Brazil’s newly inaugurated President Jair Bolsonaro said on Tuesday his election had freed the country from “socialism and political correctness,” and he vowed to tackle corruption, crime and economic mismanagement in Latin America’s largest nation. Read full article
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
REF: tackling corruption, crime & economic mismanagement:Jan 02nd, 2019 - 10:52 am - Link - Report abuse +2
For generations; these issues are firmly interwoven into the Brazilian Cultural Fabric and are likely to continue in a different form maybe, after a few cosmetic superficial changes:
Which of the presidents did not promise the same?
:o))Jan 02nd, 2019 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
You may be right, but did you miss the subtle difference that people are actually expecting him to actually try effective change?
Anyway, this new presidency will not be boring, I expect lots of indignant liberal media types have a nervous breakdown as he begins to fight the corrupt system.
Gosh, he might even accomplish banning transsexuals from the streets and cutting down all the trees in the Amazon basin by the end of this year!
@Chicureo:Jan 02nd, 2019 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
REF: he begins to fight the corrupt system: As the old saying goes - charity BEGINS at home [in this case, pl. read corruption; in place of charity].
@ChicureoJan 02nd, 2019 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
You are right.....and the left has already reared its ugly head and through its highest-ranking representative, Gleisi Lula Hoffman - now that the 'toad' is rotting in jail - has expressed its plans for 2019...summarized in the sentence we have no desire to cooperate with the new government......this is nothing new, was to be fully expected, as it simply confirms its priority, i.e., party interests over those of Brazil and its population.
The lefties are concerned with 1) Guedes' plans to privatize (or shut-down) most of the inefficient State-run companies ; 2) the fact that Bolsonario has prioritized non-political technicians, or experts, their respective fields, to head the Ministries ; 3) his plans to reduce the Brazil cost......easy to understand why, as to the politicians in general, and the left in particular, these three courses of action will reduce the possibility of corruption, reduce the throwing of good money after bad 'n reduce the number of political jobs to be offered in exchange of favors (in the case of the State-run companies), simplify the life of ordinary Brazilians and make government more transparent..
As the new government's stated policies are put into practise - provided a majority in Congress cooperates - the left will run out of ammunition, and that is making them nervous and desperate.
Just fyi, the Intercept article is stale news (Oct 2018), and just reflects sour grapes from a third-rate leftist journalist.....I presume, he must have been very disappointed yesterday, when he didn't hear any extremist, far-right positions.....but I'm sure he'll invent a few.
Let the thievery begin.Jan 02nd, 2019 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
”Bolsonaro gives Brazil farm ministry powers on indigenous land, in win for farmers
You'll note that our little troll is now parroting the liberal media's alarm one day after Bolsonaro has now taken office. ...The sky is falling... ...The sky is falling...Jan 02nd, 2019 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
(All the little Marxist secular humanist social justice warriors will constantly be crying the next few years about the evils of the new administration.) Psst... he's actually said homophobic things and he actually had the nerve to mention God in his inaugural address... ...oh the crime against humanity... ...look someone just cut down a tree in the Amazon... ...the squawking starts...
Messieur De Gaulle best famously summed it up by declaring: “Le Bresil n’est pas un pays serioux” best describe the history of former inept governments followed by a coup d’Etat continued by more corrupt governments and most recently finishing with a totally Marxist corrupt plundering government that bankrupted the resource rich country that could actually finally have a chance with another Trump style governance.
Can you imagine Bolsonaro achieving a low unemployment rate with a similar gross domestic product gain as Trump has? Just aggressively reducing the crime rate in Brazil alone will garner great popularity with the populace.
I like that Trump and Bolsonaro share a great appreciation for good looking women.
(By the way, I still suggest Lula be humanely given an exile permanent sanctuary to Venezuela or Cuba.)
Brasil acima de tudo, Deus acima de todos
ChicureoJan 02nd, 2019 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
media's alarm one day after Bolsonaro has now taken office.
President Jair Bolsonaro issued an executive order on Wednesday making the Agriculture Ministry responsible for deciding on lands claimed by indigenous peoples, in a victory for agribusiness.
The liberal media's alarm Reuters is the least biased” according to Media Bias Fact/Check
@ChicureoJan 02nd, 2019 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
our little troll ? Ah yes, hadn't noticed it until you mentioned him....think a good new year resolution would be to ignore his irrelevant contributions ....
Better days are ahead !
Terrence HillJan 02nd, 2019 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
Go ahead and boldly wave the banner like Stalinist young pioneers enthusiastically waved in the past. Sing to the top of your lungs L'Internationale. You are the gift that keeps giving...
Perhaps Bolsonalrio should just cut down indigenous natives with machine guns?
You yourself repeatedly preach about murdering the innocent, so why differentiate because of their age or ethnicity? (They are unwanted and do apparently cause a burden.)
ChicureoJan 02nd, 2019 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
Go ahead and boldly wave the banner like.. Red baiting by a Nacistas.
”Red-baiting, also 'reductio ad Stalinum (/ˈstɑːlɪnəm/), is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of an opponent's logical argument by accusing, denouncing, attacking, or persecuting an individual or group as communist, socialist, Marxist, Stalinist or anarchist, or sympathetic towards these ...”
TerryJan 02nd, 2019 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
So which one are you exactly, a Communist, Marxist-Socialist, Stalinist or anarchist? ...Just asking...
...oh look, another tree in the Amazon just got cut down... ...call Greenpeace...
...get Trudeau or Macron on the telephone... ...oh the humanity...
...the sky is falling...
Being a strategist; JB has the right people at the right places:Jan 02nd, 2019 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
#1: to cover his rear-end
#2: for an appearance that something good is about to happen:
Chicureo the flamerJan 02nd, 2019 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
So which one are you I guess your engaging in an informal logical fallacy is your own way of conceding that you've lost both the plot and the debate. But, we both knew there wasn't much depth to you. 66% rejection, thats an awful lot of social justice in Ireland.
Terrence HillJan 02nd, 2019 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
Look, I get it... It's got to be depressing as Hell* to see your Marxist idol rotting in prison while Bolsonaro begins his rein la Terreur against all the social justice warrior politically correct and secular humanist anti-societal policies you worship.
Tribunal révolutionnaire crimes so far reported:
1. Le Comité de salut public reports the President has said homophobic things...
2. The President has already starting to reorganize government departments.
3. He's being friendly with those Zionist thug Israelis...
4. His wife is really attractive, far better than dumpy Dilma...
5. Somewhere in the Amazon, someone is currently cutting down a tree...
6. He's actually imitating Trump...l'horreur!
...Robespierre would be so proud...
I can faintly hear you humming L'Internationale as you promote murder:
(*Hell or Canada during Winter- same thing)
Chicureo the flamerJan 02nd, 2019 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
Look, I get it...
”..the most common underhanded tactics used in debates.They come into play as an attempted deflection from the main argument that YOUR OPPONENT IS USUALLY LOSING AND CAN NO LONGER ARGUE INTELLIGENTLY. ..your opponent will have no choice but to discuss the actual facts of the argument instead of trying to wiggle out of them.
1. Red Herring (Changing the subject)”
'While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original ..
66% rejection, thats an awful lot of social justice in Ireland.
@ChicureoJan 02nd, 2019 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Can you imagine Bolsonaro achieving a low unemployment rate with a similar gross domestic product gain as Trump has?
Not unless China suddenly starts booming again, and Trump himself has rather screwed up the chances of that.
Apparently Bolsonaro wants to integrate the 'uncontacted tribes' with the rest of Brazil. You see, he thinks land shouldn't be wasted on a few lazy good-for-nothings, but expropriated and given to the people (specifically, the people who own large mining companies and argibusinesses). And he wants those poor benighted Indians to be able to enjoy the fruits of civilisation - living in a favela, unemployment, and a murder rate of 30 per 100,000. Very forward thinking, no?
