Chavez Says Venezuela's Golf Courses Should be Seized, Put to Other Uses

President Hugo Chavez said some of Venezuela’s golf courses should be expropriated and used for other purposes.

“That’s an injustice -- that someone should have the luxury of having I don’t know how many hectares to play golf and drink whiskey and, next door, there’s misery and children dying when there are landslides,” Chavez said during his weekly television show, “Alo, Presidente.”

Dozens of people died in the past month when landslides caused their homes to collapse after heavy rains. Chavez said he will dedicate himself to resolving Venezuela’s housing shortage.

Chavez also called on Venezuelans to actively look for abandoned private land to expropriate.

“Look for irregularities, and by that I mean good land that’s been abandoned,” he said.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-31/chavez-says-venezuela-s-golf-courses-should-be-seized-put-to-other-uses.html


Bravo!

If only that kind of distribution was implemented here.

Only 1/2 of the golf courses should be expropriated and only 1/2 of the people should be put first.

See? Compromise can work. :eyes:

I think the total adds up to the land area of Delaware.

At least in parts of Europe, they use them as parks.

Golf courses are not only a huge waste of space, they're ecological nightmares. All those herbicides and pesticides that get sprayed on the turf wind up in our waterways and ground water. Not to mention all of the wildlife habitat that gets destroyed. They also waste water, which is an especially big problem when the course is built in a desert, like Palm Springs or Phoenix. All that so some wealthy people can chase around a little white ball all day.

When you buy a hat like that I bet you get a free bowl of soup.

Treating them as utterly pristine, sacrosanct places where no seedling, no growth will be tolerated is what causes the problem.

Man, if I had omnipotent wilderness manager powers...

Why not bury the dead on golf courses?

How *dare* people be free to own their own properties and provide a service. :/

How anyone can like this dictator is beyond me.

Chavez gets it. Too bad you don't.

I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem if the government came in and said "we need the land your house is on so we can pave over it and make a road to a hospital" then?

Sorry, I don't swoon over dictators....

If it's not more than zero, you need to ask yourself if you're identifying with the right people.

This reaction is common in America. We are trained to identify with and defend the ruling class. We are trained to worry more about "fairness" to them than fairness to ourselves.

How do you think they built the interstate highways?

compensation to the owners? Eminent Domain does.

Venezuela’s land reform gives land back to those who work it



And the wealthy land-owners have killed over 200 peasants and tried to oust the elected president as a result of the law.

Here, people just move and take whatever the government offers. But then here, land is never taken from the wealthy, it is generally taken from the middleclass. The wealthy do not want to live next door to the Walmarts they build. I imagine if the U.S. was taking land from the wealthy, there would be plenty of violence here also.

If Venezuelan laws allows it, it does.

EMINENT DOMAIN.

Now, a city/county/state can invoke eminent domain on low income housing for the purpose of creating a higher income tax base, hi-end condos or shopping malls, etc, for said city/county/state.

Chavez is suggesting using eminent domain on high income play grounds, not on low income housing.

Many of whom consider themselves Christians. It's one of many phrases co-opted by the right-wing of the Republican Party, and Fox News (specifically Glenn Beck).

The irony is that social justice is a Christian doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

:)

How would seizing a golf course help victims of mud slides?

The entire community pays the price for the misuse of large tracts of land. My guess is the former owners of those golf courses are gonna be just fine.

"stealing" and "private property".

I'm using the democratic definition, you're using the capitalistic definition.

If it will make you happy, I think the owners should be paid for their land. Just first subtract the total environmental costs over the lifetime of their ownership and the expense of restoring their manicured paradise to something that's actually useful.

What definition is that?

Sounds suspiciously like "If I get enough votes, what's yours is mine."

Also, "We'll punish you for not having done what we prefered."

If that's "democratic", count me right the fuck out.

But the concept is pretty basic: if you take from -- and benefit from -- the common welfare, be prepared to have that benefit be subject to the will of the people or their duly-elected representatives.

And yeah, it's pretty obvious that you've counted yourself "right the fuck out" of that fundamental democratic concept. Too bad.

by definition, stole it from society and must be forced to give it back.

