Quote :

"The so-called "military coup" in Honduras was a successful effort by Honduran patriots to preserve their constitutional system of government from an international alliance of communists and socialists backed by Iran. Not surprisingly, America's Marxist President has come down on the anti-American side. If all of this is news to you, consider yourself a victim of the "state-run media," as Rush Limbaugh calls it. We are being bombarded with liberal media propaganda that a "military coup" took place in Honduras, and that the U.S. should therefore oppose it. Fox News, which has been trumpeting news about the "military coup," should be ashamed of itself for following the liberal media line. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, noted that the problem was that the deposed president, Manuel "Mel" Zelaya, was "moving to re-write the Honduran constitution to extend and expand his power, while retaliating against those who stand in his way." The leftist Zelaya was democratically elected in 2005 in a narrow win (with less than a majority of the vote) but he has been attempting to unconstitutionally and illegally undercut the conservative majorities in the Congress. His main purpose has been to circumvent a prohibition on serving more than one term as president. With his departure, Honduras may have been spared a communist future. Nevertheless, Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quickly issued statements saying that his removal was somehow a violation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. This was a clever ruse designed to disguise the fact that all of the major elements of constitutional power in Honduras, except for the increasingly unpopular and power-hungry president, acted on behalf of the people. The United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has joined with the U.N. General Assembly President, Communist Priest Miguel D'Escoto, to demand that Zelaya be restored to power. The new president, Roberto Micheletti, has made it clear that Zelaya was removed because he had behaved in an unconstitutional manner. "I did not reach this position because of a coup," Micheletti said. "I am here because of an absolutely legal transition process." Micheletti was a member of Zelaya's Liberal Party but opposed his illegal and unconstitutional actions. What happened is that the Legislative and Judicial branches of the government in Honduras, in conjunction with the armed forces, acted to maintain and defend their constitution from a power-mad president who was a puppet of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez."

So there is our president..siding with Chavez and Castro. While people are getting gunned down in the streets of Baghdad..Obama keeps quiet. But let a marxist dictator get kicked out...and he is among the first to raise protest.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama-sides-with-marxists-over-honduras/

6/29/2009 10:21:29 PM

gunned down in Baghdad what now?

6/29/2009 10:24:25 PM

why isn't obama glad there was a coup in which this guy was kicked out?

6/29/2009 10:30:36 PM

Honduras? For fucks sake. It looks like to me the administration doesn't know Honduran laws and made statements in support of "the rule of law, whatever it is, wherever it is"

and some right wing nutjobs are trying to trump this up.

ITS FUCKING HONDURAS

WHO

GIVES

A

FUCK

ABOUT

HONDURAS

6/29/2009 10:36:13 PM

If you toss out all the political bullshit in the article it is essentially right. Zelaya was trying to circumvent the constitution of Honduras.

The Supreme Court of Honduras ordered the army to act, because Zelaya ignored their ruling and was acting to circumvent the constitution. This was anything but a military coup. He was ignoring the highest court in the land... wtf was suppose to happen?

6/29/2009 10:40:51 PM

Obama would admire a leftist trying to circumvent a constitution. Most of his actions since he has been in office have involved the federal government assuming/increasing roles and powers that it does not have. He is just one of many, though.

6/29/2009 10:48:20 PM

who gives a fuck if obama "sides" with some marxists.

capitalism does not equal good nice friendly democracy governments.

perhaps had we sided with the gov't supported by the people versus the one supported by US Big Business we wouldn't have half the middle east and a bunch of other countries taken over by radicals loathing our interference in their politics.

During Vietnam we supported a fucking ruthless nepotistic dictator b.c omg ho chi minh is spreading communism

The "domino theory" as related to the spread of communism has been proven false. If instead Venezuela was supporting communist rebels in our neighbor/allie Mexico then we would have justification to kick ass under different pre-tenses.

Quote :

"Most of his actions since he has been in office have involved the federal government assuming/increasing roles and powers that it does not hav"

Sounds like George DUBYA and Cheney (who by the way was the 4th branch of gov't)

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 11:11 PM. Reason : L]

6/29/2009 11:09:42 PM

are you drunk?

6/29/2009 11:10:47 PM

Quote :

"ITS FUCKING HONDURAS"

My point has nothing to do with Honduras. It has to do with Obama's support of a leftist dictator-wannabe who is trying to corrupt his country's constituition in order to gain power.

On one side we have the Honduran congress, courts and military... on the other we have this deposed dictator/president, Castro, Chavez, and Obama!