Terrence HillJan 03rd, 2019 - 12:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Bolsonaro is one day on the job and of course things have gone to hell...
...you drinking the same Kool aid as Terry?
Who should Bolsonaro otherwise imitate... Macron?
He just needs to deregulate the manufacturing industry sector, boost agricultural production and semi-privatize Petrobras. At the same, extremely aggressively enforcing criminal activity.
Reducing corruption would be an enormous boost.
China's major imports from Brazil is:
Soybeans ($19.4B), Iron Ore ($14.1B), Raw Sugar ($10.8B), Crude Petroleum ($9.6B) and Poultry Meat ($6.18B).
No matter how bad the Chinese economy gets, they'll always desperately need the food and petroleum.
Brasil acima de tudo, Deus acima de todos
Chicureo the flamerJan 03rd, 2019 - 01:50 am - Link - Report abuse -1
Bolsonaro is one day on the job and has already put the foxes in charge of the chickens by fiat. Here comes the pay back for the people who financed him.
In a victory for agribusiness that will likely enrage environmentalists...Additionally, the decree states that the Agriculture Ministry will be in charge of the management of public forests. Bolsonaro, who enjoys strong support from Brazil’s powerful agribusiness sector, said during his campaign he was considering such a move, arguing that protected lands should be opened to commercial activities..
Agriculture Minister Tereza Cristina Dias defended the farm sector from accusations ...Dias used to be the head of the farm caucus in Brazil’s Congress
As expected, MP rancid dinosaurs are drooling at the prospect of a key Latin American country falling in the hands of an admirer of Brazil's former military de-facto governments and are already complaining about those who call Jair Bolsonaro a fascist.Jan 03rd, 2019 - 05:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0
He's just been one day in the job, they protest, shedding crocodile tears. The left has already reared its ugly head, laments another.
Reducing corruption would be an enormous boost, says Chicureo as if he really believed it.
I remember these cheerleaders' jubilation three years ago, as Mauricio Macri was beginning his demolition job in Argentina -- now they just keep silent and stay at prudent distance from increasingly bad news on the economic front.
Let them cheer their new kid in the block. No country has ever improved in sustainable manner under fascism, and Brazil will be no different.
@ChicureoJan 03rd, 2019 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Was that supposed to be addressed to me?
Bolsonaro is one day on the job and of course things have gone to hell...
That's your opinion. Guedes' policies are in many ways the opposite of Trump's, so it's a little strange you expect them to produce the same result. However, increased demand for exports could rescue Brazil from even bad economic policy, but is unlikely to happen.
And I have no idea why you're so obsessed with Macron. Why should B imitate anyone? What I would like is for him to protect the Amazon better than previous presidents, not hand it over to the farming lobby to chop down even faster. His supposed concern for the indigenous people is about as convincing as America's desire to bring democracy to oil-rich Middle Eastern countries.
@Enrique MassotJan 03rd, 2019 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse +1
REF: “Reducing corruption would be an enormous boost,” says Chicureo as if he really believed it.
I DO believe too not just in the government but also in the masses; to wipe out Corruption & the Organized Crime [well; if it is NOT organized, it's OK]; considering the notable & highlighted presence of some of the Well-Known VIP-Crooks [and also the notable absence of a few more not-so-notable VIP-Crooks]
:o))Jan 03rd, 2019 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
I completely agree with you that there are several non-PT politicians that are also corrupt and plundering the wealth of Brazil.
Bolsonaro is a Nationalist, not a Globalist
To your Trump reaction, I countered if you would prefer Macron, who is well known as an environmental activist...
...victory for agribusiness that will likely enrage environmentalists
...Agriculture Ministry will be in charge of the management of public forests
...protected lands should be opened to commercial activities
...Agriculture Minister Tereza Cristina Dias defended the farm sector.
...Dias used to be the head of the farm caucus.
Bolsonaro actually promised all these things during his campaign.
Brasil acima de tudo, Deus acima de todos
Chicureo, do you actually want the native people forced out and the Amazon forest opened to commercial activities? You want it to disappear in your kids' lifetime, or even yours? With, most likely, little gain for the majority of the Brazilian people.Jan 03rd, 2019 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
DemonTreeJan 03rd, 2019 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
Do you really believe that Bolsonaro is doing anything different than what was being done by the previous PT government? Don't you find it ironic that the media seems to overlook the past crimes and intensify criticism of what has not actually happened.
One example was a proposed Chinese cross continent railway that would destroy millions of hectares of Amazon Forrest lands... Guess which government was promoting that? Mining, forestry and farming were aggressively being promoted by the PT.
I personally don't trust the media.
Yes I do (IMO Dilma's policies were bad and B's worse), but it's not relevant to the question. I can oppose cutting down the forest for a cross continental railway, and also oppose handing its protection over to the farming lobby. Just because you may like a particular politician doesn't mean you have to support every single thing they do.Jan 03rd, 2019 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Now will you answer my question?
@ChicureoJan 03rd, 2019 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
REF: there are several non-PT politicians that are also corrupt and plundering the wealth of Brazil.
The BEST part is that the politicians really are so very lucky that the masses are pacific at their best, are at their worst, disinterested enough not to lift a finger [looking as if they thoroughly enjoy getting raped by the corrupt] and basically are ignorant enough to swallow any B*llSh*t which the politicians feed the masses!
For the very same reason, I FIRMLY believe that:
- It takes two to Tango
- The masses get the governments which they deserve
: You'll find the Solid Proof of it; in ANY country!
DemonTreeJan 03rd, 2019 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
Frankly, I strongly personally believe that the indigenous peoples should be protected and their ancestral lands reasonably conserved. If you've read about the unconscionable destruction of the Amazon basin for the past 50 years you can only conclude it was an absolutely senseless mismanagement by Brazilian governance.
”Since 1978 over 750,000 square kilometers (289,000 square miles) of Amazon rainforest have been destroyed across Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, Venezuela, Suriname, Guyana, and French Guiana.
That's correct, it's not just Brazil. Where's the outrage against the leaders of the other countries? Yes some, but nothing like what we see against Bolsonaro.
I see no real change in Brazilian policy as it was always going on when Lula and Dilma were being lauded as progressive leaders. Bolsonaro is just telling the truth and has the bad fortune to be considered evil because he's right wing”...
...also he said some very politically incorrect things in the past...
Sincerely, if you really are concerned about horrific environmental damage in Brazil I suggest you take a look at one of their worst disasters: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bento_Rodrigues_dam_disaster
Which was indeed caused by nefarious multi-international rapacious corporations and despicable corrupt criminal politicians.
As Jack and :o)) will tell you, corruption in Brazil is rampant and truly evil.
@ChicureoJan 03rd, 2019 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
REF: corruption in Brazil is rampant and truly evil
Realistically, it's a PITY if the politicians won't/can't take advantage of the ignorant masses - a cannon-fodder! Would you criticize a slaughterhouse for killing chicken?
@ChicureoJan 03rd, 2019 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Frankly, I strongly personally believe that the indigenous peoples should be protected and their ancestral lands reasonably conserved.
I would never have guessed that from your posts. Forgive me for being honest, but the only thing you seem to be interested in is whether the policy makes third parties unhappy (your desired outcome), and not its effect on Brazil.
Re the outrage, I have been hearing warnings about the destruction of the Amazon rain forest since I was a child, through many changes of government in Brazil. Some Presidents were more willing to deal with it than others, but it's not a new thing.
:o))Jan 03rd, 2019 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Try to think positive...
If Bolsonaro can accomplish only a small part of his campaign promises, (Less corruption, less crime, higher employment, a reformed Petrobras...) he might become as popular as Pelé.
