Because there isw nothing new here, China has always killed its citizens, Iran has always been crazy, and Obama loving anti-American leaders, no news scoop there either.ATG wrote:
Citizens being bayoneted, martial law, mass arrests...
Not a peep from the forum.
Also, clerics in Iran call the election results bogus.
Not a peep from the forum.
Obama supports a Hugo Chavez style dictator in Honduras.
I sometimes do not get the attention span from the forum and subjects we choose to argue over.
Zelaya was trying to change the rules and stay in office another term...and the people spoke... No Mini Chavez for Honduras thanks.CameronPoe wrote:
1. The riots hit the news only very recently. Xinjiang should not and should never have been part of China. Same goes for Tibet. Mao has a lot to answer for. Xinjiang is China's version of Russia's Chechnya. I support their legitimate separatist movements.
2. What is happening in Iran has been denounced by many here. The fact of the matter is that it is an internal matter for Iranians, which will hopefully be resolved in their favour.
3. Manuel Zelaya is the democratically elected head of the nation of Honduras. It ain't just Obama who backs him - it's the entire OAS. I thought the days of military dictatorships in Latin America had come to a close.
So why did you make this thread then? ... you made the OP about things that are not very relevant to illegal aliens that is your biggest concern yet you complain there are enough threads about other issues that doesn't really concern you ...ATG wrote:
Why should I?
This is DST and he basically says I have no different than a anti-semite and holocaust denier.
Fucking stupid thing to say, and I am not going to let that go unanswered because of phony limitations or a false pretense of civility amongst moderators.
And it was off topic, as well as being a cheap shot not relevant to anything in the op.
In case you hadn't noticed he was going to attempt to get the constitutional reference to term limits changed (or not as the case might have turned out) by means of a democratic referendum. That isn't exactly dictatorial. The army on the other hand took pre-emptive action on the basis of decisions taken by supreme court judges, who of course are not directly elected by the people and as such the army move is far far less democratic and far more dictatorial.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
Zelaya was trying to change the rules and stay in office another term...and the people spoke... No Mini Chavez for Honduras thanks.
"June 28 (Bloomberg) -- Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was ousted by the military today after his opponents accused him of ignoring court rulings and seeking to change the constitution through a referendum to hold onto power. "
That would be a dictatorship no?
“What we have done here is an act of democracy, because our army has complied with the order of the court, prosecutors and judges,” Micheletti said at a news conference, AFP reported. "
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … XcLXUG4Y4c
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-07-06 14:02:08)
Fair question.Varegg wrote:
So why did you make this thread then? ... you made the OP about things that are not very relevant to illegal aliens that is your biggest concern yet you complain there are enough threads about other issues that doesn't really concern you ...ATG wrote:
Why should I?
This is DST and he basically says I have no different than a anti-semite and holocaust denier.
Fucking stupid thing to say, and I am not going to let that go unanswered because of phony limitations or a false pretense of civility amongst moderators.
And it was off topic, as well as being a cheap shot not relevant to anything in the op.
I'm confused ...
Well ... firstly backing dictators is nothing new when it comes to the US government ... as long as it is the right kind of dictator ...ATG wrote:
Fair question.Varegg wrote:
So why did you make this thread then? ... you made the OP about things that are not very relevant to illegal aliens that is your biggest concern yet you complain there are enough threads about other issues that doesn't really concern you ...ATG wrote:
Why should I?
This is DST and he basically says I have no different than a anti-semite and holocaust denier.
Fucking stupid thing to say, and I am not going to let that go unanswered because of phony limitations or a false pretense of civility amongst moderators.
And it was off topic, as well as being a cheap shot not relevant to anything in the op.
I'm confused ...
And obvious; this thread has jackshit to do with illegal aliens and it goes to show, some mods can't resist the occasional troll post.
Fair enough as we are all humans.
I am pointing in this and other threads to follow the fact that Obama is not just " willing to deal " with dictators, but he encourages them and aspires to be one.
Against a prior ruling against it no? His branch of government is not responsible for making the laws. He was issued a cease and desist order. He then went about firing high ranking officials and ordering his supporters out into the streets. Admittedly their military, congress, and supreme court could have went about stopping his unconstitutional actions in a better, non coup looking way.. Still, when one branch goes about ignoring the rightful and constitutionally assigned orders of two other branches.. sketchy.CameronPoe wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed he was going to attempt to get the constitutional reference to term limits changed (or not as the case might have turned out) by means of a democratic referendum. That isn't exactly dictatorial. The army on the other hand took pre-emptive action on the basis of decisions taken by supreme court judges, who of course are not directly elected by the people and as such the army move is far far less democratic and far more dictatorial.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
Zelaya was trying to change the rules and stay in office another term...and the people spoke... No Mini Chavez for Honduras thanks.
"June 28 (Bloomberg) -- Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was ousted by the military today after his opponents accused him of ignoring court rulings and seeking to change the constitution through a referendum to hold onto power. "
That would be a dictatorship no?
