MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Lula, in a new corruption conviction is sentenced to another 13 years in prison
A Brazilian court on Wednesday handed a near 13-year sentence to Lula da Silva, in a new corruption conviction for the former president already serving a lengthy jail term in a separate case. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesHe may be free in less than 10 years, less than 5 years, less than 1 year - who wants to bet?
Feb 07th, 2019 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse +1@:o))
Feb 07th, 2019 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Absolutely. These farcical judiciary processes will never resist serious review. Who would have guessed a different outcome now that Sergio Moro is in charge?
Poor Brazil.
@Enrique Massot
Feb 08th, 2019 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse +1REF: Sergio Moro
An excellent artist! Can play completely different tunes; depending upon the buttered side of his slice.
@:o))
Feb 08th, 2019 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lucky Brazil.....I'm all for LULA LIVRE ! .....in 2043..
@Reekie
Couldn't resist asking you, since you believe, like Terryble Terry, that you are a legal expert, with a PhD in fighting corruption and money laundering, and a profound knowledge of Brazilian Law.....what EXACTLY do you know about Lula's convictions, other than the usual crap you suck up from your leftist sources ?
Can't wait to see your reply.......but I won't hold my breath.
“The sentence follows the same line .. former judge Sergio Moro, who condemned Lula without any act linked to the receipt of undue advantages, that is to say, without having committed the crime of corruption that was imputed to him. Once again the Federal Court of Curitiba has assigned criminal responsibility to the former president on the basis of an accusation involving a property of which he is not the owner, a ”general box“ and other accusatory narratives referenced only by generously benefited informers.
Feb 08th, 2019 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Still to demonstrate the absurdity of the conviction.
Lula was convicted for ”receiving R $ 700,000 from Odebrecht” even the defense having proven, through an expert report from Odebrecht's own accounting system, that such amount was drawn in benefit of one of the main executives of the Odebrecht group (Chairman of the Board of Directors); this technical document (drawn up by an auditor and expert with legal responsibility for its content) and proved by documents of Odebrecht's own system was dismissed under the objectionable ground that “this is an analysis contracted by the criminal action, seeking to corroborate the thesis defensive ”- as if any technical evidence presented in the defense process had no probative value;
Lula was convicted when he did not perform any public function and, despite the acknowledgment, that he was not identified by the sentence any official act practiced by the former president for the benefit of the contractors involved in the process;
Lula was once again sentenced to a penalty not exceeding any parameter of penalties already applied in the Lava Jato operation - which, according to TRF4's judgment in 2016, does not have to follow the “general rules” - and without observing established standards.“
..conviction confirms this situation and will therefore be brought to UNHRC, which may judge the statement later this year - and help the country restore Lula's rights.”
https://www.lula.com.br/nota-da-defesa-de-lula-sobre-sentenc
@JB
Feb 09th, 2019 - 07:40 am - Link - Report abuse +1He is a “Quick Learner” I must say!
https://i2.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Missao-do-Sergio-Moro-Heroi-Nacional.jpg?resize=580%2C413&ssl=1
Jack Bauer
Feb 09th, 2019 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I'm afraid that you and I made a mistake to unfairly condemn Lula.
I have to completely agree with Terrence Hill regarding this issue because the Lava Lula operation resulted in unfair resulting penalty far exceeding the justified parameter of penalties already without observing established standards that does have to acknowledge the “general rules” applied in the Lava Jato operation - which, according to TRF4's judgment in 2016, does not have to follow the international rule of law and without observing established standards of the according to the UNHR codified clause premeditated TRF4's judgment earlier mentioned.
Following Terrence's logic, Lula was unfairly convicted when he did not perform anything different than the expected norm of his party, which is a peccary of normal governance as clarified by public function and, despite the acknowledgment, that he was not identified by the sentence any official act practiced by the former president for the benefit of the contractors involved in the process; The ex-president was once again sentenced to a penalty not exceeding any parameter of penalties already applied in the Lava Lula operation - which, according to The USMCA judgment in Geneva does not have to follow the “local rules” - and or without observing established standards, proving the sordid conviction confirms this situation and will therefore be brought to UNHRC, which may judge the travesty of justice, which proves Terrence Hill's argument.
We made a mistake, Lula should be let free from his dismal prison confinement.
@Chicureo / @Jack Bauer
Feb 10th, 2019 - 08:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0While S. M. is getting his “ACT” Together; no one really knows, How Many ALREADY Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and will NEVER be held as accountable:
https://i2.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Sergio-Moro-com-Aecio.png?resize=484%2C420&ssl=1
@Chicureo
Feb 10th, 2019 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You may have noticed that I've been reducing the amount of time I waste on Terry the twit. But I am amazed at his ignorant insistence on Lula's innocence. He believes he understands Lula's crimes...ooops, his non-crimes, better than the 4 judges fm the 2 lower courts , 'n the 12 judges from the higher courts...he really believes his little knowledge of the law - probably bought from some obscure correspondence course - authorizes him to make better judgement....if it makes him happy.
His support of Lula, who supports Maduro, shows exactly what he is.
On the other hand, just to not have to see his rubbish on here, I think I'll start agreeing that Lula is innocent. Maybe he'll even forgive me for supporting the military after they kicked the butts of the commies in 1964.
But you are right, Lula only did what his party and his followers expected him to, so it IS unfair that he is rotting in a jail...LULA LIVRE ..in 2043 !!
Re your enquiry on wine (VZ Supreme Court bans...): What are the reasonably priced Chilean reds available in your market? Whites? What about SA and Europe?
