Lucky Honduras

[Censored by Laurie]

Also like to take this delay to thank Chipotle for bringing us food. Remember, if you need a good burrito fast, make it Chipotle!

And an advisory, CaribbeanGreen will be making an ppearance at the Wendy's at 114 and William D. Tate from noon to 2 on Satuday...get your Frosty coupons

[Green P1]

Does eulesseagle make your active posting Mt. Rushmore? Your voice counts here people!

He definitely advances in my bracket.

[Quoner]

He definitely advances in my bracket.

Ben and Skin reference? Too soon.

[eulesseagle]

Got to agree with those who say that there are "fringe" elements on boths sides, conservative and liberal. IMHO, what we, as a nation, are witnessing now is a greater pursuit of polarization of the culture....that is to say fewer independents. With the massive push of stimulus packages and trillions of spending there will be those who say this is for the betterment of the country because of equality and those who say this is a massive attempt for socialism. With the heated issues, and I emphasize heated issues, are we really going to change the minds of those who already have their minds, emphatically, made up? No. It is paramont to stealing someone's green cool aid.

We all know where everyone stands on the issues on this board, right or wrong.....ooooops.....i mean everyone is right.

I am one of those who cling to religion and guns......Christian Conservative. I even have an old Berry Goldwater sign, framed, in my livingroom.....imagine that.

I disagree, sometimes, emphatically with those who "can not" or "will not" support their position with some form of intellegent commentary instead of trite phrasiology.

Personally, I would, still, like to hear from any liberal how they support the massive trillion dollar stimulus. Geeeze....we have heard the conservative side.

[Censored by Laurie]

VSBB?

[CMJ]

Barry Goldwater probably wouldn't even be at home in todays Republican Party Eueless. He was arguably more in line with the Libertarian movement.

[Quoner]

VSBB?

Courage.

And, to be fair - points to ee. That was a good, measured normal response that did not live up to it's preceding shenanigans. More of that; less of the loss of free elections.

[UNT90]

So where is the parallel then to the US military and the Honudran military. Lets presume that the Honduran military was justified in what it did, how would the US military be justified in doing the same? How has Obama done anything that paralleled what the Honduran President attempted to do?

Darn right I would be mad if there wasn't a preaceful transfer of power after an election in our Country - nothing, I repeat nothing has happened that indicates that wouldn't happen. I really thing people like the poster who started this thread have gone far of the deep end with this stuff...just like those "Loose Change" people did after 9-11.

And going overboard the other way helps things?

The Honduran government (on whom's orders the military acted upon) is simply attempting to enforce their own constitution. We should not be alligning ourselves with the likes of Chavez and the Castros.

[Censored by Laurie]

And going overboard the other way helps things?

The Honduran government (on whom's orders the military acted upon) is simply attempting to enforce their own constitution. We should not be alligning ourselves with the likes of Chavez and the Castros.

Ohhh...you mean the vote that completely exlcuded Zelaya's party?

And again, we're alligning ourselves with the opinion of the U.N. and of Honduras's neighbors. The fact that Chavez and Castro happen to agree is pure happenstance

[UNT90]

Ohhh...you mean the vote that completely exlcuded Zelaya's party?

And again, we're alligning ourselves with the opinion of the U.N. and of Honduras's neighbors. The fact that Chavez and Castro happen to agree is pure happenstance

Which would have voted to violate the constitution? So, lets say that would have happened with Reagan, and the Republicans decided to violate the constitution and allow Reagan to run again, would that be OK simply because he was popular?

No, it wouldn't have been. But then again, Reagan didn't want to be a dictator.

I would think you would be in favor of not getting in another country's business?

Edited July 14, 2009 by UNT90

[meangreenacct]

Which would have voted to violate the constitution? So, lets say that would have happened with Reagan, and the Republicans decided to violate the constitution and allow Reagan to run again, would that be OK simply because he was popular?

No, it wouldn't have been. But then again, Reagan didn't want to be a dictator.

I would think you would be in favor of not getting in another country's business?

Saying you disagree with something is not saying you want to get in another Country's business.

