Cheat Sheet

The library needs your support badly. You need to read some books quick, fast and in a hurry. Did you learn nothing in the last 8 years of how defeating ignorance can be?

Joking Khrish-
Just joking.

www.cia.gov Ask them

It's called history.

Co sign

Oh I see. You mean Obama believes that there is nothing the US can do in these situations, just cut the best deal with whatever strongman is in power.

No trying to influence an outcome just accepting the ascendancy of a Muslim Theocracy despite much evidence to the contrary?...oh woe is me...

but in the case of Honduras, a democratically elected President who is trying to alter the constitution so he can be President for life, well darn that's worth the USA hanging it all out there for!

I mean if a President here tried something like that, you know, after influencing the census, and getting a few million folks made citizens that would vote his way, we wouldn't want our congress and judiciary acting in a similar fashion...can you imagine?

Yeah, I guess I do understand his outrage now that you've made me consider it.

Whew, Rita.
So all that change talk was just campaign talk. I'm glad he firmly believes in maintaining the status quo, rather than taking any risks for a better future.
Keep the mullahs in power, keep the it all static and cut deals.

we'll see if it works

So your saying term limits are bad? or what?
or Having the military run voting is good or having polls where you threaten a voter if they don't poll your way is good?


There were few facts in this point so it's hard to gauge between all the "i thinks" and "probablies".

The Honduran constitution was written by their wealthy elite in the way it is specifically so that no leftist radical would be allowed to serve in office long enough to make any meaningful changes to the social order. No constitution that's more than a joke doesn't allow the president to serve more than one term.

Why is one term a joke but limiting to two ok?

Wow, SR

So, according to your reasoning. As long as the Supreme Court and Legislature are wealthy, it is OK to disregard the constitution...interesting.

I'd say that is a bad position to take, but that is just me.

Akcita:

No, but that sure is a nice straw man you just constructed. If you would read the rest of my sentence you'd find it also said "specifically so that no leftist radical would be allowed to serve in office long enough to make any meaningful changes to the social order."

But have fun beating on your straw man.

JStodola:

Well for one thing I didn't say a two-term limit was an absolute must, maybe three. If someone is elected to three terms does that somehow negate the fact that they have gotten elected three times? In any case the point is that a president being restricted to one term is far too short an amount of time for radical changes to be made really permanent and that's precisely the way the Honduran elite wants it. Which is why they wouldn't even allow a non-binding referendum on the idea of amending the constitution.

I so wish there was an edit function.

Compare his statements, go ahead. Go look at his words. They are public domain.

He automatically sided, very forcefully, with a President that was setting himself up as a socialist despot, against the Supreme Court and Legislature, and Constitution of Honduras(Both sides are mangling the Constitution)

There was no "wait and see how this turns out" with the Hondurans. To say that the sentiments expressed were even close in tone or timing is self delusional.

I did not realize that the impeachment articles in the Constitution could be voided by the military.

Hit em where it hurts squig.

Zing!

Nothing hurts worse then a mirror...

No the people in Honduras do not support his "Poll". They were being intimidated into voting a certain way. This is what he was trying to get the Military to do as part of the Vote Polling team.

Hey great little reform have guys with rifles be part of the voting establishment. Don't let facts get in the way squig, just keep rolling.

True, but that is what everyone is referring to it as. A coup...

There is a reason that Socialism is wanted - The elites forgot the math of one man one vote. Maybe a rural school or highway or hospital or higher wages at Chiquita Banana (how much do we pay per pound?) might have stopped his election in the first place. What were the parameters of the poll? Was it a telephone poll in the military barracks or one you just liked the results of? I also travel in the area and realize there are a lot of problems that could come to haunt us. Ooops, they are already crossing our border to get jobs.

Indeed, there is is very leftist tinge in the reporting that is troubling. The fundamental lack of objectivity by anyone other than drudge ( and he went in the other direction a bit). The media is actively distorting this for their circulation or for an unknown agenda.

lablahlablah
friendly - are you ignorant or just uninformed? there was no military coup...the military is not ruling anything - the government in Honduras removed the socialist president according to their laws - the people of Honduras do not want socialism
------------

Actually, the person replacing Zelaya is from his same leftist party (it's the Speaker of Congress). Zelaya had managed to piss off both friends and enemies. I don't blame the military and congress for their actions but I think the smarter (and more democratic) thing to do was to STOP the voting. Close all polling centers, shread the ballots, then hold an impeachment trial for the president. Impeach him and throw him out on his butt. Kidnapping him at gun point and flying him out of the country is extreme and undemocratic.

