Marxist May Win the Presidency in Brazil This Fall
The Brazilian 2002 Elections:
A Stacked Deck?
Jesse Jackson compares Brazil candidate to Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela
Posted on 09/12/2002 3:53:00 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
I'm a fan of democracy only because it (usually) is a better vehicle for preserving individual rights than other systems. The important thing is individual rights (including the right to not be stripped of your property), not how elections are done
Segregation in the South was democraticly sanctioned
The stealing of farms in Zimbabwe is ordered by the democraticly-elected tyrant there
A democracy becomes unstable when there is a propertyless majority who can be convinced that they would gain financially from taking the property of an electoral minority
That's right. You are apparently taking the position that so long as someone is democratically elected, that person can't be a threat to orderly freedom. I don't think that's the test.
Sure, we'll just send Jimmy Carter down there to make sur the election isn't rigged. We can trust him! /sarcasm. Or maybe even Warren Christopher!
the right to intervene should any country in the Western Hemisphere act irresponsibly in erroding its own "orderly freedom[s]." Since the most important "orderly freedom" is the right to political self-determination...
You just don't get it. Communists don't believe in orderly freedom. When people are stupid enough to elect a communist, they kiss orderly freedom goodbye. Do you think every dictator who rides to power on a wave of mob hysteria has the right to treat his slaves how he pleases? I notice you don't jump up to defend Robert Mugabe from Zimbabwe. Well he is a perfect example of the insanity you are defending. According to your logic, he has every right to foment mass genocide and starve most of his slaves to death. If they don't like it, they can just vote him out, right?
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Fraser Tyler
What exactly are you trying to say? That all elections are rigged?
Communists don't believe in orderly freedom.
What is orderly freedom, if it isn't the power to choose your own leaders? I think you have your priorities confused.
When people are stupid enough to elect a communist, they kiss orderly freedom goodbye.
Perhaps to some extent, then they wise up and elect a decent leader to take his place. But when the military comes and usurps the will of the people, you've lost all freedom, orderly or otherwise.
Do you think every dictator who rides to power on a wave of mob hysteria has the right to treat his slaves how he pleases?
No.
I notice you don't jump up to defend Robert Mugabe from Zimbabwe. Well he is a perfect example of the insanity you are defending.
Not really, because everyone agrees he was defeated for reelection, and only won because of widespread fraud, harassment, and violence. Before the sham "election," I really had no problem with him. He was a fairly bad ruler, but one which his citizens had chosen.
Quote by Alexander Fraser Ty[t]ler, Lord Woodhouselee snipped]
Lord Woodhouselee was an ardent monarchist. Are you?
It is well suited to communism or a Robert Mugabab type taking over. All these capitalism uber alles types of the 1990s were mistaken when they dreamed that 3rd world nations could be elevated by capitalist reforms and "transparency". They can't be elevated by anything.
No. I am saying that I do not trust Jimmy Carter. He never met a Latin American dictator whose boots he didn't lick. I don't believe for a second that Arafat is the legitimately elected leader of the Palestinians. Free elections cannot be held under duress. You don't seem to care that Communists are even more antidemocratic than me. They only use democracy to take power, and then they rule as totalitarians. To them, the ends justify the means, and yes, they always cheat.
What is orderly freedom, if it isn't the power to choose your own leaders? I think you have your priorities confused.
Absolutely wrong. Once again, you are dismissing the possibility that an elected leader may dispose of orderly freedom once they have seized the apparatus of the state. This possibility becomes a certainty when Communists are involved.
Perhaps to some extent, then they wise up and elect a decent leader to take his place.
Wrong again, because once they vote the Communists in, there will never be another free election.
But when the military comes and usurps the will of the people, you've lost all freedom, orderly or otherwise.
Wrong. If the military is overthrowing an oppressive dictator, then they are fighting to preserve freedom. A well regulated militia is necessary for protecting the freedom and property of the citzens from the thieving communists. You don't seem to care to much about those whose freedom will be voted away from them by the Bolshevik majority. I believe in the Rule of Law, not in the pernicious whims of the mob or the demogogues they serve.
Before the sham "election," I really had no problem with him.
That's unforunate, because he was a genocidal Communist before the election too. The differnce between Allende and Mugabe is that we stopped Allende from doing what we are standing by and watching Mugabe do.
Lord Woodhouselee was an ardent monarchist.
So was Edmund Burke. He was right about the Colonies, and Tytler was right about democracy. Why not address his argument rather than attack the man? Is it because his argument is irrefutable?
Lord Woodhouselee was an ardent monarchist. Are you?
I serve no king but King Jesus. Whom do you serve? Are you against all monarchies? You seem to prefer Communists to Monarchs. I'll take England over Zimbabwe any day.
Everyone forgets that this was built during the 8 years of #42's horrible reign.The Pictures are on Newsmax.com (and have been for years) for anyone who thinks this is a myth.It's a Perfect Cover and startling.
Even supposing they did pose a present danger, we could easily blow up the base in the Bahamas, take back the Canal, and kick out Chavez, etc... Today is not the problem. Even assuming GW wins in '04, I think the changing demographics of the country make it likely that someone from the Democratic Leadership Council will win the Presidency from '08 on (unless Rice runs). That means that a Clinton or Carter type will be in charge. That's the rub. We are only now starting to realize the damage 25 years later that Carter did to this country by letting the Shah of Iran be overthrown (kickstarting islamic fundamentalism) and signing over the Canal.
I for one am uncomfortable to have a huge block of communist countries (Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba, Columbia? Argentina? etc...)to the south.
But maybe I'm just being paranoid.
Marxist May Win the Presidency in Brazil This Fall
The Brazilian 2002 Elections:
A Stacked Deck?
Lots of Brazilians are armed, I wonder what their dirty war will look like.
You are hysterical.
"Brazil is the land of the future. Always has been, always will be."
Actually, no I'm not. Do you have any substantive disagreement with my month-old postings, or are you content merely to speculate about my emotional well-being?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