[FirefightnRick]

How bout take the word of someone who is currently reporting from Honduras?

Dennis Prager: Why I came to Honduras?

I wonder how many people who bother to read the news – as opposed to only listen to or watch news reports – know:

Zelaya was plotting a long-term, possibly lifetime, takeover of the Honduran government through illegally changing the Honduran Constitution.

Zelaya had personally led a mob attack on a military facility to steal phony "referendum" ballots that had been printed by the Venezuelan government.

Weeks earlier, in an attempt to intimidate the Honduran attorney general – as reported by The Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady, one of the only journalists in the world who regularly reports the whole story about Honduras – "some 100 agitators, wielding machetes, descended on the attorney general's office. 'We have come to defend this country's second founding,' the group's leader reportedly said. 'If we are denied it, we will resort to national insurrection.'"

No member of the military has assumed a position of power as a result of the "military coup."

Zelaya's own party, the Liberal Party, supported his removal from office and deportation from Honduras.

The Liberal Party still governs Honduras.

The United States is threatening to suspend all aid to one of the three poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere in order to force that country – against its own laws and with the inevitable violence it would entail – to allow Zelaya back as president.

Yet, no Honduran I talked to said he or she wanted Honduras to cave in to the American financial threat. "We will tighten our belts," one man struggling to make a living told me. Indeed, what is happening is that Hondurans are coming to realize that American aid – even purely humanitarian aid – comes with strings.

Rick

[emmitt01]

How bout take the word of someone who is currently reporting from Honduras?

Dennis Prager: Why I came to Honduras?

Rick

So, you're saying that a radio host/"reporter" who is about as far right as they come has a spin on the situation that is counter to our President? Say it aint so.

[CaribbeanGreen]

And an advisory, CaribbeanGreen will be making an ppearance at the Wendy's at 114 and William D. Tate from noon to 2 on Satuday...get your Frosty coupons

Well, at least that gets me out of this wedding. whew. I love Frosties. The original kind, not all the fancy new ones. And Honduras. Went to Gumbalimba Park in Roatan once, what a great day that was. Only thing that might have made it better was a Frosty. The original kind, not a fancy new one.

Oh well. Keep your ears listening to hot political talk!

[eulesseagle]

So, you're saying that a radio host/"reporter" who is about as far right as they come has a spin on the situation that is counter to our President? Say it aint so.

emmitt, i am sure (hopefully) you "jest" about the affairs of Honduras and the stance that bho and hrc took.

[UNT90]

So, you're saying that a radio host/"reporter" who is about as far right as they come has a spin on the situation that is counter to our President? Say it aint so.

The military acted on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court to remove Zeyala from power. So let see, the President attempts to illegally remain in power, congress says no, the supreme court orders the military to act. The military, following orders from the legitimate government, removes the President from power and exiles him to another country, also ordered by the Supreme Court. I hope this country has the stomach to do this same thing if this situation ever applied.

And we choose to side with the President that broke the law and attempted to destroy his country's constitution. This country is a democracy that was standing up to remain a democracy, and we abandon them.

Emmitt, nice of you to ignore the reporting by the Wall Street Journalist reporter that was also quoted in Rick's post. Are they now a "Nutty right wing" publication also?

It seems no one on here forms any opinion for themselves and just cheers away for their political affiliation.

Edited July 15, 2009 by UNT90

[Censored by Laurie]

The military acted on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court to remove Zeyala from power. So let see, the President attempts to illegally remain in power, congress says no, the supreme court orders the military to act. The military, following orders from the legitimate government, removes the President from power and exiles him to another country, also ordered by the Supreme Court. I hope this country has the stomach to do this same thing if this situation ever applied.

And we choose to side with the President that broke the law and attempted to destroy his country's constitution. This country is a democracy that was standing up to remain a democracy, and we abandon them.

Emmitt, nice of you to ignore the reporting by the Wall Street Journalist reporter that was also quoted in Rick's post. Are they now a "Nutty right wing" publication also?

It seems no one on here forms any opinion for themselves and just cheers away for their political affiliation.