The Adobe range from Emiliana : from R$ 49 -60 // Coyam R$ 250/ Novas R$ 50
Telmo & Ruth (cab sauv/merlot 50/50) ; R$ 90
Cousino Macul (Antiguas reserva range) R$50
Errazuriz Max Reserva (Carmenere, P.Noir), R$ 120
Viña San Pedro's 1865 (single vineyard) R$ 110
Cono Sur :red , whites (viognier, gewurtz) R$ 70-80. Also the 'bicicleta' line,
Viu Manent (Secreto) R$ 70
Montes Alfa R$ 130
Tarapacá R$ 60 -120
Parras Viejas & Vernus (Sta Helena) R$ 200
Cartagena (gewurtz)
The offer of Chilean wines is enormous, prices ranging from R$ 40 - 600..
South Africa : pinotage/ shiraz,/ merlot / cab sauv / pinotatge & viognier blend, and others.
Very nice wines are available for R$ 50 to 80. Like them because aromatic, great endings, and light.
Spain; POR; Romenia & Bulgaria (p.noir) : some good, inexpensive wines R$ 60 - 120
The Argentine activist Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, who was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize in 1980, has launched a campaign to formalize Lula da Silva's candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize 2019.
Feb 10th, 2019 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“This year, we launched an international campaign for the candidacy of former President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, to the Nobel Peace Prize of 2019 for his fight against hunger and poverty”, writes Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, in a signature campaign, launched on the internet.
https://www.plataformamedia.com/en-uk/news/society/interior/more-than-400000-people-support-lulas-candidacy-for-the-nobel-peace-prize-10227421.html
@Jack Bauer
Feb 11th, 2019 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “But I am amazed at his ignorant insistence on Lula's innocence”:
TRUE:
AMAZING indeed!
REF: “he is rotting in a jail...LULA LIVRE ..in 2043”“
FALSE!
No matter how solid the proofs are; considering
the history, tradition & culture; it is quite likely that he'll be free - for one reason or the other - sooner or later.
It's really is unfathomable that ANYONE blindly believes in the absurdities. That's why, I had suggested: ”I think that the Wikipedia-Link may have a probable explanation to the problem“ REF: NEWS-Comments: Mercopress: ”New Brazilian Congress opens with great challenges, but Bolsonaro has been made vulnerable by Flavio's finances“
By the way; New York Times: ”Corruption Inquiry involving brazilian president’s son, can proceed, court says”:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/world/americas/brazil-flavio-bolsonaro.html?smid=tw-nytimesworld&smtyp=cur
Also, in the Mercopress News-Comments: REF: Bolsonaro with a feeding tube; surgery more complicated than expected; discharge date remains unchanged:
I firmly believe [and maybe wrong] that:
# 1:
If you are not a crook, you can not be in politics. The other crooks won't let you stay honest & still be in power.
# 2:
If you are a politician but you do not want to steal; you are simply wasting your time on politics. Why else do you think that the politicians fight so fiercely to gain power?
# 3:
Laws [breaches+loopholes included] are made by the crooks themselves; to protect their own interests & their own benefits - immunities, +privileges, +protection, +exaggeratedly high salaries.
# 4: The people elect a government they deserve.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Feb 11th, 2019 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“the military after they kicked the butts of the commies in 1964.”
“Inconveniently, the US can point to nothing even remotely threatening done by the Brazilian Communist Party, and early in 1964, Russian leader Khrushchev refuses even token financial aid to Goulart, not wishing to tangle with the US over the country.” Brazil Herald, 3/6/64
I think you're a bit retarded, you keep coming up with the same BS. Which is refuted by the public record, and are thus revealed as a liar again, and again.
HARD TO BELIEVE - IMPOSSIBLE [well, ALMOST]:
Feb 11th, 2019 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: 'Bolsominions arrependidos':
FROM: Poder360:
https://www.poder360.com.br/governo/bolsominions-arrependidos-bolsonaro-e-criticado-por-ex-apoiadores-na-web/
@:o))
Feb 11th, 2019 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah, I admit I have to agree that Lula will be free before 2043....whenever his rotten corpse is carried off to the cemetery.
Oh dear, Terryble Terry has become upset at my statement “the commies got their butts kicked in 1964”... so what does he do ? he posts, for the 'n'th time, his silly claim that :-
“Inconveniently, the US can point to nothing even remotely threatening done by the Brazilian Communist Party, and in early 1964...”
Strange - afaik, he wasn't here at the time, yet he claims to know better than those who were. But ok, it's part of his inferiority complex speaking louder than common sense.
But to dispell any doubts about the communist threat, I suggest googling the 2 below articles:
“U.S. Assembled a Force in 1964 For Possible Use in Brazil Coup - The ...”
“Anatomy of a coup d'état | Agência Brasil”
Even if he wants to argue the 'threat' was 'supposed', it was supposed because that was the real perception at the time, and if it didn't happen, we can 'suppose' it was because the military intervened and nipped it in the bud.
Terry can't seem to grasp that simple fact, and thinks he knows more about what might have happened in Brazil in 1964, than the CIA. But then again, Terry is a deluded idiot....talking of idiots, he is well defined by the term “useful idiot”, which you used in one of your other posts (of today).
Terry selects the public records he chooses to believe, and any other record, which might report something different, is ignored...well, if he is capable of googling the two articles above, he “should” be able to realize “que não é bem assim”...mas é burro, e vai continuar insistindo.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Feb 11th, 2019 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Strange - afaik, he wasn't here at the time,” Thats the point, neither were there any communists doing anything. “it was supposed because that was the real perception at the time” Rubbish, the truth behind that 'supposed' has also been laid to rest by me. 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.“ Brazil and CIA by Peter Gribbin.
