MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Brazilian President Temer to tour Russia, Norway this week
President Michel Temer of Brazil is to meet his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin during his Moscow stop this coming week. Among the items to be discussed is the purchase of air defense missile systems. There will also be talks with Russian investors to discuss energy matters. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesGreat!
Jun 18th, 2017 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse +1Just make sure that they will continue to import “Weak [rotton] Meat” too.
By the way, in whose plane are you flying this time? On the way, any plans for a stopover in Panama? Luxumberg? Switzerland? Other Tax-Heavens? etc? https://www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/genildo-16-442x420.jpg
Why does Brazil need air defence missile systems? Are you worried that Paraguay might invade? It's not like Brazil has money to burn these days.
Jun 18th, 2017 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0@DT:
Jun 18th, 2017 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe, Brazil has plans to “invade” SOME country! :o))
Well, as long as V. P. authorizes the imports of rotten meat; ALL IS WELL in Brazil!
AND please don't forget: http://www.chargeonline.com.br/php/DODIA//mariano.jpg
@ :o))
Jun 18th, 2017 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I vote you invade Venezuela. You get the oil, they get a new government that is equally as corrupt, but slightly more competent. Also toilet paper.
Sounds like a good idea! But it will be more of a “Rescue Mission” than an invasion. The question is: Who is going to rescue who? :o))
Jun 19th, 2017 - 09:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Prisao-de-Seguranca-Maxima-para-Lava-Jato-580x357.jpg
If you want someone to fix your country I recommend asking the Dutch to invade. Worked out well for England.
Jun 19th, 2017 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Brazil's problems started when the French and the Dutch, in the 16th and 17th centuries, were kicked out and prevented from establishing a foothold here.. Had they been successful, and had the Portuguese royal family not fled to Brazil in 1808, running from Napoleon's imminent invasion of Portugal, Brazil today, would probably be a very different country. If the English had tried to invade - which they didn't - things might have turned out even better....but the English “invasions” were limited to the action of pirates, who were content to raid and loot, up and down the coast.
Jun 19th, 2017 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@JB
Jun 19th, 2017 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not convinced. Look at the three Guyanas; the former British Guyana is not doing especially well, former Dutch Guyana (Suriname) is a little better, and French Guyana is still part of France! Besides, England was allied with Portugal nearly the whole time, it would be bad form to invade an ally's colonies.
If the Portuguese royal family had never made it to Brazil, it's a decent bet that Brazil would have declared independence at the same time as the Spanish colonies, and maybe would have split into many separate countries like they did. But perhaps people in the richer southern states might prefer that?
I think Brazil should have stuck with being an empire; it would be kind of cool to be the only country in the Americas with their own monarchy.
The lessons from the history are interesting, the “ifs & buts” are thought-provoking. But as long as a leader isn't dedicated to the betterment of a nation; any governing system and any “ism” [ideology] can, is & will mostly be misused.
Jun 20th, 2017 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Today's Reality is Totally Different: https://www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/genildo-20-450x420.jpg
@DT
Jun 20th, 2017 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Guyanas are hardly an example applicable to Brazil....anyway, basically I'm just taking the piss out of the Portuguese...but joking apart, the Portuguese didn't treat Brazil very well, by introducing a kind of feudal system and using the colony only as a supplier of raw material...had they been serious about building a new, powerful country, they could have....but I still think that if the Dutch or the French colonized Brazil, today it would be a different story.
@JB
Jun 20th, 2017 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is the big difference between Brazil and the Guyanas? The northern states that border them must be fairly similar, even if São Paulo isn't.
I think you are right about Brazil's treatment by Portugal though, and the Spanish colonies were the same. In the English/British colonies in N America people moved there to build a new life, they planned to stay there and created their own communities. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies they went there to get rich, they looked for gold and silver and most planned to return home after making their fortunes.
It's ironic in a way; Spain and Portugal reached the New World first, and they took all the best parts, the ones with mines and valuable wood and sugar cane. And other countries like England and France were left with the crappy bits that were only good for farming. But all that gold and silver devastated Spain and Portugal's economies, and they never bothered developing their colonies so they could survive on their own. So in the end the English colonies turned out the best, and Britain's economy grew stronger by trading until it surpassed Spain's.