Brasil acima de tudo, Deus acima de todos
One of the biggest dangers poisoning the Amazon is the use of Mercury to extract gold from the river and its tributaries. One never hears about it until you go there. The locals are very worried about it. As for Snr B, we'll have to see what he actually does and how successful it is / damaging it is, before we can judge him. Polictricians often say one thing to get elected and do another when faced with reality.Jan 03rd, 2019 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Isnt it telling that Brasil has a hero like Pelé and RGland has that fat cheat Maradona. LOL!
@ChicureoJan 03rd, 2019 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
It's clear Hillbilly intends to keep up the same stupid commentary as in 2018, but I'll allow myself to waste a few seconds on him....when he runs out of lies he resorts to accusing you of acting exactly like he does...he thinks he's jury, judge and executioner, all in one, contrary to his self-proclaimed acute sense of justice....
See you couldn't resist putting in a good word about Dilma...'dumpy'.
See that you too intend to carry on not engaging those who challenge your most profound thoughts, far less replying to their questions....you sneak out of your hole to criticize them, then slink back into the shadows....just like a mental coward.
Would just like to remind you that you know piss-all about Brazil...so pls don't pretend you do.
Chicureo's Bolsonaro is one day on the job and of course things have gone to hell... think he was just being sarcastic......
Regarding the indigenous populations of Brazil, I think you are oversimplifying the matter. Have no intention of getting into an endless discussion on this, as it's much like discussing the sex of angels, so I'll limit myself to a few facts :-
The indians currently number just under 900,000, 2/3 of which live in rural areas, or on their reservations, which represent roughly 12,5% of Brazil's territory, or, 1.1 million sq kms....roughly 1800 sq km per indian. It's notorious that they cannot protect the land from illegal loggers, other invaders, and that, when they aren't in cahoots with them. Even most of those who occupy the land, don't live off it, so why the need for 1800 sq kms for each indian ?
Some large reservations border on Brazil's western neighbors, which means these borders are totally unprotected....making them a smuggler's paradise (drugs).
Just to be clear, I'm against mass deforestation, and believe that the indians deserve land, but the matter has to be discussed with less emotion (their historic right), considering what they really need/want.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-lessJan 03rd, 2019 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Up to your usual dishonesty dipshit, as I have made no reference to Dilma.
DemonTreeJan 03rd, 2019 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
I've answered on another Brazil thread, my feelings about land expropriation of indigenous peoples vs. the Allende government seizing much of my family land.
Jack however here enlightenments the forum with a factual truths about how the indigenous land is greatly over exaggerated by the media. Both Jack and myself support responsible and reasonable management of the Amazon basin.
I want again emphasize that the prejudicial media news reports regarding the new president are extremely distorted to defeat the new president. The highly critical denouncements have already filled internet inflaming the international public with anti-Bolsonaro rhetoric.
Compare this to the media previously fawning about Lula and Dilma. You'd think they were angels. The media used to adore Hugo Chavez, do you remember? That's why I don't believe much of what is reported.
Frankly, it's just too entertaining when I trigger social justice warrior characters ...oh look, a tree is somewhere being cut down in the forest...
...Terry did disrespectfully refer to Dilma as being DUMPY...
...really truly reprehensible!...
You may remember the forum was repeatedly lectured that it was illegal that Lula was not able to qualify as a candidate and Bolsonaro was too far right to achieve victory...
Brasil acima de tudo, Deus acima de todos
Chicureo the flamerJan 03rd, 2019 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Terry did disrespectfully refer...
No proof, no truth. But that never been an obstacle to your blathering.
TerryJan 03rd, 2019 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
You DID indeed describe Dilma DUMPY
...how can you be so completely disrespectful of the former impeached and disgraced convicted criminal President of Brazil?
...oh look, a policeman in Brasilia just harassed a transsexual on the main boulevard! ... and look another tree in the Amazon just got cut down!...
HAVEN'T YOU HEARD?Jan 03rd, 2019 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
@HillbillyJan 03rd, 2019 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
Up to your usual dishonesty dipshit, as I have made no reference to Dilma.
I never said you did, dipshit. Put your glasses on....dipshit.
You are confusing the Hillbilly......nevertheless, can't wait to see him deny his claim that I had accused him of calling Dilma, 'Dumpy'. If his Alzheimer's keeps on progressing, as has been visible over the last few months, by end of the year he'll have to be interned in a loony bin.
Chicureo the flamerJan 03rd, 2019 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
You DID indeed describe Dilma “DUMPY”. No I did not, so I can happily call you a liar, as you've failed to meet your burden. Otherwise you would be able to show where.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Up to your usual dishonesty pillock, as I have made no reference to Dilma.
intends to keep up the same stupid commentary as in 2018, but I'll allow myself to waste a few seconds on him...See you couldn't resist putting in a good word about Dilma”
TerryJan 03rd, 2019 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
Do you see ANY posts made by Señor Jack Bauer referring the former President of Brazil as ”DUMPY DILMA? No of course not, because you always have a nasty mendacious habit accusing people of something they never did?
On a personal note: I am greatly appalled and shocked that one of our forum posters, Terrence Hill in an earlier post, had the outrageous timidity of slandering the former president as “Dumpy Dilma”
@JBJan 03rd, 2019 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
There do seem to be some parallels. According to the study Chicureo linked me to, farms in Chile were taken by the government for reasons of excessive size or low productivity; it was felt that too much land was owned by too few people, and that property rights were not absolute, any more than the Indians' historic rights.
As to your specific objections, I was just reading an article about it, which as well as mentioning TV's mercury problem, said the government was originally planning a bunch of smaller reservations, which would have broken up the forest, left the people (and animals) isolated and made outside invasion much easier. Activists managed to persuade them to create one big one instead, a victory that is now in danger.
Basically the reservations were intended to protect an area of forest, not just allow the inhabitants to maintain their way of life on land that had always belonged to them. And I don't think other Brazilians are expected to protect their land, isn't that a job for the police? But if they are, then it would seem more in accordance with Bolsonaro's outlook to provide them with weapons and training, and the same power to shoot invaders that he wants to give to the police and other citizens.
The main point is, there is no reason to remove areas from the reservations unless the government is planning to exploit them, which means mass deforestation. Reason enough to oppose the policy.
Frankly, it's just too entertaining when I “trigger” social justice warrior characters
In short, you enjoy other people's unhappiness at policies that don't affect you. It's very hard to respect right-wingers sometimes.
Chicureo the flamerJan 03rd, 2019 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
Oh, Oh, they took our land can't understand how they could do that such nice people. Perhaps, they had mistakenly viewed you as one of the grossest exploiters of the populous. Pay backs a bitch isn't it?
Now, now, Terry, it's not nice to trigger the SJWs.Jan 03rd, 2019 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
JackJan 04th, 2019 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
DemonTree makes a very valid astute observation that large farms in Chile were [expropriated] by the government for reasons of excessive size or low productivity; it was felt that too much land was owned by too few people, and that property rights were not absolute, any more than the [land owner's] rights. (All very true.)
And again, that's why I detest Marxism.
My family's along with many other farmers, solution was to purchase land impossible for traditional irrigation and adapt it to modern drip irrigation technology from Israel. Instead of growing wheat and corn, we switched to vineyards and avocado orchards. Over two decades we eventually prospered.
I find it amazing that people from other countries enjoy on implementing their land use ideology on our nations. We had it here in the early 1970s and today the Globalists are dictating to Brazil how to manage its resources.
And again, I think we both agree that the Amazon needs to be reasonably conserved, the indigenous peoples protected and their ancestral lands retained, but really it's hard to justify the need for 1800 sq kms for each native.
By the way, was also an European based economic and social philosophy that was used to justify my family's land. Foreigners dictating to us how to manage our land.
I find this so completely ironic.
@Chicureo:Jan 04th, 2019 - 09:09 am - Link - Report abuse +1
REF: If Bolsonaro can accomplish only a small part of his campaign promises, (Less corruption, less crime, higher employment, a reformed Petrobras...) he might become as popular as Pelé.
