My Guess as to What Venezuelan Oil Means to the USA

[Terrel L. Shields]

She posed no imminent threat

She was gunning the motor and her wheels were sliding and video clearly shows the ICE agents feet sliding backward on the ice. Good made her living as a "community activist" and Black Lives Matter supporter and her mother was paying her rent. You're 37 years old and your mom pays your rent... real cool.

 

[J Grant]

She was gunning the motor and her wheels were sliding and video clearly shows the ICE agents feet sliding backward on the ice. Good made her living as a "community activist" and Black Lives Matter supporter and her mother was paying her rent. You're 37 years old and your mom pays your rent... real cool.

Wow, so in your opinion, she should have been killed, and her 6-year-old son left without a mother because the woman's mom paid her rent ? ( whether true or not )

Stop LYING. There is no proof she made her living as a community activist, and even if she did, it is not against the law or justifies her murder.

If you support ICE agents killing American citizens simply because you might dislike them, just come out and own it.

She was not "gunning her motor," she was driving slowly away from the curb. I have encountered far worse while walking through parking lots as people pull in and out of spaces. I did not see his feet slide backward, and even if they did, he did not fall, and it does not justify a kill shot.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

her 6-year-old son left without a mother because the woman's mom paid her rent ?

She put herself in a position to be shot. This was the third attempt that day to block ICE. WTF should or would she care? It's nothing that should really impacted her personally. She committed suicide for all practical matters.

 

[George Hatch]

Then what did she get shot for?
She posed no imminent threat; her vehicle was pulling slowly away from the curb with the wheels turned away from him as soon as she cut the angle of them after the curb.
It is the police and ICE agents ' job to deal with people who might not instantly comply or who are belligerent. This was real low-level stuff. All he had to do was step half a foot back, and they would record her license plate and then charge her with whatever charge applied.

The agent who was there didn't agree with your assessment and neither do a lot of other cops. There is no 97% consensus on either side of the cops disagreement with each other. They're split, too.

Some accounts are saying she actually struck him. Adding actual contact to the unlawful assault (which doesn't require an element of contact) will DIRECTLY contradict the idea that he had no justification for shooting her.

Perhaps awful but lawful. Perhaps not even that.

 

[George Hatch]

As for what people do and don't deserve, that isn't a consideration for the cops in that moment. They're not reacting to her (unknowable to them) personal character or virtues or circumstances. They're reacting to the actions in that moment.

If "they didn't deserve that outcome" was actually a consideration then no murder, robbery or rape suspects would survive their arrest. Instead, every one of them can safely assume their own well being at the time of arrest by simply refraining from resisting or taking any chances with their own well-being. As almost all of them do IRL.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Is socialism a problem or not sharing the wealth of the nation with common people a problem?

Maduro and his cohorts are stealing most of the money. Chavez's daughter was rumored to have stolen over $1 billion from the people of Venezuela. But that seems inflated but clearly, she is not living poor.

Understand that the ownership of oil in most countries is vested in the government, not the landowners such as it is here. So, the oil companies produce oil under license from the state, and the state also sets the royalty rates, which varies. They do not own the oil but did pay for and own the facilities used to transport and export oil. Venezuela nationalized that and oil production plummeted because Venezuelan expertise didn't know how to run the stuff. They didn't invest in it, they basically spent the money on a bigger military and the rest of the money was stuffed into the pockets of the oligarchs. The streets were not fixed, the water system was not fixed, agriculture was neglected to the point of starvation.

By comparison, the oil of the North Slope of Alaska benefits every citizen in the state. They call it the "Permanent Fund" created after the pipeline to Alaska was built, and again it reduces the state tax and money is spent to benefit the people. In the 1970, Venezuela was attracting investment, had moderate taxes, lowest inequality in S. America and all because of an influx of wealth created by oil. They were members of OPEC, benefited greatly from the sudden rise in oil prices, and had the highest economic growth rate in S and Latin America.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

The agent who was there didn't agree with your assessment

JG is pretty good at arm-chair quarterbacking.

 

[Charles West]

Common sense? No proof of it. Of course, proof or facts mean nothing to you.
Even if she made a foolish decision to go there that day, it does not justify an ICE agent killing her- and leaving her six-year-old without a mother. I guess you can celebrate that.

Again, ZERO proof she was a paid protestor

Use your brain, JG.

 

[Mike Ault]

Maduro and his cohorts are stealing most of the money. Chavez's daughter was rumored to have stolen over $1 billion from the people of Venezuela. But that seems inflated but clearly, she is not living poor.

Understand that the ownership of oil in most countries is vested in the government, not the landowners such as it is here. So, the oil companies produce oil under license from the state, and the state also sets the royalty rates, which varies. They do not own the oil but did pay for and own the facilities used to transport and export oil. Venezuela nationalized that and oil production plummeted because Venezuelan expertise didn't know how to run the stuff. They didn't invest in it, they basically spent the money on a bigger military and the rest of the money was stuffed into the pockets of the oligarchs. The streets were not fixed, the water system was not fixed, agriculture was neglected to the point of starvation.

By comparison, the oil of the North Slope of Alaska benefits every citizen in the state. They call it the "Permanent Fund" created after the pipeline to Alaska was built, and again it reduces the state tax and money is spent to benefit the people. In the 1970, Venezuela was attracting investment, had moderate taxes, lowest inequality in S. America and all because of an influx of wealth created by oil. They were members of OPEC, benefited greatly from the sudden rise in oil prices, and had the highest economic growth rate in S and Latin America.
View attachment 106341

So, you approve of "Alaskan socialism" apparently. Would you support an Alaskan style "revenue-sharing program" for all oil producing states in the union?

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

So, you approve of "Alaskan socialism" apparently.

How is that socialism? The money is shared with the state on Federal land. And the state is awarding the citizens with that windfall instead of finding projects for the sake of spending money. That's a government practicing capitalism.