Macri's Amnesia

ben

Registered
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
1,861
Likes
2,254
Must this be a referendum on Lanata?

I think we can all agree that keeping money offshore, particularly in a known tax haven, demands an explanation, and can arouse unsavory suspicions, no?

I think we can also all agree that demonstrating that the offshore entity was in fact declared in Argentina, takes some of the oomph out of the bust, no?

Absent new information, the situation at present does not seem very complicated. Unless, of course, another shoe drops.

*Yes, I understand that the point of Lanata was to demonstrate that bajo is not an honest debater. But that point has already been demonstrated, amply so. Bajo is the guy who:
a) recently defended journalists' 'right' to published unsourced shit;
b ) then claimed that the journalist 'is a source';
c) pretends to be ignorant of journalistic standards the world over;
d) somehow mixes in free speech, as if that is a prerogative of journalists and not anyone;
e) seems to believe that the right to free speech - to say stupid shit - involves a right not to be mocked over said stupid shit;
f) seems to think (see above points) that the label 'journalist' confers a stronger right to say cualquier cosa, rather than - on the contrary - greater responsibility for fact-checking, fairness, etc.
 

Bajo_cero2

Registered
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
7,671
Likes
4,072
Ehm, but doesn't Mr Lanata know both K's names are on the PP list too?

All the compains of Lanata were without any evidence and they were dismissed:
http://www.ambito.com/799195-en-un-duro-fallo-juez-descarto-la-denuncia-de-una-supuesta-secretaria-de-nestor-kirchner-por-lavado
http://www.eldestapeweb.com/se-cayo-otra-denuncia-jorge-lanata-sobreseyeron-todos-los-imputados-n7782
 

scotttswan

Registered
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Messages
3,715
Likes
3,541

Bajo_cero2

Registered
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
7,671
Likes
4,072
Nice, a 3rd off shore account was found.
And they just said that he had nothing to hide.

By the way, I asserted some months ago that Laurita Alonso was appointed as the head of the anti corruption agency to guarantee imminuty, seems I was right, instead of making a criminal complaint, she was defending the President.
I remember you that during the last years she was making about 2 criminal complains per week and now what?

Ben,
A) journalist has the right to publish and the limit is the actual malice doctrine. However, for you is a shit any news against the dictator of happiness;
As you might know, there is censorship during this regime.
B ) the journalist is in fact a source because the real sources are protected by the National Constitution. So, he has the dutie of protecting them. This is particulary true when there is a context of political persecution.
C) standards? Right! Well, in this country journaliam has fallen so low that perhaps, the standard is lower. You need to read international press to know what it is going on with the Panama papers because here the press is too nice, money talks. Ask Niembro. How much was it? 25 million pesos?
D) freedom of speach is a constitutional righ in this country for every human being. Your ignorancy seems to have no limits.
FYI the criminal code stabliahes that it is not a crime when you do political criticism because this is the abc of the republican system.
E) you believe that whatever you disagree is a stupid shit. No comments.
F) Well, there were to many journalist that asserted whatever in the last year. Yesterday I read on the website of Fernandez that the judged signed a certificate that stablished that he has nothing to do with the efedrina case. And he lost the election because of this montage made by Lanata.
Again, the limit is actual malice, google it and leave ignorancy behind.
 

Bajo_cero2

Registered
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
7,671
Likes
4,072
Hopefully they now have the evidence in this leak. Amazing how a bank cashier can become one of the richest men in Argentina.

https://panamapapers.icij.org/the_power_players/?lang=en&autoresize=true#31

[background=rgb(250, 248, 248)]Daniel Muñoz was also named in the leak[/background]

So? He should go to jail if there is any criminal responsability.

Mauricio Macri, the President of this country whom I pointed many times of being a known criminal, is in 3 off shore accounts.
Is the former President in at least one or it was just part of the show of PP?
 

Matiasba

Registered
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
2,298
Likes
1,069
Macri is so damn bad, that even UCA and Lanata can not lie anymore. You cant hide these international affairs from people who robbed their country. You cant hide the growing poverty.