I heard that he already is as popular as Pelé!
And judging from the excellent chances of the the cost of living soon going up [= quality of life going down]; he may be better off playing football [or ping-pong of blaming the past governments or the opposition (so called)]
@Chicureo & JBJan 04th, 2019 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
If you don't want them to cut the Amazon down, then what do you care how many native people live in it? Besides, there's only so many people can live in a forest without damaging it through over-hunting, over-fishing and overworking the soil. If there aren't as many as it will support, it's not because they've been practicing family planning but due to disease and encroaching gold miners.
Chicureo, I'm glad your family was able to recover and build something new. It wasn't mentioned in your link, but I wonder if the dispossessed farmers buying up unproductive land and making it productive contributed to the big growth of agriculture in the 80s? But though communism was invented in Europe, it was two of your elected presidents who carried out the land reform, and the dictator you supported who finalised it. It wasn't inflicted from outside. Similarly it was the Brazilian government who agreed to create reservations in the Amazon, long before the PT were elected. Other countries are at least as interested in extracting resources as in saving the rain forest.
@JB:Jan 04th, 2019 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse +1
REF: “During the Lula and Rousseff administrations, the above mentioned countries hired large Brazilian contractors for infrastructure works”:
Everyone but the govts [past+present] know, how the millions vaporized [still “investigating”?].
That's why there aren't serious efforts made to retrieve the stolen wealth - no pressure on the crooks to return the dough - beyond the laughably farcical attempts of offering generously, the Cosy 5-Star Cells only to a few of the privileged crooks [+ wasting more money in doing so].
With time, won't the Car-Wash Operation very conveniently may evaporate too?
Haven't the financial crimes of the other crooks now conveniently forgotten+pardoned, to the extent of the generosity of letting them enjoy the immunities, privileges, salaries, other benefits & luxuries, etc?
DemonTreeJan 04th, 2019 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Where was the was the outrageous indignation against Lula and Dilma for not aggressively prosecuting the Amazon loggers and miners that caused irreplaceable harm?
It was become both of the corrupt leaders were fawned by the news media. The darlings of the socially progressive left, while they and their band of thieves nearly bankrupted the wealthy country.
And as far as what happened in Chile. You are completely correct! The only land my family was able to mortgage was arid hillside that was being used for grazing goats. Pinochet's government did indeed pragmatically allow the former expropriations, but also enabled us to receive loans to import Israeli drip irrigation and plant vineyards. The Chicago Boys changed my country's economic model so to encourage growers to export agricultural products. Arid able land did substantially increase as a result.
However it was the destructive evil Marxist brainwashed Allende (who was elected with only 36.2% of the popular vote) who empowered his band of Communist indoctrinated followers to seize my family's farm and thousands of others. (That's not an exaggeration, THOUSANDS of privately owed farms.)
Like I said, he gave us incentives to recuperate and change. Farming corn and wheat was never close as lucrative as grapes and avocados do today.
I think it was the Marxist-Socialists that explained the justification of expropriating our farm that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Why on earth then is it so outrageous that each indigenous native is being allotted 1800 sq kms for each native? Why are left leaning progressive Greenpeace vegans now going bat guano crazy because Brazil democratically elected a right-wing President?
Doesn't all the progressive social warrior soy consuming vegans are driving the market to massively plant more soya?
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Don't you see the irony?
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.Jan 04th, 2019 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Do they? Is that the excuse the government used in Chile? It was hardly fair to steal the farm your family owned and force you to start again with a mortgage on a barren hillside, but the government thought the need of the farm workers for land was more important than yours?
And they took it upon themselves to decide what farmers needed - no more than 80 irrigated hectares each. How much land would you say each native needs to live on in the Amazon?
I hadn't known that it was Pinochet who split the farms and handed them out as private property - it's not surprising productivity was so low until then, and very foolish of the previous government not to do it, if they were going to attempt land reform at all. But it surprised me because until that was done, presumably it would have been fairly easy to hand the farms back to the original owners?
36% is a perfectly normal share of the vote for the party in government to receive in the UK, and they technically have the power to do almost anything. But I know it works differently in republics, so I hope you've put in place a runoff system to stop it happening again.
Doesn't all the progressive social warrior soy consuming vegans are driving the market to massively plant more soya?
Nah, most of the soya is used as cattle feed, to increase protein. It's because it doesn't grow well in the UK that our farmers resorted to making cannibals of their livestock. I daresay you're not the culprit though, since you get grass-fed beef down there. Much more environmentally friendly (and supposedly healthier too).
It is ironic; it the people who are happy to take 'unproductive' land from farmers to redistribute don't want it taken from the natives, while the people who insist on property rights for owners of huge farms are happy for the government to take 'excessive' land away from the Indians.
@Hillbilly...Jan 04th, 2019 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Must give Chicureo the credit for 'Dumpy'....yet, while she is 'dumpy' 'n many other things, it was you, out of the blue, who accused me Up to your usual dishonesty dipshit, as I have made no reference to Dilma....and I reiterate, u idiot, I never said you did.
See yr later post to Chicureo :
”Chicureo the flamer
“You DID indeed describe Dilma “DUMPY”. (YOU :) No I did not, so I can happily call you a liar, as you've failed to meet your BoP. Otherwise you would be able to show where.
With pleasure, I'll show you where : around her waist, her flacid thighs, her chin, her arm flaps, 'n other places I wouldn't dare look....why d'you think she always wears trousers & long sleeves ? to 'hide' the 'ugly'.
...reasons of excessive size or low productivity.....sure, 'n who defines the criteria ?Excessive, low, can be used in any way which is wanted by authoritarian govts, 'n doesn't need to have anything to do with reality; I know a Venezuelan whose tennis club was confiscated/destroyed, because accdng to Chavez's criteria, tennis is a sport for the rich.
Activists managed to persuade them to create 1 big one instead, a victory that is now in danger...a 'victory' ?....impression I get is that the occupied parts of the BIG reservations, are microscopic areas inside the wilderness...with a bit of subsistence farming, a few cows...and can't imagine indians traipsing around in the jungle, hunting to survive ; having far more 'n much smaller reservations, near civilization, makes sense, but no one really stopped to think what is practical for this day 'n age...the idea that large reservations would protect the forest, is bs. Bs intention is to make it easier for them to integrate, i/o shutting them out of civilization. Just fyi, the forest can be explored w/o exploiting it, and land-reform has failed miserably...tks to the MST.
It's very hard to respect right-wingers sometimes”, applies equally to the left.
The irony is evident.
JackJan 04th, 2019 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
around her waist, her flacid thighs, her chin, her arm flaps, 'n other places I wouldn't dare look....why d'you think she always wears trousers & long sleeves ? to 'hide' the 'ugly'.
Were you referring to my former President Bachelet, Hilary Clinton, Merkel or Dilma? They all seem to use the same fashion designer.
Maybe Terry knows since he thought up the description: DUMPY
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-lessJan 04th, 2019 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
have made no reference to Dilma” ..
OH yes you did heres the post,twat.
Chicureo the flamer
GFYHat. Oh, boo, hoo they took our land and we are such sweet hearts sniffle, sniffle.
I think she's Terry's dumpy dream girl.Jan 04th, 2019 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
“around her waist, her flacid thighs, her chin, her arm flaps, 'n other places I wouldn't dare look....why d'you think she always wears trousers & long sleeves ? to 'hide' the 'ugly'.”
Chicureo the flamerJan 05th, 2019 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse -1
I guess you're engaging in “an informal logical fallacy” is your own way of conceding that you've lost both the plot and the debate. But, we both knew there wasn't much depth to you. 66% rejection, thats an awful lot of social justice in Ireland.