I'd demand proof, myself, rather than blindy accept your raw assumption.

You know, you might want to try reading my posts two or three times before you respond. It might work out better for you.

justify the action you advocate.

If, as you now say, the owner did not steal the property from the public, then they (the public) have no right to appropriate it.

It's not stealing per se, it's the basic capitalist concept of externalizing: externalize costs, externalize environmental damage, externalize social problems -- all the while privatizing any benefits. Golf courses, through loss of biodiversity and environmental pollution, are classic examples of capitalism externalizing costs for personal profit.

If someone engages in these practices, they should not complain when society asks them to finally pay the bill. If they had spent their money on something less damaging and more beneficial to society as a whole, they'd likely be able to hang on to their investment.

You must HAVE property . That would explain your reluctance on getting fucked out of it . Just breath out and relax commrade .

people? Chavez has brought millions from hunger and illiteracy to much better lives.


Damned dictators.

:eyes:

or some group to live in obscene luxury while next door people are literally starving to death, we tell our legally elected representatives to pass a law preventing it.

Capitalism is not democracy.

Hugo Chavez has been freely elected three different times. The EU, the OAS, and the Carter center have observed the elections and declared they were free and fair.

That means he's not a dictator, but a popularly elected president.

Nice talking point though.

YES, sometimes private ownership of property IS A SOCIAL INJUSTICE.

Just because YOU have been inculcated with capitalist beliefs does not make them decent or good.

Many of us don't buy into the whole right-wing neo-libertarian "free to own properties and provide a service" line you just trotted out.

Sure, people are free to do that if all other things are equal, but they aren't. The common good comes first.

You should have a petting zoo. . .



. . .instead of electric carts for you
old men with nothing better to do.

:-)

falling down indeed

It's one of my all-time top ten.

Color me shocked.

four corporations throw millions of working people out of their homes over value that Wall Street pissed away?

Dictator.

He's using it slap up McMansions and golden doghouses for his personal pleasure.

Oh no, wait... that's what *capitalists* do. Nevermind.

He's done some things I like, and he's done some things I don't--not that my opinion matters much, as I am not Venezuelan.

However, FWIW, this is one of the things I totally agree with him on.

Good for him.

Even if I'm retired and a nice guy? Even if I have the money I saved up after working 40 years?

and sleep on the streets while the land is used for a golf course?

Somehow, that doesn't jive with being a 'nice guy.'

All have the poorest people. If I was 70 and saved my money honestly and wanted to play golf, I shouldn't have to worry about the needy if I don't want to.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

Glad to see "I've got mine, fuck you" is alive and well on DU.

:nopity:

The average golf course is 75 acres of land. There are roughly 16,000 golf courses just in the United States. That's one million and two hundred thousand acres of land. All of it packed to the brim with invasive grasses, fetilized with dangerous fertilizers, and watered using god knows how many million gallons of water every day

So you can putter around on it for a few hours every other weekend.

How much of that land and water could be used in ways that are more beneficial? Beneficial to you, even, as converting all that land to farmland would doubtlessly bring down local produce prices and stimulate the economy more than that golf course could.

Also, is golf all you've got? I work in a retirement home, and plenty of the people there are still able to play volleyball, tennis, and the ever-popular bowling. It's not as if golf is your only option.

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't care how retired you are or how much wealth you accumulated, you are not entitled to benefit from this egregious waste of community resources. You're taking water and food out of people's mouths and polluting what's left so you can knock your balls around.

Well I love to play golf, but there really are too many courses.

Make them homeless shelters.

Golf courses waste obscene amounts of water. They should be forced to use rain barrels or shut down.

This damn dictator just can't get enough private property to seize can he?

Kill your fucking TV.

Looking for a word that means opposite of a dictator, but can't find one...Hey, it's late. Gonna go check to see if I can have a glass of wine. Oh wait, I live in a free society and am over 21, I don't need the government's permission, yay!

The elections there are cleaner than they are here.

Not a dictator.

How are they going to sleep in peace, if you keep telling the TRUTH?

:yourock:

No wonder Fox's rating are so good.