”he knows more about what might have happened in Brazil in 1964, than the CIA.“ They may well have pervaded such a notion. But it would have been as equally knowingly untrue as your claim. ”he chooses to believe,” Those that have researched the issue and provided the fruits of their conclusions.
Terryble Terry, the 'useful idiot'.
Feb 11th, 2019 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, that IS the point - YOU were NEVER here, haven't a F' G idea what was going on. QED.
Pls STFU.
PS : Won't even ask if you googled the 2 reports.....but don't be embarrassed to admit you don't know how to.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Feb 12th, 2019 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0“haven't a F' G idea what was going” I have a lot better idea than you do as I'm able to verify what I assert. Unlike the fictional narrative you produce.
“if you googled the 2 reports” I understand now why you don't produce any citations. That is because your research consists of a general inquiry.
From which you grab a couple of articles. Which you have no idea of what they consist of. The two that you referenced, one was unavailable. The second one supported everything I claimed.
@TH/@JB:
Feb 12th, 2019 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here is another very interesting report:
https://i1.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Gilmar-protegido.jpg?w=694&ssl=1
For the google-impaired, try this link: http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/politica/noticia/2014-03/anatomy-coup-detat#
Feb 12th, 2019 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse 045 Brazilian Magazine Of Intelligence. Brasília: Abin, v. 1, n. 1, ten. 2005.
Feb 12th, 2019 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Vernon Walters in 1962 (was appointed) military attache in Brazil. The newspaper published a long article in which he stated that “the colonel
Walters, the Pentagon's top specialist in military coups, had just been sent to Brazil for the sole purpose of President Goulart and to establish a puppet regime for the United States.
http://www.abin.gov.br/conteudo/uploads/2018/05/RBI1-Artigo4-General-Vernon-Walters-gosto-por-subterrâneo.pdf
”The White House recognised the new government in Brazil with indecent haste, on 2 April 1964. By historical coincidence, the Civil Rights Act, the result of years of mobilisation by African Americans and their allies, arrived in the US Senate on 26 March 1964, five days before the coup in Brazil. In a week when millions of African Americans were finally having their rights of citizenship recognised by the US government, Brazilians were losing theirs.”
The US Role in the 1964 Coup in Brazil: A Reassessment. Anthony W. Pereira
DT
Feb 12th, 2019 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Despite your being kind enough to supply a link for the 'google-impaired', I doubt the 'useful idiot' will benefit from it.....if it doesn't support HIS narrative, it is FICTIONAL narrative. Or a lie.
And his 'citations' are only someone else's opinion...prove nothing.
The point I have always maintained, is that during 1963/ beginning 1964, those who were better-informed were wary of where the country might be heading ...towards communism ? complete chaos ? a Jango dictatorship ?
The military had already given signs they didn't like Jango's ideas, nor his proximity with China, the USSR and Cuba (that only 3 years earlier had installed a communist dictatorship), but nevertheless the coup came as a surprise. Once clear what had happened, most people felt relieved. The idiots who chose to rise up in arms against the military apptly thought they could beat them...but sh*t happened. Too bad, and to be expected....and, as I've said before, with the experience of someone who was here, and accompanied events, for those who wanted to get ahead in life, business carried on as usual.
US involvement wasn't all that clear (or at all) at the time - but in retrospect, it is pretty clear that the US became involved because it too didn't like what it was seeing down here (possible attempt of a communist take over ?).
At times, I wonder if anyone bothers to stop and think what might have happened if the military had not taken over ? I doubt it, but if they do, they'll probably insist it would have been wonderful...
Terry gets all his inside information from his dreams, in which he had been working directly with Ambassador Gordon, Lyndon Johnson and the CIA.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Feb 12th, 2019 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Terry gets all his inside information”from doing his homework.
“Reinventing history: Lincoln Gordon and his multiple versions of 1964
”Lincoln Gordon “the single most decisive victory for freedom in the mid-twentieth century.” We installed the first really major national security state, Nazi-like state, in Latin America, with high-technology torture and so on. Gordon called it “totally democratic,” “the best government Brazil ever had.”... Noam Chomsky
“In 1964, Gordon promises of immediate recognition and petroleum support, and with a US Navy task force an aircraft carrier, destroyers, guided missiles in Brazilian coastal waters, US-armed elements in the military advance upon Rio with troops and tanks. Not wanting to be responsible for bloodshed among Brazilians, Goulart refuses to call on loyalist forces and flees to Uruguay.” Washington Post, 4/3/64
“Since the military coup of 1964, there has been a decline in the real wages of Brazilians amounting to almost 40 percent.81 Brazil's gross foreign debt for 1978 is expected to reach a spectacular $40 billion, with interest and amortisation payments totalling $8 billion.82 The reason for the seeming paradox between a country so rich in natural resources yet one whose people suffer life-long misery is quite simple, however: for capitalists, both Brazilian and foreign, the masses are looked upon as costs, not customers: the lower their real wages, the higher the profits from selling to the local upper class and the international market.” Brazil and CI by Peter Gribbin
Terryble Terry, the 'useful idiot'
Feb 12th, 2019 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All your useless blah-blah-blah is off topic and a waste of everyone's time.
When were you diagnosed with anosognosia ?
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Feb 12th, 2019 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“All your” awareness of Brazilian history versus your invented narrative. Keep on lying and I will follow with the irrefutable evidence of the truth of the matter
@JB
Feb 12th, 2019 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I doubt the 'useful idiot' will benefit from it”
Me too. He's not interested in learning the truth, only in winning arguments (in his own mind, naturally).