Zelaya had already changed it from a referendum to a poll. Ergo, he did nothing wrong.

Officers of the United States swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. That does not give them the right to decide that President Bush is a knucklehead, and needs to be removed.

Josh, Officers swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution. If our President tried to hold a plebiscite that would make him "El Presidente for life" and our Supreme Court Ruled it illegal, and Congress Said it was not supporting such a vote (e.g. an amendment), and then The Pres. Goes to the Military and tries to get them to do the election for him.

When the Military supports the constitution according to their oath and defer, he fires their Chief and tries to storm the Base where the ballots are held with a mob.

The only difference at this point is that hopefully in our Country Impeachment proceding would start.

In their country they arrested him and sent him away for awhile.

I still do not understand Obama's outrage. It is odd.

"Officers of the United States swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. That does not give them the right to decide that President Bush is a knucklehead, and needs to be removed."

True enough. But, we're not talking about the United States. We're talking about Honduras where, unlike the United States, the military does have a direct constitutional role in the politics of the country.

ROTFLMAO.....

Dear, it wasn't Harvard, it was U of Chicago...
Where he was, year after year, the most popular teachers,
and which is the top right-wing law school in America.

Josh-
He taught Constitutional Law at U of Chicago
Harvard was where he was merely
President of the Law Review.
I do apologize
Dear.

It might truly be funny if it wasn't for the 5% of the cases that he wants ruled not by law, but by emotion and compassion.

This is a slippery slope that leads to arbitrary decisions, and undermines the very system of rules that you profess him to be expert in.

Yo'bama taught Honduran Constitutional Law at the U of Chitown?
No wonder he picked a Honduran to be one of the Supremes.

You call it kidnap, here in the USA we call it arrest.

The impediment is their Constitution which disallows amendments to the presidential term limits, as well as the amendment process. Under their constitution there is no legal means to change the presidential term limit.

Galeso and JStodlola:

Ever heard the expression "You can't see the forest for (because of) the trees"? It was a non-binding referendum. It was a vote to see if the public supported the idea of changing their right-wing constitution that was written in the interests of the Honduran wealthy in 1982, written in such a way that it makes it next to impossible for any leftist radical to effect real changes to the one-sided social order. It desperately needs to be changed and that is a decision for the Honduran people, not the Honduran oligarchy.

The wealthy wouldn't allow even this non-binding referendum because it would then be Exhibit A in the case for actually changing it because it would showcase that it's supported by a majority of Hondurans. Rather than allow Zelaya this leverage the military on behalf of the Honduran bourgeoisie intervened and kidnapped (yes Galeso, if the military came and took you in your pajamas at gunpoint and forcibly kept you in Costa Rica because you wanted a non-binding vote I think you'd see it as being kidnapped) the elected president, making it obvious which side would have won the referendum. Here's a hint: It wouldn't be the side kidnapping people in their pajamas.

Iran is politically more complicated and you know it. In order to support the reform movement we have to be QUIET. The louder we squawk the more we empower the hard-liners and the less likely a positive outcome will be.

Hawnz, that is bullsh*t.

Saying that being quiet is helping is great. I think Obama needs to help the Gay community the same way.
No don't give heart to the gay people that are in the closet, so they feel empowered to come out in the open. Just stay quiet.....shhhhhhhh!

Likewise, don't give heart to the Iranian people, not discussing democracy, but discussing the oppression they are experiencing and what Islam says about it.

Silence does nothing for them, and there are plenty of things we can do to assist.

Honestly, geeks with Twitter and TOR have done more for Iran than Obama.

Zelaya was calling a non-binding referendum to let the PEOPLE OF EFFING HONDURAS decide whether or not the constitution should be amended to allow presidents to run for reelection. Not crowning himself emperor OK? What is so hard to understand about this situation?