6/30/2009 12:49:47 AM

When I look up this "Accuracy in Media" group in Wikipedia, the description doesn't particularly impart me to believe it is credible.

6/30/2009 1:06:09 AM

AMERICA'S

MARXIST

PRESIDENT

6/30/2009 1:43:15 AM

Some idiots in this thread need to shut the fuck up and learn about Marxism, fast.

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 1:55 AM. Reason : .]

6/30/2009 1:54:44 AM

Quote :

"On one side we have the Honduran congress, courts and military... on the other we have this deposed dictator/president, Castro, Chavez, and Obama!"

You're a damn failure. The point about Honduras is, we probably didn't know shit was going on. We probably didn't know he was trying to circumvent the constitution, you know, because it's fucking Honduras. And when asked about it, we just assumed it was a military coup and under SOP, that wouldn't be a cool thing, and thats what was stated. We find out after the fact what was going on and some douchebag right wing blowhard makes a huge fucking deal out of it like Obama is hanging out with Chavez plotting how to take down capitalism as we know.

You're pathetic. Get this shit the hell out of this forum.

6/30/2009 7:42:12 AM

I don't know how it is in honduras, but the president going against the supreme court is not grounds for a coup. There was certainly no coup talk the many times US presidents have defied the supreme court (including fucking GWB). In any case, the honduran "dictator" was trying to get a referendum to extend term limits. He's a pussy if he is a dictator -- and what kind of "dictator" doesn't control the military?

The original article is a bunch of yellow journalism and the original poster is an idiot for lapping up this shit.

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 8:14 AM. Reason : .]

6/30/2009 8:13:55 AM

^^ Such is possible... has Obama said as much? If not, why not? If he made a mistake and would like to correct himself, then why does he not do so?

When I first heard what Obama said, my first thought was maybe he was playing cynic: he was worried the Honduran people might back the impeached and ousted President, so he put a stop to it by painting the former President with the "American Puppet" brush.

^ It was not just the supreme court. As I understand it, the Supreme Court ordered his removal after he was impeached by the Honduran Congress on constitutional grounds and he refused to leave.

Which brings up a question: at what point is our president removed from power? After impeachment in congress, as the Honduran President was, then what? He should leave voluntarily? What if he refuses? Do they call the Capital Police?

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 8:17 AM. Reason : ^]

6/30/2009 8:14:28 AM

Someone do the research for me -- does the honduran constitution allow the removal of president by a military coup and appointment of another president? Need to make sure that these freedom fighters are following their constitution in their presidential removal process. I mean, need to make sure that the "freedom fighters" aren't worse than the "dictator," right???

If the coup is outside of the constitution, it's fucking obvious why supporting the coup is a bad idea (nervermind our wonderful history in south america of supporting coups and self-appointed rulers).

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 8:37 AM. Reason : ..]

6/30/2009 8:34:23 AM

I think O is in the wrong on this one.

THe honduran president wanted another term. he held a public ref. to vote himself in another term. The problem is that the constitution cannot be altered by public ref. So the action was declared illegal by the courts and the govt. It didnt deter the president from continueing to act as president, despite every branch of govt opposing the move bc it was unconstitutional. So, my understanding is, the courts ordered the military to remove the *illegal president.

Now why Obama decided to speak up so quick on this one, and on the wrong side, while being so silent for a period on Iran, which imo was the correct response, I dont know.

I suppose its not surprising that Obama wouldnt care about another countries laws/constitution seeing how he treats ours. haha

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 10:05 AM. Reason : .]

6/30/2009 10:04:31 AM

Quote :

"Now why Obama decided to speak up so quick on this one, and on the wrong side, while being so silent for a period on Iran, which imo was the correct response, I dont know."

Because we have formal diplomatic relations with Honduras? Honduras doesn't try to paint the US as meddlers?

It's just downright hilarious how no matter what the situation or subject you come down on the side against Obama automatically and seemingly without even thinking. I think I'd just give up on life if I was as big a hack as you are.

6/30/2009 10:17:40 AM

Quote :

"It's just downright hilarious how no matter what the situation or subject you come down on the side against Obama automatically and seemingly without even thinking. I think I'd just give up on life if I was as big a hack as you are. "

So you say this. However I just said this

Quote :

"Now why Obama decided to speak up so quick on this one, and on the wrong side, while being so silent for a period on Iran, which imo was the correct response,"

Geez, I almost appears im saying that I thought he did the right thing on Iran. But that cant be, bc Fuck Boat said I automatically come down against obama without thinking. Now I wonder who has demonstrated that they automatically make a statement without thinking? haha, I find that "downright hillarious"

And as for me giving up on life, this just demostrates further that you are a sad person. I do wish you well...and some meds may be needed.