I've told you my opinion before: I think the evidence shows Jango was not planning to turn the country communist and/or ally with the USSR, but that was not clear at the time. Also there was a lot of paranoia about communist takeovers, which is probably the main reason America got involved. Nevertheless there were other factors, as the wealthy Brazilians wanted to prevent any redistribution of land and the US wanted to preserve the profitable investments of their companies.
We don't know what would have happened if there was no coup, but IMO most likely Jango would have either screwed things up or been ineffective due to opposition in Congress. Either way he was unlikely to achieve his aims. But on the other hand there probably would have been a lot less civil unrest if the socialists had a chance to compete at the ballot box, and some other president might have been able to carry out reforms later that would mean a better country now.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Feb 12th, 2019 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“He's not interested in learning the truth” I've shown the truth, confirmed by your inability to even one iota is false. I know you can't resist ingratiating yourself with the object of your devotion. So that you can maintain your well deserved reputation as a servile, subservient, fawning, obsequious, sycophantic, excessively deferential, toadying, ingratiating, unctuous, grovelling, cringing, toadyish, sycophantish, abject, craven, humble, Uriah Heepish, self-abasing; informal slimy, bootlicking, sucky, soapy, forelock-tugging, brown-nosing, apple-polishing, arse-licking, bum-sucking, kiss-ass, ass-kissing, suckholing.
The fact you feebly and unimaginatively attempt to insult me rather than replying to the substance of my post only confirms the truth of what I said.
Feb 13th, 2019 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Feb 13th, 2019 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0“not interested in learning the truth” was your assertion no proof, no truth.
I have replied, “the fact you” can't refute the truth, is confirmed by your inability to prove even one iota of what I have posted is false. So you're sucking in vain.
@DT / @TH
Feb 13th, 2019 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why on earth it's so difficult to admit the simple TRUTH? :
https://i0.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Microbios.jpg?zoom=0.8999999761581421&w=640&ssl=1
@ :o))
Feb 13th, 2019 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lol. I agree.
@The Liar
“So truth or intention are irrelevant.”
There's your proof.
Bonehead
Feb 13th, 2019 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0What's happened have you lost your comic section?
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
“There's your proof” Nothing out of context, met my burden of proof, and never made any assertions that can't be proved. Exactly, the opposite of your modus operandi. You can keep sucking till your blue in the face. but you can't circumvent the truth, no matter has desperately you strive.
Very funny. Taking things out of context is your whole MO - well, that and the fallacy of appeal to authority. Like when you found a rule made by some obscure debating society and claimed that somehow proved Voice was 'defrauding' you. All because he had proved you wrong, but of course you wouldn't admit it because you don't give a shit about the truth, only about 'winning' arguments.
Feb 13th, 2019 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Feb 13th, 2019 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Taking things out of context” is what you have done. As I was restating “He is answerable for what he has said, may be deemed to act as if he were sincere – whether he actually is sincere or not. FOR OUR PURPOSES, IT IS WHAT THE SPEAKER CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THAT COUNTS, NOT WHAT HE PRIVATELY THINKS.” 'The Relevance of Intention in Argument Evaluation', Charlotte Jørgensen. In answer to your refuted claim that ”I didn't say JB could lie with impunity, ... I said he wasn't lying at all“ and ”DT “JB has never denied that he supported the military government, BUT he doesn't believe that makes him a fascist. So he wasn't lying. Simple.” Whereas intent is irrelevant the actus reus is sufficient, so both you and JB are revealed as liars.
@TH:
Feb 13th, 2019 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “What's happened have you lost your comic section?”:
Obliged not to disappoint:
https://i0.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Trabalhador-brasileiro-Governo-Bolsonaro.jpg?resize=768%2C800&ssl=1
@DT
Feb 13th, 2019 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why does Terry, the useful idiot, think I'm accountable to him, or that I give a rat's arse about his threats ?... such as “I will follow with the irrefutable evidence of the truth of the matter”...he must think they scare me.
And his obssession with contradicting everything I post ? but he seems to have accepted the title of “useful idiot” - he is wierd, acts like a stalker.
But I admire his consistency ....loads of useless insults, 'n his obssession with “sucking”...“So you're sucking in vain”, “You can keep sucking till your blue in the face”.....reckon it brings back vivid memories of his most precious moments spent with Lula, in Curitiba.
“I've told you my opinion before: I think the evidence shows...”......we might as well be discussing the sex of the angels....In retrospect, I can agree with the paranoia of a 'communist takeover' and that things might have played out differently, if allowed to...but we will never know, so we can happily go back to our own opinions and speculation - you, from yr optimistic, socialist point of view (based on later reports, with the benefit of hindsight), me from the point of view of someone who experienced it first-hand. Different experiences, different opinions.
The part “the wealthy Brazilians wanted to prevent any redistribution of land” is true, but sounds a lot like the actions of Allende-Pinochet in Chile...why REdistribute land, which presumes confiscation of land owned by others, or expropriating it for peanuts ? why not DISTRIBUTE federally-owned land (as had in fact been done by far earlier governments), considering that in 1960, there was far more of it, and the agribusiness (as known today) was non-existent ? But I suppose that was the communist way of quickly redistributing wealth....taking the fortunes of the rich, giving them to the poor, but at least when the money runs out, they'll all be equal....and poor.....except for those in government. Jango and his cronies weren't exactly altruists.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Feb 13th, 2019 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“think I'm accountable to him” That is the view of an expert Charlotte Jørgensen you moron. “He is answerable for what he has said, may be deemed to act as if he were sincere – whether he actually is sincere or not. For our purposes, it is what the speaker can be held accountable to that counts, not what he privately thinks.”
