Chile Forum

John,

Typical response from a true believer, just more stone-throwing. I posted my sources and no small detail in the way of explanation. Like a faithful believer, you dismiss evidence with a perjorative, sort of like Soviets dismissing facts as "false consciousness". I presented facts, cotradict them or refute them with actual sources, as opposed to one sentence with "the international community says". I will not do your homework for you. Are you saying that the legislature was not needed for change to constitution? That Zeleya did not use a crowd to break into military compound to seize Chavez-sent ballots? That referendum would have been legal? Address the facts, sir, if you can. I don't care if you cite Mother Jones, as long as they get the facts right. I can distinguish facts from opinion. A sneer for my sources is a cheap "out" that might work with your average weak-minded citizen. It won't work with me. Here let me help you - to the extent that the Hondurans did not follow the letter of the law, it is likely in that the court and/or military did not wait for the impeachment proceedings to take their course in the legislature....at least that's the appearance so far. If that is true AND the court did not have the authority to issue the order, then the issue becomes what is the greater evil: Leaving a violent, law-breaking demaguoge near the levers of power, or not waiting for the impeachment? All in the context of the having left the same party in power via respect for otherwise proper order of succession. And maybe some context of how things usually go in Central America. And perhaps some context & frank discussion of what Zeleya was trying to do, something that Obama & other leftists do not apparantly wish to discuss.

Otravers,

Dead on. Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of who (masses or dictator) imposes it. The genius of the US Constitution, before being shredded by liberal judges, was that it once placed strict limits on government power. Those limits got in the way of progressive "experiments" and power-grabs and were quickly overrun. And now we pay the price in lost freedom.

John Hyre, Waiting for Actual Facts to Be Discussed

PS: Potshots with a smile welcome, ala Laura. Potshots as actual substitute for argument will be mercilessly derided.

Anyone who's taken the time to read the facts (my thanks to Olivier for making this even easier) and to give a moment's rational consideration to them (thanks to John Hyre for completing the simple equation) recognizes that the Honduran government acted as that country's constitution requires, in order to remove an official who had abrogated his own constitutional oath. So that, I think all here would agree, is established.

Of more interest to me now is understanding the official reaction from the American president and his government. Has he condemned the Honduran government out of ignorance (difficult to believe, but Mr. Obama has in other instances shown himself to be much more provincial than I had anticipated)? Out of a grotesque chauvinism (if another country's constitution doesn't follow the American model, it's illegitimate)? Out of a hoodwinking pandering to the bigotry that lies not far below the surface of the American (or any other) electorate? Or is this plain cynicism, a simple attempt to deflect the national attention from more substantive and ultimately more threatening issues?

Why did Obama do it? Knee-jerl liberal. Castro good, "mi amigo" Chavez of the handshake & little red book good, anything to do with Latin military (unless it is Cuban, etc) bad. Carter of Color, simple. In fact, if you remember, it was Carter who "certified" Chavez' first "election" as legitimate. Same mentality, same prejudices and same result.

As to facts, they are still unwinding. Legal dot & tittle that opponents ("international community") will hang their hat on appears to be that someone jumped the gun on impeachment. That's all that will get mentioned, with no analysis of overall facts and situation. Dissent will be dismissed as "right-wing" with no further discussion, and the average American Joe, who doesn't understand our own laws (I very much agree with RWS & Otravers on that), much less someone else's, will buy it, to the extent he is paying any attention at all. Result: Pressure for one more country to go the Chavez way, loss of freedom, destruction of economy, more overall suffering inflicted by caring leftists and loss of a country with traditionally strong ties to the US. Welcome Back Carter!

John Hyre, No, Really, I HAVE Seen This Movie Before

PS: Next topic for discussion: Present silence of so many who decried Bush deficits.

Just read Otravers links, hadn't seen the one from Christian Science Monitor before. THAT one lays it all out. Importantly for me, a lawyer, I see that the Supreme Court had the authority to remove the guy based on the clear language of the Constitution, including some background as to why that language is in there. Also, note the unanimity of the court, rare for those of us used to 5-4 decisions in the US. Nice link, Otravers.