JackJan 05th, 2019 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Terry still believes you accused stoutly Dilma dumpy.
In his demented mentally challenged imagination, 66% of Ireland somehow agree...
Chicureo the flamerJan 05th, 2019 - 12:40 am - Link - Report abuse -1
I guess you're engaging in “an informal logical fallacy” is your own way of conceding that you've lost both the plot and the debate ...
Straw Man Argument
Pro-choice is absurd. How could anyone support killing an innocent human being?
REF: President Bolsonaro VOWS:Jan 05th, 2019 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Judging by his 28 years of Political Achievements [of doing a lot of nothing]; there is much more to expect within the next 4 years + of course his backers vouch for it!
sure, 'n who defines the criteriaJan 05th, 2019 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The government, of course. I expect it will depend on how much of the land has gold, oil etc. The Indians might be allowed to keep the useless bits, or B's other proposal was to compensate them by giving them a share of the royalties.
a 'victory' ?
For the tribes living there, and for people who want to see the rainforest conserved. Which I thought included you? You opposed Temer's plan to allow mining in the Amazon last year.
Applies equally to the left
The left don't go around boasting about how great some policy is because it upsets conservatives.
In the news, Bolsonaro is vowing to eliminate Communists from the government, to use the military to aggressively attack the criminal gangs especially in the North East. Former policies during the Temer's policies regarding logging and mining seem to continue. Reading the Brazilian news feeds are fascinating.Jan 05th, 2019 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Again, one thousand eight hundred square kilometers per indigenous native really does emphasize the paradox of Is it justified to apply the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Chicureo the flamerJan 05th, 2019 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Bolsonaro is vowing to eliminate Communists from the government
In your usual role of accessory after the fact.
”Editor Admits Breitbart Publishes Fake News
Regarding eliminating Communists from government:Jan 05th, 2019 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
Actually, you really don't even have to be a devout Communist, you could just be a left leaning according to some...
Deutsche Welle (DW)
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro's administration on Thursday launched a purge of government officials who don't share its far-right ideology.
Having taken office this week, Jair Bolsonaro has launched a purge of left-wing government officials with approximately 300 people expected to be dismissed.
O Globo, Folha de S.Paulo, The Independent, APNews, France24... All must be also fake news...
Meanwhile Terry, your idolized criminal Lula da Silva rots in a dismal prison cel...
...oh look, someone's cutting down a tree again...
Brasil acima de tudo, Deus acima de todos.
@ChicureoJan 05th, 2019 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
Asa Dumpy's image appears on TV - less 'n less, thk God - I usually switch channels to avoid visual pollution.
I guess Terry's engaging in “an informal logical fallacy” is his own way of conceding that he's lost both the plot and the debate....finally...he's admitted he is an idiot..
But ok, if I have to, I'll take credit for Dumpy...with your kind permission.
You ARE thick...I commented on Chicureo's Dumpy, never said you called her that...not that I care, but what don't you unstand, or are you up to yr little games, trying to confuse the issue ? or can't you help it (low IQ) ?
“sure, 'n who defines the criteria”....exactly my question, 'n you replied correctly, the government, of course.......that's the whole point, under a democratic government, that criteria would not exist (as the right to private property, and the right to explore it, is, as you know, called freedom....which is ok, as long as it 'doesn't encroach on other people's', which again, in this case, is a rather 'vague' criterion....might make sense in a very tiny country, with extremely limited resources, but of course, it's always easier to expropriate, or confiscate, land that is already productive), but under an authoritarian one, it becomes whatever the dictator wants....(just like whatever the 'MST' decides).
BTW, strip mining is extremely destructive, reason I'm against it in the AMZ...
On the current reserves - of 1000s of sq kms - the indians get virtually no support from government, in any shape or form, so what is their advantage ? None, but the 'government' has gotten rid of a problem. We gave them their land, end of story.
Bolsonaro's idea is to bring them closer to civilization, allow them better living conditions...which can all be negotiated, to their benefit....no one is going to unilaterally kick them out and throw them into ghettos.
Sure, the left doesnt go around boasting - it does, 'n just spends billions in fake propaganda.
under a democratic government, that criteria would not existJan 05th, 2019 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Private property is something that only exists because the government recognises and enforces it. If enough people vote to change it, as in Chile, it may not be right but it IS democracy. And if the government wanted to build something on your family's land, they could force you to sell it to them and decide how much compensation (if any) to give you. You're only a little safer than the indigenous people.
And why is Bolsonaro suddenly so concerned about the well-being of the Indians? He already announced he wants to open up the reserves to mining, the ulterior motive isn't even a secret.
Re left vs right, I was wondering if you would find an example of some left-winger acting like Chicureo. You've never encountered anyone gloating and trying to get a rise out of right-wingers?
As for fake news, I'd say the right puts out more by 5:1 if not 10:1. Just look at all the recent elections.
Chicureo the flamerJan 05th, 2019 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
you could just be a “left leaning according to some...” Thereby confirming it's not true, and your role of accessory after the fact. As I have posted the unreliability of your source twice before.
Meaning, ”Editor Admits Breitbart Publishes Fake News
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
I'll take credit for “Dumpy”. Is a clear admission you are a liar, end of story.
JackJan 05th, 2019 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Hillbilly: ”I'll take credit for “Dumpy”. Is a clear admission you are a liar, end of story.
...There's an old saying: Let a monkey climb a tree and he'll show his ass every time”... arf, arf...
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-lessJan 05th, 2019 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
”Let a monkey climb a tree and he'll show his ass every time” Well yours has clearly been revealed
If you could suck your own dick then you would finally suck at everything
Jack,Jan 06th, 2019 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Explain again to me that Brazil would be better ecologically managed and the indigenous natives would be better protected by the PT governance. Am I missing something or it is all just bull manure being spread by the socially correct progressive media?
Here's an interesting article for our potty mouth hillbilly, to ponder and perhaps provide some helpful remedies in reinforcing his/her self esteem.
@DTJan 06th, 2019 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I'm saying that in democracies the right to private property is recognized / isn't restricted in any form. In LatAm, politicians are usually amongst the wealthiest land owners, so who's going to vote to restrict such rights ? A democratic govt wouldn't just expropriate it under some frivolous pretext (i.e.,the needs of the many outweigh...the few ?), 'n if they HAD to, you could go to court to ensure fair compensation.
B has not suddenly become concerned with the well-being of the Indians.....the current status of the reserves, 'n others in the pipeline, besides being located in strategically sensitive areas (to national security), are indeed an obstacle to progress - well understood, sensible /sustainable - not to mention they're unprotected 'n being used freely by smugglers, drug traffickers 'n illegal loggers. These are the reasons B is concerned, 'n obviously, any solution needs to include the 'well-being' of the Indians....which is what people are disagreeing on. Just to get it in perspective, a few hundred thousand Indians own territory nearly 5 times the size of GB.
In Brazil, I find that while right-wingers are generally more content to live their lives 'n mind their own business, left-wingers are unhappy until they get everyone think the same way they do....which obviously, eventually provokes a reaction from the right, who make up a good part of the silent majority.....it's the left that instigates the minorities, 'n social movements formed by ignorant people, to do their dirty work for them, and are the first to protest, accusing the right of doing exactly what they always do. By what I've seen here, fake news is more of a 'left' thing...started by Dumpy, who paid professional bloggers to promote her at any cost. Perhaps YOUR lefties are different.
Terry's so confused, he doesn't know his ass fm his elbow...
Most of it's BS, spread by the media - it's what's left for them to do. Under the PT, they were kept happy.. R$ 23 Bi.
JackJan 06th, 2019 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Yes, it was amazing to learn the fourth estate was getting such a huge subsidy from the government.
I truly think Terry's personal problems would perhaps be helped by the link I earlier recommended.
