The Best Reason Now To Be An Expat In Argentina...

[John.St]

So please enlighten us. Let us know what do you call someone who declares himself to hold the authority to decide, at his sole discretion, who lives and who dies without any need to press charges, have a prosecution, a trial, a judge or jury.

A soldier.

 

[John.St]

46 percent of Americans oppose Obamacare, while only 37 percent oppose the Affordable Care Act - aint' that beautiful?

http://gawker.com/ki...ffor-1433866673 www.youtube.com/watch?&v=sx2scvIFGjE

Bunch of racists?

 

[camberiu]

But no true dictator would have had any problem ramming the Affordable Care Act through in it's original form as a single payer system. But instead we have an abortion that was fabricated by the republicans to benifit big pharma and insurance companies and rebranded as Obamacare as he stood by and naively watched the opposition rebrand a turd and label it with his name. That makes him a fool and not a very effective "dictator".

I think you are confused about the meaning of the word dictator. Dictator is not the same as absolute ruler. Nikita Khrushchev, Mubarak, Leopoldo Galtieri, Joao Batista Figueiredo and even Pinochet were all dictators, but they did not hold absolute power over their countries. That does not not make them less dictators. So your argument that Obama is not a dictator because he could not just shove a universal health care system through congress is not valid.

Now, I was born and lived a good part of my life under a dictatorship (not an absolute rule), so did Bajo_Cero and maybe even Matias, if he is old enough. So I think I have some first hand knowledge of what makes a dictatorship. The reality is that the central pillar of a free society is the right to due process. It is the certainty that the ruler cannot simply imprison you or kill you at whim. That any charges placed against you would be presented before a jury made up of your peers and them and them alone would determine guilt and punishment. This is something that started with the Magna Carta in England back 1215 and later much expanded under the 4th amendment of the US Constitution. It is known world wide as the right of habeas corpus and the right of due process. When Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile became free societies, the pivotal moment that marked that transition was not the re-establishment of free speech and freedom of the press. No, the marking point, the critical moment that signified the return of freedom was the re-enactment of habeas corpus and the right of due process. That is the fundamental element that separates a free society from a dictatorship: The certainty that the government cannot spy on you without a court order. The certainty that the government cannot simply grab you at some dark corner at night, throw you into a forgotten cell somewhere and throw away the key. The certainty that you have the right to be charged with a crime, have your day in court where you can face your accuser and the evidence against you, and be judged by a jury of peers.

Americans today live in a country where those rights have been publicly nullified. With the Patriot Act and the NDAA, Obama can kill ANY of us, anywhere, at his discretion and all he has to say, if questioned, is that he determined that you were a threat to the United States and he had the authority to kill you. All other information is classified. That is it.
Or while driving home, you can be pulled over by a NSA car, have a bag put over your head and disappear, being locked up on some forsaken brig somewhere. You don't have the right to a phone call, or a lawyer, or to notify your family. You just vanish. Your family may wonder where you are and have the local authorities go look after you. Eventually, if the local authorities start making progress, they might be contacted by the Dept. Of Homeland Security and told to suspend the investigations. They can also be placed under a gag order not to disclose to your family or anyone why they had to stop the investigation. What I am describing here is not some dystopian sci-fi scenario, this is the USA today. Now, you might claim that other presidents did this before. I am not aware of Ford, Carter or Reagan ordering anyone to be assassinated. If they did, they did so covertly and in a very clandestine way, because they knew that what they were doing was highly illegal and they might face impeachment or even criminal charges if caught. Obama did something unprecedented in American history, he publicly nullified the 4th amendment of the US Constitution. Today, the POTUS can, at his discretion, kill and arrest ANYONE, at ANYTIME that he arbitrarily labels an "enemy of the United States", including American citizens. The frequency in which he may or may not exercise such power is irrelevant. The power exists and he can exercise it anytime he damn wants it. You may call this being weak president, being a disappointment, being corruptible or any other type of lipstick that you want to put on a pig. In Brazil we call it dictator.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

A soldier.

You have obviously never been one, or you wouldn't be writing that.

 

[ghost]

. The reality is that the central pillar of a free society is the right to due process. It is the certainty that the ruler cannot simply imprison you or kill you at whim. That any charges placed against you would be presented before a jury made up of your peers and them and them alone would determine guilt and punishment. This is something that started with the Magna Carta in England back 1215 and later much expanded under the 4th amendment of the US Constitution. It is known world wide as the right of habeas corpus and the right of due process. When Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile became free societies,

You are free to define a dictator as you see it. I will just agree to disagree. However, you will have a damn hard time finding a "Trial By Jury" anywhere in in Argentina. Good luck .

 

[Matiasba]

I think you are confused about the meaning of the word dictator. Dictator is not the same as absolute ruler. Nikita Khrushchev, Mubarak, Leopoldo Galtieri, Joao Batista Figueiredo and even Pinochet were all dictators, but they did not hold absolute power over their countries. That does not not make them less dictators. So your argument that Obama is not a dictator because he could not just shove a universal health care system through congress is not valid.

Now, I was born and lived a good part of my life under a dictatorship (not an absolute rule), so did Bajo_Cero and maybe even Matias, if he is old enough. So I think I have some first hand knowledge of what makes a dictatorship. The reality is that the central pillar of a free society is the right to due process. It is the certainty that the ruler cannot simply imprison you or kill you at whim. That any charges placed against you would be presented before a jury made up of your peers and them and them alone would determine guilt and punishment. This is something that started with the Magna Carta in England back 1215 and later much expanded under the 4th amendment of the US Constitution. It is known world wide as the right of habeas corpus and the right of due process. When Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile became free societies, the pivotal moment that marked that transition was not the re-establishment of free speech and freedom of the press. No, the marking point, the critical moment that signified the return of freedom was the re-enactment of habeas corpus and the right of due process. That is the fundamental element that separates a free society from a dictatorship: The certainty that the government cannot spy on you without a court order. The certainty that the government cannot simply grab you at some dark corner at night, throw you into a forgotten cell somewhere and throw away the key. The certainty that you have the right to be charged with a crime, have your day in court where you can face your accuser and the evidence against you, and be judged by a jury of peers.