I simply do not see what argument the "international community" has got to support their Pet Red Thug Dejour (little sop to Otravers mother tongue there). Oh wait, here's one: We all know that Christians are nasty, evil, bigoted, opinionated, un-scientific, judgmental, ignorant people, exactly as portrayed in the press and Hollywood. Really, who can take the CHRISTIAN Science Monitor seriously?

Your ball, Leftists.

John Hyre, Buehler, Buehler, Buehler..........

JHyre wrote:. . . . Really, who can take the CHRISTIAN Science Monitor seriously? ..........

Even though it be neither "Christian" nor "Science"!

Seriously, JH, you may be correct in supposing Mr. Obama's reaction to have been made without thought. I suspect (from having spent a year in one of the more destructive White Houses of my lifetime) that it was predicated by the inadequate (and, yes, probably biased) research hastily assembled by a young and ill-prepared aide, a political appointee in the EOP, and sanctioned by -- again -- a belief that the position would play well to an American electorate ever eager (when unaccompanied by a price in blood or gold) to believe that our own current political morality is or ought to be universal.

As for your question regarding justification of governmental deficits (fiscal, not mental) . . . .

RWS,

There you go citing facts again. So old-fashioned, so passe. Don't you know that good intentions and "caring" are all that matter? Would love hear WH stories some time. Given how much you've given in terms of "walking the walk" trying to help others (so unlike those who talk lots about how much others should give), you've got some credibility, especially in re American underclass.

I think that Obama and his underlings are knee-jerk liberals. Also, I do not think quality of their research will improve, for no one will call them out on it (except for "Publishers of Right-Wing Propaganda") until things are REALLY bad, and maybe not even then. The lapdog press (ABC employees gave EIGHTY times as much to Obama as McCain - that's EIGHTY! No bias there!) certainly won't do it.

A Republic, if you can keep it. So prophetic, so sad.

John Hyre, Bad Day to Quote Franklin

JHyre wrote:. . . . I think that Obama and his underlings are knee-jerk liberals. Also, I do not think quality of their research will improve, for no one will call them out on it (except for "Publishers of Right-Wing Propaganda") until things are REALLY bad, and maybe not even then. . . .

You may be right. Then again, pseudo-liberal opinion regarding socialists J. Stalin, B. Mussolini, and A. Hitler did change after awhile -- oh, I forgot: we simply relabel those tyrants before castigating them! And I haven't seen much serious criticism of Mao, yet (could it be that we don't much care about little yellow people in far-away lands, even if we do depend upon their slave labor for un montón de cheap trinkets? how many Northerners switched to home-gathered honey in preference to cheaper, easier, slave-made sugar?).

Most people do what's convenient for themselves in the short run, from what I've seen, then placate their consciences with words. But talk is cheap.

well, well, well...this topic has the right wing fringe all wound up, doesn't it?

strange, isn't it, how when a conservative bends the rules (waterboarding is legal, gathering internet data on the US population is OK, revealing the identities of CIA operatives is fair political game, manipulating the justice system to promote your political agenda, etc.), the right wingers are right in step...yes, more, more, more...but let a liberal bend the rules and, man, do they ever whine like babies...

let's not forget that zelaya has nearly universal support from liberals and conservatives alike to return to honduras...for two reasons..

1) it isn't clear if zelaya broke "bent the rules" by calling for a "referendum" (a la chavez), or if the honduran military and congress "bent the rules" by sending zelaya to costa rica for a week, and
2) the APPEARANCE of democracy is important. that's why what's-his-name in iran is going to get away with what he did, and why the chinese leadership gets away with all the shit they get away with. like it or not, zelaya IS the elected head of state, and he should be allowed to complete his term in office, even if he's a corrupt pig, like...well...it's a long list, isn't it???