I reckon if France had colonised Brazil, then Britain would have nicked it off them during the Napoleonic wars. Dunno what would have happened if it had been Dutch. But surely once the Portuguese royal family moved there, Brazil became more developed since they were running their empire from there? Certainly it caused people in Portugal to complain that they were becoming the colony instead of Brazil. Anyway, according to Terry they left you with a crappy legal system, I wonder why no one has suggested reforming it?
@DT
Jun 20th, 2017 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've never been there, but one thing I do know, is that they are backward, and very poor. The north of Brazil ain't much better, but at least it is part of a larger, “rich” country.
Can't disagree with your 3rd paragragh, nor with the beginning of your 4th...I too think that had the French managed to get a foothold in Brazil, England would have seen it as a viable target. The royal family arrived in 1808, went back to Portugal in 1821, leaving behind D.Pedro I, the regent prince....for all the good he did, he might as well have gone back too, as the portuguese court still gave all the shots. Eventually in 1822, convinced by a group of influential brazilian politicians, pissed off with the stinking treatment they received from Portugal, and encouraged by popular backing, D.Pedro proclaimed Brazil's independence ; Admiral Lord Thomas Cochrane, who was 'hired' by D.Pedro, after his exploits in Chile and Peru, founded the Brazilian navy and was instrumental in consolidating Brazil's independence. Curiously, as if predicting the times to come, when D.Pedro felt secure and in control, he told Cochrane he didn't need him anymore, and alleged he could not pay him the agreed amount for his services...instead, Cochrane received the worthless title of 'Marquês de Maranhão'.
Those in the Portuguese courts didn't like 'losing' the colony, but had little choice...to the average portuguese on the street, it made no difference.
Well, THill got one thing right...generally speaking, we did inherit a crappy legal system, and many have suggested reforming it, but the chances of that happening are pretty small, given it is exactly what the politicians count on to carry on with their corruption, with impunity.
Was unable to reply to your last post on “Temer wins the day with a divided vote” before it closed for comments ....will do so, asa I can.
@ :o))
Jun 20th, 2017 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How many politicians can I buy with 100 Joesleys?
You are right, and I think the people make a big difference too. If they accept corrupt politicians and reelect them then why would any bother to change?
@JB
British Guyana was not like the North American colonies, Europeans who moved had a nasty tendency to die of tropical diseases, so it turned out very differently. But I don't know if Brazil would have been more like the NA colonies or more like Guyana, if it had been colonised by Britain.
It always amazes me how dumb the colonising countries were with their colonies. But then Portugal itself did not become democratic until 1974, so it was hardly in a position to rule Brazil sensibly. Britain at least learned something from losing the 13 colonies that became the USA, and treated the later 'white' colonies decently, but totally failed to extend that lesson to the others. The bad results are obvious in unstable governments and dictators since independence, and very justified resentment that still lingers today.
Do you think Brazil would be better off if the Royal family had been captured in Portugal and Brazil declared independence at the same time as Argentina? What did the Portuguese court do in 1821 that was so bad anyway?
Maybe now that the courts are causing problems for politicians they might actually be willing to reform the legal system? Knowing them not necessarily in the right direction though.
Comments closing is such a pain, I wish they were open for two weeks at least. Or we should all have the sense to move to a real message board, but I can't see that happening. Oh well.
@DT:
Jun 21st, 2017 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just ONE Joesley is ENOUGH to buy ALL of them! He did it in the past, didn't he? :o))
REF: .......................why would any bother to change?
Finally, that's what is MOST likely to happen!
In any case; the proceedings clearly appear to be nothing else but a farce or a soap-opera! Just watch the excuses given AND accepted by the Law Makers!
In the present situation - in which ALL are crooks - they have the following Obvious Options:
Hiding behind the “Special Privileges”; forget the Political & Ideological differences and unite; to get rid of ALL the Operations/Investigations & discredit the Whistleblowers and the involved Entrepreneurs.