”different opinions.“ “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” Harlan Ellison
”taking the fortunes of the rich, giving them to the poor“ You really are that stupid, even prior to Allende ”50% of the children under fifteen were suffering from malnutrition. What is your solution let them starve, as it must be their own fault?
Criminals - behind bars - actually get elected?
Feb 13th, 2019 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is there something completely wrong with the Brazilian Brains or is it a part of the Culture, Mentality, Disinterest, and a total lack of seriousness?
https://i1.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Deputado-e-Suplente-presos-1.jpg?resize=768%2C585&ssl=1
“but we will never know”
Feb 13th, 2019 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0True. No one gets to find out what would have happened.
“why REdistribute land, which presumes confiscation of land owned by others, or expropriating it for peanuts ? why not DISTRIBUTE federally-owned land”
You're in a better position to know that than I am. The idea of land sitting around unused is a completely alien one to me. At a guess the land that was not already cultivated was unsuitable for farming, or only suitable with considerable investment that a small farmer could not afford (expensive irrigation works like Chicureo's avocado farm, or poor soil that needs lots of fertilisers and additives). What did they say at the time? And why do you say Jango wasn't an altruist, did he do stuff to enrich himself?
As for Terryble Terry, no doubt his obsession with sucking is some kind of repressed urge. Working through it is considered the healthy option, even if he can't get to Curitiba.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Feb 13th, 2019 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“his obsession with sucking is some kind of repressed urge”
Having never engaged in such slavish behaviour as you. I haven't ever established the attachment that you have clearly displayed. But each to his own, happy sucking.
@DemonTree
Feb 14th, 2019 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “but we will never know”
WRONG!
NOW we do know:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/least-corrupt-countries-transparency-international-2018
There's nothing slavish about pointing out your lies and stupidity, Terry Liar Hill. You are also accountable for what you say and I won't let you forget it.
Feb 14th, 2019 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Feb 14th, 2019 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0“pointing out your lies” you claim entirely imaginatively. Since you provide no evidence of such, no proof, no truth.
So besides evidence to the contrary you blindly continue to defend the object of your obsession. Accountable, I'm the only one who provides proof, as you two liars can't. Happy sucking.
My obsession? YOU are the one who promised to follow JB around, and has done so for months if not years, continually popping up with your tiresome spiel. Why ARE you so obsessed with him?
Feb 14th, 2019 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Feb 14th, 2019 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“YOU are the one who promised”
This is a public forum, and the only time I respond is when ever he posts something untrue, which is frequently. Whereas you continue your defence of him even when what he claims is patently untrue. “Why ARE you...” My interest is driven by altruism whereas yours is entirely sophism. Happy sucking.
You're completely nuts. YOU are the biggest liar on this site and you imagine you're doing some kind of public duty by repetitively posting the same debunked crap? Seriously, you need to learn to tell fantasy from reality, as well as truth from falsehood.
Feb 14th, 2019 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Feb 14th, 2019 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“the biggest liar on this site” Must be you along with your bosom pal. ”the burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not on him who denies, (since by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof). The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him. Upon the one alleging, not upon him denying, rests the duty of proving. ”
Soma's Dictionary of Latin Quotations, Maxims and Phrases: A Compendium of ...
Happy sucking.
Care for some Oranges? Pineapples, maybe?
Feb 14th, 2019 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://i2.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Partido-so-Laranja-PSL.jpg?resize=768%2C654&ssl=1
@Deeply Deluded Terry
Feb 14th, 2019 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I happened to come across this paper on the meaning of the word 'lie' while researching something else.
http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/Lie.Coleman%26Kay.pdf
Particularly relevant is their definition:
”This gives us the following definition of a 'good' lie, where the speaker (S)
asserts some proposition (P) to an addressee (A):
(1) a. P is false.
b. S believes P to be false.
c. In uttering P, S intends to deceive A.
The prototypical lie, then, is characterized by (a) falsehood, which is (b) deliberate and (c) intended to deceive.”
Now apply these to your insistence that JB is a fascist:
a) Debatable, some people might agree with you that supporting the junta makes him a fascist, but most wouldn't.
b) Nope, JB believes what he said.
c) Nope, he wasn't trying to deceive anyone.
So in fact it doesn't clearly satisfy *any* of the 3 conditions to be a lie. Note also what they say further down:
”lb (believe false) is the most important element of the prototype; lc (intent to deceive) is the next most important; and la (false in fact) is the least important“
So not only is the truth or falseness of a statement not the only requirement for calling it a lie, belief and intent are both *more* important in defining one.
Finally, you might want to ponder the relevance of this part to you:
”A frequent reason for reporting something as a lie is that we want to blame or criticize the person who said it”
If you want to criticise JB for supporting the dictatorship or anything else then have at it. You're entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else. But if you say things that are demonstrably wrong, then expect people to argue with you.
Terry, the “useless idiot”
Feb 14th, 2019 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“What is your solution let them starve, as it must be their own fault?”....no, but you could have always invited them to stay with you....Terry, your crap is always good for a laugh...
“ 'No one is entitled to be ignorant.' Harlan Ellison”....well then, why don't you educate yourself ?
Terry, referring to your obssession with sucking, please PROVE you “have never engaged in such slavish behaviour ...” It's your worthless word against Lula's.....who is the liar ? him, or you ?
Pls indicate ONE case of where I have stated something “patently untrue” - and DO NOT refer to a whole post, or to what is obviously only an opinion........select ONE lie and say where it was told. I want specifics.