You keep calling this a political affiliation issue, but I just don't see it. The issue at hand is not the Zelaya's actions, but rather how they were handled. I said before that this is a much larger issue than one Central American leader whose name was known by nobody before this whole thing went down. It is about stabilzation efforts in an area of the world who for the past 50 years has seen the bulk of their transfers of power come through acts of force. Nobody has come out waving their giant Zelaya flag and calling him a hero. The attempt is to send the message that coups will not be tolerated...and their results not legitimized.

I also love the constant association of Obama and Chavez on this issue...yet mentions of France, Spain, England, the U.N. and all of Honduras's neighbors are just ignored. The world doesn't recognize this is a legitimate change in power...yet some Op-Ed guy does so should Obama lest he be in bed with Latin American Communists.

[hickoryhouse]

The military acted on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court to remove Zeyala from power. So let see, the President attempts to illegally remain in power, congress says no, the supreme court orders the military to act. The military, following orders from the legitimate government, removes the President from power and exiles him to another country, also ordered by the Supreme Court. I hope this country has the stomach to do this same thing if this situation ever applied.

And we choose to side with the President that broke the law and attempted to destroy his country's constitution. This country is a democracy that was standing up to remain a democracy, and we abandon them.

First, This will NEVER be an issue in this country. Our government, however fractured at the moment, is much to strong and the will of the people is to great to let this happen. Our government, whether justified or not, is an example for many developing democracies in the world and I feel that it will remain as such. To suggest that the current administration would leverage their power in an unconstitutional coup is labeling our president as treasonous when no such action has occurred. Pretty reminiscent of the other side screaming and crying that George W Bush was treasonous in his actions involving the war and 9/11 when no illegal or treasonous actions have been proven.

Let's slow our roll a little bit when throwing around accusations of such a high crime as treason. I do not agree with much of what the administration is doing, and I don't agree with much of what the previous administration was doing in the latter parts of its tenure. The fact of the matter is that I do believe that both of them have the best interest of the country in mind when making their decisions. There are probably ulterior motives involved as well but on the whole they feel like what they are doing, have done, is for the betterment of the country as a whole in each leader's opinion.

As to the Military following the Supreme Court's ruling in Honduras I think the same would probably hapen here. In this country the Military swears in with the following:

The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees):

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The Oath of Office (for officers):

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance tot he same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

No where in there does it mention swearing allegiance to the Commander and Chief. It does mention obeying the orders of the Commander and Chief for enlisted men, but the same can not be said for the officers. Our Military is here to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that would include a sitting president trying to overthrow our government in a Honduras style coup.

[UNT90]

First, This will NEVER be an issue in this country.

How many previous democracies thought this same thing. Never say never. I don't see it happeneing, but no one can predict future events. Forms of government have come and gone throughout history, usually not lasting as long as we have.

And where in my post did I suggest that Pres. Obama would do this?? Man, it wasn't that long, please read it.

Edited July 15, 2009 by UNT90

[UNT90]

You keep calling this a political affiliation issue, but I just don't see it. The issue at hand is not the Zelaya's actions, but rather how they were handled. I said before that this is a much larger issue than one Central American leader whose name was known by nobody before this whole thing went down. It is about stabilzation efforts in an area of the world who for the past 50 years has seen the bulk of their transfers of power come through acts of force. Nobody has come out waving their giant Zelaya flag and calling him a hero. The attempt is to send the message that coups will not be tolerated...and their results not legitimized.

I also love the constant association of Obama and Chavez on this issue...yet mentions of France, Spain, England, the U.N. and all of Honduras's neighbors are just ignored. The world doesn't recognize this is a legitimate change in power...yet some Op-Ed guy does so should Obama lest he be in bed with Latin American Communists.

This is not a straight military coup where the military deposes (read: murders) the sitting president and then the leader of the military takes power. This was the military acting on orders by the legitimate government powers. No military leaders have assumed any positions of power inside the government. Would it have been better for the police to arrest him and hold him in country for trial? Yes. But that may not have been practical, considering the political climate inside the country.