OR as they all need each other; everyone will forget and forgive everyone else.
The Known Current Corrupt will be replaced by the Old OR Lesser Known Corrupt Politicians.
Probably, those who are already accused or sentenced will not only be pardoned but also well-compensated, due to “Insufficient Evidence”.
Undoubtedly; they will remain politically active and continue to receive “Their Part” of The Loot as always.
As suspected; Corruption will S00N be Legalized!
@ :o))
Jun 21st, 2017 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think it's up to the people of Brazil to keep up the pressure on the crooks, sorry, politicians, and not let them hide and protect each other. You all appear too ready to forgive and forget. Maybe you can't get rid of all the corrupt, but you can change the system to make it harder for them to get away with stealing in the future.
@ DTree:
Jun 21st, 2017 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UNFORTUNATELY, The Vast Majority of the Brazilians is incorrigibly either easygoing, or disinterested or lazy, or complacent or ignorant or innocent. For them; what really matters is the daily dose of football, soap operas, women/men, hooch, and after the daily whining is over, whatever comes up is OK.
In short; an ideal population which is very easily tamed by the corrupt politicians & the entrepreneurs. Hence; as suspected; Corruption will S00N be Legalized AND nobody will even raise as much as an eyelid!
@DT
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“…don't know if Brazil would have been more like the NA colonies or more like Guyana, if colonised by Britain.”
Neither do I. And don’t think you can’t really base yourself on how the US turned out, to draw a parallel, because the US started to become a power after the English had gone…however, their culture remained, which IMO, was the basis for what was to come…hardly comparable to ex-Portuguese and Spanish colonies…which turned out kind of different.
200 years ago, I reckon few established countries really analyzed the potential colonies offered, seeing them only as a means to get rich quickly. Even the English were slow in realizing the potential of North America.
Napoleon wanted Portugal to stop all commerce with Britain, Portugal kept on stalling him, so eventually he got fed up and invaded. On the other side, Britain had given the Royal family an ultimatum - Go to Brazil, where they’d be safe and could guarantee continued British access to Brazil…in exchange for protection. If Napoleon had captured the Royal family he would’ve probably executed them, but soon after ‘conquering’ Portugal, he realized it hadn’t been worth the bother...it was poor, backward and “stank”….so much so, the French eventually left, making it safe for the royal family to return. Portugal treated the colony like dirt, using it to enrich the ‘court’ and its ‘friends’; they gave it no autonomy whatsoever ; taxed it heavily; was in favour of maintaining slavery (to keep big landowners happy), despite local abolitionist movements etc.
Argentina declared independence unilaterally in 1816, but believe Spain only recognized it in 1857. Brazil’s independence materialized sooner - thanks to Admiral Cochrane – but not much changed until 1889, when the republic was proclaimed.
Today, the Judiciary and Congress are at loggerheads, and to make things even more explosive, there are suspicions & rumours, that some members of the high-courts aren’t all that ‘impartial’.
@JB
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 10:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's true the US only became a power after independence, and it did have a head start on the other colonies, but only about 40 years. I hadn't realised Brazil became independent at a similar time to Argentina. Also it looks like Brazil already had a bigger population than Portugal in 1820, and it must have been richer too, which makes the Portuguese court treating it like dirt look pretty stupid. How did such a small country manage to create the biggest colony anyway?
You missed out the part where Napoleon screwed over his Spanish allies, imprisoned the Spanish royal family, and made his brother King of Spain, and then Spain and Portugal and Britain had to fight for years to get the French out of Iberia. But if he didn't execute the Spanish royals, why do you think he would have killed the Portuguese ones?
I agree culture makes a difference, Spain and Portugal were still absolute monarchies, while England had already had a parliament for hundreds of years, plus the civil war and commonwealth, and the 'Glorious Revolution' that put formal limits on the power of the monarch. Also I think there was a much bigger middle class in Britain and the 13 colonies, the economy in Spain and Portugal was not much developed.
