MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentine officials furious with court annulment of gubernatorial election
The annulment by a Tucuman court of a gubernatorial election in a stronghold of Argentina's ruling party, outraged officials of President Cristina Fernandez's administration and gave a boost to opponents ahead of the Oct. 25 presidential contest. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe shoe is now most definitely on the other foot.
Sep 18th, 2015 - 08:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0DON'T PANIC, DON'T PANIC!
Sep 18th, 2015 - 11:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0What do you say now, Riki MPH, 'your' government want to takeover the region!
Scioli just doesn't get it that the fiddles are where the 100,000 'win margin' came from: he will make a perfect puppet for TMBOA when he 'wins' the presidency.
2 Chris
Sep 18th, 2015 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Think obviously doesn't understand that either - he was saying. if they had another vote it would have the same result
chuckle chuckle - what a turnip!
I will say one thing: 100,000 votes.
Sep 18th, 2015 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The ruling is highly problematic as the authorities were to assume Oct. 29, which could leave Tucuman without a government elected because it's impossible to organize a new election.
On the other hand, the judges who ruled the election invalid may have stepped into the Election Commission territory. The judges' reasons for their ruling are laughable and do not stand any legal analysis.
After the vote that has been put in question now, all the poll authorities signed. The results were reviewed orderly. The difference between the two parties was substantial and impossible to be changed by fraud if it ever existed.
Meanwhile, the opposition celebrates their newly discovered power to trump democracy.
Like Joseph Stalin once said... “The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.”
Sep 18th, 2015 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For sure the 'officials' are not as 'furious' as the voter who didn't want to vote for the ruling party in Santiago del Estero and was told there were no ballot papers! Upon insistence a paper was eventually retrieved from the bottom of a stack of the ruling party paperwork where it had been 'hidden'...just in case someone literate could tell the difference. Viva the 'business' of democracy in Argentina.
Sep 18th, 2015 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pseudo-democracy at work.
Sep 18th, 2015 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“They pretend to vote for me, and I pretend to work for them”
@4 Reekie,
Sep 18th, 2015 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Once again you defend corrupt politics, ignoring the facts.. Do you think that if ballot boxes were burned and “errors” found in vote counting, in an election in Canada, that the results would not be impugned ??
Is this sufficiently related to the subject for you ?
@5
Sep 18th, 2015 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CFK could use that anology.
#8 Jack Bauer
Sep 18th, 2015 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your arrogance is amazing. What do you know about “corrupt politics” other than your deep-seated prejudice? What are the “facts” you seem to know so well?
There is a number of criteria to consider before quashing the results of an election, both in Canada and Argentina.
One of those is to gauge whether any alleged fraud has the potential of altering the results of an election. In Argentina there have been examples in which elections had to be celebrated again in ballot stations where irregularities occurred, and even districts.
Let's see now what the Supreme Court decides on this.
@10 Massot
Sep 18th, 2015 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm sure that if ballot boxes were burned in a Canadian election, the results would be thrown out and heads would roll. Never mind your “criteria”.
That is why you live in Canada and not in Argentina.
I think that if ballot boxes were burned and papers spoilt, as well as neglecting to count some ballots, it is pretty likely that the results are, more than likely, to have been affected!
Sep 19th, 2015 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You need a lesson in the application of logic, Massot!
#12 FitzRoy
Sep 19th, 2015 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Very well my friend--let's apply some logic. Think:
Who in their right mind would have gone to burn ballot boxes and cause other troubles?
Those who were winning for a large margin?
Or the sore losers who release balloons when they win and claim fraud when they lose?
You got it!
“removal of the judges”
Sep 20th, 2015 - 03:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0in any first world country such demand would mean the end of a political carrier.
Enrique Massot aka professional liar Anibal Fernandez is unable to understand that those who were caught not winning by any true margin would burn the ballot boxes.
What is Enrique afraid of - an election without fraud?
Question.
Sep 20th, 2015 - 05:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe they were winning by a large margin because they burned ballot boxes?
Ya think?
Here we go again, it's the opposition, it's the opposition!!!!! It's a conspiracy by the opposition!!!