1.The constitution of Honduras is a joke. It was written by the Honduran wealthy elite in their own interest so that leftist radicals wouldn't be allowed to be in office longer than one term, so in other words not long enough to be able to effect real meaningful changes to their way of life, not long enough to radically change the status quo. A constitution that doesn't even allow a president to run for reelection is a worthless piece of s**t that should have been flushed long, long ago.

2.It was NON-binding. Though it could and certainly would have been used as leverage and understandably so to try to effect an ACTUAL amendment to their constitution since it would show that the Honduran people are in favor of the amendment, the referendum that was prevented by the coup would have itself not been "changing the constitution" in one fell swoop.

3.The Honduran elite was so scared however of even allowing THIS measure and knew which way it would come out (not the way the elite wanted) that they engineered a coup to depose Zelaya before the referendum could have been held. You surely are not some dumbass who can't figure out that Zelaya would have won the referendum are you? Otherwise the military would have sat there and let it be played out in the voting booths, not intervened. This is literally common sense.

So you and everyone else here supporting this horridly anti-democratic action against the democratically elected president of Honduras are doing so certainly against the will of the Honduran people or else this wouldn't be a thread because there wouldn't have been a coup. Zelaya would have lost the referendum and that would have been the end of it. Instead, because he would have obviously won, the Honduran oligarchy decided it had no other choice but to oust him militarily rather than let him get that enormous leverage of having proof that the Honduran people are on his side in favor of amending the constitution. You are supporting the side that would have lost the referendum and instead decided to use the fascist method of launching a coup to prevent the decision at the ballot box.

From the stories from the people fo Honduras they are not sad to see him go. Where is anything other than a token protest by his most partisan supporters...

"Despite the international outrage, Honduran politicians, business leaders, most communications media and a substantial part of the population have applauded Zelaya's overthrow." from ABS-CBN News

I am certain of only one thing. Not too many people on this side of the Rio Grande know crap about what the people of Honduras think.

I guess out constitution is a joke then. It was written by the wealthy elite of our nation with similar elitist features. Funny, it has worked for 220 years pretty well with minor modifications such as term limits.

He was known to have used intimidation to get poll results he wanted. Using government oversight as a weapon of influence to threaten shutting various businesses down. Oh yeah, those business men are elitists they don't matter....right...

You seem to be searching for reasons to justify this guy to stay in power. Perhaps two terms instead of one or extending the term to 6 years isn't unreasonable, but it will require the people of Honduras to show their unhappiness rather than the machinations of Mr. Zelaya. He is as much to blame as the Legislature and Supreme Court.

His actions are consistent with other Chavezista Leaders. There is much for the country to be concerned about.

Akcita:

Well let's use plain old deductive reasoning OK? If Zelaya would NOT have been a shoo-in for winning this referendum then it's common sense that the Honduran military acting as the enforcer for their elite puppetmasters would have sat there and let his referendum fail. That would have caused no stink at all and would have showed every Honduran that Zelaya didn't have popular support for amending the constitution.

Instead what happened? The elite felt so threatened and was so desperate that they took the absolute worst-looking option in terms of P.R. and decided they had no choice but to use the military to physically depose this guy and exile him to Costa Rica rather than let the referendum be held. Even though it was a NON-BINDING referendum. Meaning it could not have DIRECTLY been used to change anything. The threat to the establishment was in the LEVERAGE that said referendum would have provided, meaning that it would have been Exhibit A in Zelaya's case to change the constitution. But they wouldn't even allow that to take place. What does this tell anyone capable of using their natural common sense? It tells one that the vote would have come out for Zelaya, for amending their right-wing constitution, NOT the other way. Otherwise nothing would have happened beyond a referendum that failed. This is exceedingly simple to figure out.

And you are acting like this guy was crowning himself emperor. He patently was not. What he was doing was gauging the public's support for changing the constitution. What does that tell you when the Honduran bourgeoisie was too scared to even allow THAT?

Regarding their piece of s**t constitution versus America's constitution, show me in the (U.S.) constitution where it ever said that the president can only serve one term. It was unlimited until Franklin Roosevelt died of natural causes in office before being able to finish his fourth term. Yes the constitution of the U.S. has been amended repeatedly and this is precisely what I'm saying. How many coups in America have resulted from amending it or from even taking the public's pulse regarding amending it? Could you picture for example an American president deciding that he wants a non-binding referendum put before the American electorate to gauge their support for amending some part of the constitution to repeal an amendment or a provision in it and getting overthrown by the military for calling a non-binding referendum on the subject? That's absurd.

