It Was Suicide

[franksredhots]

Oh really? Talking from your own experience?

I see you're wearing your cape today.

 

[germano]

I see you're wearing your cape today.

Sorry about that. I had misread your comment and when I noticed - I had already hit the post button.

 

[nicoenarg]

What led me to think you were supporting the idea of coups being justified was not your "good riddance" comment, but rather your saying that whether someone was democratically elected does not matter and then using Morsi as an example, who was toppled in just such a coup. So to clarify, what do you think should be done when you feel the president is "ruining the country"?

With respect to Egypt it is a more personal matter to me so I'll expound on that a little: Morsi being democratically elected led to murder squads being sent to villages of Egypt against people who "disagreed" with the Morsi regimes ideas. Many times it was just used as a tool against the Copts in those villages, with churches being burned, and more horribly, Copts getting murdered along with those who were considered "apostates" from Islam, homosexuals, "too feminine", etc (you can find media coverage of it here and there mixed with the worship of Obama on "how he brought about democracy in Egypt). So in that case, I 100% support the military coup. Would support it again in a heartbeat if it happened again that Morsi like scum come to power.

Now with respect to Argentina, where I think the government is ruining the country, the solution I would suggest is what happened in October. People vote out the boludos that screw up the country. In fact, Ed, in a previous conversation about electricity problem, I said to you emphatically that here, even with all the problem, I would be vehemently opposed to any idea of a "government overthrow".

Which brings me to the constitution (to your point as well germano). If the constitution is not respected, then the congress (or parliament) has the duty to take steps to make sure that the constitution is respected. However, in cases like Morsi's when his cabinet was actually introducing his "novel ideas" about Copts and apostates and what not into the constitution, then the constitution itself becomes the enemy of the people. As for Chile, wasn't it the Supreme Court of Chile that declared Allende's policies unconstitutional in the first place? And asked the military to step in to enforce the constitution? However, in the case of Chile, when murderous policies based on religion, ideology or race, were not really the problem, like they were under Morsi in Egypt, I think a better solution could have been found even amidst any unconstitutional practices put in place by Allende. Sadly they went for the military takeover of the country.

With all that said, still, my comment about Allende, that is, good riddance, stands just fine. I am glad the fool is gone.

 

[Matiasba]

Can you rewrite the part in bold, I really can't understand what you were trying to say.

Democracy is over all, is the mechanism that makes your will subjugate to everyone else. You are tied to the people, to the society, you must accept what majority says. Thats the social construction Im talking. Democracy is the subjection of particular points of view to a bigger collective one. Just imagine there was a time where two parts of the society got in war and they faught till everybody died, except a few. And then imagine that to avoid that blood again they wrote a constitution where democracy is one of the most important things everyone must respect.

Thats the importance of breaking the constitution, they are breaking a social pact.

 

[nicoenarg]

Ed and germano, replied to you guys with more details about my comments but the post is under moderation (hehe), will see if it gets posted soon, if not, I'll try to write the same thing again.

 

[nicoenarg]

Democracy is over all, is the mechanism that makes your will subjugate to everyone else. You are tied to the people, to the society, you must accept what majority says. Thats the social construction Im talking. Democracy is the subjection of particular points of view to a bigger collective one. Just imagine there was a time where two parts of the society got in war and they faught till everybody died, except a few. And then imagine that to avoid that blood again they wrote a constitution where democracy is one of the most important things everyone must respect.

Thats the importance of breaking the constitution, they are breaking a social pact.

"Democracy" without a constitution or legal and moral bounds is, what is known as, ochlocracy. Tell me if you support that when you're the minority. Also, before any more sensitive folks feel terribly hurt, this is just to express what I am trying to say, I'm not comparing it to Allende or anyone else around here, Germany was ruled by a constitutionally elected democratic leader who then led to some 9-10 million people dead in concentration camps. I don't think anyone in their right mind supports that "democracy".

 

[Matiasba]

Yes democracy can be tricky, but is the best way to elect somebody. But in Germany wasnt an election of more then 50%. If Im not wrong Hitler won with 30% or so and then suspended elections. Anyway, I wouldnt blame democracy on Hitler.
About minorities, it really is a big problem of modern societies to (not) get that people represented, but today politicians are much more complex than before, that they must represent in some ways minorities. For example, Cristina is not gay but we have the marriage law. So maybe someone who does not like her is now represented by her. Everything is very complex, todays politicians must cover a lot of areas, so its kind of eclectic in some way.

 

[nicoenarg]

Yes democracy can be tricky, but is the best way to elect somebody. But in Germany wasnt an election of more then 50%. If Im not wrong Hitler won with 30% or so and then suspended elections. Anyway, I wouldnt blame democracy on Hitler.
About minorities, it really is a big problem of modern societies to (not) get that people represented, but today politicians are much more complex than before, that they must represent in some ways minorities. For example, Cristina is not gay but we have the marriage law. So maybe someone who does not like her is now represented by her. Everything is very complex, todays politicians must cover a lot of areas, so its kind of eclectic in some way.

His party won with 42% or so of the votes, that is what the German law required (Allende won with 36% of the votes, but he was elected according to the law of the land). And then he (clarification: he as in Hitler, not Allende) suspended a lot of the constitution. However, by 1936 majority of Germany was all in love with Hitler because Hitler did what he promised: full employment in Germany. People turned a blind eye to everything else. To them he was their elected leader, the rest didn't matter.

There are countries, like Argentina, where minorities are protected. But that's not generally true everywhere. If my post actually does get posted, I explain the case in Egypt, where the elected leader and the proposed constitution was designed exactly to eff the minority up.

The fact that we are sitting here discussing this shows that generalized statements like "he was democratically elected" don't mean that much. There are a lot of complex issues at play usually and just because someone is democratically elected doesn't justify their actions. That was my whole point. Of course, people on this forum seem intent on reading into things. But to each their own.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

The real "good riddances" rightly belong to Pinocho, Videla, Massera and the like, some of the most vicious "humans" to walk the earth in recent memory.

 

[nicoenarg]

Sure it does. But I don't know what made me think this but I was under the impression this thread was on Allende. Apologies everyone, I must have been mistaken. (where's the sarc emoticon?)