A regular broken record.
14. 15
Sep 20th, 2015 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Already told you! Not so complicated, is it?
The opposition knew, even before the election, that they were not going to win, even with an alliance of all parties in opposition.
That is why they began talking about fraud long before the election, and created most of the incidents to justify the anullation.
Let's now see what happens at the upper levels of the justice system.
@16
Sep 20th, 2015 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let us hope that Kircherism prevails and Argentina will then be as wealthy as Eritrea or North Korea, is that what you want. Do enlighten us, you realise that you need foreign investment and that your theiving government needs to pay the holdout funds. Theives of the South america.
“Let's now see what happens at the upper levels of the justice system.”
Sep 20th, 2015 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- because an honest election would be a disaster.
Only a corrupt justice system can save the phony result.
Quique seriously, you don't see a problem with burned ballots from 42 voting stations? Is that to be ignored? Do you also believe that a government commission has a higher authority pertaining to legal adherence than the judiciary? And no precedence....tell us about your jurisprudence background to make these preposterous statements.
Sep 20th, 2015 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 042 voting station.......all the ballots burned.......no problem huh?
18 Doggy
Sep 20th, 2015 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To understand the situation you got to put yourself in the opposition's shoes.
They all united, Massa and Macri and every other party, to defeat the Kirchnerism in Tucuman.
Having lost there means they have little hopes for Oct. 25.
As a result, they need to play the only card in their sleeve they still have: play dirty tricks to either win by demoralization, or create a chaos atmosphere.
It's very rare for any party in power for 12 years to reach an election date in good shape as Kirchnerists have. That is where the opposition's desperation sits. They need to win now to be able to reverse many social and economical kirchnerist policies before people become too used to them.
This is just an objective analysis. Of course, those betting in favour of a return to a free market sort of government will disagree.
But wishful thinking won't change reality.
All the ballots from 42 voting stationed torched, ignited and burned. Calling thst election valid would be like shitting in a pot of soup, removing the turds and claiming the soup is still good because the ingredients were AOK. E Coli spoils everything, almost as thorough as a Kirchnerite.
Sep 21st, 2015 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Enrique
Sep 21st, 2015 - 01:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you saying the Opposition secretly burnt the 42 voting stations?
How do you know these things??
Looks like the results are in question- disputed voting practices.
Vote again under proper supervision and nonpartisan Observers, surely if the majority are backing Scioli and CFK - they will win.
What are you afraid of??
Capt & Troy
Sep 21st, 2015 - 05:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sadly enough, I believe that Mr. Massot is much more right than wrong on this one. Given the current circumstances and the mindset of the majority of Tucuman voters, there is probably almost no level of fraud that could have possibly had a pivotal bearing on the results in question. Doesn't make it right. Just makes it so.
What I am more surprised at is the (slightly) inherent insinuation in your position that there is a possibility that the majority might have voted intelligently if given the opportunity? Perhaps you could point me to such a precedent in Argentina? You are giving them far, far too much credit.
As usual, I think the most obvious answer is usually the correct one.
They are boobs. Easily bought; easily sold.
@23 Newfoundlander
Sep 21st, 2015 - 06:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0I repeat what I said @22,
“Vote again under proper supervision and nonpartisan Observers, surely if the majority are backing Scioli and CFK - they will win.”
Void the result and conduct it properly.
Surely a properly observed and regulated re-vote is preferable to a contentious result obtained during a grossly flawed election, where election rules were broken, ballots were deliberately destroyed, and there are many unanswered questions.
If they continue to vote Kirchnerism ( whatever that is ) then they will continue in the spiral of descent into oblivion. Your vote counts ( depending on WHO you vote for ) LOL What a fucked up country.
Sep 21st, 2015 - 07:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0The votes that do not count are burned!
Sep 21st, 2015 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@10 Reekie
Sep 21st, 2015 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your “What do you know about “corrupt politics” other than your deep-seated prejudice? What are the “facts” you seem to know so well?”..