Anyway, though the U.S. constitution is far from perfect (and yes, it too was written by the bourgeosie in this country) it is a world apart in terms of being reasonable from the Honduran toilet paper "constitution". Yes, it does have some anti-democratic measures written into it (the Electoral College, the Senate etc.) but at least it doesn't restrict a president to a single term so that it makes it impossible for any meaningful changes to be made permanent. You are determined to paint this Zelaya character as some kind of Josef Stalin in microcosm and the jackbooted fascists who overthrew him as some kind of heroes to democracy and it just isn't happening. He's a democratically elected national leader who got overthrown by his country's military for having the audacity to present a threat to the Honduran wealthy by trying to take a non-binding poll of popular support for changing their oligarch-oriented right-wing "constitution". Smother it in however much lipstick you want but it's still a fascist pig of a situation when you have a freely-elected president tossed out by his military for wanting a non-binding poll to be held.

"Obviously Zelaya would have won..."

An significant leap in thought. So, the military says no, we are not going to go around and "poll" anyone with military personnel. Prez Z fires that guy and then takes a mb/group of his supporters to try to break into the base where ballots are held using force....

What crap. If our President did this kind of thing, they would start drafting articles of impeachment.

You are intent on turning the issue into some sort of class warfare example rather than focusing on what Z-man did, and the rest of the Governments response to it.

At least you are a consistent in your "Down with the Bourgeiousie!!!!" comments.

Akcita:

Well it's pretty damned apparent that Zelaya's side WOULD have won or else there wouldn't have been a coup right before the referendum. This is literally common sense. Otherwise the elite would have let him have his referendum/poll/whatever and let him fail.

What you can't seem to get is that it was a NON-binding referendum as in whatever the results were it wasn't something that was going to make Zelaya president for life and wasn't something that would have even enabled him to run for another term. What it would have done is provided Zelaya with great leverage to show that the Honduran electorate wants to change their lousy constitution, something that the elite wouldn't allow. So he was overthrown. Pretty simple.

Regarding having soldiers intimidate people to vote for him at gunpoint as you said earlier, I don't know who is filling your head with such ridiculous propaganda s**t but use your brain please: Zelaya obviously did NOT have the support of the military or else they wouldn't have let themselves be used as tools of the elite to overthrow him. I don't see how he would have been able to have the military intimidate voters to vote his way. He was anyway fairly elected in a real, democratic election where the voters had a genuine choice (something we don't see in American elections which amount to "pick your favorite neo-conservative puppet") and this referendum would have simply given him leverage, not any legal right to run for reelection. But the elite and its military wouldn't even allow that.

By the way the guy he fired was a graduate of America's torture school like so many Latin American military officers. In any case, what he did was nothing that would be considered unconstitutional in any country with a real constitution instead of one written by the oligarchy intent on maintaining the status quo at all costs.

What happened is precisely what the framers of the Honduran constitution in 1982 wanted: That no president would be able to be in office long enough to effect real changes to the social order. I'm not "turning it into some sort of class warfare example". It is what it is, a great example of what happens when some countries' elites get nervous about radical politicians and get desperate enough to take the jackbooted fascist route. It isn't like this is the first time a military has overthrown an elected president of a Latin American country because he was a large threat to the bourgeoisie's way of life.

You make statement like "it is Apparent" and then produce no reports or facts, or anything at all.

You are a master of empty conjecture.

You want to believe this is the Bolshevik revolution ala Honduras, so you imprint it over the top of this and have no real incidents to speak of.

My comments were based on news reports from the country. You seem to get yours straight from your backside.

Can I review your argument:

The constitution was written by elitists therefore:

The President's efforts to have a plebiscite without the consent of the legislature was okay, and taking a mob to break in and steal the balloting materials was also OK.

Although, news is reporting that the majority of Hondurans are happy to see him gone, the majority of Hondurans would have voted with him.

Although news and blogs from Honduras indicate the President engaged in coercion through his operatives in local government offices to influence voting, this isn't a problem.

I really don't dismiss these things as easily as you do. I understand the method of removal raises a heck of a lot of questions, but the way you dismiss all his violations as immaterial makes no sense to me.