Americans today live in a country where those rights have been publicly nullified. With the Patriot Act and the NDAA, Obama can kill ANY of us, anywhere, at his discretion and all he has to say, if questioned, is that he determined that you were a threat to the United States and he had the authority to kill you. All other information is classified. That is it.
Or while driving home, you can be pulled over by a NSA car, have a bag put over your head and disappear, being locked up on some forsaken brig somewhere. You don't have the right to a phone call, or a lawyer, or to notify your family. You just vanish. Your family may wonder where you are and have the local authorities go look after you. Eventually, if the local authorities start making progress, they might be contacted by the Dept. Of Homeland Security and told to suspend the investigations. They can also be placed under a gag order not to disclose to your family or anyone why they had to stop the investigation. What I am describing here is not some dystopian sci-fi scenario, this is the USA today. Now, you might claim that other presidents did this before. I am not aware of Ford, Carter or Reagan ordering anyone to be assassinated. If they did, they did so covertly and in a very clandestine way, because they knew that what they were doing was highly illegal and they might face impeachment or even criminal charges if caught. Obama did something unprecedented in American history, he publicly nullified the 4th amendment of the US Constitution. Today, the POTUS can, at his discretion, kill and arrest ANYONE, at ANYTIME that he arbitrarily labels an "enemy of the United States", including American citizens. The frequency in which he may or may not exercise such power is irrelevant. The power exists and he can exercise it anytime he damn wants it. You may call this being weak president, being a disappointment, being corruptible or any other type of lipstick that you want to put on a pig. In Brazil we call it dictator.

I agree with a lot of you say, but I dont think Obama is a dictator. Its not the exact word.To be a dictator he must be above all and dictates the rules, which he doesnt. Hes not above the military industrial complex, for instance. Hes n ot above the political power the republican party still has, not being government. And finally, hes not above the people, if he was a dictator he would stay indefinetely in his charge, but his government will finish with a democratic ellection, the same way he got his power. So dictator it doesnt fit, as someone said he is in a lot of issues a puppet.

ps: btw Im 35.

 

[camberiu]

I agree with a lot of you say, but I dont think Obama is a dictator. Its not the exact word.To be a dictator he must be above all and dictates the rules, which he doesnt. Hes not above the military industrial complex, for instance. Hes n ot above the political power the republican party still has, not being government. And finally, hes not above the people, if he was a dictator he would stay indefinetely in his charge, but his government will finish with a democratic ellection, the same way he got his power. So dictator it doesnt fit, as someone said he is in a lot of issues a puppet.

ps: btw Im 35.

I disagree Matias and history does not support your view. The military dictatorship in Brazil lasted for 20 years (1964-1984). During that time, we had 5 "presidents" with clearly defined term limits (Castelo Branco, Costa e Silva, Medici, Geisel and Figueiredo). Their power was not above the military junta or the oligarchy that supported them. We had elections in Brazil during that time. There was an electoral college (just like the US). But no one argues that they were dictators. No one argues that Brazil lived under a military dictatorship.

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]To be a dictator he must be above all and dictates the rules, which he doesnt. [/background]
[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]

[/background]
[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]How did he void the 4th amendment of the US constitution? Does he not dictate who lives and who dies? Does he not dictate who can be in jail and who can be out of jail? [/background]

 

[Matiasba]

I disagree Matias and history does not support your view. The military dictatorship in Brazil lasted for 20 years (1964-1984). During that time, we had 5 "presidents" with clearly defined term limits (Castelo Branco, Costa e Silva, Medici, Geisel and Figueiredo). Their power was not above the military junta or the oligarchy that supported them. We had election in Brazil during that time. There was an electoral college (just like the US). But no one argues that they were dictators. No one argues that Brazil lived under a military dictatorship.

[/background][/font][/color]
[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]How did he void the 4th amendment of the US constitution? Does he not dictate who lives and who dies? Does he not dictate who can be in jail and who can be out of jail? [/background]

well, its not him, there are a lot of people who determinates those policies. Im sure its not Obama who took the decission to invade Lybia, but he had to do it because of the power the military.industrial complex has. Its like the penatgon who dictates a lot of laws and a lot of (foreign) policies. I dont think Obama is over them. The dictatorships in Latin America were different, I dont know exactly if we can call them dictators because they werent alone in power like Saddam Hussein or Mubarak or Ghadaffi. They were the militars, of course they had to put someone on the top, but it were the Fuerzas Armadas as a corporation, not someone, not Fidel Castro. They werent personalistas, they didnt made a cult to the person. This with degrees, Pinochet was very strong for instance, and in a lot of ways was personalistic. But Videla have not. So it varies. These dictatorships were unconstitutional, suspended ellections, stayed in the power indefinetely, suspended the congress, the parties, the sindicates, etc, they didnt depend on peoples vote, which Obama does.

 

[John.St]

You have obviously never been one, or you wouldn't be writing that.

Almost 22 years in special forces, that's all.

 

[camberiu]

The dictatorships in Latin America were different, I dont know exactly if we can call them dictators because they werent alone in power like Saddam Hussein or Mubarak or Ghadaffi.

So now you are not sure if Videla was a dictator or not?