Honduras Smack Down

[Fairweather]

This is the right way to handle an elected commie who refuses to let go of the reins of power when his term is up, defies the nation's supreme court, orders the army to campaign for him, and cozies up with the likes of Hugo Chavez. Preferable to the descent which has taken Venezuela into authoritarian rule. Viva Honduras!

 

Now, the question becomes this: Why would Obama condemn the removal of a wannna-be communist who defied his nation's own supreme court? Interesting.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8123126.stm

[prole]

 

Chavez appreciates your close attention.

 

Hugo Chavez Scolds CNN for Coverage of Michael Jackson's Death

June 25, 2009

Mexico - El Universal - Original Article (Spanish)

Caracas, Venezuela: The president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, this evening criticized U.S. television network CNN for giving more coverage to the death of pop star Michael Jackson than to the situation in Honduras, where he said, a coup d'état is taking place.

Chavez said that the news channel dedicated so much more time to the death of the dancer and singer than to the people of Honduras and their president, Manuel Zelaya, who are now risking their lives in the streets.

"While the people of Honduras are in the streets led by their president confronting danger and potentially even death, CNN stuck all afternoon to broadcasting news of the death of Jackson," Chávez said in his program Hello, President.

"Well, if Jackson has died, may he rest in peace. But to spend all afternoon discussing the awards he won and I don't know how many records?" the president complained.

He warned that "these are the evils of capitalism" and asked supporters who attended the program that they "go to battle every day, the cultural battle," in a society "bombarded by the negative values of capitalism."

 

 

[StevenSeagal]

Yes thank God the Honduran military is now in charge (bye bye, corruption!) and the world's leading sweatshop resource remains secure.

[tvashtarkatena]

The right way to deal with any situation is a boot stamping on a human face forever.

Edited June 29, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[JoshK]

The right way to deal with any situation is a boot stamping on a human face forever.

i *heart* big brother

[G-spotter]

all he needs to do is complain to his twitter followers

[j_b]

What's so wrong with calling a national referendum to vote on the possibility of a 2nd term that it'd justify a military coup d'etat? According to such bloody il-logic the government of Uribe in Colombia (whom FW holds in high regard) would be illegitimate since that is precisely what it did in 2004 to enable a second term that wasn't allowed by Colombia's constitution.

 

We can always trust the jackbooted among us to show their true color no matter how many times a day they claim to embrace and fight for "freedom".

 

Also note that virtually the entire world is denouncing the coup.

[Hugh Conway]

holy retrograde wankfest!``

[Bosterson]

This is the right way to handle an elected commie who refuses to let go of the reins of power when his term is up, defies the nation's supreme court, orders the army to campaign for him, and cozies up with the likes of Hugo Chavez. Preferable to the descent which has taken Venezuela into authoritarian rule. Viva Honduras!

 

Oh, I'm sorry, is this still the Cold War? Who knew!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Suckers! The trolling worked yet again!

[Kimmo]

What's so wrong with calling a national referendum to vote on the possibility of a 2nd term that it'd justify a military coup d'etat?

 

leavng aside any justifications for a military coup for a moment, my understanding of the situation is that their constitution explicitly forbids multi-term presidencies, along with ANY ATTEMPT AT CHANGING THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.

 

so the supreme court and congress both deemed Zelaya's actions to be unconstitutional, seemingly a rational assessment.

 

But, is a military coup "constitutional"? They have constitutional recourse; namely, impeachment. hopefully the outcome of this situation will include the restoration of Zelaya as president, with LEGAL challenges to his actions.

 

 

[Bosterson]

This is the right way to handle an elected commie who refuses to let go of the reins of power when his term is up, defies the nation's supreme court, orders the army to campaign for him, and cozies up with the likes of Hugo Chavez. Preferable to the descent which has taken Venezuela into authoritarian rule. Viva Honduras!

 

Now, the question becomes this: Why would Obama condemn the removal of a wannna-be communist who defied his nation's own supreme court? Interesting.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8123126.stm

 

Also: his term is not yet up. (It ends January, 2010.) People have suggested that his proposed referendum was to change the term limits, but all Zelaya has done so far is propose that there be a referendum on the constitution. (Others have suggested that the referendum would have been about the power and status of foreign corporations in Honduras.) Now we could argue about whether the Honduran Supreme Court was correct to declare the proposal of a referendum unconstitutional, and whether it was illegal for Zelaya to sack General Velasquez, but surely you cannot actually be in favor of a military coup d'etat in Latin America? How well did that work for Latin America (including the previous Honduran coup) all the other times it happened in the past fifty years? (And note that the role and influence of foreign corporations in Latin America, and the United States' hegemony about that issue, have been the driving factors in those coups.)

 

Furthermore, your implication that our president should be in favor of the removal of a foreign leader simply because that person endorses policies you consider "communist" is same kind of outrageous thinking that led our government to cause the aforementioned fifty years of military coups in Latin America.

 

You know, for all your whining about how liberals are all cookie cutter automatons who will think the same way as some arbitrary "left-wing" figurehead, your views and comments are the perfect prototype of the kind of conservative nonsense that our government has been propagating for a hundred years. I value that you do not agree with everyone else politically (diversity keeps things interesting), but seriously, commie-bashing? Which decade do you think this is?

[Bosterson]

But, is a military coup "constitutional"? They have constitutional recourse; namely, impeachment. hopefully the outcome of this situation will include the restoration of Zelaya as president, with LEGAL challenges to his actions.