6/30/2009 10:24:04 AM

Go fly a metal kite in a substation dick.

6/30/2009 10:29:56 AM

EarthDogg's thread provide quality entertainment

6/30/2009 11:02:13 AM

I mean, I'm dickish from time to time no doubt, but I just can't begin to take these sort of threads seriously. They might as well be an open invitation to get trolled. The only thing that would have made this more complete is if it came from guardian.uk

6/30/2009 11:27:02 AM

Quote :

"Go fly a metal kite in a substation dick."

quality. no yo mama jokes?

Failboat, do you have an opinion about this admin stance on this issue?

6/30/2009 11:51:16 AM

Even as an unemployed government sucking parasite with what would seem like plenty of time on my hands...I still don't have the time to delve into partisan hackery about ANY administration's comments about Honduras. Fucking Honduras. Really?

6/30/2009 12:10:13 PM

I am disturbed not surprised to read this.

6/30/2009 12:13:33 PM

they took our jerbs

6/30/2009 12:48:28 PM

an emailer to andrew sullivan writes:

Quote :

"I have seen a couple of the links and emails you have posted about the coup in Honduras and I think one major aspect has not been underlined enough. What is truly tragic and worrisome about this is that both sides acted against the rule of law and with blatant disregard towards the established democratic institutions of the country. Those making Zelaya out to be a political innocent, a martyr of the 'right wing oligarchy' are imposing their own sympathies (or perhaps their Cold War ideologies) on the situation. For the last few weeks it has been clear to those who believe in democracy and more specifically the importance of democratic institutions that Zelaya was doing everything both legally and not legally in his power to ignore the decisions of the Supreme Court, the Congress, his own political party and everyone who has a constitutional say in how the country is governed and when elections or constitutional referendums are called. Again to be clear: he wanted another term and was willing to do everything in his power to stay President despite a legal prohibition against it. When all his legal avenues were exhausted instead of accepting this he put together a mob and broke into an army base to 'free' the ballots for the referendum which he was going to run on his own. A restoration of Zelaya to the presidency should take place only if he agrees to obey the constitution, otherwise we are exchanging one set of unconstitutional players for another. Those excusing the coup do so because they were rightly worried about Zelaya's own unconstitutional power grab, but the ends do *not* justify the means. Congress was legally moving to impeach Zelaya and should have stuck to that course when confronted with the likelihood of Zelaya breaking the law on Sunday. Instead they pulled a move out of the 1970s and 1980s book and called the army in to lend a helping hand. To oust Zelaya this way only lost them credibility and, sincerely for those in the region worried about the deeper issue of institutional stability and democracy, sent a signal that institutions are only useful to them when the results are to their liking. Because both sides have shown zero respect for the institutions that make a democracy a democracy both Zelaya's cry me river martyr act and those whitewashing of the coup as somehow legal are not credible. It is crucial that a solution be found that sends a clear signal that in Latin America coups are not winked at or accepted as the method to solve a constitutional dispute. It is also crucial that the solution does not condone the actions of Zelaya previous to the coup. Both sides who broke institutional norms should be dealt with so no precedent is set that any President in the region can just walk over the institutions of democracy when it pleases him and be rewarded for it (this already happens too much under the guise of true institutional change--see Alvaro Uribe and Hugo Chavez for good examples. and note this is not a right or left wing issue, it is a problem with political leadership and the lack of limits on executive power). Also the armies of the region should know too that their arbitration/intervention when a question regarding the rule of law takes place is no longer welcomed, sought or condoned. It is a depressing show seeing usually keen political observers fall back into facile but totally useless Cold War ideologies to cheer on their preferred political outcome in this crisis--those on the right excusing the coup as quasi-legal and the only optimal solution and those on the left cheering Zelaya's martyrdom and excusing his unconstitutional power grab as justified. Even more depressing though is that neither side took a minute to reflect on what the coup really meant--finally after many years a question political scientists and analysts have had since the 'thrid wave' of democratization happened in Latin America has been answered. In Latin American democracies the military, when confronted with a constitutional crisis, once again intervened. Not healthy and not a good augur."

i don't know about this situation much at all. but this seems like a well thought-out response.

and then there's this:



[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 1:25 PM. Reason : img]

6/30/2009 1:23:01 PM

wait

a dictator without military control.

haha

6/30/2009 7:04:47 PM

Quote :