law is rarely purely objective. it is almost always subject to interpretation. zelaya might have been within his legal rights to call the referendum. the military and congress might have been within their legal rights to put him on a plane forcefully. that's not for us to decide. that's for the honduran people to decide. our role, as outsiders, is to let the politicians in honduras know that the whole world is watching and thet there will be consequences for violating principles of democracy (another subjective test, i know....but that's the reality of our world...). the OAS is probably doing the right thing in trying to get zelaya re-instated as president until november, when he will almost surely lose. certainly it is better to let the democratic process play out, rather than to interrupt it with a "referendum" or a "coup". hopefully, the hondurans can sort this out on their own with as little interference from the outside as possible.

cali_chile48 wrote:. . . . the military and congress might have been within their legal rights to put him on a plane forcefully. that's not for us to decide. that's for the honduran people to decide. . . . certainly it is better to let the democratic process play out . . . .

Amen! Preach it, brother!

Nice to that this little discussion has upset all the right people. Whenever I manage to hack off retired schoolteachers, I know that I’ve really hit a spot with the Hard Left.

For the three people who are reading this post and care, the important thing to focus on: Cali has not even attempted to address a single fact. There is NO analysis or discussion even attempted as to whether:

1) Attempt by Zeleya to stay in power was legal, and the effect of similar attempts on Latin American governance, emphatically including the democratic principles that Leftists pretend to respect;

2) Constitution mandates removal of president who attempts to extend term per attorney’s discussion in CSM article posted by Otravers;

3) The consequences of keeping in office an official who initiates mob violence against his own military in defiance of his own party, the legislature, the supreme court, the country’s human rights commission and the church, especially in light of Chavez’ identical machinations;

All of those taking the Obama position (stand straight up and tilt head to the left until it touches the floor) are happy to make quick attacks but seem unwilling to even pretend to address any facts. Wonder why that is?

Instead we get a litany of usual Leftie techniques, designed for small, gullible minds. Might work on indoctrinating kids in LA, let’s see how it works with adults:

1) You “bend the rules”, we “bend the rules”, no problem. This is typical “moral equivalence” argument made by Leftists. Two examples of when they made it:

a. During the Cold War, when not actively supporting Communist dictatorships, Leftists would argue that the “US and the Soviets both have faults and should meet each other halfway”, basically implying that the two are about the same.

b. It’d be like saying John breaks the speed limit and Bob is a murderer – both lawbreakers.

c. Such word games are an attempt to blur distinctions and avoid a real argument, which might require one to discuss the facts. The response is to focus even harder on the actual facts in question. In the first example, the Soviets were a blood-drenched dictatorship that had to build walls to keep its own wretched people in, while the US was a free and liberal (in the old sense of the word), if imperfect, democracy that had to build walls to keep people out. The two countries were not at all alike, except in the minds western apologists for the Soviets. The same people use the same technique to be apologists for Castro, Chavez and Chavez-Wannabe’s, all without having be seen as supporting Red Thugs. In the second instance, we all know that going 5 mph over the limit and murder have nothing at all in common other than falling under the massive heading of “breaking the law” (heh, heh, heh, says Beavis). Asserting that we all just “bend those rules!” is irrelevant, largely untrue and simply a lousy substitute for addressing the facts at hand. Jedi mind tricks only work on minds too simple or too uninterested to resist.

2) “The appearance of democracy is important”. Yes, but not as important as actual democracy and actual rule of law. Based on how MSM is reporting this, you might think that an illegal coup occurred, so let’s put the Red Thug Dejour back in to make things look good. Preposterous on its face. This is another liberal favorite (and Cali is stunningly honest about asserting it), exalting form over substance. This is how liberals can appear to be “caring” while enacting policies that consistently hurt people. How many times have you heard them whine “we meant well”, after having been shown to have hurt people? Appearing to “care” so that they can be sanctimonious as to those of us who do not agree with them is a liberal specialty. Oops, I mean those of us who are “mean” and “do not care”. Leaving a guy like Zeleya near the levers of power has been a demonstrated means of killing the democracy (see Chavez, Castro) leftists pretend to care about. What they really care about is having a government that shouts their slogans and implements their notions. As long as the autocrat in question leans left and would look good on a T-Shirt (Che!), the Sandelistas line up in solidarity, even as others are lined up against the wall. This is why they are always apologizing for people like Castro and Chavez, while worrying about the “appearance of democracy”, as opposed to actual democracy and actual rule of law.