All I'll say is many of you love government way too much. Not every Democrat wants the government to help some by hurting others. There is no getting around banning golf courses. I didn't say he was a dictator, but he sure is a quasi one.

Maybe you navigated to the wrong page.

It's Democratic Underground, not Socialist Underground. There are plenty of proud Bill Clinton Democrats. We're the majority across the country, not the lunatic fringe posting in this thread.

And pardon me if I don't weep for the multinationals that own these places. It's too bad that we'd rather have homeless people in the street than create affordable housing. Ronald Reagan is smiling.

If you wanted to light up a joint you'd find out how "free" this society really is. But you don't so fuck those people, am I right?

Fantastic point.

And I am not a weed smoker.

Propaganda is a very powerful tool. You would think we would be resistent to it so soon after the Bush experience.

You really should study the history of Venezuela. It would help you to understand what Chavez is doing and why Global Corporate interests, led by the U.S. are not happy with Latin America's recent democratization. 11 S. American countries, one after the other, have finally rejected Global Corporate interference in their lives. The developments in that part of the world, starting with Venezuela, should give hope to every progressive Democrat, Liberal, and decent people everywhere.

As far as taking over Golf Courses, it's called 'eminent domain'. We do it all the time. People's homes and lands are taken by the U.S. Government for 'the common good' and they are compensated. Same thing in Venezuela. The only difference in Ven. is that the land confiscated actually is used for the common good, to help ordinary people. Here, it's often done for some wealthy entity to help further enrich themselves.

Fyi, Chavez has been elected over and over again after running on a platform that included 'Land Reform'. The people who elected him support what he is trying to do.

We in the U.S. really should mind our own business. It's badly in need of reform and we are in position to point fingers, especially at leaders like Chavez who puts his people before anything else and so far has succeeded in being an example to the rest of S. America where he is highly regarded. Not being regarded highly by the U.S. is not longer ocnsidered a bad thing around the world.

:applause:

Oh, wait, you can't..

he's helping the least amonsgt them all and demanding that the superflous make some fricking sacrifices. Jesus... touch anything the well-to-do take for granted and BAM! "He's a dictatorrrr". Impressively ignorant.

Has it ever occured to you that maybe, the people want this too?

to find out about it FIRST before attempting to discuss it?

Many of the rest of us were discussing the same idea confronting the people in Caracas years ago, when the MAYOR OF CARACAS was discussing it first.

Are you simply ignorant of the fact the golf course takes up precious space within the flat part of the city while the poor live in shanties perched on the hillside, where for ages they have either slid down the mountainside during hard rains, killing the people inside, or have been vulnerable to rapid fires which rage, since there's no adequate way to fight the fires?

http://stateofthenation.ca.nyud.net:8090/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/venezuela.jpg
What's holding you back in finding out about what has happened it Latin America? It helps if you actually have REAL INFORMATION rattling around in there FIRST before attempting to discuss the subject.

values", as opposed to "Capitalist exploitation"?

And I think maybe you took a wrong turn somewhere. The board for people who want to call Chavez a "damn dictator" and declare their love of "private property" is... elsewhere.

The worst ever on the planet George W. Bush, chico.

:puke:

Just do it already, Hugo Bush. Grandstander.

...so they can say dumb things like "He's a better man than Obama" or whatever leader they don't think is progressive or dictatory enough.

Normal golfers only break a few clubs or throw their bags in the water hazards when they have had a poor round. Chavez must have dug a few new bunkers on his last round to be this pissed.

One wonders if golfing can possibly be so big a problem in Venezuela that it requires Presidential level cleptomania. What is next? The football fields?

There are situations in all countries in which millionaires, living in luxury by ANYONE'S standards -- far from sheer survival mode -- are situated next to abject poverty...people truly trying to survive each day, as they have inadequate shelter, not enough food or water.

If you have any compassion or empathy (though, again, I realize those words have been demonized by today's conservatives), can you think of a way to ease suffering of some citizens without causing suffering to the wealthy? When I say suffering to wealthy, I mean things like limiting the number of luxury vacation homes, perhaps. I don't know...but whatever "suffering" they may endure wouldn't be on the level of basic daily survival that many are faced with, through no fault of their own (they've worked hard their entire lives and followed all the "rules").

