Morales follower and thinks he is the economic wizard ( idk where that data about Bolivia is from) of s. america. the other is an apoligists and thinks morales although not his first choice is not as bad as the others and then in turn is ok. I reread their posts, and that is what I got.

---

What others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc

Fair enough. Suffice to say, the people that are leading Argentina today are no Alfonsin. I encourage you to read and inform yourself about the state in which we Argies find ourselves now. That is if it interests you. We certainly are NOT evolving towards a more democratic state. Ours is more a gradual descent towards a socialist dictatorship.



I don't have a problem with nationalization of resources from foreign investment either. That is except for the fact that every time a south american nation does it, everything turns to fucking crap. Venezuela is just the latest example in a long line, and probably the clearest as well. If there is something we should be thanking Chavez for is providing us with a clear example of what the populist left here in Latin America is all about.

The problem with leftist in the US is that they equate their set of values and ideals to that of "leftists" in Latin America. In reality, they are nothing alike. Chavez, Correa, Morales, Zelaya... you think any of them gives a fuck about their people? really? I won't argue the circumstances weren't bad in the past, but damn if we as Latin Americans haven't chosen the wrong fucking solution.

---

the first thing that latin america has to do is remove itself from the tempation to lean on the IMF and world bank. they are nothing but loan sharks with no interest in developing struggling nations. the second is to empower the poor and the indigenous, which is especially important in countries with large indigenous populations such as bolivia and ecuador. privatizing is also key in order to facilitate public investment in the GDP of these nations. and it is also key to find a way to stop political discourse in the form of military and left or right wing staged violence. but this is all that latin america has known and, given the history of so many democratically elected presidents being assasinated or overthrown by coups (often supported by the CIA), one can see how it is that leaders become paranoid and begin to lean on the very devices that they once protested against when on the other side of the coin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

I wouldn't say distinct. One seems to be a Morales follower and thinks he is the economic wizard ( idk where that data about Bolivia is from) of s. america.

---

rjv is clearly sympathetic to Evo Morales; and he did cite economic statistics. So far those statistics stand unchallenged by anyone in this thread.

El Nono apparently did not voice a strong enough objection to Morales to suit you. Just saying Morales might be preferable in some ways to his immediate predecessors was enough for you to conflate his views with rjv's -- a striking and unfortunate error IMO. Had you been less hasty and discourteous to him -- or at least, had you the humility to conceal your own rather doctrinaire (i.e., low information) opinion -- you might have found an ally. Might.

Your own dislike of Evo Morales may in your mind disqualify the opinions others may hold of him, or of Bolivia, but rationally speaking your antipathy toward Evo Morales refutes nothing and no one.

At any rate, you did not bother to argue any of the points yourself, but instead rested content with guilt by association, while mocking the views of clearly better informed posters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnC

(El Nono) is an apoligists and thinks morales although not his first choice is not as bad as the others and then in turn is ok. I reread their posts, and that is what I got.

---

You could do with a little more nuance, SnC. El Nono is not an apologist for Evo Morales simply because he doesn't share your out-and-out antipathy for him.

IMO you ought to read posts more carefully and try to understand what posters are actually saying, instead of substituting your own hasty conclusions about their posts for the posts themselves.

As it is, you drove away two posters who might have been somewhat sympathetic to you, had you bothered to take them a bit more seriously, by paying attention to what they actually said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Your own dislike of Evo Morales may in your mind disqualify the opinions others may hold of him, or of Ecuador, but rationally speaking your antipathy toward Evo Morales refutes nothing and no one.

---

Bolivia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

rjv is clearly sympathetic to Evo Morales; and he did cite economic statistics. So far those statistics stand unchallenged by anyone in this thread.

El Nono apparently did not voice a strong enough objection to Morales to suit you. Just saying Morales might be preferable in some ways to his immediate predecessors was enough for you to conflate his views with rjv's -- a striking and unfortunate error IMO. Had you been


less hasty and discourteous to him -- or at least, had you the humility to conceal your own rather doctrinaire (i.e., low information) opinion -- you might have found an ally. Might.

Your own dislike of Evo Morales may in your mind disqualify the opinions others may hold of him, or of Ecuador, but rationally speaking your antipathy toward Evo Morales refutes nothing and no one. At any rate, you did not bother to argue any of the points yourself, but instead rested content with guilt by association, while mocking the views of clearly better informed posters.

