| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
FYI Again |
Spin vs. facts | #1 | ||
|
Apparently you are under the misguided notion that "serious conversation" involves agreeing with you. I've been providing you with "the
facts in Honduras" from the beginning of this thread, but you don't seem to be able to recognize them, let alone respond. I've already repeated
them several times so clearly it would be useless to repeat them yet again.
|
||||
|
|
||||
Tweetybob |
Clinton: Costa Rican to mediate Honduras crisis | #2 | ||
|
Man, am I ever glad that Mr. Obama is President!
|
||||
|
|
||||
FYI Again |
Here are the basic facts | #3 | ||
|
Rather then try to explain it yet again, here is a quote - not from Rush Limbaugh or any other "right winger", but from ABC News Senior White House
Correspondent Jake Tapper:
Emphasis mine. Here's a link to the story from which I quoted, so you can see it in context if you don't believe me: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/in-russia-president-obama-explains-his-support-for-ousted-president-of-honduras.html There's more to it of course, but these are the basic facts of the situation. People tend to forget that Honduras has experienced dictatorship throughout its history. That's why they placed that strict single term limit as a "firm article" which "cannot be changed" in their constitution to begin with - to avoid the very thing that Zelaya tried to do. Zelaya's actions made it very clear he was willing to bypass the constitution and the rule of law in order to indefinitely extend his term - which is exactly what his mentor Hugo Chavez did in 2004. The reason he was exiled was that he defied every other branch of government in order to accomplish his lawless, unconstitutional, anti democratic goals. If Sec. of State Clinton is serious about her desire for "the restoration of the democratic, constitutional order in Honduras", then restoring a man who disregards that democratic, constitutional order to power is clearly NOT the way to accomplish it. Man am I ever glad that there are a few voices of reason willing to talk sense in spite of the fool in the White House. |
||||
|
|
||||
Tweetybob |
Facts.. | #4 | ||
|
Thanks for making the point that the mainstream press is 'anything but' leftist.
A military putsch to oust a democratically elected leader does not seem to me to be following the rule of law. Their constitution was written when the fool President Reagan was actively overthrowing democratically elected Central American governments. BTW, I seem to have missed any military action in New York City against Mayor Bloomberg, when in order to run again, he decided to get rid of term limits. Here's an article about that. I just can't find any pictures of the tanks and troops rolling into NYC when that happened, though! |
||||
|
|
||||
FYI Again |
Apples and Bowling Balls | #5 | ||
Thanks for making the point that the mainstream press is 'anything but' leftist. The mainstream press is almost entirely leftist. There are a few exceptions, Fox News being perhaps the best known of them. But for the most part our press has been in the left's pocket for generations. That's not to say that some individual reporters don't still have some journalistic integrity - even a committed leftist can (if he allows himself to think critically) see the truth of a situation. It's just a question of whether he is honest enough (or brave enough) to report it accurately. I don't know much about Jake Tapper (the man I quoted above), but I'd be shocked if he was anything but a registered, loyal and enthusiastic Democrat given his position at ABC news. But apparently he has enough sense and enough journalistic integrity to report the basic fact I quoted accurately even though they are inconvenient to a President he very likely supported and still supports. A military putsch to oust a democratically elected leader does not seem to me to be following the rule of law. Their constitution was written when the fool President Reagan was actively overthrowing democratically elected Central American governments. Overthrowing governments is not something the US does on a regular basis. It doesn't happen that often. But then, leftists seem to have this paranoid idea that the CIA is hiding under every rock, so I'm not surprised at your ignorance. BTW, I seem to have missed any military action in New York City against Mayor Bloomberg, when in order to run again, he decided to get rid of term limits. Here's an article about that. I just can't find any pictures of the tanks and troops rolling into NYC when that happened, though! Aside from the cultural differences (Northwest US vs. Central America), city governments have vastly less impact on society as a whole and operate on a completely different level than national governments. National governments for instance are generally not too concerned about trash pickup on 13th Street. City government laws are generally far easier to change than national government constitutions. And generally - at least in the US - on those rare occasions when troops move into a city it's usually in response to a disaster of some sort and the survivors are generally very glad to see them. |
||||
|
|
||||
Southern David |
#6 | |||
TB said;> Man, am I ever glad that Mr. Obama is President! Me too! Hopefully democracy and the Rule of Law will be restored to Honduras. |
||||
|
|
||||