Forget labels of socialism and all the other "isms" that stop discussion.

How would you handle dire situations that exist right now given the extraordinarily wealth that also exists right now?

Are you handing out free Advil?

:hi:

“People are, if anything, more touchy about being thought silly than they are about being thought unjust.”
- E.B. White

:rofl:

One more reason for me to like the guy, golf is and environmental disaster and an bourgeois affectation.

Now, I think golf has it's place, but only if it's reasonably priced and ecologically-sensitive (as many courses are these days.)

ouch....

Fidel is of course a product of his petit bourgeois background and can be forgiven his foibles, his work for the people overshadows this black mark... ;-)

However, I must stand by my statement. Let the putters be made into snake hooks.

Don't play soccer either so maybe those fields also could be seized.

themselves.

All those elite rich people with their tents and their sleeping bags...

They should fucking rot, the whole lot of them.

Now there's a shocker...

If he isn't one of them, he has a very naive crush on them.

It's perverse.

He's one of the "self-made" types and buys into the whole capitalist rap, because he bases his self-image on a romantic story of "success" through hard work, starring himself in the title role.

I think those types also masturbate alot, can't love anything but themselves.


We use to not tolerate those disrupters here. It was a much better place then.

That about right? Nothing but private golf courses? No public ones where young men and women play with hand-me-down clubs or clubs bought off the shelf at K-mart which by the way is how I was introduced to the game?

I can play a round of golf here in So. Cal. for WAY less than the cost of a really good meal. FUCK IT! Storm the restaurants!

and cheap.

blue collar golfers greatly outnumber the amount of people atthe fancy private clubs.

He will be putting thousands of caddies and groundskeepers out of work! And these executives, don't they have a right to whiskey and relaxation! That's oppressive. Think of the club manufacturers and all the people they hire. And those golf carts? Somebody makes those. My goodness think of the economy Hugo!

:sarcasm:

People on this board are advocating seizing private golf courses. How about evicting millionaires from their mansions and converting them into homes for the poor. Some are saying that golf courses are environmental disasters, but this is not a fact. Studies have shown where they provide a safe habitat for a variety of animals. Because golf courses use water they should be condemned. Since when is water consumed and destroyed. The problem with water shortages is there is a population explosion. The water that is used on golf courses goes into the aquifer. In fact in most cases the golf courses act as a purifier of water that is unfit for consumption. Don't golf courses provide relaxation and exercise. The also provide summer jobs for kids that are far more beneficial than hanging out in the local mall. I believe that there are more important issues than golf courses.

the vast majority of courses are open to the public and used by blue collar folks.

but it's easier for people to bitch about things they know nothing about....

show me these studies. You think that the grass grows that way without boatloads of chemicals? I don't need that crap in my drinking water.




Land use waste, acres and acres of it!

Which would likely be there in it's place.

to evict millions of middle class americans out of their homes, throwing them into the bottomless black hole that is poverty, that idea you decry is going to start sounding pretty damn good. Hope you don't own a golf course or a multi million dollar home. If you do enjoy it while you can.

Poor hoarding elite can't relax after a hard day of watching their wall street investments grow.

I've ever seen on this board.

I love that "Leave It To Beaver" imagery of the boy in the stripe polo toting bags for the cigar-chomping whiteguys...

I'll leave you with a bit of verse, Gramps:

"The golf-links lie so near the mill.
That nearly every day,
The working children can look out
And watch the men at play"

it hasn't been a rich man's sport in a long time.

you wouldn't make such a dramatically stupid statement.

Golf is another matter in Caribbean countries, especially those until recently led by *actual* dictators.

Also, child labor has been and is rampant in those same countries, so my quote is as valid now as it was here when that was penned.

You Hugo-bashers are Monroe Doctrine fetishists.

I hope we get some here soon.