Universal support from conservatives? I missed that one, so you have any examples thereof? I would think the universal support would make that an easy request to answer.

Yeah, liberals are very good at turning clear facts on their head (or avoiding discussion of any facts at all), asserting that things are “relative”, “subjective” and “a Living Breathing Document”. I understand that you really, really, really want the Honduran law to be “grey” when it comes to Zeleya the Red Thug keeping power. I even recognized in my earlier posts that it might be gray, that more facts would doubtless come out. But where are your arguments (or Obama, or the OAS’…..) that Honduran IS grey or different than what the Honduran supreme court & legislature say it is? What IS the other interpretation? The supreme court AND the legislature of Honduras are both presumably better equipped than either of us to see through the grey. If you think they erred, show us how, discuss the facts. Hoping that the law is grey enough that you can therefore justify your obvious empathy for the anti-US usurper is not good enough. You can pee in one hand and wish in the other, guess which one fills up first?

The law is NOT for the people to decide – that is a call for mob rule and mob violence, not to mention fickle and uninformed decisions. The law is for the government established by the people to decide, in the form of the executive, legislature and the courts. It is for the people to decide the ultimate law in form of the constitution, and to change a government if the government acts contrary to their wishes or abuses its power. To say that the world should be shown to be watching and that the “world” should decide in favor of the Red Thug Dejour are two very different things. The democratic process was broken once Zeleya led a mob in violence against his country’s laws and military – to pretend otherwise is to put the cat in the canary seat, ala Chavez. Fortunately, it appears that Honduras’ constitution recognized that certain unsavory elements, in the name of “caring”, “bent rules” and “appearances”, might attempt to leave a person like Zeleya in power at a time when such power would prove fatal to democratic and lawful rule, as has so often happened in Latin America. It appears that the framers of that young constitution had a definite and effective answer for “caring”, “bent rules” and “appearances”, which is how Zeleya came to lose his office. Good riddance.

John Hyre, Looking for Someone to Waterboard

As long as the autocrat in question leans left and would look good on a T-Shirt (Che!), the Sandelistas line up in solidarity, even as others are lined up against the wall. This is why they are always apologizing for people like Castro and Chavez, while worrying about the “appearance of democracy”, as opposed to actual democracy and actual rule of law.

[...]

Yeah, liberals are very good at turning clear facts on their head (or avoiding discussion of any facts at all), asserting that things are “relative”, “subjective” and “a Living Breathing Document”.

Your analysis is both funny and sadly true. My daughter attends university in Boulder, Colorado, a town where the politics are such that finding a giant statue honoring V. I. Lenin would not surprise me at all. They are eager, as you say, to apologize for the SOBs, and they turn a blind eye to the hundreds of millions killed in the past century by followers of the various commie movements. Obama has no business whatever commenting on the political machinations in Honduras. The fact that he's thrown his hat in the ring with the usual suspects shows his true colors.

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Te ... Wealth.jpg

cali_chile48 wrote:2) the APPEARANCE of democracy is important. that's why what's-his-name in iran is going to get away with what he did, and why the chinese leadership gets away with all the shit they get away with.

LOL. Iran and China get away with what they're doing because a) externally, they have nukes and/or are ready to send millions of their own troops to death in the event of a conventional conflict, and b) internally they shoot you if you open your clap too much, and they'll invoice the bullet to your family for the privilege. Nobody in the "international community" gives a shit about democracy and massacres, as has been demonstrated again and again over the years from Cambodia to Rwanda to Darfur to North Korea and more. Obama is talking tough about Honduras because it has a small army (equipped with used US military equipment that you can bet the US would know how to disable in a heartbeat).