“What we have done here is an act of democracy, because our army has complied with the order of the court, prosecutors and judges,” Micheletti said at a news conference, AFP reported. "
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … XcLXUG4Y4c
He ignored the law and violated their constitution. It doesn't how many times you repeat the word democratic, he was out of line. You need to study up on the role of the executive branch. It has not changed in Honduras. If he had obeyed the initial orders to cease and desist he could have plead his case (even though he had none) under constitutional procedure. He didn't, and he began firing people who were acting under their rule of law.Varegg wrote:
That is actually just a transcript of the present law Kmar explaining why he was ousted ... the laws he attempted to change by democratic referendum ... and if the process got a chance to finish and voted for in a proper manor it would hardly be an act of treason as the author of your link likes to repeat over and over again ... so by that standard and how it was done it was clearly a coup ...
Laws are subject to change in most countries all the time ...
I'm only aware of the head of the army being dismissed when he refused to cooperate about a public electorial vote concerning the changing of the law on that particular point ... what is wrong with having the people state their opinion, that was what the head of the army and the supreme court wouldn't let happen ...Kmarion wrote:
He ignored the law and violated their constitution. It doesn't how many times you repeat the word democratic, he was out of line. You need to study up on the role of the executive branch. It has not changed in Honduras. If he had obeyed the initial orders to cease and desist he could have plead his case (even though he had none) under constitutional procedure. He didn't, and he began firing people who were acting under their rule of law.Varegg wrote:
That is actually just a transcript of the present law Kmar explaining why he was ousted ... the laws he attempted to change by democratic referendum ... and if the process got a chance to finish and voted for in a proper manor it would hardly be an act of treason as the author of your link likes to repeat over and over again ... so by that standard and how it was done it was clearly a coup ...
Laws are subject to change in most countries all the time ...
An illegal vote. You do realize that it was already ruled upon right? It failed in congress and the supreme court supported the decision. That is 2 out of 3 branches of government ruling on the matter. That is why they also have a system of checks and balances. Yes public opinion is important, but constitutional procedure needs to be followed as well. You can't just have one man rewriting the constitution. ESPECIALLY when that man, who is obviously doing this for himself, is the head of a branch that does not even legislate.Varegg wrote:
I'm only aware of the head of the army being dismissed when he refused to cooperate about a public electorial vote concerning the changing of the law on that particular point ... what is wrong with having the people state their opinion, that was what the head of the army and the supreme court wouldn't let happen ...Kmarion wrote:
He ignored the law and violated their constitution. It doesn't how many times you repeat the word democratic, he was out of line. You need to study up on the role of the executive branch. It has not changed in Honduras. If he had obeyed the initial orders to cease and desist he could have plead his case (even though he had none) under constitutional procedure. He didn't, and he began firing people who were acting under their rule of law.Varegg wrote:
That is actually just a transcript of the present law Kmar explaining why he was ousted ... the laws he attempted to change by democratic referendum ... and if the process got a chance to finish and voted for in a proper manor it would hardly be an act of treason as the author of your link likes to repeat over and over again ... so by that standard and how it was done it was clearly a coup ...
Laws are subject to change in most countries all the time ...
He was in violation of the constitution but several things strike me:Kmarion wrote:
Against a prior ruling against it no? His branch of government is not responsible for making the laws. He was issued a cease and desist order. He then went about firing high ranking officials and ordering his supporters out into the streets. Admittedly their military, congress, and supreme court could have went about stopping his unconstitutional actions in a better, non coup looking way.. Still, when one branch goes about ignoring the rightful and constitutionally assigned orders of two other branches.. sketchy.
There is a nice explanation here: http://zerosheep.com/2009/07/01/no-coup-in-honduras
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-07-06 14:54:51)
What failed in congress and the supreme court was the decission to have a public vote not prolonging the precidency ... could it be that the public vote and opinion was not in their best interest?Kmarion wrote:
An illegal vote. You do realize that it was already ruled upon right? It failed in congress and the supreme court supported the decision. That is 2 out of 3 branches of government ruling on the matter. That is why they also have a system of checks and balances. Yes public opinion is important, but constitutional procedure needs to be followed as well. You can't just have one man rewriting thier constitution. ESPECIALLY when that man, who is obviously doing this for himself, is the head of a branch that does not even legislate.Varegg wrote:
I'm only aware of the head of the army being dismissed when he refused to cooperate about a public electorial vote concerning the changing of the law on that particular point ... what is wrong with having the people state their opinion, that was what the head of the army and the supreme court wouldn't let happen ...Kmarion wrote:
He ignored the law and violated their constitution. It doesn't how many times you repeat the word democratic, he was out of line. You need to study up on the role of the executive branch. It has not changed in Honduras. If he had obeyed the initial orders to cease and desist he could have plead his case (even though he had none) under constitutional procedure. He didn't, and he began firing people who were acting under their rule of law.
Yes he was clearly in violation, and as I said it probably could have been handled a better way.CameronPoe wrote:
He was in violation of the constitution but several things strike me:Kmarion wrote:
Against a prior ruling against it no? His branch of government is not responsible for making the laws. He was issued a cease and desist order. He then went about firing high ranking officials and ordering his supporters out into the streets. Admittedly their military, congress, and supreme court could have went about stopping his unconstitutional actions in a better, non coup looking way.. Still, when one branch goes about ignoring the rightful and constitutionally assigned orders of two other branches.. sketchy.