It was called Kelo vs. New London. Because of the judicious use of eminent domain, now New London is a thriving metropolis.

nt

His countries' infrastructure fails, the power goes out and inflation skyrockets while many south American countries are thriving. Gotta throw another loaf to the masses and tell them he's going to make it all better at the expensive of the dreaded "rich." It's a kick ass way to secure votes as you country topples. Tell the poor you're going to go all Robin Hood and take back private land for them. Remind self that it doesn't matter if said venture is successful as long as it appeases the masses huddled in their dark rooms (because you have no power despite being an oil exporter).

It's gotten a little better, there.

Here? We're gonna extend tax cuts for the rich, cut SS. Soon, we'll see what the situation in Venezuela looked like pre-Chavez.

Of course, if you're in the top 1%, you'll be just dandy with that.

Can't both be bad?

Of course, in Hugo's world, as long as everyone is equal in their misery, then no one is misserable! Hooray Chavez!

Chavez also had the government take over Venezuela's largest private Steel business yesterday. Remind me what it's called again when the state appropriates all major business and manufactuering in a country...

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12018225

The Gucci protesters marching in their Jimmy Choos and Armani, masquerading as 'middle class' are not happy to see their lock on all the resources of the country broken.

The reason it's not 'both bad' is we are headed for pre-Chavez Venezuela. Chavez is addressing the poor. We're increasing our wealth disparity-now greater than it was during the Great Depression.


<Remind me what it's called again when the state appropriates all major business and manufactuering in a country...>


It's called, "The wealthy multinationals can not continue to rape the resources of a nation and leave the people to starve."

that provides both domestic and international business is a wealthy multinational raping the resources of a nation and leaving people to starve. Interesting theory.

What's your stopping point? How large should a business be allowed to be before it's stolen by the state?

I have to ask, do you have any understanding of econmics and the impact that nationalization has on foreign investment? Do you really expect to grow jobs when the government is taking over industry and resources?

So you have a government that continues to consolidate power, take over private industry and increase the size of the military. Want to make me a list of countries where the end result of these moves has turned out well? Shouldn't take long, it'll be a short list.

to find a way to be change their ways and give back to the nation for the good of the commons.

My guess? The ones that are being nationalized have continued to operate as they do here-take everything, pay crap wages, pay no taxes...IOW rape the country while the people starve. I haven't benefited in my lifetime here from that system. YMMV.

Give me a list of countries where the robber barons take all system we have now has worked well. I mean for average people who don't own the place. That would, also, be a very short list.

BTW: The US now ranks 89th in life expectancy.

Good grief.

To name a few.

Countries where nationalization has benefited the people? Here's a partial list:

Argentina
Australia
Bolivia
Canada
Channel Islands
Chile
Croatia
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
Egypt
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
India
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Malta
Mexico
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Pakistan
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
South Korea
Soviet Union
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
United Kingdom
United States
Venezuela
Zimbabwe

or is it to make the poor people feel better about their own situation by punishing the rich (without really fixing the housing situation)? My guess is that these courses will be taken over by the government, and almost every one of them will remain golf courses rather than actually being used to solve the housing problem. I would hope that they'd at least a be made public courses, but I suspect that won't be the case either.

If only Obama would do that for low-income housing!!!

But, the misery and death doesn't matter here. :(

In order to replace it with properties with a higher taxation value (for the rich).

:sarcasm:

I've only written about it a few hundred times....it just doesn't matter to "progressives".

Chavez no se va.

consistant... poor, poor golfers.

The problem with seizing private property, especially if you make a habit of it, is that it makes people very reluctant to put money into anything you might be able to seize next.

The problem with seizing private property is that it makes people worry about what you're going to seize next.

PGA Tour card for 2011!

http://www.texassports.com/sports/m-golf/spec-rel/103110aab.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12018225

It's not just golf courses and other smatterings of richness. Uncle Hugo also continues to nationalize industrial assets. What do we call a country where the state owns all the manufacturing and resources?

resources while the people starve.

Where's a good place to stop? What else should be stolen from its owners and given "to the people?" Because here's the thing...I find that the answer to that questions is usually "until they come for my stuff."

If you don't find the privitization of resources and manufacturing, a build up of the military and an economy that is shrinking while those around it grow a bit alarming, I don't know what to tell you.

And Venezuela's economy is mixed and will remain mixed.