And Spain and Portugal had their colonies in SA for over 250 years before losing them, you would think that should be enough time to see their potential, but even if not, I think Britain and France could have learned some lessons for running their later empires.
The Brazilian high-courts not impartial? Heh, that's not exactly shocking. Aren't the judges appointed by Presidents like in the US?
Q: ”The Brazilian high-courts not impartial?
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A: http://www.otempo.com.br/polopoly_fs/1.1488369.1498081535!image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/main-charges-resize_620/image.jpg
@DT
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Portugal, like most countries, treated their colonies with a certain disdain, rarely concerning themselves with long term plans for investment / development. They were shortsighted, usually adopting a policy of ‘take what you can while you can’…and in 1800, Portugal had a population of only 3 million, not big enough to occupy all the colonies properly. Brazil had 3,4 million.
I don’t think the Portuguese ever thought they could lose Brazil, far less in such a short time, and weren't particularly well prepared to defend their interests - probably why they carried out their colonialism in such a disastrous manner. It's hard to believe that they didn't see the potential Brazil offered, but were probably not in much of a position to take advantage of it, other than in the short term.
I mentioned that Napoleon might execute the Portuguese royals, based on the opinion of a Brazilian historian who did extensive research on their escape from Portugal, their arrival in 1808, and the events that took place during the 13 years they stayed here..
You’re right about the Supreme Court judges…they are appointed by the president , which does not necessarily mean that they are, or even remain, politically aligned with the president, as we have seen in the recent past, when decisions in high profile cases haven’t always pleased the president who appointed them. And on a few occasions, it would have been a good idea for some to recuse themselves...which they rarely did.
Going back to the subject of “Temer wins the day with a divided vote...”, not enough room to reply here......
Huh, well, if the royal family were likely to be executed then it's good for them that they escaped, but maybe not so good for Brazil. And it sounds like the ordinary people in Portugal weren't benefiting anyway, any more than those in Brazil. Communications were so slow in those days it would be hard to run them as the unified kingdom they declared them to be.
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now you should be able to reply to the other post, I can't even remember what it was about.
@DT
Jun 24th, 2017 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Re my 3rd post, above, pls read “And I don’t think you CAN really base yourself …”
Hill believes Jango, Lula, and of course, himself...and that communism wasn’t a threat because some journalist from the BH said so; funny, JFK thought differently; Jango’s speech to the US Congress in 1962…”[Brazil identifies itself] with the democratic principles etc..” proves nothing…just a political speech to try to appease the Americans ; he wasn’t a member of the communist party as Hill would like us to believe - as per his quote: “Inconveniently, the US can point to nothing even remotely threatening done by the Brazilian Communist Party”...nevertheless he flirted with communist China, the Soviets and Eastern Europe. Hill’s never lived here but does his damnedest to give us the impression he did.
OK, any prez breaking the law is relevant…but let’s get things in (a Brazilian) perspective: the first deficits appeared in Lula’s 2nd term, but Congress had authorized them ; besides being transitory, and tiny, compared to the hole Dilma left, the budgets were balanced by the end of each year. This obviously did not impact the economy as Dilma’s actions did. And sure the slowing down of the world economy (China, commodities) took its toll on Brazil, but Dilma carried on spending as if nothing had changed…that's what screwed the pooch. Agree, those who condemned her were/are no better, but popular pressure too, played an important role.
No doubt a parliament would be better, but our politicians wouldn't take kindly to having their powers reduced, nor to needing to be more responsible towards their constituents. We’ll have to disagree about ‘waiting to see’, because once communism is in place, you don’t have free elections to change things back. When the military handed back power - and “democracy” - to the civilians, they warned it would just be a matter of time before chaos set in…they were right.
Back then, to pay income tax was a matter of honesty, so we did...
@JB
Jun 25th, 2017 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0My opinion is that the US was pretty paranoid about communism back then, they had an attitude of 'if you're not with us, you're against us', and many countries and leaders just didn't want to take sides, and wanted to be able to trade etc with everyone. The result was a lot of coups and in some countries governments that were even worse than communism would have been, and incidentally a lot of hatred of the USA. It's true that waiting is also a risk, but either way there are no elections to change things back, there's no guarantee the military will be any more willing to hand back power than the communists.