There is a nice explanation here: http://zerosheep.com/2009/07/01/no-coup-in-honduras
- How the army/judiciary had a basis for arresting/deporting him and preventing him from returning.
- How any nation is supposed to enjoy any level of stability if presidents are only entitled to one term (it takes 7 - 12 years to plan and build one high voltage power line, never mind meaningfully change an economy/curriculum/healthcare system).
- What kind of retarded constitution stipulates that a proposal of constitutional reform is basically criminal!!! (I may have to check my own, perhaps it contains similar).
Here is the basis for deporting him.I believe that the arrest and removal of Zelaya probably should have been handled differently, for appearances’ sake if nothing else. If the legislature had acted to remove him before the military arrested him, there would be much less international criticism.
When he began ignoring the rules he became an enemy to their constitution (interpret that any way you want). It was the military's duty to remove him. I believe they should have got approval first.Whether immediate arrest was necessary is easy to debate in hindsight. It must be remembered that the Honduran authorities were facing an unprecedented constitutional crisis due to the illegal and unconstitutional acts committed by Zelaya, with no clearly constitutional way to remove him from power. We in the U.S. — and most other countries — are used to having the luxury of constitutionally defined methods of dealing with malfeasance by elected officials, not to mention decades or even centuries of jurisprudence. The officials in the Honduran military, legislature, and judiciary did not have this luxury. What they had was a situation that was potentially deadly to their young democracy, and they acted in the way they thought best to defend it.
Maybe it wasn't in their best interest, but those people were elected also. They were acting within their established laws and constitution (which was also voted on). You can't just conveniently select which laws you follow and when.Varegg wrote:
What failed in congress and the supreme court was the decission to have a public vote not prolonging the precidency ... could it be that the public vote and opinion was not in their best interest?Kmarion wrote:
An illegal vote. You do realize that it was already ruled upon right? It failed in congress and the supreme court supported the decision. That is 2 out of 3 branches of government ruling on the matter. That is why they also have a system of checks and balances. Yes public opinion is important, but constitutional procedure needs to be followed as well. You can't just have one man rewriting thier constitution. ESPECIALLY when that man, who is obviously doing this for himself, is the head of a branch that does not even legislate.Varegg wrote:
I'm only aware of the head of the army being dismissed when he refused to cooperate about a public electorial vote concerning the changing of the law on that particular point ... what is wrong with having the people state their opinion, that was what the head of the army and the supreme court wouldn't let happen ...
And if a public vote was held it would with a positive result for him infact be a whole nation rewriting the constitution, not just one man ...
We had the same in Norway when we in 1972 and 1994 held public votes for joining or not joining the EU ... the parliament had most votes in favor of joining and could have made a decission against the will of the people obviously that voted against it twice ... that is true democracy when the legislators put the will of people over their own interests ...
True ... hence why it was going on a public vote seeing as those who is appointed to follow and rule with the lawbook in hand didn't agree ... as mentioned laws get outdated and should be changed when they no longer apply as originally thought or was made with another scenario in mind under totally other circumstances ... with that said I don't know how old the laws in question are and/or under what conditions they were deemed necessary ...Kmarion wrote:
Maybe it wasn't in their best interest, but those people were elected also. They were acting within their established laws and constitution (which was also voted on). You can't just conveniently select which laws you follow and when.Varegg wrote:
What failed in congress and the supreme court was the decission to have a public vote not prolonging the precidency ... could it be that the public vote and opinion was not in their best interest?Kmarion wrote:
An illegal vote. You do realize that it was already ruled upon right? It failed in congress and the supreme court supported the decision. That is 2 out of 3 branches of government ruling on the matter. That is why they also have a system of checks and balances. Yes public opinion is important, but constitutional procedure needs to be followed as well. You can't just have one man rewriting thier constitution. ESPECIALLY when that man, who is obviously doing this for himself, is the head of a branch that does not even legislate.
And if a public vote was held it would with a positive result for him infact be a whole nation rewriting the constitution, not just one man ...
We had the same in Norway when we in 1972 and 1994 held public votes for joining or not joining the EU ... the parliament had most votes in favor of joining and could have made a decission against the will of the people obviously that voted against it twice ... that is true democracy when the legislators put the will of people over their own interests ...
Sure thing and I totally agree ... but what congress would have passed against a public vote, imo that is what they feared ... the public opinion, and when not in sync with the public you have infact lost democracyKmarion wrote:
He must really be at ends with congress. Otherwise he would have done what our President must do... use his proxies in congress. 'Cause as it stands right now, congress must introduce law.
Well, we generally expect Iran and China to be fucked up. As for Obama's support for this Honduran guy... that was just stupid. I really don't know what he's thinking right now.ATG wrote:
Citizens being bayoneted, martial law, mass arrests...
Not a peep from the forum.
Also, clerics in Iran call the election results bogus.
Not a peep from the forum.
Obama supports a Hugo Chavez style dictator in Honduras.
I sometimes do not get the attention span from the forum and subjects we choose to argue over.