Your recent lies : “Mourão in Haiti”, “Bolsonaro's wife was weak”...laughable.
DT
“ The idea of land sitting around unused is a completely alien one to me”....living in a country with a small territory, I would agree.
“At a guess the land that was not already cultivated was unsuitable for farming, or only suitable with considerable investment that a small farmer could not afford ”
Well, your guess is right...under the current concept of farming, you aren't going to get very far without investment 'n hard work.. But decades ago, how do you think small farms succeeded (well b4 the agribusiness)? someone had to invest, no one 'found' fertile land, ready to cultivate. Back then, without modern technology, productivity was very low, costs far higher. Demand is what spurred the agribusiness.
Jango was an insecure man but it was him before country. When he eventually decided against armed resistance, which had been ecouraged by his brother in law, Leonel Brizola - a communist and close friend of F. Castro (who was actually prepared to finance a guerrilla movement) - he fled to the south of Brazil where he applied for ayslum in Uruguay...his brother in law went with him, and surprise : he became of one Uruguay's largest cattle farmers.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Feb 14th, 2019 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The issue is much more concrete since you set the parameters of the requirement. Which was ”I didn't say JB could lie with impunity, ... I said he wasn't lying at all“ and “JB has never denied that he supported the military government, BUT he doesn't believe that makes him a fascist. So he wasn't lying. Simple.“ So you and he FOR OUR PURPOSES, IT IS WHAT THE SPEAKER CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THAT COUNTS, NOT WHAT HE PRIVATELY THINKS..the notion of intentionality has been challenged from various theoretical perspectives within rhetoric and argumentation.” So you can play in all the semantic kingdoms you wish but this is your words that you are relying on, that have been refuted. So in argumentation you cannot now claim a different defence of denying your own clear intent, you are bound by original claim which is kiboshed by “The Relevance of Intention in Argument Evaluation” Charlotte Jørgensen
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
“please PROVE you” There's is no requirement for me to prove a negative, you idiot. ”... not on him who denies, (since by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof). ... not upon him denying, rests the duty of proving.”
Soma's Dictionary of Latin Quotations, Maxims and Phrases: A Compendium of ...
“where I have stated something “patently untrue” Delighted to, how's these apples?
http://en.mercopress.com/2017/07/20/ex-brazilian-president-assets-and-bank-accounts-frozen/comments#comment470944
@JB
Feb 14th, 2019 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Your recent lies : “Mourão in Haiti”, “Bolsonaro's wife was weak”...laughable.”
Technically Terry wasn't lying either, just repeating other people's lies. I daresay he believed them since they confirmed what he wanted to believe.
And he doesn't educate himself because he thinks he already knows more than all the experts. Arrogant fool.
Re the farms, I've read that a lot of the interior and NE only started to be cultivated in the last few decades, as advances in technology made it feasible/profitable. I guess back in the 60s most farms were concentrated in the south of the country, and there were a lot more people in the rest of the country subsistence farming who would have benefited from owning their own land. Nowadays it would not be so practical.
“surprise : he became of one Uruguay's largest cattle farmers.”
That doesn't surprise me at all. And then he died suspiciously just before democracy was restored. I also heard that after the dictatorship Brizola vied with Lula to be the leader of the left. D'you think you'd have been better off with Brizola?
@The Dirty Liar
*This* is why I call you a liar. You pretend to care about evidence, yet when I show you a proper academic paper, written by veritable experts, you ignore it because it disagrees with you. You're a pathetic liar who will swear black is white just to avoid admitting you're wrong. You've got all the integrity of Donald Trump and none of the charm, and a deranged vole could out-think you without breaking a sweat.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Feb 14th, 2019 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“*This* is why I call you a liar” is simply a self-serving statement made by a slavish follower.
Your first statement you're bound to by law, you don't get to cherry pick. Otherwise, you are expecting that when you lose an argument, you can go back to rephrasing your argument endlessly. Legally a party is estopped from such conduct, as it is considered gross sophistry.
“In legal terms, a contradictory statement is an incompatibility and clear opposition to two ideas which are the subject of the same proposition. ... A contradictory statement made in court signifies that the person making such statement has been untruthful at some point during their account.”
The hearsay - one says “yes” the other says “no”! I didn't realize that finding concrete proofs [evidence of the calls, meetings, virtual conferences] is so difficult in Brazil:
Feb 14th, 2019 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2019/02/14/moro-disse-que-suspeitas-sobre-candidaturas-laranjas-do-psl-estao-sendo-apuradas.ghtml
@The Liar
Feb 15th, 2019 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Your first statement you're bound to by law...”
“Legally a party is estopped from such conduct...”
“In legal terms, a contradictory statement is an incompatibility and clear opposition to two ideas which are the subject of the same proposition...”
You're doing it again. We are not in a court, these rules DO NOT apply. There is nothing illegal about changing your mind, and what you say does not change reality.
Also, I have not said anything contradictory, I have provided evidence that confirms what I said before.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Feb 15th, 2019 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0“what you say does not change reality” exactly your humble opinion without support is meaningless.
”Contradictory premises involve an argument (generally considered a logical fallacy) that draws a conclusion from inconsistent or incompatible premises. Essentially, a proposition is contradictory when it asserts and denies the same thing.“
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-contrast-composition-and-rhetoric-1689798
You don't get to rely on 'intention's as an argument, then jettison it with new argument when it is defeated. It is absolutely a fallacious argument fraudulently made. As two conflicting propositions can't both be right.