I'm curious to see how things play out in Venezuela, though I hope for the sake of the people there that it is all resolved quickly.
About Dilma, you think what she did was definitely worse than previous presidents? Most of the reporting made it sound quite routine. I'm impressed Lula had balanced budgets though, I can't think when we last had one. Also I had forgotten there was popular pressure for her removal. I wonder how many of the demonstrators are happy with Temer's performance now?
Also after reading Brazil's history, I don't think the people would accept a parliamentary system. The President was chosen by Congress during the dictatorship, so now people like having the power to elect them directly. They would not be willing to give that up.
REF: “I don't think the people would accept a parliamentary system”:
Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Basta-de-hipocrisia-580x404.jpg
@DT
Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Agree, ‘communist’ was a nasty word in the US, but it wasn’t just paranoia…I don’t think those who were born later will ever grasp the full extent of the threat, preferring the watered-down version of “well, it couldn’t have been that bad”…and if that’s the case, no amount of debating will change their minds. Simple trading with the USSR wasn’t a problem, it was the political proximity, supported by Jango, which went beyond commerce.
The military weren’t power-hungry…they stepped in to prevent what they saw as potentially explosive situation, and when the people started clamouring for the return of civilian rule / elections, instead of fighting it, they bowed out gracefully.
Have seen fewer incompetent people than Dilma. She only got to where she did because, in the beginning, she impressed Lula, the ignoramus, by the use of a laptop during a meeting at Petrobras…sounds nuts, but it’s the sad truth; second, he chose her to succeed him because he realized he could manipulate her, and she would do as she was told…this was true until she got pissed off with him at the end of her first term, when she learned that Lula wanted a 3rd term…she put her foot down and got her way, but after that things became strained between them. Anyway, her managerial skills, as time showed, were appalling.
Lula's 'success' was intertwined with luck - he received the country with inflation under control and the economy taking off ; and exports (commodities) were doing well, providing sufficient taxes to cover the uncontrolled spending/corruption.
Today, those who are against Temer don’t seem to recognize he’s finally doing (or trying to do) the essential, long overdue reforms that no other president had the balls to…Lula promised the reforms, but once elected, ignored them. So did Dilma.
The polls, to me, are being manipulated, and don't reflect reality.
Generally speaking, the population is too stupid to see the advantages of a parliamentary system. Too bad...for Brazil.
Jack Bauer
Jun 26th, 2017 - 02:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0“proves nothing…just a political speech to try to appease the Americans ,,”
“Like Quadros, Goulart is no communist; he is a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wears a medal of the Virgin around his neck. He receives a ticker-tape parade in New York City in April 1962. He toasts the US Ambassador, “To the Yankee Victory!”, after the “Cuban Missile Crisis” of October 1962.
However, Goulart’s “crime” is to try to continue Quadros independent foreign policy, strongly opposed to the US sanctions against Cuba [a continual act of war now condemned internationally, nearly unanimously with the exception of the US and Israel].”
Based on how inaccurate your opining is about me, just confirms what a paranoid flake you really are.
THill
Jun 26th, 2017 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0““Like Quadros, Goulart is no communist; he is a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wears a medal of the Virgin around his neck....”
First of all, Janio Quadros was a madman...literally. He showed he had a screw missing, on several occasions while mayor of São Paulo...but of course you wouldn't know that because you've never lived here.
So you believe Jango was a saint because “he was a catholic wore a medal of the virgin around his neck”....doesn't take much to fool you, does it ?
Jango may not have been a declared communist, but his relationship with the brazilian communists and the communist regimes abroad was not appreciated by the military....just before the miliary coup in March '64, he was allegedly asked by the military to distance himself from the local communists, as well as the unions, controlled by the left, but he refused...that would have been the last straw. But again, you've never lived here, you wouldn't know....but please, keep on showing us what a fake you are.
Give my best regards to Reekie, with whom I presume you meet up with every now and again to discuss your next move to defend Lula and all those poor souls, that in your worthless opinion, are politically persecuted..