You could do with a little more nuance, SnC. El Nono is not an apologist for Evo Morales simply because he doesn't share your out-and-out antipathy for him.

IMO you ought to read posts more carefully and try to understand what posters are actually saying, instead of substituting your own hasty conclusions about their posts for the posts themselves.

As it is, you drove away two posters who might have been somewhat sympathetic to you, had you bothered to take them a bit more seriously, by paying attention to what they actually said.

---

:hat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

rjv is clearly sympathetic to Evo Morales; and he did cite economic statistics. So far those statistics stand unchallenged by anyone in this thread.

El Nono apparently did not voice a strong enough objection to Morales to suit you. Just saying Morales might be preferable in some ways to his immediate predecessors was enough for you to conflate his views with rjv's -- a striking and unfortunate error IMO. Had you been less hasty and discourteous to him -- or at least, had you the humility to conceal your own rather doctrinaire (i.e., low information) opinion -- you might have found an ally. Might.

Your own dislike of Evo Morales may in your mind disqualify the opinions others may hold of him, or of Ecuador, but rationally speaking your antipathy toward Evo Morales refutes nothing and no one.

At any rate, you did not bother to argue any of the points yourself, but instead rested content with guilt by association, while mocking the views of clearly better informed posters.

You could do with a little more nuance, SnC. El Nono is not an apologist for Evo Morales simply because he doesn't share your out-and-out antipathy for him.

IMO you ought to read posts more carefully and try to understand what posters are actually saying, instead of substituting your own hasty conclusions about their posts for the posts themselves.

As it is, you drove away two posters who might have been somewhat sympathetic to you, had you bothered to take them a bit more seriously, by paying attention to what they actually said.

---

Maybe you should recheck who mocked whos views first. Also I really do not go on here to join forces in some kind of pissing contest. I would love to challenge the statistics if I saw them. For all I know it is one person's inaccurate statement. ALot is lost in translation with written text, so maybe I did hastly misunderstand. I don't think I did and reread it just to be sure. It is really getting old your enlightened view about everything. Willing to simplify my beliefs and yet readily able to tell me I about the infathomable variations of a problem that my simple mind cannot understand. Yeah I have not been able to argue valid points, when i have to waste my time becuz a troll is attacking me personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

i know about derrida because i double majored in math and philosophy and so postmodernism was one of the subjects covered in a contemporary philosophy class. andrew roberts is a historian and not a philosopher and his take on postmodernism is a take on the academic spin-offs that resulted from an adherence to the basic tenant, of the postmodern school, of relative ambiguity in truth. it has nothing to do with the actual philosophy of postmodernism itself.

do not pretend that you are hear to discuss the merits of poststructuralism, relativism, idealism, deconstructionalism and such as they pertain to the overall "postmodernist" school because we both would know you are not capable of that.

---

double major. Way to get a degree and get out into the real world. How many years were you in college?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

double major. Way to get a degree and get out into the real world. How many years were you in college?

---

LOL, you bitch about personal attacks then dish this shit out?

I was actually arguing your point for you, that Morales is most likely going dictator.

Are you even aware that Morales was democratically elected and is in his first term?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

the first thing that latin america has to do is remove itself from the tempation to lean on the IMF and world bank.

---

So are you saying welfare doesn't work? I am for fixing the IMF. I don't think getting rid of it will fix anything. I should of started off by asking wtf are you talking about? LATIN america?

Quote:

---

the second is to empower the poor and the indigenous, which is especially important in countries with large indigenous populations such as bolivia and ecuador.

---

Why? How will that make the entire continent better?When in history has trying to empower the poor actually improve the poor's quality of life?

Quote:

---

privatizing is also key in order to facilitate public investment in the GDP of these nations. and it is also key to find a way to stop political discourse in the form of military and left or right wing staged violence. but this is all that latin america has known and, given the history of so many democratically elected presidents being assasinated or overthrown by coups (often supported by the CIA),

---

really? often? I would love to see your empirical data to discredit a great institution like the CIA. I am not saying they are boyscouts or they haven't done it before(wish they still did do it) but don't think they are in the same ballpark as all the other variables. If we are talking about lowing the price of products and increasing jobs, why not a free trade agreement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Unlike you, at least rjv seems to be informed about the situation in the region.

Aren't you tired of merely repeating talking points without actually knowing jackshit about the situation?

---

he's not tired of being a parrot..