@ChicureoJan 06th, 2019 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Yeah, you're right - if the hillbilly bought himself a macho-packer pecker , he might regain some confidence and self-esteem....but how would he regain something he's never had ?
@JBJan 07th, 2019 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I'm saying that in democracies the right to private property is recognized / isn't restricted in any form.
The right to private property is recognised in democracies because it's a good idea, but there is nothing inherent to democracy that requires it. And it is frequently restricted: you are forbidden to cut down the forest on your land, I am not allowed to demolish my house and build one twice the size without permission. The fact politicians are often wealthy landowners who refuse to act against their personal interests shows it's *lack* of democracy that prevents reform.
A few hundred thousand Indians own territory nearly 5 times the size of GB, is an argument straight from the socialists: Just 1% of Brazil's population owns nearly half of all the land. The fact you speak of the 'well being' of the Indians rather than their rights can only mean you don't recognise *their* right to property.
Is it because they didn't pay for the land? Did your family buy theirs from another private owner or from the government? How far back do you have to go before you find someone who didn't pay for it? If they were not the legitimate owner, then neither are you. How about these people who were given title to the land they had been living on and farming by the government, do you recognise their property rights?
RE left vs right, if left-wingers in America want to teach evolution in schools and right-wingers want intelligent design, who is forcing their ideas on others? Doesn't it depend on your viewpoint? If you agree with the ideas someone is pushing, you don't see it as an imposition, and that goes for both sides.
Run out of space...
@DTJan 07th, 2019 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
”...there is nothing inherent to democracy that requires it (property rights). It has nothing to do with being a 'good' idea, it's abt 'n part of the personal freedom inherent to democracy ...the moment you start imposing restrictions on purchase 'n the right to own property, democracy's gone to hell...Obviously I'm excluding the right to use it as you 'please', 'n screw your neighbors. The restrictions you mentioned are ok, 'n exist for a good reason, but i'm talking about the right to ownership. Where I can bend a bit, is when speculation is allowed in obvious detriment of others, that's where the so-called 'social-function' comes in, but you've got to be real careful how that is defined...the criteria we talked abt.
...fact politicians are often wealthy landowners.... that's what I've said b4, democracy, while still the best system, has it's weaknesses, 'n sometimes its instruments to prevent abuses are too weak....especially here, where laws say you can, others say you can't.
Just mentioned 5 x GB” to put it in perspective. Brazil has one hell of a lot of federally -owned land, which can be used for umpteen activities, but the whole discussion here is about 'how' the reserves were planned 'n executed....all wrong imo. IF the indians want to 'buy' property, go ahead, but the notion that by giving them 13% of Brazil's territory to right a historical wrong (original ownership), does not fit in with today's reality, neither that of the indians who, for better or for worse, have BEEN contacted, 'n that cannot be undone.
We bought our land, 'n have ownership docs dating back to 1900, but of course, at some before that, the land had no 'owner' other than those who may have claimed it, and took possession. This discussion is becoming silly....like discussing the sex of angels.
Re L vs R, think my original complaint was on ideological indoctrination of children...at a later age, when they can think for themselves, let them study whatever they want.
@JBJan 07th, 2019 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
Property ownership is a foundation of capitalism, not of democracy. They often go together, but not always. Land reform is uncommon, but the forced sale of land to build roads, reservoirs etc is not. And nearly all democracies have experimented with nationalisation of industries, mostly with compensation but sometimes without.
And I'm trying to make a serious point about property ownership. 1900 isn't very long ago - there are houses on my street older than that - but whether it was recent or not, at some point someone claimed it and took possession, and they never paid. Who was there to pay? Similarly at some point each group of Indians took possession of some land and lived on it, and there was no one for them to pay, either. Eventually, the government recognised that a specific area was theirs. I know it's not exactly the same, because the land was owned collectively and not individually, but how can you say it's not their property?
Or take the guy mentioned in the article above. He didn't buy his land, he inherited it from his father, and although he lived on it and farmed it, it wasn't officially his until the government gave him the title deed. Do you think it would be okay for the government to come back later and tell him and the other farmers in the area that he doesn't need all of his farm, they are taking half of it to sell to a mining company? If not, then why is it okay to do that to the Indians?
Re left vs right, I ran out of space earlier. The left doing things for minorities isn't a conspiracy; traditionally the left wants to change things, and the right keep them as they are. Anyone disadvantaged by the current system is likely to gravitate to the left, and that often includes minorities. Since the left is made of these groups, of course they push for things that are in their interest. The left is not just using minorities, it's more of a bargain where you campaign for what I care about and in exchange I campaign for what you care about.
Chicureo the flamerJan 08th, 2019 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
launched a purge of government officials ...Actually, you really don't even have to be a devout...
Actually, their doing the same as every new government, everywhere does. Fires the contract workers from the previous administration. Since all civil servants can't be fired for their political beliefs.
Terry, why are you defending Bolsonaro? If our incoming government tried to fire contractors who supported the other political party, there'd be uproar.Jan 08th, 2019 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
DTJan 08th, 2019 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
That must be the exception, it's what they do in Canada and the US, as a contractor's employment only lasts as long as the duration of the administration that hired them.
Thats the standard practice.
Evidence?Jan 08th, 2019 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Terrence HillJan 08th, 2019 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Guess what, the same FAKE news site that reported about Bolsonaro firing some Marxist apparatchiks, it's now reporting some news about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg... also, Amy Coney Barrett... ...interesting times!
Did you get a chance to check out the interesting article that perhaps provide some helpful remedies in reinforcing your self esteem:
@DTJan 08th, 2019 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
“Property ownership is a foundation of capitalism, not democracy”…democracy presumes freedom, but you love to split hairs, to go into such depth of detail, even if it has no practical effect on reality, don't you ?
Usually - with the exception of China - capitalism ‘n democracy, go together. Don’t generalize based on the exception, is MY point.
”Land reform is uncommon”. It makes no sense in Brazil…what’s the point of trading the agribusiness (Brazil's vocation) for 1000s of tiny, uneconomical farms that can't supply demand ?
Today, land reform is unpractical, purely political…take the MST…a cause to get land for rural workers who’d lost their jobs when the agribusiness grew - after getting the land (size depends on location), they complained – I mean what the hell was govt thinking ? the ‘free’ land was not ‘already’ productive…nasty govt !! So, the great majority abandoned it, MST’s ranks swelled as dozens of 1000s of unemployed city workers – who never even pulled a weed - joined them. It became a routine : be given land, sell it, or abandon it, then demand more, until it became a profitable social movement under the PT, with no purpose other than acting as its ‘army’.
Forced sale to build roads, reservoirs afaic, is OK…expropriation, to give it to small farmers is not.
”1900 isn't very long ago (perhaps not in the UK)…. and there was no one for them to pay, either”…Sure, I agree with all that, but what’s yr point ? Just fyi, the indians didn’t believe in land ownership, only the “original” God-given right to use it. In 1500, they numbered 5 million, today (in reserves) 600,000.
Yr examples of land-ownership (which you support ?) don’t apply to the “original” right to ‘use’ the land…if they did, we’d have to give back the whole of Brazil to the Indians…right ? or to the dinosaurs, before them.
People (including minorities) can gravitate to whichever side (L or R) that suits them, but that does not make them right, nor owners of the truth.
DTJan 08th, 2019 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Who gets political appointments? Party loyalty and bureaucratic expertise in Brazil
The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World By Joel Krieger
you love to split hairs, to go into such depth of detail, even if it has no practical effect on realityJan 08th, 2019 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I like to be accurate. Land reform isn't popular now, but it was in the past, and it didn't inevitably mean the end of democracy. I do support respect for property, in general, but if I'm against land reform it's because the results are often bad, not out of principle.
It became a routine : be given land, sell it, or abandon it
Who do they sell it to, out of interest? Sounds like a good way of getting cheap land. The plan in the article, to give ownership to people already living on and farming land, seems a lot less open to abuse.