Jack Bauer
Jun 26th, 2017 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“So you believe Jango was a saint“ Unlike you I don’t have any preconceived notions. Like your claim that he was complicit in furthering a communist agenda.
I have simply furnished the writing of Eric Lormand, Associate Professor of the University of Michigan.
Yet, in spite of the dictatorship holding absolute power of the state apparatus. They and you are unable to produce any evidence of any complicity. Which would cause any reasonable person to conclude that it is a highly unlikely narrative.
“You've never lived here, you wouldn't know..” “Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.” Franklin D. Roosevelt
That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof/
THill
Jun 26th, 2017 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unlike you, I'm not naive ...and I have an 'opinion'. It's pretty clear that when you disagree with someone, their opinion has to be a 'preconcieved notion'...what a twat...
You don't like what I say, yet you are unable to prove the contrary, besides, it's high time you realized that quoting what other people write doesn't PROVE a damned thing, other than what THEY (probably) believe(d).
And, IF you ever lived in Brazil, why all the secrecy ? just confirm 'when' and 'where'....or is interpol looking for you ?
@JB
Jun 26th, 2017 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I don’t think those who were born later will ever grasp the full extent of the threat”
Maybe not. When I was born there were still communist countries, but pretty much no one thought communism, as a system, was a good idea. It had been tried in the real world and shown to be worse than capitalism. So it's hard to remember that people ever thought it was a good idea and wanted to implement it in their own countries. Still, sometimes it's possible to see more clearly with hindsight. As I said before, we don't know what would have happened had the military not intervened.
If the military were not power hungry, why did they remain in power for 21 years, banning all real opposition? You said Temer's party was one of those opposed to the military, and they are certainly not raging communists.
Regarding Dilma and Lula, I think this is the usual (bad) result of presidents having the power to choose their own successor. They want someone who will continue to follow their policies, and someone who will not overshadow them. Inevitably, this leads to them choosing someone who is really a 'follower' rather than a leader, who usually does not do a good job.
As for Temer, I suppose not everyone agrees his reforms are essential, or even a good idea. And since many people may personally suffer because of them, they are not likely to be popular. What makes you think the polls are wrong?
Also, what did Janio Quadros do to make you think him mad?
TH has never claimed to have lived in Brazil, so there is no point asking him.
@TH
We've seen those quotes before, but they don't prove anything. Professors can be as biased as anyone, and frequently disagree on history.
If you can find some more facts about Jango's relations with the Soviet Union that would be useful.
Jack Bauer
Jun 26th, 2017 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I have an 'opinion’. You certainly have Ollie, absolute support for fascism. But, what you never ever have is any prerequisite proof of any of your claims.
Brazil's corruption scandals reach Lula da Silva: ...
12 Jack Bauer; “..'Military dictatorship', ..history is showing,.. that it was good for Brazil
Brazil supportive of Mercosur ...
14 Jack Bauer; ”.....but there is still one thing that can save Brazil...the Military..
Brazil waiting for 50bn dollars …
50 Jack Bauer; “Military taking over again, ….. they did it to prevent Brazil from being handed over to the communists. ... the Military , I hope, would be there again to save Brazil
Brazil remembers the 50th anniversary of the coupe…
15 Jack Bauer; “..Am pretty sure that military are accompanying all this … I hope they DO take over...”
ANY kind of regime, any kind of political system, and any “ism” THEORETICALLY does sound PERFECT.
Jun 27th, 2017 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In PRACTICE too, they may be [OR can be made] perfect; PROVIDED the Parties AND the Leaders have the SERIOUS Intentions to improve the Quality of Life of the population. The rest are just the “Points of View”!
Jack Bauer
Jun 27th, 2017 - 12:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You don't like what I say, yet you are unable to prove the contrary,”
Oops! Another great big whacking fallacy.
Abuse
Burden of proof is often abused in rhetoric and arguments.