Seems I touched a nerve, Reekie. And you have the nerve to ask me what I “know of corrupt politics”....I'll tell you : Several decades of Brazil.....how long did you live here ? 6 (six) weeks ? Did you ever vote here ? Didn't think so.
You refuse to listen to the facts because your 'beliefs' are more important ;
The issue here is “Dozens of ballot boxes were burned and errors were found in the vote count that pro-government candidate Juan Manzur allegedly won by 52% to 40%”.....Don't you understand English ? If it's true that ballot boxes were actually burnt, and I am presuming it is, it doesn't matter who was winning or losing...the result cannot be validated....unless, of course, if the 'election' were held in Venezuela. You have a bad habit of answering - 'when' you do - by ignoring the question and spouting your bigoted views.
Re your criteria “One of those is to gauge whether any alleged fraud has the potential of altering the results of an election”, doesn't burning ballot boxes qualify ?
And you still haven't explained why you remain in Canada when you profess to love the backward South American socialist bs ....
In your # 13 & 16, you are starting to sound like Terence. Another owner of the truth. Arrogant little wanker...
Sadly, the annulment was itself annulled by the Provincial Court, and it is very unlikely that the national courts will override the decision made by the Provincial Court, so this joke of an election is valid.
Sep 22nd, 2015 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0As usual, the people lose.
27 Jack Bauer
Sep 22nd, 2015 - 02:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0My assertions are usually proved by the accompanying citations of expert opinion. While your humble musings, are like your derrière, you've just got to display them unverified and all. So while I do my level best to prove what I'm stating. You sail on regardless of such minor inconveniences, relying solely on on your peculiar political philosophy that stands somewhere to the distant right of Attila the Hun. So whom is the more likely to be more truthful?
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” Harlan Ellison
“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” Napoleon Bonaparte
“He had just about enough intelligence to open his mouth when he wanted to eat, but certainly no more.” P.G. Wodehouse
A great many people mistake opinions for thoughts. -Herbert V. Prochnow
OK, here you go...the annulment's annulment.
Sep 22nd, 2015 - 06:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0For sure, Jack Bauer, even despising Argentines, was glad with the original annulment and loved those two judges.
“Don't you understand English ?” he gallantly asked @27. No doubt he knew better than any judge what REALLY had happened in Tucuman. The Provincial Court, on the other hand, knows nothing!
And do you know what the consideration was for the unanimous Provincial Court ruling?
None of the incidents on Election Day had the potential to change the results. Period.
@29 Terence,
Sep 22nd, 2015 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“My assertions are usually proved by the accompanying citations of expert opinion”...
So, to you 'other' people's assertions, whom 'you' consider 'expert', are the gospel truth ? Your incapacity to form an opinion of your own is a sure sign of insecurity and of an enormous inferiority complex.
And, you took the bait again. Your inflated sense of self-proclaimed importance doesn't allow you to be normal.....just one word of advice numbnuts, don't break your elbow trying to pat yourself on the back.
And a suggestion: if you are unable to express your own opinion, pls just STFU.
@30 Reekie
Get one thing straight : I do NOT depise Argentines. I despise CFK and her government. Two totally different things. I have some family living in BA, and I go down there quite often. It's sad to see the way things have deteriorated over the years, especially under CFK. My support of the Court's decision - to annul the election - has nothing to do with emotion, which seems to be what blinds you. It is now more than clear that your comprehension of English is somewhat limited, otherwise, why ask me “what the consideration was for the unanimous Provincial Court ruling ?” I would say, as per the media reports, it was the fact that one of the voter groups burned ballot boxes...is that wrong ?? Think not, that's why I simply support the local court's decision, based on rationality and fairness.
But, why don't you move back to the Argentine ? Can't you afford the opulent life-style that the Argentines lead ? Or is it because you are on the dole, living off the true Canadians' generosity ?
31 Jack Bauer
Sep 23rd, 2015 - 03:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am well able to form and present my own opinions in a logical and acceptable manner. It is you who has admirably demonstrated that you are a completely uneducated moron, who's capacity to engage in any kind of discourse is limited to someone, who appears to have the intellectual capacity of a nine year old. Whom, is too old and too stupid to rise above his limitations.