" The same Congress that, after the military had kidnapped, beaten and dumped President Manuel Zelaya in Costa Rica had declared one of its own, Roberto Micheletti, as the coup "president" today passed an emergency law stripping Hondurans of the following rights from the country's constitution: 1. The right to protest. 2. Freedom in one's home from unwarranted search, seizure and arrest. 3. Freedom of association. 4. Guarantees of rights of due process while under arrest. 5. Freedom of transit in the country. The coup defenders are afraid, they say, of Honduras becoming another another Cuba, or Venezuela, or Nicaragua, of losing their "freedoms" and their "democracy." But today, in one fell swoop their leaders erased those very freedoms, atop all the other ones they've already burned alive - freedom of the press, freedom to elect their own president, among them - and buried democracy with it."

7/2/2009 11:13:13 AM

Boy, the conservatives really look like assholes in this thread.

7/2/2009 11:36:33 AM

so if a leader is elected by popular vote and describes himself as marxist, is he automatically illegitimate?

i mean, i know what was going on with the constitution here, but you hear people on the right calling ortega and chavez "dictators" when neither came to power by anything less than a popular vote which all observing bodies verified as being fair. who cares what they believe about economies and class struggle? if you don't respect that you need to shut up about libertry and self-determination. you're not a "libertarian" b/c you hate socialists.

i think some people are just upset they missed out on the Cold War and want to go fight Commies cause Red Dawn looked cool.

Also, let's take a formal poll: who here has actually read more than a few sentences by Marx?

[Edited on July 2, 2009 at 12:54 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2009 12:53:35 PM

Quote :

"but you hear people on the right calling ortega and chavez "dictators" when neither came to power by anything less than a popular vote which all observing bodies verified as being fair."

You know what? Fuck it. I am going to to do. You know who else came to power through a popular vote? Right. Many dictators come to power through fair elections, then once in power slowly undermine and corrupt the process in order to insure that they will always stay in power. Chavez has done this, Ortega has done this, and many others in the past... Amazingly, this is exactly what Zaleya was trying to do! Imagine that. You just showed your complete ignorance of history and current events all in one stroke. It's laughable to suggest Chavez has remained in power through democratic means.

The military in this situation should have waited for the impeachment process to be completed in the Honduran congress, then kicked his ass out. You have the congress, the high courts, and the military aligned against this guy because he is trying to concentrate power in the executive, and this fucker is getting support? Laughable.

7/2/2009 1:40:51 PM

i dont' think it's so much that the ousted president is getting support as much as it is that the ousters did so in an inappropriate/military fashion when impeachment was proper. not to mention they're apparently already proceeding to lock down the country.

7/2/2009 1:44:33 PM

Quote :

"You know what? Fuck it. I am going to to do. You know who else came to power through a popular vote? Right. "

Ahahahahahahahahahah, "i dont give a shit about "definitions" of "words". i can do what i want. and also, HITLER DID IT"

7/2/2009 1:50:44 PM

Quote :

"i dont' think it's so much that the ousted president is getting support as much as it is that the ousters did so in an inappropriate/military fashion when impeachment was proper. not to mention they're apparently already proceeding to lock down the country."

Could have fooled me. Zelaya has been getting plenty of support from most countries governments, including our very own Secretary of State. And by lock down do you mean enforced curfew and barring of the right to gather at night? This was done by congress, you know, elected officials and I doubt will be anything but permanent. During a crisis, in any country, this is fairly standard fair is it not?

Zelaya was overthrown with the support of most of his own party. Think about it.

Time will tell, but I have a feeling Honduras will have a free election within the year.

Quote :

""i dont give a shit about "definitions" of "words". i can do what i want. and also, HITLER DID IT""

Wait, so are you arguing that a dictator by "definition" can not come to power through a popular vote? Yea, I called up the mighty one to summarily dismiss this notion. Since it is an amazingly good example of how this is not the case. There are others though. Instead of just acting a fool, perhaps you could say how this is not the case? No, that would require actual thought on your part.

[Edited on July 2, 2009 at 1:54 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2009 1:51:27 PM

an impeachment would have made for a much less contentious set of circumstances in the country. and "you have a feeling" there will be free elections. based on what?