Shifting the burden
Fallacious shifting of the burden of proof occurs if someone makes a claim that needs justification, then demands that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim. The opponent has no such burden until evidence is presented for the claim.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
“that communism wasn’t a threat…JFK thought differently;” He sure did, as his brother attested. “Well, Goulart got what was coming to him. Too bad he didn’t follow the advice we gave him when I was there.” Robert Kennedy,
The only credited source for the so-called ‘communist-threat’ is: “Making the rounds of Brazil's major industrialists, de Paiva was able to appeal to their interests by translating his visceral hatred of communism into a simple message they could understand: Goulart wants to take away from you that which is yours. In this way, de Paiva was able to drum up close to $20,000 a month in donations. … The denial of all political rights and the suppression of working class efforts to gain a more equitable share of Brazil's enormous natural wealth give the lie to the country's “economic miracle” that foreign investors proclaim. Whatever gains Brazil can speak of are realized by only a small elite.”
Brazil and CIA by Peter Gribbin
@DT
Jun 27th, 2017 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“When I was born there were still communist countries”...
Sounds like that when you were young, the communist ideal was already burning itself out. And it only survived while it did, at the expense and the suffering of the people.
“...but pretty much no one thought communism, as a system, was a good idea.”
That's not surprising...anyone who had even the faintest idea of life in the USSR, wouldn't think so...just to consider that your personal freedom would be curtailed (in every aspect of life), is reason enough to reject it.
“As I said before, we don't know what would have happened had the military not intervened.”
You're right, we don't...but if you were there, you'd have a pretty good idea.
IMO, the 21 years were just a result of circumstance...had the military any plans to hold on to power indefinitely, why would they have handed it back without a fight ? the fact is that the military governments did a good job of building up the infrastructure, and excluding the period of the 1979 oil crisis, the economy didn't do too badly. And one significant fact - the military presidents did not become millionaires while in power. Kind of different to most presidents who succeeded them.
@THill
Now you are sounding just like Lula...lying is your only defense.
Have you noticed that your opinion is always and only based on that of others ?
Well, you stinkin' commie, are you going to tell us where you were in the 60's ? and now ?
or are you going to keep on bs'ing to avoid answering simple questions ?
Jack Bauer
Jun 27th, 2017 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Lying is your only defense” that is exactly you to a T, always opining without any vestige of proof. You can’t show a single instance where there has been any support for any claim you’ve made period. Conversely, I haven’t tendered any opinion where there hasn’t been a confirming record. You certainly live up to your well deserved moniker ‘Proof less & Truth less.’ As free, apolitical and over twenty-one I can tell a proverbial nobody like yourself. Who believe their entitled to issue orders. You need to go back to your bedroom and replace those missing white sheets.
AUDIT CONFIRMS: LULA’S INNOCENT
May 30, 2017
1 – In response to the aforementioned official letter, KPMG Auditores Independentes (auditing company) comes respectfully before Your Honor to clarify that, during the conduction of an audit of the financial statements of Petrobras, which covered the accounting years between 12.31.2006 and 12.31.2011, carried out through procedures and tests prescribed by the auditing professional norms, the auditing staff has not identified any acts involving the former President of Brazil, Mr. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, in the management of Petrobras that could be qualified as corruption or characterized as an illegal act
http://www.averdadedelula.com.br/en/2017/05/30/audit-confirms-lulas-innocent/
@JB
Jun 27th, 2017 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“but if you were there, you'd have a pretty good idea.”
Well, you'd know what you saw and what the press were saying at the time. I imagine people who lived through the 'red scare' and MacCarthyism in the US thought they had a pretty good idea of what was going on, but we see those events differently now.
So what where the circumstances that made them hang onto power for so long? Presumably they did not believe they would win elections, or they would have held them. That implies the majority did not support them. But they thought they knew better than the people?
Jack Bauer Proof less & Truth less
Jun 27th, 2017 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“where you were in the 60’s” I’ve already supplied that information and I’m not repeating same thing at your behest. I’ll give you clue, I was doing something you’ve never done which was keeping the western democracies safe from USSR aggression. Get with program and research it like I would do. If you’re to lazy or stupid find someone who’s prepared to tolerate your deficiencies, and prepared make up for your shortcomings.