There is nothing I have proffered that I didn't have the utmost confidence and was able to show was amply supported by informed and qualified expertise. It's because I take the time to research what I'm going to post on a public forum. You, conversely with your obvious limited education, are happy to go blundering about not having a clue how to satisfy your emotional infantilism, or even present it in any rational manner.
If what ever I had posted was incorrect you would have been able to refute it. So your beef is that my opinions have knowledgeable support. While all you can proffer is that you have a singular opinion, which like derrières everyone has one, so what?
#31 Jack Bauer
Sep 23rd, 2015 - 04:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well, I am glad to hear you don't despise all Argentines. Opposing a government or a political party is not bad but a necessary part of democracy.
If you are concerned by poverty I commend you, and if you believe someone has potential to improve things, you should not be afraid to lend him or her your support.
Regarding my place of residency...do you request those who post here where they live and why?
Did I ask where you live?
I didn't think so.
I do sign my posts with my real name and do not hide where I live.
However, the reasons are nobody's business. I live where I please and will post my opinions as freely as others whose real name and country of residency is unknown.
Jack Quique pulled the same BS on my when I questioned the coordinates of his residency. He seems to fail to comprehend the relevance of his chosen country to residency and his out spoken support of Kirchner and the mistaken believe that Argentina is in such great shape economically.
Sep 23rd, 2015 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0He “lives where he pleases” and it is apparent for many reasons that Argentina could not possibly please him. So he is pleased to live in a country as a complete opposite of Argentina all the while spewing his garbage in how great Argentina is. Hypocrite.
@32 Terence
Sep 23rd, 2015 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your insistence that you are the only smart guy in this forum, is boring. Your statements lack substance, lack truth, reason why you constantly quote other people. As if that automatically becomes the truth. Small brain.
Why don't you screw off ? but before you do, and because you state that I am unable to refute any of your bs, I will ask you once again :
Do you still believe that the PT is a minority political party ? If so, please back it it up with proof...or STFU.
@33 Reekie
The reason why poverty concerns me, is that it makes me uncomfortable to see it expanding due to populist measures by incompetent governments that believe they can throw crumbs to the poor, and that it will shut them up. In fact, quite a large portion of the poor, who receive handouts, are content to accomodate themselves and vote for the incumbent government because they are afraid of losing their measly crumbs. If they reacted and tried to stand on their own two feet, they'd have my support, but as it is, it's complicated.
As to your place of residence, I really couldn't care less, but if you live in Canada, a first world country, why do you insist on defending corrupt government systems in countries that you do not live in ? Simple question - not personal, nor invasive. Waiting.
@34 Captain
Agree.
35 Jack Bauer
Sep 24th, 2015 - 01:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes Jack you can spin yarns endlessly all based on only your humble opinion, but without any authoritative verification its simple mental masturbation. But, what ever gets you off.
You cannot produce any statement where I have stated “that the PT is a minority political party ” I'll save you a fruitless search as the operative word I used “was” not “is”, which is in fact correct. Moreover, you can show no instance were I have claimed “the only smart guy in this forum”. I guess it's hard to read when your turning Japanese.
@36 Terence
Sep 24th, 2015 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You cannot produce any statement where I have stated “that the PT is a minority political party ”...
Well, let's see.....Lie. Big lie. Take look at your post # 6 to Tik-Tok , beginning September.
Quote”
6 Terence Hill (#)
Sep 03rd, 2015 - 06:04 pm
3 Tik Tok
The PT is a a minority party that has had to rely on a shaky conditional coalition. Without a solid majority in both the Senate and Congress to have a freehand in implementing their policies. They've had to live with the inevitable political compromises, as a result of the position the electorate has bequeathed them.
”Unquote.
Either you are a habitual liar, or you have a short memory...or both.
And fyg, the PT/ PMDB coalition only became 'shaky' (your word) after the 2014 election, when the Government and the PT could no longer hide their lies and incompetence. ....and you seemed disappointed that they no longer had a “freehand' in implementing their policies”. Tough shit.