You can, of course, point to the many examples of places where it has worked, amiright?

Are we supposed to shun any country that does things different than us? Maybe he'll run the country to the ground, maybe not... but just because he is a socialist (self-proclaimed I believe) it doesn't mean he's an evil dictator... After all, wasn't he elected? Not sure if you called him one or not, but others have on this thread. They seem to base his dictatorship status on the fact he implements socialist policies. I'm pretty certain that is not the definition.

Since they democratically elect their leaders, this whole attempt of some on here to paint Chavez as a 'socialist dictator,' is laughable.

This is where we see those who think democracy=capitalism when, in reality, capitalism and democracy have a very hard time co-existing.

come on now...

capitlism." And it sure ain't Democracy.

We sit at greater income disparity than we had during the Great Depression. I suppose when we reach the kind of disparity Venezuela had pre-Chavez, some blinders will be coming off. It'll be too late but eyes will be open.

Exactly right.

It's threads like this where you can easily distinguish the thoughtful from the programmed.

I haven't suggested that anyone shun Venezuela. They're doing a kick-ass job of that themselves. As long as Hugo is in charge and bent on nationalizing everything he can have his troops seize, the investing world in general will shun them. That will not be good for the long term health of the country.

I have also not argued that he was elected. Judging from what I've read (and I'll admit it's not a broad range of stuff), the elections seem to have been legal despite some complaints from human rights organizations. That's not really the point.

It's one thing to implement social policies. It's been done (very successfully) in many European countries. But that's not how Chavez has gone about it. Chavez has gone about it in ways that - traditionally speaking - dictators have consolidated power. I'll challenge you to the same thing I did the other poster I've been speaking with: Make me a list of countries that have started nationalizing industry and resources, growing their military and have a shrinking economy while their regional neighbors have grown that have ended in a positive outcome.

have had to deal with. The oil companies do not play fair. They have no interest in giving anything back to the countries from which they get the oil. And they are far more powerful than most of the governments of the world.

All the industry being nationalized now had ample opportunities to change their ways. They didn't. A good comparison is what our finacial institutions are pulling on us. They've had an infusion of cash since 2007 somewhere between $5-20 trillion and they will give nothing back.

Chavez is a democratically elected President. Calling him a dictator is capitulating to the propaganda of the multinationals who are pissed off that 'the party's over' for them in Venezuela.

As for growing his military, if I was sitting in a country where the most powerful nation in the world was owned by the multinationals and they were building 7 military bases next door to me, I'd be building my military, too.

In addition to the vigorous regional trade, China, India, Russia, and the OPEC countries are investing there.

Referring to him as a dictator bent on "nationalizing every he can have his troops seize" is over the top. And Venezuela's elections are cleaner than ours.

eta: Russia

and had to chase down every accusation to my satisfaction. After a while, they just get recycled.

This article is in the major genre "Chavez is stealing private property". These are among my favorite stories because they wind up being comical sometimes, like the time The Financial Times accused him of stealing an oil rig. Do you know how hard it is to park an oil rig in Caracas? And there was the time he was accused of stealing a 4 star hotel that Venezuela already owned. That was good, too.

I'd like to make a coffee table book out of this material if Swamp Rat will illustrate it.

is doing is breaking the hold of the oligarchy on the economy that kept millions of people in abject poverty. They've made mistakes along the way and will make more. But they have cut poverty in Venezuela in half and extreme poverty by 75%.

It always surprises me that the very same news sources decried at DU when they broadcast bullshit about Democrats becomes gospel when the bullshit is about Chavez. It's a very strange phenomenon.

How much good would closing the golf courses and building homes on them do? Would it be enough to actually make much of a difference, or would it be a short term band-aid that doesn't do much in the long term? I know the article mentions looking for other abandoned unused land too, but that too seems like it will be limited in the big scheme of things. Anyone from there or with information able to shed some more light on this? Any plans for rebuilding parts of the city to allow for denser populations? Expanding transportation infrastructure on the outskirts and throughout the already built up urban areas? Population control/education programs?