“Forced sale to build roads, reservoirs” afaic, is OK…expropriation, to give it to small farmers is not.
Why? Supposing the government pays compensation in both cases, what do you care what they do with the land?
what’s yr point
That the Indians are similar to someone who came and took the empty land 100 years ago, and didn't sell it but passed it down to his family. Neither paid for it, the main difference is that one has a piece of paper from the government and the other doesn't. But if the government could hand out deeds 100 years ago, they can also do so today (and they have, as the article shows).
It would be completely impossible to hand back the whole of Brazil, but like I said, you CAN recognise that the limited areas of land the Indians are living on right now, today, are theirs. And I would hope that once recognised by the government, they aren't taken away again, any more than individually owned property is.
Re minorities, I would assume they know more about their own experience - like you know more about Brazil - and have a better idea what problems they face and how to solve them. But that doesn't make them any more right in general.
Ah, it seems you have confused political appointments, which do indeed change with the party in power in the US, with ordinary low-level contract employees.
DTJan 08th, 2019 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
”with ordinary low-level contract employees” I haven't confused anything, they are one and the same in Brazilian parlance.
Speaking of being confused...Jan 08th, 2019 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Terry needs to investigate the FAKE news site that now is now reporting some news about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg... also, Amy Coney Barrett... ...interesting times!
He needs to check out the interesting article for some helpful remedies in reinforcing his/her self esteem:
REF: vows to tackle corruption, crime and economic mismanagement:Jan 09th, 2019 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
All the king's asses and all the king's clowns couldn't [& wouldn't] put Humpty together again! But ALL the ignorants do believe that HE's perfectly capable of miracles!
@DTJan 09th, 2019 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
“I like to be accurate“.. you know what I’m saying - in ‘democracies’ you can buy property (if for sale), ‘n have rights over it or, “own” it.
Of course land reform doesn’t imply the end of democracy…at times, it IS necry, but only makes sense if land is scarce ‘n MUST be put to better use...fully unstand that.
Expropriation for highways, reservoirs etc, is different to expropriating farm land when unnecry, or on the political whim of some dictator. In democracies, when possible people’s rights are respected.
Rgdng “accuracy”, I too like it, but sometimes 'details' are irrelevant : ex :- the distance btwn Earth ‘n the moon is 384,400 kms - is that ‘accurate’ enough or should I specify cms too ?
Seems you’re having a hard time accepting tt the MST has nothing to do with its original cause…say 80% of the settlers decide to sell (despite prohibited), the buyers were usually part of the 20% that remained…the irony is that after the 20% have made it productive, the MST might return to “claim” it….Ah, just fyi, the MST doesn’t represent those already working/living off the land…the latter are more likely to be victims of the MST.
”Why? 1) Supposing govt pays compensation in both cases, 2) what do you care what they do with the land?” 1) if compensation is fair, fine…2) it’s not a matter on ME caring, I’m discussing the gen’l principle to the right to own something ‘n not have it confiscated or expropriated for frivolous reasons.
This discussion - Indians’ “original” rights, vs those of farmers who bought the land centuries later - is, as I’ve said, like discussing the sex of angels. You need to analyze the matter from Brazil’s standpoint, far more complicated than ownership of urban property in the UK…forget idealism, face reality…and in Brazil’s reality, the solutions are far from ideal, as things change, nearly always irreversibly.
That’s what I’m saying: ideology, L or R, is not make what minorities, or majorities might want, correct..
Re expropriation for infrastructure vs land reform, sounds like you think the first is okay because it benefits the country, and the second bad because it generally doesn't. Is that fair? I think that's a reasonable view, but it's based on pragmatism, not principle.Jan 09th, 2019 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Perhaps my view of the Indians as property owners is influenced by the law in the UK. Until recently you only needed to live openly on land for 12 years - without protest from the original owner - in order to be awarded the title. It's a philosophy that possession is the real basis for ownership, and in itself justifies title.
I guess you never had that law in Brazil, which is why you look at it differently. But it's very far from discussing the sex of angels, as many absent landowners have discovered over the years...
RE the MST, makes sense they'd sell the land to their colleagues, who probably want bigger farms if they are taking it seriously. But where do the 20% get the money from? I'm guessing the MST are not supposed to hand out land to those who could afford to buy it? Do they ignore the rules or is there no such restriction?
As for accuracy, it depends what you're doing. The moon's distance varies by over 10% over a month, making your average figure wrong by up to 21,000 km - no small amount. And if you want to measure the rate at which the moon is receding from the earth then you will need cm accuracy, because it's less than 4 cm per year.
Chicureo the flamerJan 10th, 2019 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
“He also really needs to check out...”
Continuing your 'Freudian slips', Freud said 'Thought is a Roundabout Way of Wishing'. It's not difficult to surmise what your thoughts are, since you can't refrain from revealing them.
He also said ”The Unconscious. Nothing Comes “Out of the Blue.”
@DTJan 10th, 2019 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Try to understand what I'm saying in context, and stop the speculation on what you 'think' I believe is fair. Expropriation for infrastructure, afaic, is ok...even if they wanted to build a highway through my land....satisfied ? Expropriation for 'land reform', is totally unecessary in Brazil...if someone loves the idea of having a small farm, go 'n buy it...land reform here was/is just political thing, and it has not worked, as is plain to see. End.
If the indians wanted land to farm, ok, give them land 'n help them start it up, but to give them 1000s of sq kms of jungle solves nothing...or do you think it does ?
Of course we have usucaption laws here, all spelled out, foresseing every situation, but they do not apply in the case of the reserves...I know all about it as we've already had people invade our land to take possession of part of it.
The majority of the MST followers, never having been rural workers, are not interested in the land itself, but in what the movememt can provide them with...for free. Over 20 years ago, there were a number of cases in which those that remained, and made it work, did become MST targets later on....which proves my point. The money of the 20% came from hard work and loans...available to land owner who wants to farm it.
One of the conditions to get the land, was the prohibition of selling it (for 10, 15 years ? I dunno) so as it couldn't be sold legally, the 2 parties involved signed unofficial contracts...which eventually, based on possession, were legalized. Have you forgotten about the Brazilian jeitinho ?
DT, when I linked the rights to property to democracy, which is ”usually' the case in a capitalist country, you knew very well what I was getting at.....no point in splitting hairs, as for the sake of this discussion, it's accurate enough. We are not discussing each exception, which are a whole different chapter...in some cases accuracy has to be 100% (bank a/c ?), other times just inside the ball park.
Of course we have usucaption laws... but they do not apply in the case of the reservesJan 11th, 2019 - 03:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Why not, in cases where some tribe has been living in a particular area for 10s if not 100s of years, and is still living there today?
to give them 1000s of sq kms of jungle solves nothing...or do you think it does ?
Well sure. It solves the problem of people trying to steal the land they live on, and leaving them homeless and/or dependant upon the state - though only if the government enforces it. But that's the same as private property; if trespassers invade then you call the police. It also helps reduce deforestation, though again only if enforced. But no measure is effective if not enforced.
if someone loves the idea of having a small farm, go 'n buy it
With what? How many rural workers can hope to afford a farm? Anyone who can pay probably already has a good job and won't want to do the work of farming.
you knew very well what I was getting at
What I thought you were getting at was claiming Allende was a dictator or something, because he carried out land reform. And I disagree. I don't think that is splitting hairs.
Respectfully I see Jack has the stronger argument.Jan 11th, 2019 - 08:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
This all goes back to the theme that the needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few. Ethnic cleansing is an abomination, and the indigenous must be protected, but a small populace should not have preferential treatment in a Democratic republic.