You wanted proof, you got it.... next step : I'll expect you to try to lie your way out of it. Go on now.....
True, you haven't actually claimed being the only smart guy in this forum....there is no need to....your haughtiness oozes out of every statement you make.
37 Jack Bauer
Sep 24th, 2015 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Regardless as to your nit-picking the PT had increased their presence in the last election over the previous one. But if the PT are in fact a majority party their legislation agenda would be rammed through congress without any impediment at all. As they would have sufficient votes to pass it, which they don't. I personally don't care who's in power, the only people it seems important too is you and your fellow reactionists who are one's with the political agenda. The only time it's important to me is when opinion is presented as fact, then I take issue.
“your haughtiness oozes out of every statement you make” Oh another subjective unprovable humble opinion. That statement seems to reflect merely your personal malice and nothing more.
AUNT EBE'S FAVOURS.
Sep 24th, 2015 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's not the first time that opposition parties denounce fraud, when they f. p. v. wins elections, in fact, when Macri's candidat lost in Santa Fe, his party said that there were serious irregularities, beside, most opposition did the same after being defeated in Salta, even they tried to make people believe that there was fraud, when Cristina won primary elections in 2011.
On the other hand, now most parties want to push the government, with the purpose that it implements electronic vote, or the unique ballot (australian ballot), because they say that it's the only one way to avoid frauds. However, in Santa Fe and in Salta, citizens vote with the austalian ballot mechanism and with electronic vote, however when they saw that electoral results were not what they expected, they made ridiculous denounces of fraud.
Beside, some of the most obvious and pathetic aspects of the decision taken by justice?, is that one of the judges who signed the annulment of the elections in Tucumán (Ebe Piosek), is Jose Cano's aunt. Anyway don't worry boys, i can already imagen what many of you would say, if Manzur asked a relative from justice to declare the annulment of the election, after being defeated by Cano.
It's evident that not only they are mediocre polictians, they are also very bad losers.
It wouldn't be extrange that if Scioli doesn't win Macri for not less of 15 points, most those cretins insist on their ridiculous denounces of fraud, After the result of primary elections, Scioli is at less of 2 points of winning in first turn, but with just a little more of 10 points of difference.
@38 Terence
Sep 24th, 2015 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There you go again. Instead of admitting you shat out the pot (regarding “PT being a minority Party”), you make feeble excuses to try to cover it up.
But it's no use...you've crapped yourself, again : Look at your statement :-
“Regardless as to your nit-picking the PT had increased their presence in the last election over the previous one”.
WRONG. The PT actually lost 18 seats in the Lower House. The PMDB lost 5. The PP lost 4. The PCdB lost 5. PT plus closest allies = minus 32.
The PSDB gained 10 seats. See Terence, the numbers prove you are full of shit.
Despite the biggest losses, the PT /PMDB coalition still holds the most seats. And the fact that the PT is trying desperately trying to maintain the coalition reflects the trend that several Congressmen from the PMDB, and even some from the PT, are no longer backing the government. Obviously, because they are afraid of the public backlash, not because they really care about doing the right thing.
Your last paragraph, trying to downplay your “haughtiness”, is indeed pathetic........“your personal malice....” Oh dear, did I hurt your feelings ?
Terry, one thing is VERY clear - you insist on commenting on subjects you know little or nothing about. Keep quiet and stop embarassing yourself. Stick to your silly quotes.
40 Jack Bauer
Sep 25th, 2015 - 01:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0The point of our little soirees, is not an exchange of political acumen, as I have said on several occasions I very little interest in politics. It is for me to rip the facade off and successfully expose you as you really are. An immature individual, who's anti-democratic leanings have led you to express yearnings for a restoration of a military dictatorship. Who rejects any approved format for expression or conduct and will abase and abuse the subject out of hand. Every time you pronounce a falsity which is usually an unproven opinion. I'm going to continue to kick your sorry ass all over the map metaphorically speaking.
@41 Terence
Sep 25th, 2015 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, it's been obvious that your political acumen is non-existent. You've made statements that you can't back up, because they're wrong. Twice. But OK, let's forget current politics. Definitely not one of your strong points...not that you have any..
