The Atlas Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[tpfkaw]

So Wonkish "doesn't understand the culture" of Brazil when he states that Obama's positions are to the left of Dilma Rouseff's (factually accurate), but when certain types compare US politics to foreign countries and say sh!t like "Obama would be a Tory and Michelle Bachmann would be a BNP supporter!" (which are, actually in this case, laughably false), they clearly have a wonderful understanding of the respective cultures of both America and whatever country they are comparing it too.

[tpfkaw]

Mitt Romney will be the most right-wing major party nominee in this country's history.

[tpfkaw]

Obama said he'd veto it because it doesn't go far enough.

[tpfkaw]

This rather belongs in the Utterly Sickening Posts Sh*tmine, but for the lack of such thread I got to post it there.

The first two were positive events.

Click for context.

While nothing will cause lefties to spaz out more than suggesting Allende/the Spanish Republicans/Sandinistas were worse than their opposition (why only things happening in Spanish-speaking countries cause spaz-out reactions I don't know), the fact remains that the Latin left, especially of the Commie variety, especially of the pro-Soviet Commie variety at the height of the Cold War, were and are not very nice people.  If you don't believe that, I'll invite you to move to Cuba.  Since they'll put you up in the relative luxury accomodations reserved for Useful Idiots, you should subsequently renounce your European citizenships and get yourself arrested for a real representative taste.  I'm sure you'll love it.  They have nice weather and excellent cigars!

Edit:  Addendum:  Latin politics is not good guys and bad guys, it's generally bad guys and worse guys.  Pinochet was very bad but far better than what would have happened otherwise.  Perhaps saying the coup was a "positive event" was a bit too breezy, more like a non-negative event.

[tpfkaw]

This rather belongs in the Utterly Sickening Posts Sh*tmine, but for the lack of such thread I got to post it there.

The first two were positive events.

Click for context.

Ouch.

He's half right. You have to admit that the second one was a positive event.

Of course the second was a positive event, but suggesting the Chilean coup was a positive event...

The experience of Mint's family and the Central European history course I just finished (with a professor who lived under Communism in Czechoslovakia) pretty much have cured me of any remaining illusions I might have been under regarding the Latin left and Communists generally.  There's precious little that wouldn't be preferable to them.

[tpfkaw]

I see the point you're making in this post as well as the previous one. Instead of suggesting that the Chilean coup was positive, you're suggesting that the alternatives would've been much worse in contrast, am I right?

Exactamundo.

[tpfkaw]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tpfkaw]

Allende created a Cuban-armed private army which stole nearly all the farmland in the country and created "red zones" in which they exercised complete control and barred all constitutionally-authorized authorities from entering, in violation of thousands of court rulings.  Peaceful protests against the economic policies of his regime (which produced 508% inflation, among other things) were dispersed violently.  It was also found that Allende had been planning his own coup and was planning on massacring most of the officer corps and several hundred opposition politicians and journalists, as only the inauguration of the regime he was planning.  A "democrat" he was not.  A wannabe dictator in the Soviet Bloc, he was.

[tpfkaw]

A wannabe dictator in the Soviet Bloc, he was.

It's a good thing you're posting directly in the Deluge.

Sorry, you're right, there's a decent case he already was a dictator in the Soviet Bloc.  Facts are some crazy sh**t, aren't they?

[tpfkaw]

The programme of land nationalisation started under the previous government. Made up of Christian Democrats. I wonder if they were Communists as well.

Not nearly on as wide a scale, and not by a private army loyal only the the President, and not after disobeying thousands of court rulings including a unanimous Supreme Court ruling against it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who 'found' this information and where has it been published?
[/quote]

It was found by soldiers after they raided one of the regional UP headquarters.  I actually probably shouldn't have brought that up since Allende wasn't directly implicated by it although its at very least indicative of the types of people his government was made up of.

[tpfkaw]

Also, Congress was very likely to impeach Allende at that point, which means, if we agree that removing him was a good thing, that a bloody coup and bloody years of horrid regime were absolutely not necessary.

Oh yeah, that's another thing, Congress did impeach him and he refused to step down.

[tpfkaw]

Also, Congress was very likely to impeach Allende at that point, which means, if we agree that removing him was a good thing, that a bloody coup and bloody years of horrid regime were absolutely not necessary.

Oh yeah, that's another thing, Congress did impeach him and he refused to step down.

Wrong. Congress did not impeach him. Chamber of Deputies passed a resolution that has no practical meaning outside of symbolic. And the Senate failed to pass the very same resolution with a required majority.

They impeached him in the American sense of the term but just barely did not have the 2/3rds majority to remove him from office.  He then refused to resign and indicated he wouldn't even if it were passed with a 2/3rds majority.

Let's assume, for the discussion's sake, that Congress and the Armed Forces would be right to remove Allende in order to protect constitution. But does that justify long years of a bloody dictatorship that followed?

No, it doesn't, and I never said it did.  In fact they probably could've just held new elections then and there because Allende was so incredibly unpopular.

[tpfkaw]

And therefore we prove why the Latin left shouldn't be allowed power, as we see the nonsensical Castro apologia/promotion, bizarro world-view with no relation to actual reality, Stalinist buzzwords, thinly-veiled genocidal aspirations, complete contempt for human rights and the rule of law, selective "democracy" (winning the narrowest of pluralities using massive fraud against the wishes of the vast majority of the population now entitles one to govern as an absolute dictator), etc. etc.  Hence, why they should never be allowed anywhere near power.  Would people in hindsight have been opposed to a putsch in Germany in 1932?

[tpfkaw]

or maybe i just read the 'today at' under your name? you'll never know

That he apparently *actually* spent 20 minutes is pretty laughable though.

[tpfkaw]

I will say that Mint is being surprisingly restrained for someone who had multiple family members murdered by a group aligned with and funded by elements of the government certain posters are so intent on defending.

[tpfkaw]

Oh so anti-interventionist wormyguy would've loved the Diem regime.

As opposed to the Ho Chi Minh regime?  Sure.  I wouldn't advocate sending US troops to defend it, however.

[tpfkaw]

I'd be curious to know how expansively we're defining the 'Latin left' for purposes of this conversation. Is Lopez Obrador the 'Latin left'? Is Lula? Are the Kirchners? Is my uncle Manuel, an anti-Castro democratic socialist Cuban exile?

No, random corrupt and semi-corrupt politicians with meaningless labels (the "Latin center" if you will) don't qualify, I'm referring to those who self-describe as Marxists, endorse or engage in violence, and cultivate close ties with the Castro regime in Cuba (or the Soviet Union, back when it existed).  

[tpfkaw]

I'd be curious to know how expansively we're defining the 'Latin left' for purposes of this conversation. Is Lopez Obrador the 'Latin left'? Is Lula? Are the Kirchners? Is my uncle Manuel, an anti-Castro democratic socialist Cuban exile?

No, random corrupt and semi-corrupt politicians with meaningless labels (the "Latin center" if you will) don't qualify, I'm referring to those who self-describe as Marxists, endorse or engage in violence, and cultivate close ties with the Castro regime in Cuba (or the Soviet Union, back when it existed).  

So the Latin left is full of bad people because you define Latin leftism in such a way as to limit the term to such. Gotcha.

Pretty much.  Incidentally, you're agreeing with me that Allende was a bad person.