[Edited on July 2, 2009 at 1:54 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2009 1:53:54 PM

Quote :

"Time will tell, but I have a feeling Honduras will have a free election within the year."

was this in doubt before, cause i could have swore that "repeal term limits" didn't mean "abolish elections".

i just read the first article:

Quote :

"The so-called "military coup" in Honduras was a successful effort by Honduran patriots to preserve their constitutional system of government from an international alliance of communists and socialists backed by Iran. Not surprisingly, America's Marxist President has come down on the anti-American side."

lol

Quote :

"Wait, so are you arguing that a dictator by "definition" can not come to power through a popular vote? Yea, I called up the mighty one to summarily dismiss this notion. Since it is an amazingly good example of how this is not the case. There are others though."

was he or was he not going to stand for re-election against opposition parties? how many times did this happen in prior dictatorships (USSR, China, Cuba, N. Korea, Belarus, etc)? He might have a shitty record, he might be a shitty guy, but he was going to stand for re-election before the military deposed of him (to the chagrin of, well, the whole fucking world, not just your MARXIST boogeymen).

Quote :

"Instead of just acting a fool, perhaps you could say how this is not the case? No, that would require actual thought on your part."

so tuff

[Edited on July 2, 2009 at 2:04 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2009 1:55:38 PM

Quote :

"an impeachment would have made for a much less contentious set of circumstances in the country. and "you have a feeling" there will be free elections. based on what?"

I don't think anyone is arguing that the impeachment should have been given time to go through. But it doesn't make what the military did any less justifiable.

Based on the fact that elections were going to be held anyway. I don't see them not occurring. Do you have any reason to believe that elections will not occur?

Quote :

" was this in doubt before, cause i could have swore that "repeal term limits" didn't mean "abolish elections"."

No one said it that did they? Pretty poor way to try and deflect your idiotic statements.

[Edited on July 2, 2009 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2009 1:57:50 PM

there was just a military coup?

one thing i am unclear about. what was the binding nature of the congress and court's saying that the president should be removed? is it the same as an impeachment? was this just basically a vote of no confidence that doesn't have any real meaning that they used as an excuse to violently expel a political opponent?

[Edited on July 2, 2009 at 2:07 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2009 2:00:19 PM

Quote :

"No one said it that did they? Pretty poor way to try and deflect your idiotic statements. "

how often do dictators stand in multi-party elections and even acknowledge a constitution?

thank god we might get some good oligarchs who will protect our fruits running things again, right? that's what latin america is for.

[Edited on July 2, 2009 at 2:06 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2009 2:05:49 PM

Quote :

"there was just a military coup?"

Can a military coup not be just? Can the military not be just? Are you asserting that those in the military are somehow unjust by their occupation? That they can not do what is right and uphold the laws of their country?

7/2/2009 2:06:11 PM

the military should not act on their own volition to overthrow branches of government.

that's pretty much the definition of military rule.

[Edited on July 2, 2009 at 2:09 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2009 2:08:05 PM

Quote :

"how often do dictators stand in multi-party elections and even acknowledge a constitution?"

I'm sorry, are you trying to say that I have said Zelaya was a dictator? Chavez is a dictator, but Zelaya isn't. He was just trying to slowly maneuver himself into that position, like Chavez has done. Thus he was a wannabe who sucked at doing it. It wasn't just the term limits, he has been doing minor things like this for a while trying to gain more power for the executive. Do some reading and get back to me.

Quote :

"the military should not act on their own volition to overthrow branches of government. that's pretty much the definition of military rule."

That isn't military rule, but I understand what you are trying to say. I will just disagree. The military can act in a just manner to protect a people, country, and laws. Anything can be corrupted and abused, and while force should be a last result, it's application is justified on occasion.

[Edited on July 2, 2009 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2009 2:09:58 PM

this didn't seem like the last resort.

it seems that congress could have acted to correct the election problems instead of expelling the president through the threat of his death.

7/2/2009 2:14:17 PM

well, pardon me, but all i hear from the right in recent days is how any left wing leader in latin america is a dictator. sorry i didn't catch your nuanced view and extreme knowledge of latin american affairs.

chavez is a dick, but as long as he stands in multiparty elections that outside groups are allowed to verify, he's an elected dick.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_coup

meanwhile, the rest of the world, including Chavez enemies Colombia, say Zelaya should be reinstated.

7/2/2009 2:19:52 PM

Well, I think it is clear Obama is a socialist with how often he is called it at health care yelling "debates" these days, so in retrospect this makes perfect sense.

NPR yesterday had a 3 professor discussion group about the definition of socialism and about the balance between authoritarian socialism vs just heavy gov regulation vs several other kinds, and how very few people who are using the word socialism in current debates either know what they are really saying, or at least there are so many definitions that people have in mind when talking about socialism to the point of obstructing the debate.

I think in a health care reform debate if the media is to the point that they are trying to decide what socialism really means, then things have been successfully derailed.

9/2/2009 11:21:38 PM