”I have provided evidence that confirms what I said before. “You're a liar you have claimed a right by 'intention' and then tried to foist the disproving of it on me. Which I did successfully, ”Commodum Ex Injuria Sua Nemo ” No person ought to take advantage from his own wrong.
“He is not to be heard who alleges things contradictory to each other.” This elementary rule of logic expresses, in technical language, the saying that a man shall not be permitted to “blow hot and cold” with reference to the same transaction, or insist, at different times, on the truth of each of two conflicting allegations, according to the promptings of his private interest. en.wikiquote.org/wiki
@Illiterate idiot
Feb 15th, 2019 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do you understand English, Dumkopf?
”This gives us the following definition of a 'good' lie, where the speaker (S)
asserts some proposition (P) to an addressee (A):
(1) a. P is false.
b. S believes P to be false.
c. In uttering P, S INTENDS to deceive A.
The prototypical lie, then, is characterized by (a) falsehood, which is (b) deliberate and (c) INTENDED to deceive.”
In case you still missed it: “S INTENDS to deceive A.” ”(c) INTENDED to deceive.” That's intention, f**kface.
I am not saying anything contradictory at all. JB had no intention to deceive, and as I have said many times, he believes what he said. Therefore he was NOT lying.
@DemonTree
Feb 15th, 2019 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “JB had no intention to deceive”:
You are right if JB refers to Jack Bauer
http://www.chargeonline.com.br/php/DODIA//ribs.jpg
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Feb 15th, 2019 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Do you understand English” Do you understand a bill of goods ?(Definition of bill of goods. 2 : something intentionally misrepresented : something passed off in a deception or fraud“ which is exactly the obfuscation that you are attempting in an attempt to avoid the obvious truth. No surprise since you are judged by the company you keep, a compulsive liar.
”I am not saying anything contradictory at all“ except for JB's 'intent' and when that failed, you want a second bite of the cherries with a claim of 'semantics' which is refuted by ”The Rule against Disturbing Plain Meaning of Writings. ... doctrine that if the ordinary meaning of a word or term ... is unambiguous ... , then that meaning should be accepted.“
”JB had no intention to deceive, a ... times, he believes what he said. Therefore he was NOT lying.” That makes you both liars under the precepts of 'The Relevance of Intention in Argument Evaluation', Charlotte Jørgensen
@ :o))
Feb 15th, 2019 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Naturally. I'm not vouching for the *other* JB.
PS. I like the comments on your article. 'Partido Social Laranjas' ;)
@TrumpFace
I'll take that as a 'no' then. You're a dirty liar who pretends to respect evidence and then ignores it.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Feb 15th, 2019 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I'll take that as a ...” What is about the following fraud you don't understand?
Do you understand a bill of goods ?(Definition of bill of goods. 2 : something intentionally misrepresented : something passed off in a deception or fraud“ which is exactly the obfuscation that you are attempting in an attempt to avoid the obvious truth. No surprise since you are judged by the company you keep, a compulsive liar.
The Rule against Disturbing Plain Meaning of Writings. ... doctrine that if the ordinary meaning of a word or term ... is unambiguous ... , then that meaning should be accepted.“
”JB had no intention to deceive, a ... times, he believes what he said. Therefore he was NOT lying.” That makes you both liars under the precepts of 'The Relevance of Intention in Argument Evaluation', Charlotte Jørgensen
DT
Feb 15th, 2019 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Technically Terry wasn't lying either, just repeating other people's lies”.
You could argue that, but considering he's a perfect gentleman (?), 'n an expert on everything - or so he claims - how was he fooled by such amateurish lies, easily checked ? you could even say his lousy knowledge of Portuguese was to blame...in Mourão's case, he misinterpreted a FB post by Gen Heleno (no 'original' liar there) and in Bolsonaro's case, he misunderstood the meaning completely - but given the fact that even after being shown he was wrong, he stuck to his lies...which makes him a liar.
His “Commodum Ex Injuria Sua Nemo” (No person ought to take advantage from his own wrong), proves he believes he can set the rules, then twist them to suit his lies.
Jango had close ties to the Communist Party, but in exile he maintained a low profile, as he had no intention of bad-mouthing Brazil, and did not want to jeopardize his asylum status in MVD. (Just a quick correction : Brizola became the larger of the two cattle farmers). Jango died in 76 (in Corrientes/ Argentine province bordering Uruguay 'n RS), officially of a heart attack. His family refused to allow an autopsy to be done, however, expressed their conviction he had been poisoned....very strange behaviour if they believed he'd been murdered... IMO, they just wanted to spread a theory which would not be disproved.
In 2013, Dilma's Commission of Truth decided to exume the body, to discover the cause of death. A forensic team of Argentines, Uruguayans, and 'Cubans' (large experience with this type of cause of death) performed the autopsy, which was inconclusive. So much for 'suspicious'...
In '85, many in exile returned, incldg Brizola....'better off with him, or Lula' ? Considering that Lula inherently was not a communist, but a populist who used leftist speech to reach power (once in, his 'ideology' became corruption), 'n Brizola being a declared communist, perhaps Lula was less harmful than Brizola would've been.
@DemonTree
Feb 15th, 2019 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apart from meat, soya, coffee, etc; looks like Brazil would earn enormous amount of Foreign Exchange; in case of the Orange-Exports [or maybe, by the Technology-Transfer of “How to be an Orange”].
https://i2.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/adnael-8.jpg?w=641&ssl=1
BESIDES, THE UNEMPLOYMENT TOO CAN GREATLY BE REDUCED; BY DECLARING “BEING ORANGES” AS A NOBLE OFFICIAL PROFESSION!