And one more thing. Illia WAS NOT "totally democratic" as someone said before, since his government was totally controlled by the militars (as well as Frondizi's) and more important, there was an important, lets say the half at least, part of the voters who could not vote for their candidate since PERONISMO WAS PROHIBITED. How can you call that democracy?

Saluditos
 

Noesdeayer

Registered
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
886
Likes
757
N- U--M-B-E-R-S.
If you are an Argentine,then you DO NOT KNOW your own country's history..Illia's ov't was not controlled by the military ,he was REMOVED from office by a military coup (golpe de estado) in1967 led by Ongania.
Moreover,one of the 1st things he did after he was elected in 1963 was to annul the contracts signed by Arturo Frondizi with mostly United States Oil Compamies. GOOGLE :" Illia y la anulacion de los contratos petroleros".
I am a U.S. native but I still say,inspite of the above annulment.Illia was probably the most really democratic president had in the last century. Please do a little reading on Argentine history.
 

Matiasba

Registered
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
2,298
Likes
1,069
N- U--M-B-E-R-S.
If you are an Argentine,then you DO NOT KNOW your own country's history..Illia's ov't was not controlled by the military ,he was REMOVED from office by a military coup (golpe de estado) in1967 led by Ongania.
Moreover,one of the 1st things he did after he was elected in 1963 was to annul the contracts signed by Arturo Frondizi with mostly United States Oil Compamies. GOOGLE :" Illia y la anulacion de los contratos petroleros".
I am a U.S. native but I still say,inspite of the above annulment.Illia was probably the most really democratic president had in the last century. Please do a little reading on Argentine history.


No, no.

After the 1955 coup, the political power, till 1983, was in the hands of the militars, alternating militars governments with radicals (UCR). So the governments of Illia and Frondizi were 100% controlled by the militars, from the beggining to the end, cause they put them there, and whenever they wanted, they kick their asses out. The militars decided when and how the democracy would come to Argentina, and for 20 years they decided to PERONISMO not to participate in ellections. So if the militars decide which parties could participate in an ellection, and which one not, with a long list of prohibitions, how could they leave them do what they want? they were so under control of the militars that they suspended the governments and call to new elections.

In 1970, under Ongania dictatorship, the thing started to get violent, cause Peronism got clandestine, armed, organised an army (no comparison in arms and resources with the "official" army.... we can check this out in the last dictatorship). The thing is that after the 60s, a great cultural revolution, not only here but all around the world, the peronismo prohibition went off their hands, the social mood changed and even the upper classes claimed for the return of Peron. So they had no choice and the miitars had to call to elections, where Campora could participate (Peron was still prohibited) but as Campora won he called Peron and then Peron came and won the elections in 1973 with 64% of votes I think.

But the civil (wont call it democratic) governments of Illia and Frondizi were 100% under the control of the militars, who put them both there, giving them permission first in 1958 and then in 1963 and whwnever they did something they did not like they just simple removed them.

So, I ask you again, you think a group of people, trained by the US, with their annuence, with their support, who held the political power, who could prohibite a long list of policies, of ideas, directly a way of governance, that people who can call elections whenever they want, and remove a president elected by the people whenever they want, again, that people, could let the democracy arise? we re talking of very heavy people with a lot of power, cold war, fight the commies, etc, that people could let them do whatever they want? again: you can call DEMOCRACY an election and its subsequent president when half of the people could not vote for their candidate? You think the militars could prohibite some policies from some sector and give total freedom to other people, or thay just watch and "correct"?
 

Bajo_cero2

Registered
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
7,671
Likes
4,072
Stay on topic: the President Macri and the off shore accounts for black money.
 

Matiasba

Registered
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
2,298
Likes
1,069
In other words, you think that a group of people who can decide
when to call to elections​
who can participate​
how long does the government last​
and then can remove that government​


does not control it?​
 
Top