Your conviction that I'm against democracy is totally wrong. What I don't like is the PT's version of it....similar to Venezuela's 'Bolivarianism'. If you support the 'PT's' Bolivarian dream, then either you are unaware of its undeclared objectives (do some research on “Fôro de São Paulo”) or you don't know the meaning of 'democracy'. Which is it ?
While on principle I will always prefer a truly democratic regime - one in which the 'people' are not just an amorphic mass to be manipulated by the government - to a Military one, what I have said before, and which you insist on misinterpreting, is that it was better that the Military took over in 1964, than to let the country continue its path towards communism. I have no idea if you even existed in 1964, or if you did, whether you have any first-hand experience of the so-called “revolution of '64”....but I maintain that Law-abiding citizens had nothing to fear. Those that chose to rise up in arms against the Military, well, that's another story.
As to your “unproven” opinions, how stupid does that sound ? an opinion does not require proof in order to be expressed. Its definition, as per the Oxford Dictionary, is : “Judgement or belief based on grounds short of proof, provisional conviction, view held as probable...” Get it ??
So, if I say Lula is a crook, it's my opinion. I'm not accusing him formally, nor am I taking him to court, so I don't need to prove a damned thing. I'll leave that to the Federal Police.
As I have said before, if it makes you feel superior, keep on believing that you are kickin' ass....makes no difference to me.
42 Jack Bauer
Sep 25th, 2015 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Your conviction that I'm against democracy is totally wrong.”
The difference between what you you claim and what you have actually said. It appears that you are condemned out of your own mouth.
14 Jack Bauer; “.....but there is still one thing that can save Brazil...it has in the past, and might well do again...the Military.......
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/01/26/brazil-supportive-of-mercosur-as-long-as-it-does-not-turn-into-a-burden
12 Jack Bauer; ”..'Military dictatorship', let me clarify one thing : history is showing,.. ..that it was good for Brazil
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/01/26/brazil-supportive-of-mercosur-as-long-as-it-does-not-turn-into-a-burden
“that it was better that the Military took over in 1964, than to let the country continue its path towards communism”
Is simply you parroting the military rational without any evidence to support such claim, and it was an illegal usurpation of a legitimate government.
'Brazil’s military regime provided a model for other military regimes and dictatorships around Latin America, systematizing the “Doctrine of National Security,” which “justified” the military’s actions as operating in the interest of National Security in a time of crisis, creating an intellectual basis upon which other military regimes relied
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/01/26/brazil-supportive-of-mercosur-as-long-as-it-does-not-turn-into-a-burden
@43 Terence
Sep 26th, 2015 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why do you insist on sounding so ignorant ? You are simply repeating what I have said, several times before.....and have never denied .
I was indeed relieved to see the military takeover in 1964 in view of what was going on in Brazil at the time - re which you probably know very little about - and I would support their intervention again, if that what it took to block the PT's true objective.....did you even bother to look up the “Fôro de São Paulo” ? obviously NOT. Afraid of what you'll find, you liberal wimp ??
Besides lacking political acumen, you have little or no knowledge of Brazil's recent history. Evidence of that is your silly “Is simply you parroting the military rational without any evidence to support such claim, and it was an illegal usurpation of a legitimate government.”.....
I do not need to support such a claim. Instead, why don't you do some serious research on what was going on in Brazil in 1961/62 /63 ? don't need to take my word for it.....But that would probably shatter your ignorant beliefs, so, I'll ask you once again, “where were you in 1964” ?
Finally, regarding the Oxford Dictionary's definition of “opinion”, what didn't you understand ??
Re:Embattled Rousseff argues... 15 Jack Bauer
Sep 27th, 2015 - 02:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Since your a little slow on the uptake let me lay it out for you. Your such a complete loser you're the only who's oblivious that your failure to address specific accusations in post #8 means you agree that you are both a liar and a user of fallacies. That you have been out maneuvered, and your continued denials are both empty rhetoric and further proof of your dishonesty.