I really don't base my opinions on what other organizations or countries have to say. They only have our best interest at heart when it coincides with their best interest.

[eulesseagle]

You keep calling this a political affiliation issue, but I just don't see it. The issue at hand is not the Zelaya's actions, but rather how they were handled. I said before that this is a much larger issue than one Central American leader whose name was known by nobody before this whole thing went down. It is about stabilzation efforts in an area of the world who for the past 50 years has seen the bulk of their transfers of power come through acts of force. Nobody has come out waving their giant Zelaya flag and calling him a hero. The attempt is to send the message that coups will not be tolerated...and their results not legitimized.

I also love the constant association of Obama and Chavez on this issue...yet mentions of France, Spain, England, the U.N. and all of Honduras's neighbors are just ignored. The world doesn't recognize this is a legitimate change in power...yet some Op-Ed guy does so should Obama lest he be in bed with Latin American Communists.

What do you exactly mean that, "The world doesn't recognize this is a legitimate change in power.....??? You are going have to show me some articles on what countries said that this was not legitimate. Was not Zelaya trying to install himself for a "third term" when the Honduran Constitution only allows "two?"

[Censored by Laurie]

What do you exactly mean that, "The world doesn't recognize this is a legitimate change in power.....??? You are going have to show me some articles on what countries said that this was not legitimate. Was not Zelaya trying to install himself for a "third term" when the Honduran Constitution only allows "two?"

First no...he was trying to RUN for a second term when the constitution allows for one.

And...from a source that I know you'd have to lend credibility towards:

Der Spiegel

Since then, international condemnation of the coup has been fairly unanimous. Micheletti has not been recognized, various South American states have withdrawn diplomatic staff and halted trade. The United Nations has called for "a reinstatement of the democratically elected representatives of the country," the European Union wants to see "a swift return to constitutional normality" and the US, which has strong military ties with Honduras, has also weighed in. Barack Obama has urged that Honduras "respect the rule of law," saying the coup sets a "terrible precedent."

[CaribbeanGreen]

And...from a source that I know you'd have to lend credibility towards:

Now THAT'S a COMEDY coup d'etat I can get behind! A tip o' the cap to you, good man.

[eulesseagle]

First no...he was trying to RUN for a second term when the constitution allows for one.

And...from a source that I know you'd have to lend credibility towards:

Der Spiegel

Der Spiegel is a conservative rag out of Germany as much as The Times and Telegraph are to England. Yes, I do read Der Spiegel along with the London Times, The (London)Telegraph, Pravda, Moscow Times, Moscow.Com, Red Pepper(socialist), Socialist Worker, a couple of rags out of Isreal and a few other places. I will read them daily......BTW.....does that freighten you that I don't mind reading such a varied set of material???

I have also read, I.V. Lenin, Marx, Alinsky and Neitzsche to the Word of God. You know what?? I am still a Christian Conservative.

You should try being a little more open and read a variety of material.....it may help you understand what is happening around the world.

http://www.world-newspapers.com/

my favorite site for papers.

Edited July 15, 2009 by eulesseagle

[Censored by Laurie]

Der Spiegel is a conservative rag out of Germany as much as The Times and Telegraph are to England. Yes, I do read Der Spiegel along with the London Times, The (London)Telegraph, Pravda, Moscow Times, Moscow.Com, Red Pepper(socialist), Socialist Worker, a couple of rags out of Isreal and a few other places. I will read them daily......BTW.....does that freighten you that I don't mind reading such a varied set of material???

I have also read, I.V. Lenin, Marx, Alinsky and Neitzsche to the Word of God. You know what?? I am still a Christian Conservative.

You should try being a little more open and read a variety of material.....it may help you understand what is happening around the world.

Do you even keep up with your own rants anymore?

You asked: "What do you exactly mean that, "The world doesn't recognize this is a legitimate change in power.....???"

I replied with an article from a source you have referenced in the past...and I'll add a perfectly legitimate and crdible source...to ensure that there was no possibility of a "thats just liberal media spin" response.

This has nothing to do with what either of us do or do not read in our daily lives...simply a response to your question.