@THill
Jun 27th, 2017 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And you can't prove anything you claim....
The organized crime gang inside PB was smarter than to leave traces of their criminal activity lying around, and to find it would require more than some auditors checking accounts - not to mention that the PB corruption scheme hadn't become public back then.
But what about the 2006 purchase of the (obsolete) Pasadena Refinery ? bought by Astra Oil in 2005, for usd 42.5 million; in 2006, PB paid USD 360 million for 50% of it, and 2 years later another USD 750 million for the other half.. all under Dilma's watch...why didn't KPMG catch that ? ah, of course, the overprice of USD 1 billion, only 27 times the original price paid by Astra, was too small to notice.
What about Dilma and Lula's foreign accounts, opened by JBS, and administered by Guido Mantega, so that Lula could use his proverbial “eu não sei de nada”... it's all so bloody obvious...only fools and you don't see it.
And what about 2012, 2013, 2014 ? why not just accept the fact that the PB whistle-blowers have not only confessed to the corruption - and implicated Lula - but many have already given back the money they received illegally (hundreds of millions of dollars), to try to get lighter sentences...
I suppose you think it's all lies, same as you do about all the intricate details they have furnished to the prosecutors regarding the involvement of politicians and their parties. If the politicians weren't guilty, as accused, why would they desperately try to pass laws which would pardon past crimes ? And why would the PB, Odebrecht and JBS executives confess to crimes they didn't commit ? because they had a crazy desire to be sent to prison and to have all their “hard-earned” money confiscated ?...is that your opinion, numbnuts ?
It is crystal clear that Lula has always used front men for all his dirty deeds... Can't wait for Palocci and Mantega to spill the beans.
How about answering the questions for a change, instead of quoting crap ?
@TH
Jun 27th, 2017 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What did you think of Jango and his possible ties to the USSR in the 60s? Not what some journalist or academic said, what was your own opinion back then?
Jack Bauer Proof less & Truth less
Jun 27th, 2017 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They are forensic auditors so you can’t have a better vetting system. “Dilma and Lula's foreign accounts, opened by JBS,” Allegations by malfeasants singing a song composed by the prosector. Without their signatures, or traceable monetary trail, or witness’s it is prima facia evidence of their innocence.
DOCUMENTS PROVE THREE-STORY APARTMENT’S ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS
June 20, 2017
The Defense discloses the contracts and amendments attached to the closing arguments which prove that 100% of the economic and financial rights of the three-story apartment and other properties of Condominium Solaris were assigned to Caixa Econômica Federal. .. Click here for: Fiduciary […]
TESTIMONIES TAKE VIEW ABOUT SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION TO PIECES
June 19, 2017
The testimonies heard in Curitiba today (06/19) reinforce that Petrobras had the appropriate control mechanisms, a fact that helps take to pieces a systemic corruption idea as the Car Wash prosecutors declare in the Criminal Proceeding No. 5063130-17.2016.4.04.7000. This view is based on theses which are incompatible with the Brazilian Constitution, theses that try to […]
TESTIMONIES REINFORCE THAT FEDERAL ATTORNEY’S OFFICE CRIMINALIZES LAWFUL ACTIVITIES OF LULA’S ADMINISTRATION
June 13, 2017
Jose Mucio Monteiro, Minister of the Federal Court of Accounts, in his testimony given confirmed that he never received any order from Lula to co-opt parliamentary support making use of funds from unlawful sources, and never witnessed any action that might indicate that the former […]
TESTIMONIES CHALLENGE THESIS OF WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION
June 12, 2017
The former Minister Tarso Genro restated in his new testimony given today (06/12) to the 13th Federal Criminal Court of Curitiba that he knows Lula enough to say that the former President “would never accept any kind of undue advantages derived from reciprocal exchanges, due to his presidential office”. He disqualified the previous statement made […]
@TH
Jun 27th, 2017 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“They are forensic auditors so you can’t have a better vetting system.”
That would be these forensic auditors, yes?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4150212/KPMG-facing-probe-Rolls-Royce-bribery-revelation.html
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!