“..qui tacet consentiré videtur-lit. he who is silent is thought to consent. Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent. In law, the silence of a party implies his consent.. A maxim of crime and consent. qui tacet, consentit-lit. he who is silent agrees. Thus, who keeps silent consents; silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent; consent by conduct is as good as expressed consent. This is an implied term in law....”
SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker Author And Legal Practitioner
One of the first businesses of a sensible man is to know when he is beaten, and to leave off” ...Samuel Butler
44 Jack Bauer
You're such a liar “Your conviction that I'm against democracy is totally wrong.” When I have shown the above anti-democratic statements. You share the same ideology as Hitler and think that saying by it's okay you know best makes every thing okay. Well I don't think you'll find that is a justification that washes. The coup was initiated and supported by people who previously benefitted by prior government policies that favored their interests. When there was change at the ballot box then the rules had to be altered to restore their favored status. The historical record shows there was no coup or uprising that had to reacted against. In fact the first records of physical resistance appear to be in 1967, three years after the military takeover.
@45 Terence
Sep 27th, 2015 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quotes and more quotes. Totally expected. My first reaction was to give up on you, but perhaps you can still be recovered...so, if you had the brains to look up the political situation of Brazil in the late 50' and early 60's, maybe you'd realize that the PCB and its sympathizers always had one objective : to establish communism in Brazil.
With Janio Quadros' resignation in August 1961 (due to 'forças ocultas' - never satisfactorily explained), his VP, Jango (João Goulart) was finally sworn in on 7th Sept., after returning from China - and after the Military had made it clear that they preferred new, democratic elections to be held - this, because of the fact that both Jango, and his brother-in-law, Brizola (the then RGS Governor), were self-proclaimed communists, and had been indirectly involved in the preparation of armed resistance (against the Janio Q presidency). This armed resistance was to be initiated in the North and the N.East, under the leadership of Francisco Julião and his “Liga Camponesa”, simultaneously with similar uprisings to be staged in Colombia and Venezuela. Francisco Julião had already started drafting communist militants from all over Brazil to join their ranks, but in Nov 1961, he was accused of mishandling funds sent by Cuba to finance the urban guerilla warfare, which created a bit of internal dissension within the 'Liga Camponesa' and delayed their plans. To cut a long story short, finally in March 1964, after Jango had shown his true colours (a rabid commie) and his courtship of the USSR and Cuba was out in the open, which triggered massive popular protests against the government in SP and some other States, the Military intervened. So, the Dilma's, Dirceus and Genoínos of the 60's, who thought they could topple the Military - who took over only as a counterrevolutionary measure - got what they deserved.
And once again : where were you in 1964 ?
46 Jack Bauer
Sep 27th, 2015 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have only your uncited version of events which is not an acceptable rebuttal. Here are properly cited versions of the same event which contradict your interpretation. So your claim that the “Military - who took over only as a counterrevolutionary measure” is completely unsupported and is refuted in any of the sources below.
Hitler's justification for the suspension of democracy was in effect no different to the imposition of the dictatorship in Brazil, which has your whole hearted approval.
The Enabling Act (German: Ermächtigungsgesetz) was a 1933 Weimar Constitution amendment that gave the German Cabinet – in effect, Chancellor Adolf Hitler – the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag. It passed in both the Reichstag and Reichsrat on 24 March 1933, and was signed by President Paul von Hindenburg later that day. The act stated that it was to last four years unless renewed by the Reichstag, which occurred twice. The Enabling Act gave Hitler plenary powers. It followed on the heels of the Reichstag Fire Decree, which abolished most civil liberties and transferred state powers to the Reich government. The combined effect of the two laws was to transform Hitler's government into a de facto legal dictatorship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
“base reforms” (bottom-up reforms) such as land reform and nationalization of enterprises in various economic sectors (which would remove the nation from its antique latifundial economy, but that were considered communist reforms), regardless of assent from established institutions such as Congress.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
Sixth Constitution (1967)
“By this time, the military had decided to drop all pretense of democracy. It also felt the 1946 constitution was ”obsolete“ as the ”new institutions” were not foreseen in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!