@DTJan 11th, 2019 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Re usucaption laws, Why not? becos it doesn't fit in with today's reality. You, sitting in the UK, never having seen such conflicts / consequences fm close up, believe idealism is the answer. Yr why not seems to exclude every solution other than handing back the land they occupied in 1500 or, ALL of BZL... 'n while we're at it, why not the rest of S.Am too, to all the dozens of native tribes who originally occupied it ?
Those laws cannot apply in this case.
It solves the problem of people trying to steal land they live on, 'n leaving 'em homeless, or dependant upon the state...no one is trying to steal the land they 'live' on...how much do they really need to survive well, w/o being 'dependent' on..? 1 Mi sq km ?
Bit of history might help u understand : late 1800s/early 1900s, well before reserves were even a thought, the fed govt incentivized rural workers from NEast to settle in the AMZ. Hundreds of 1000s went. Fyi, in late 1800s, rubber exploration was huge, controlled by local land owners 'n exported exclusively by English export cos set up in the region. When Asian production started, Brazil's went into decadence.
Much later, in the 1970s, another wave of settlers arrived, this time from the South - official policy was to occupy it / avoid internationalization. Dozens of 1000s of settlers occupied big tracts of land irregularly, which were eventually legalized (in 1970s - up to 60,000 hectares/settler), having been occupied in good faith. How abt them ?
By 2009 over 70 million hectares of forest had been 'destroyed', 'n btwn 2003/2009, other dozens of millions of hectares had been destined to land reform (never worked) environmental preservation 'n indigenous projects.
Go 'n buy it...With what ? financing ! using the land as guarantee. How about real rural workers forming coops ? How does any biz 'start' up ?
The discussion started with Allende's acts, which imo, were unnecry. Was there NO other land AT ALL, available ?
JBJan 11th, 2019 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The discussion started with Allende's acts, which imo, were unnecry.
Allende government was formed at a time when 50% of the population was starving. So it is your view they should have done nothing?
JackJan 11th, 2019 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I remembered as a young man that although there was serious poverty I'm my country, there was NO STARVATION of any kind. There was however a severe food crisis in 1972 and a horrible lack of basic food items, like bread that was rationed in 1973. Typical Marxist lies.
Chicureo the flamerJan 11th, 2019 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Widespread malnutrition, illiteracy, hopeless housing conditions and hunger for the vast majority of Latin Americans who were poor
REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES UNITED STATES SENATE
Nixon, Kissinger, and the US CIA were guilty of undercutting Chile’s democracy, thereby indirectly creating a social crisis that led to “hunger and misery” for countless Chileans, all for the purposes of “appeasing the capitalist sentiment of the world economy fostered by the United States’ neoliberal proclivities.”
International Effects on the Democratic Onset in Chile By Alejandro Ortega
In the period from 1930 to 1970, ...the majority of the population who lost purchasing power by more than 1/3 from 1952 to 1970. Rural areas showed the most stratification of the economic classes with large landowners who comprised 2% of the rural population, controlling more than 65% of the land. 25% of the rural population, i.e., substance farmers, held approximately 1% of the cultivated land.
Nutrition and national development: the case of Chile.
It's abundantly clear from these reports as to who were the beneficiaries of misery that was inflicted on many Chileans, you selfish hypocrite.
Exactly what I stated before:Jan 11th, 2019 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
...there was serious poverty I'm my country, there was NO STARVATION of any kind...
...There was however a severe food crisis in 1972 and a horrible lack of basic food items, like bread that was rationed in 1973.
Fact not imagination. I lived through that time and vividly remember it well. Nixon's economical war against my nation occurred from 1969 to 1973, but Chile was partially able to feed itself with gifts from our Socialist brethren until 1972...
Chicureo the flamerJan 11th, 2019 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
There was no there was NO STARVATION of any kind.. Fact not imagination. Is absolutely refuted by the following credible sources.
”Government services tended to reinforce the inequalities of the socioeconomic groups in Chile, rather than alleviate them. At least 21 surveys have been done on the nutritional status of children since 1940. 2 inferences can be drawn: 1) malnutrition was a long-time characteristic of a portion of Chile's population, and 2) the extent and seriousness of nutritional deprivations increased with declining income levels and their socioeconomic indicators ... Malnutrition still remains a feature of Chile's social order, reinforced by the country's economic development strategies.
US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health 1979
Nutrition and national development: the case of Chile. Solimano G, Hakim P.
When Allende took office, Chile was enduring a severe economic crisis. Unemployment was high and an estimated half of the country's children under the age of 15 were suffering from malnutrition.
@HillbillyJan 11th, 2019 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Don't know why I still waste 30 secs on you....if 50% of people were starving - oops, did you say starving? you mean like dying of hunger ? Nooooo......was it like the hunger crisis that afflicted North Korea in the mid 90's and which still affects 40% of the population ? But obviously you don't believe that - after all, NK is communist, just like you.
Your reports are exaggerated.
Anyway, I do not recall having expressed my view as they should have done nothing....what I implied, and think was clear to most people, is that before expropriating productive farmland, why not develop unoccupied land ?...the other 35%, which you mentioned above ?
We all know the answer, even if you don't.
what Hillbilly does not understand is that poverty exists in most countries, and while many people may not eat enough, it's a long way before they start dying of starvation. He is a marxist hypocrite.
JBJan 11th, 2019 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Your reports are exaggerated. Hardly as their addresses show.
US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health 1979
Which states Fact Check. We strive for accuracy and fairness. If you see something that doesn't look right, contact us!
He is a marxist hypocrite. I'm neither, but, you've been shown as a proven liar.
@JBJan 11th, 2019 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
How many times do I have to tell you I don't want to hand the whole of Brazil back to the natives? We started this discussion by arguing whether the government should take land from existing reservations for mining or farming, not whether anything should be handed back.
If land is already occupied by farmers and the forest cut down, that is very different to virgin rain forest, which should be preserved.
Again, I am talking about Indians still living on their own land, which is not owned by anyone (maybe the government?) Not taking land that already belongs to someone else.
financing ! using the land as guarantee.
To get a mortgage you need a steady income and a credit rating. Okay for us but not so easy for poor rural workers. And how to pay the loan off with a subsistance farm?
Re Allende, fertile land is a limited resource. It may have been a bad idea but he was elected on the promise of land reform.
One last time. Foreigners are telling natives what historically occurred in their own countries. Always there will be differences, but I find Terrence's comments false, misleading and ignorant.Jan 11th, 2019 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I personally know what happened in my country, because I lived through it.
Yes, I was fortunately to be from a privileged class and never missed having a meal, but I can assure you that the people that lived and worked on our farm had plenty to eat. Not as good as they had it in Argentina, Uruguay or then very wealthy Venezuela, but there was no malnutrition.
There was however a problem of malnutrition in my country. Many subsistence farmers were barely able to feed themselves. (That now is actually happening in Venezuela.)
In 1972 onwards large productive farms, including my family's, were no longer in operation. Wheat, corn and other food items became no longer available.
In 1972 most of our farm workers became unemployed. They were made great promises, but in the end, only some were granted plots of 5 to 15 thousand square meters. (That's a half to one and a half hectare.)
Do you think they planted wheat and corn? Nope, they didn't have the ability, so they used the subsistence farms to graze their animals and plant small vegetable patches.
Yes, POVERTY today remains a serious problem in Latin America. Chile today amazingly has less poverty than all its neighbors, but we still have poverty.
Starvation occurs when there is no longer adequate food for the people to subsist.
Marxist central farm management and distribution is always a total disaster.
Chicureo the flamerJan 11th, 2019 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I personally know what happened in my country, because I lived through it.
Unfortunately, your narrative suffers from the same malaise as JB's Brazilian history. You're both unable to find corroborating evidence.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
Marxist central farm management and distribution is always a total disaster.
Couldn't have any been worse than what preceded it. As at that time ”an estimated half of the country's children under the age of 15 were suffering from malnutrition.