Welcome To The Dictatorship Of Happiness

[nicoenarg]

This thread has gotten much too personal.

---

I don't like the vast majority of Pensador's comments, lot more sports stadium chanting than substantive opinions. Frankly a distraction.

It shouldn't be hard to disagree with someone, and even mock his eminently mockable opinions, without stooping to this crap.

Yup. I'm with you 100%. I don't agree with Bajo_cero2's political ideas/stance but I don't think attacking him personally or his work is warranted at all.

 

[Gringoboy]

A little humour never did us any harm, at least not at somebody else's expense.
Matias would know about the moose anyway.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

You never said what you thought about the two appointments credentials.

Nobody cares. It is all about the procedure because to by pass it means to abolish the republic (a dictatorship).

Highton de Nolasco, one of the SC judges, made the brindis for Montesquieu...[and the separation of powers].

By the way, a federal judge declared unconstitutional the designation "en comision" and forbade to take them the oath:

http://www.telam.com.ar/notas/201512/130801-juez-federal-suspende-designacion-dos-jueces-corte-suprema.html

Lilita, introduced a bill to forbid the appointment of SC judges by decree:
http://www.perfil.com/mobile/?nota=/contenidos/2015/12/20/noticia_0074.html

 

[ben]

Nobody cares. It is all about the procedure because to by pass it means to abolish the republic.

I very much doubt that if there was something juicy about them - something that would support what kind of dictatorial judges Macri wants to appoint - you'd refrain from pointing it out.

As such, it'd be gracious to say something like:

I think they're [great/fine/OK/qualified/whatever], but that is secondary. It is all about the procedure because to by pass it means to abolish the republic.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I very much doubt that if there was something juicy about them - something that would support what kind of dictatorial judges Macri wants to appoint - you'd refrain from pointing it out.

As such, it'd be gracious to say something like:

Well, then, following your approach, we should close down the Congress.

You don't get it.

Judges "en comision" can be dismissed by the President while judges are protected against arrest, they don't pay taxes and have a lifetime work for protecting them from the President.

So, those two prospect had no chances of being independent.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Ben, let's imaging they are perfect, then, instead of a Republic, we have a Enlightened Despotism.

 

[ben]

Regarding the telam link, there's this:

En la misma resolución, el magistrado hace saber a la Corte que "deberá abstenerse de recibirles juramento” a Rosatti y Rosenkrantz.

A situation in which a lower court judge gives orders to the Supreme Court, about anything, is surreal. I don't know if it's alegal per se, but certainly surreal.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I'd be interested to hear the doc's views on Bonafini's outbursts at yesterday's FPV march against the new Macri government. Gosh, is it only a week?
"es la primera vez que un dictador llega por los votos a la casa de gobierno"
"Tenemos que armar miles y miles de plazas para que este hijo de puta sepa quiénes somos"
"Tenemos al enemigo en la Casa Rosada. No nos va a convencer con esa risa de hipócrita hijo de puta que tiene"
and others..................
"¡Macri, basura, vos sos la dictadura!"
"Estos que hoy nos gobiernan son hijos de la dictadura genocida y representan el mismo proyecto"

Well, she says with no filter more or less what 48,4% of the country thinks.

I was saying more or less the same for months.

 

[ben]

Ben, let's imaging they are perfect, then, instead of a Republic, we have a Enlightened Despotism.

I did not dispute your point. In the rephrasing I suggested, I specifically left your main point intact.

I merely pointed out that answering the specific question ejcot posed would not detract from your point, and that - again - not doing so makes you look small.

Do you dispute that if you had something good (from your POV) to say about them, you would? Then why does it hurt you to say something nice?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I did not dispute your point. In the rephrasing I suggested, I specifically left your main point intact.

I merely pointed out that answering the specific question ejcot posed would not detract from your point, and that - again - not doing so makes you look small.

Do you dispute that if you had something good (from your POV) to say about them, you would? Then why does it hurt you to say something nice?

I m a lawyer, when there is a flaw in the procedure so serious, we just don't take the main discussion into consideration.