Anyway, seizing relatively small portions of land (in the grand scheme of things, golf courses are not huge) seems like it won't go very far in solving the actual problem. Then again, I'm sure if someone who was living a rundown shanty gets a safe clean home to live on, they wouldn't feel that way.

The article was pretty limited on information and didn't include any other measures are being taken. Which makes it easy for people to assume that it's just a way to "punish" people who play golf (perceived as the wealthy).

Buildings seems to be put where ever they can manage to fit. Seems pretty clear that there is a big problem there. Too bad people get all caught up in the politics. They're going to need more than just some golf courses and abandoned land to fix the problem though.

"relocating" these courses?

Sorry, I didn't see this in the article

eminent domain

Yes, eminent domain exists here in the USA but it appears that there is no "just compensation" being offered by Chavez.

golf courses only for the rich

been to a golf course lately? you get a wide spectrum of folks there: rich (relative term), poor (relative term), young, old, everywhere in between. Also, not all of them are private, in fact the bulk are open to the public:

Public: 7955
Resort: 995
Private: 4256
Semi-Private: 3541
Military: 197

I see the folks cheering this on as people who don't play...if Chavez were to zap something near and dear to your hearts I think the tune would change rather dramatically. It's social justice until it happens to you and then it's theft.

We have friends who play. I'm pretty sure they'd be willing to forgo some recreation if that recreation means people are sleeping in mudholes so they can play golf.

the irony is rich in this thread

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Won't someone think of the children!!!???!!!

seizing companies by the day in an economy that only keeps its head above water because of being resource rich. Many on here fail to realize that a party that attaches themselves to a Chavez style ideology is destined to be in the political wilderness.

:)

maybe you should watch carefully, because THIS IS what happens when the wealthy get their way for too long. Pay verrry close attention because the US is getting closer and closer to finding out the truth about what "capitalism", at least our fascist form really means for them. Enjoy!

Definitely an autocrat. Elected, but doesn´t take it well when his party candidates lose an election, and seems to rule by decree, announcing his decisions on national tv as his courtiers and courtesans applaud as if they were red clad sheep.

Sometimes it happens, that people elect the wrong person - Bush is a good example - but it is sad, because it smacks of anarchy, misrule, and a lack of respect for the law.

Oh, my.

How many yachts does hugito need to have?
;)

:hi:

from his plutonium mines. :hi:

Standing up to the nation raping multinationals and reducing poverty by 75% = anarchy? I'll take a little of that...anarchy. Can you wrap that to go?

Kenyan. :sarcasm:

Political wilderness? Seeing as how he's reduced poverty by 75% since coming to power, that looks like some pretty nice wilderness to me.

Is the judgment of right-wing "mainstream" America really worth the money it's printed on?

Democratically-elected leaders who win fair, free elections are not "dictators." Nor is keeping any economy "above water" at all important in and of itself. The correct purpose of an economy is to use it do what Chavez is doing. He only needs to keep it viable enough to do that.

As far as being "in the wilderness," it worked for John the Baptist.

No wait... that was us.

Sounds like a dictator to me.

for infrastructure. Unfortunately, our government doesn't consider housing infrastructure.

Why should anyone be unhappy when everyone can be unhappy?

Rodney Dangerfield's character from Caddyshack.

although the government has taken a bite out of it, there's still a lot more to do.

Not much to add, as I see it's all been said already...except that I've been looking to expand my 'pay-no-mind' list, and threads like this one really separate the wheat from the chaff.

... who tries to get term limits removed so he can stay in office longer, which Chavez did last year.

Didn't Venezuela imprison two people for tweeting about banks this year?

This isn't someone who's going to let go of power easily.

Is Vladimir Putin a democrat? He's done everything by the book, too.

He's a murderous thug. There is no comparison.

... is committed to democratic institutions and a democratic government.

And considering we pour millions of dollars into Venezuela to influence the elections there, our moral high horse would have to dig himself out just to see the ground. :)

... but certain things happen in Venezuela that are worrisome--such as shutting down TV stations, the legislature allowing Chavez to rule by decree for 18 months, people being imprisoned for tweeting about finances. I wouldn't blame people for thinking those measures are authoritarian.