@JB
Feb 15th, 2019 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“even after being shown he was wrong, he stuck to his lies...which makes him a liar”
True. I think he's mostly deluded and convinces himself of his own lies, but his essential dishonesty is obvious in how he keeps insisting on his mistakes after being proved wrong 1000 times, and holds others top standards he ignores for himself.
“in exile he maintained a low profile, as he had no intention of bad-mouthing Brazil, and did not want to jeopardize his asylum status in MVD”
Makes sense. And his death could have been a coincidence, who knows. I also looked up what happened to Jânio Quadros, and apparently after democracy was restored he was elected mayor of São Paulo again. I'm surprised he dared to show his fact after all the trouble he set off, let alone got elected again. Brazil is weird.
If Brizola had ideas like Chavez it could have been pretty disastrous. But I wonder if he was really still a communist by 1985 (and years farming cattle)? Dilma and many of the PT were communists during the dictatorship, but had given it up by the time they were elected. Anyway Lula was a trade union leader and was more popular with his humble background.
Still, it seems strange that Brizola didn't put himself forward more as a leader early on, as Jango seems to have been pretty weak.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Feb 15th, 2019 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“you could even say his lousy knowledge ” You say a lot things which are mostly untrue. I found out where that journalist's reliance on a badly written and misleading source originated from. So I didn't misinterpret anything, the journalist I quoted did, you moron.
“Being shown he was wrong, he stuck to his lies” That is simply untrue since I tracked down the original misleading publication, which got past a professional writer. As he hadn't provided a citation, I assumed that as a Brazilian journalist he was writing from personal knowledge.
So your claim of “from his own wrong” is patently false. Like the following: “Jango had close ties to the Communist Party” Which absolutely and knowingly untrue. In fact “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]. ”[Brazil identfies itself] with the democratic principles which unite the peoples of the West“ but is ”not part of any politico-military bloc“. speech to US Congress, New York Times 4/5/62. He further angers the US by populist social reforms, although these are pitifully mild. As Goulart pointed out, General Douglas MacArthur had carried out a more radical distribution of land in Japan after WW II than anything planned in Brazil. He is labeled ”dictatorial” for his appeals to the population over the heads of a hostile Congress and state governors (something Reagan later did on several occasions).” Brazil: How We Invent Communists Threats
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~
Lulla - Going, Going, GONE!
Feb 16th, 2019 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://i1.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/imperio.jpg?w=650&ssl=1
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Feb 16th, 2019 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“he keeps insisting on” Says the self-serving purveyor of deliberate fraud.
DT
Feb 16th, 2019 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Regarding Brizola, IMO, 'once a communist, always a communist (at heart). Brizola was a pretty eloquent speaker, but his radical rhetoric did not change, nor worked.
“and years farming cattle”....it's funny you didn't question 'how' he became a large cattle farmer ....with stolen public funds...one thing most Brazilian politicians have in common, besides lying to the public, is their love for money.
Brizola was no different.
“Dilma and many of the PT were communists during the dictatorship, but had given it up by the time they were elected”.
Sure, but when the ex-“freedom”-fighters and exiled politicians joined the PT and other parties (further left), after 1985, they may have disguised their convictions, toned down their rhetoric, but deep down nothing changed. Must've realized, as you said, it was necessary to get elected.
“...strange that Brizola didn't put himself forward more as a leader early on...”
I think Brizola was content to be 'de-facto' nº 2, manipulating Jango.
Terry, the useful idiot
There was nothing to misinterpret in Gen. Heleno's FB post...it was published “ipsis litteris”, there was no journalist 'inbetween' to get things wrong...you did that, all by yourself....then, kept on insisting you were right. Same with Bolsonaro's wife...face it, you LIAR..
Paraphrasing a 'useful idiot', you “can suck until you are blue in the face”, but it won't help.
Do you really think that writing 20 lines of BS to support your twisted narrative makes it any more convincing ? Moron !
You have been exposed for the compulsive liar that you are...(where have I heard that crap b4 ?)
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Feb 16th, 2019 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“There was nothing to misinterpret” If that was true you would be able to provide the evidence. No proof, no truth. But, in the meantime your well deserved reputation precedes your claim.
”You say a lot things which are mostly untrue. JB “where I have stated something “patently untrue” Delighted to, how's these apples?
http://en.mercopress.com/2017/07/20/ex-brazilian-president-assets-and-bank-accounts-frozen/comments#comment470944
@JB
Feb 16th, 2019 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“once a communist, always a communist”
I don't believe that's true at all. Some people never change, but others change their opinions quite drastically as they grow older. Think of religious people who become atheists or vice-versa. And besides that, lots of people are radical in their youth but mellow with age. I think the PT changed not just to get elected, but also because they had realised by then that some of their ideas weren't practical, or were impossible to accomplish, so they became more realistic.
Re Brizola, maybe he did want to be the power behind the throne. I had assumed he and Jango were already relatively wealthy before their exile, since most politicians back then seemed to be. Just checked Wikipedia, it says:
“In 1950, Brizola married Neusa Goulart—João Goulart's sister—and had Vargas as his best man. Through this marriage, Brizola became a wealthy landowner and a regional leader of the PTB.”
And later:
“Brizola spent the first ten years of the Brazilian military dictatorship mostly alone in Uruguay, where he managed his wife's landed property”
It also claims he was a 'non-Marxist Left nationalist' and vice-president of Socialist international. Curiously, self-proclaimed president of Venezuela Juan Guaido's party is also a member of this organisation, although I don't suppose Guiado himself follows too many of their tenets.
Looks like Brizola only survived his exile because Jimmy Carter changed US policy towards Latin America.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!