 

WTF - Kimmo, do I agree with you about something? This is unprecedented!

[Kimmo]

 

WTF - Kimmo, do I agree with you about something? This is unprecedented!

 

 

i thought we were in full agreement about you being an overly wordy pedant and nincompoop? i suppose it's easy to miss during these highly technical and sophisticated musings at cc.com.

[Bosterson]

 

WTF - Kimmo, do I agree with you about something? This is unprecedented!

 

 

i thought we were in full agreement about you being an overly wordy pedant and nincompoop? i suppose it's easy to miss during these highly technical and sophisticated musings at cc.com.

 

Awwww. I don't hate you either.

[Kimmo]

will you be my friend?

[prole]

Suckers! The trolling worked yet again!

 

Ha! Are you suggesting that Fairweather wouldn't be supportive of an illegal military coup based solely on the political affiliation of the ousted? Yeah right.

[j_b]

What's so wrong with calling a national referendum to vote on the possibility of a 2nd term that it'd justify a military coup d'etat?

 

leavng aside any justifications for a military coup for a moment, my understanding of the situation is that their constitution explicitly forbids multi-term presidencies, along with ANY ATTEMPT AT CHANGING THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.

 

so the supreme court and congress both deemed Zelaya's actions to be unconstitutional, seemingly a rational assessment.

 

The constitution was voted in by congress that happens to represent the interest of the oligarchy (2 rightwing parties have dominated politics since the return to civilian rule). It seems a little circuitous that congress declares the people ineligible to vote on their form of government. The majority of Hondurans are extremely poor and less than 50% vote for their elected representatives, which combined with a required 2/3 fraction of congress to amend the constitution means the status quo is almost guaranteed.

 

But, is a military coup "constitutional"? They have constitutional recourse; namely, impeachment. hopefully the outcome of this situation will include the restoration of Zelaya as president, with LEGAL challenges to his actions.

 

why not let the people vote on a new assembly instead? what are they afraid of?

[Bosterson]

will you be my friend?

 

Depends. Will you be my neighbor (in the comradely, Mr. Rogers sense)?

[Kimmo]

The constitution was voted in by congress that happens to represent the interest of the oligarchy (2 rightwing parties have dominated politics since the return to civilian rule). It seems a little circuitous that congress declares the people ineligible to vote on their form of government. The majority of Hondurans are extremely poor and less than 50% vote for their elected representatives, which combined with a required 2/3 fraction of congress to amend the constitution means the status quo is almost guaranteed.

 

when was the constitution in its present form voted in?

 

in the US, we cannot change our constitution through referendum; i'm inclined to think i'd rather not have it be malleable enough to be subjected to the whims of the general public. i'd think that in honduras, the solution would be to get better voter turnout, yes?

 

and, would you really want to see an entrenched president (here or in honduras) winning term after term? we both know what kind of advantages incumbents enjoy (think ronald reagan and the talk about a constitutional amendment).

 

why not let the people vote on a new assembly instead? what are they afraid of?

 

? i think they have a "functioning" democracy, where the people are free to vote on whoever they wish, right? now if you're talking about a "referendum" on constitutional changes, see above.

[akhalteke]

 

We can always trust the jackbooted among us to show their true color no matter how many times a day they claim to embrace and fight for "freedom".

 

Also note that virtually the entire world is denouncing the coup.

 

1) I suppose our founding fathers are jack-boot thugs? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -TJ- Why do you think that the legislature ratified the coup?

 

2) The entire world being Chavez, Castro, Clinton and Obama? I see they are all in good company.

 

I see that this board is still using its ideologic catch phrases and responding so well to the trolls as it was when I left. Carry on.

[Bosterson]

and, would you really want to see an entrenched president (here or in honduras) winning term after term? we both know what kind of advantages incumbents enjoy (think ronald reagan and the talk about a constitutional amendment).

 

Is the evidence conclusive that extending/abolishing term limits was going to be Zelaya's goal with the referendum? His supporters seem to indicate otherwise; I'm just curious if this whole thing was based on consensus or speculation.

 

Regardless, considering that yesterday would simply going to be a vote on whether to gather an assembly later, this military coup still seems way out of line. Did the Supreme Court think it was out of options or something? I mean, military rule, even briefly, should be considered the last resort, and I don't think they were there yet...

[Fairweather]

why not let the people vote on a new assembly instead? what are they afraid of?

 

The irreversible tyranny of the majority.

 

 

 

[Bosterson]

2) The entire world being Chavez, Castro, Clinton and Obama? I see they are all in good company.

 

Did I miss something? I don't recall anyone mentioning Castro (Raul, I assume?). Chavez has publicly accused the US of collusion in the coup. Clinton is Obama's Secretary of State, ie, his foreign policy mouthpiece, so why mention them separately?

 

And as for the "rest of the world," a partial list of who else condemns the Honduran coup:

 

the UN

the OAS

the EU

the Association of Caribbean States

Paraguay

Argentina

Bolivia

Brazil

Colombia

Costa Rica

Guatemala

France

Germany

 

 

Blah blah blah. Seriously, it is the rest of South America, and a lot of the rest of the world. I'm sure this means that they are all commies.

 

I see that this board is still using its ideologic catch phrases and responding so well to the trolls as it was when I left. Carry on.

 

It's cause we've all been watching Fox News.

 

[Bosterson]

why not let the people vote on a new assembly instead? what are they afraid of?

 

The irreversible tyranny of the majority.