5 ms·

Argentine president Cristina Kirchner is an authoritarian thug with a long record of abusing private property rights, and now, free speech.

wslh 15y ago
Yes and ironically she got more than 50% of the votes in last week preliminary election. The mysteries of democracy.
- anamax 15y ago
  We know nothing about the alternatives. And then there's why such folk are often elected even when more freedom is on the ballot. "Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." Heinlein.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?" "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course." "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?" "Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in"
marianoguerra 15y ago
so we can say that obama is an authoritarian thug too? visit this and tell me what you see: http://rojadirecta.com/ http://rojadirecta.com/ please don't overgeneralize, this was a court ruling (which I'm against) but don't use it as an excuse to make Argentina look like a dictatorship. since you say she has a "long record of abusing private property rights, and now, free speech." I would like to know some cases so people outside Argentina know (an for that matter me too) PS: before you attack me with the easy label of being a peronist, let me tell you that I'm not.
- wslh 15y ago
  Do you know how many decrees Cristina signed? without congress intervention?
  - marianoguerra 15y ago
    yes, less than any other president outside alfonsin: http://www.nuevamayoria.com/images/stories/notas/090330graf8.jpg http://www.nuevamayoria.com/images/stories/notas/090330graf8... EDIT: that chart is not up to date but still shows that what you say is just repeating what the media says, so you ask questions without knowing the answer (and the answer doesn't help your point)
    - wslh 15y ago
      I am not repeating what the media says since I am talking about the decrees signed by Kirchner as an unipersonal approach to governing. Can you describe the details about Cristina's decrees? like protecting the 1978-1983 dictatorship secret decrees? Also, Cristina vetoed the law to protect glaciers. Continuing with your point of view, you say that Cristina promotes free speech? I say that her followers censors free speech with many practices.
      - marianoguerra 15y ago
        decrees by definition are uni personal approach to governing, weren't invented by her and she was the one that least used it since alfonsin. I'm against DNUs, but you just say baseless stuff, I provide facts to counter your argument and someone (maybe you) downvotes my reply. I'm providing facts, why the downvotes? I'm not the one that started talking about DNUs, it was, you, and you didn't knew she used it too little compared to other presidents, can you provide links to your facts? what have the glaciers to do with free speech, DNUs and this particular case? you are all over the place trying to justify that you don't like the president (I don't like it either, but I don't like people that talks without facts like you more than that) where did I said that cristina promotes free speech? please point that for me please, I want to know. that is not my point of view either, you are inventing that too. please provide the practices you say she uses to censor free speech, you are the one throwing baseless facts in this post not me, I expect you to provide the facts. just to provide some fact about this: it's pretty interesting that all the mainstream media is against the president when you say she censors free speech... PS: I hate to say this again, but I don't like the president, but people like you make me put on the other side EDIT in answer to burgerbrain (I answer here because I can't reply to your comment for some reason) thanks for the note, didn't knew about the downvoting rule. about the link between the argentinian president and obama I was just trying to provide an analogy, blaming a president by an action taken by an independent organism doesn't make sense, in that case the DoJ. I'm not implying anything about obama, just showing that that relationship doesn't make sense. the disclamer is made because is common in argentina to try to shoot down an opinion based on the party you support, so I was just clarifying to avoid that kind of behavior, it's almost impossible in argentina to say something positive to one side without being labeled as supported of that side and I don't like that. but of course, this may be seen as a pattern in this kind of discussions and turn the red flags. I just commented here because I think the title is misleading (read the EFF link I posted in another thread) it says that the judge asked for the domain to be blocked and the ISPs were the ones that blocked by IP, so I'm proving that trying to link a whole country in a mistake made by some ISPs doesn't make sense. Also, the title doesn't clarify that the blogs were blocked by mistake.
mrleinad 15y ago
How does she have anything to do with some ISP (mistakenly) blocking an IP, because a judge ruled that two sites should be blocked? May I remind you of the Communications Media Law that was passed some time ago, protecting free speech from monopolies? You're just trolling AND off-topic. You should be downvoted.
- cualunque 15y ago
  The reasons given by the authors of a law don't make the law fulfill that objective. In the case of the law you mention, I'd believe it was to protect free speech if they'd included provisions to distribute the official funds between every media outlet, otherwise I'd say it's another way to support only those that think like the current government and stagnate every dissenting opinion.

wslh 15y ago

Yes and ironically she got more than 50% of the votes in last week preliminary election. The mysteries of democracy.

anamax 15y ago
We know nothing about the alternatives. And then there's why such folk are often elected even when more freedom is on the ballot. "Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." Heinlein.
burgerbrain 15y ago
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?" "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course." "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?" "Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in"

marianoguerra 15y ago

so we can say that obama is an authoritarian thug too? visit this and tell me what you see: http://rojadirecta.com/ http://rojadirecta.com/ please don't overgeneralize, this was a court ruling (which I'm against) but don't use it as an excuse to make Argentina look like a dictatorship. since you say she has a "long record of abusing private property rights, and now, free speech." I would like to know some cases so people outside Argentina know (an for that matter me too) PS: before you attack me with the easy label of being a peronist, let me tell you that I'm not.

wslh 15y ago
Do you know how many decrees Cristina signed? without congress intervention?
- marianoguerra 15y ago
  yes, less than any other president outside alfonsin: http://www.nuevamayoria.com/images/stories/notas/090330graf8.jpg http://www.nuevamayoria.com/images/stories/notas/090330graf8... EDIT: that chart is not up to date but still shows that what you say is just repeating what the media says, so you ask questions without knowing the answer (and the answer doesn't help your point)
  - wslh 15y ago
    I am not repeating what the media says since I am talking about the decrees signed by Kirchner as an unipersonal approach to governing. Can you describe the details about Cristina's decrees? like protecting the 1978-1983 dictatorship secret decrees? Also, Cristina vetoed the law to protect glaciers. Continuing with your point of view, you say that Cristina promotes free speech? I say that her followers censors free speech with many practices.
    - marianoguerra 15y ago
      decrees by definition are uni personal approach to governing, weren't invented by her and she was the one that least used it since alfonsin. I'm against DNUs, but you just say baseless stuff, I provide facts to counter your argument and someone (maybe you) downvotes my reply. I'm providing facts, why the downvotes? I'm not the one that started talking about DNUs, it was, you, and you didn't knew she used it too little compared to other presidents, can you provide links to your facts? what have the glaciers to do with free speech, DNUs and this particular case? you are all over the place trying to justify that you don't like the president (I don't like it either, but I don't like people that talks without facts like you more than that) where did I said that cristina promotes free speech? please point that for me please, I want to know. that is not my point of view either, you are inventing that too. please provide the practices you say she uses to censor free speech, you are the one throwing baseless facts in this post not me, I expect you to provide the facts. just to provide some fact about this: it's pretty interesting that all the mainstream media is against the president when you say she censors free speech... PS: I hate to say this again, but I don't like the president, but people like you make me put on the other side EDIT in answer to burgerbrain (I answer here because I can't reply to your comment for some reason) thanks for the note, didn't knew about the downvoting rule. about the link between the argentinian president and obama I was just trying to provide an analogy, blaming a president by an action taken by an independent organism doesn't make sense, in that case the DoJ. I'm not implying anything about obama, just showing that that relationship doesn't make sense. the disclamer is made because is common in argentina to try to shoot down an opinion based on the party you support, so I was just clarifying to avoid that kind of behavior, it's almost impossible in argentina to say something positive to one side without being labeled as supported of that side and I don't like that. but of course, this may be seen as a pattern in this kind of discussions and turn the red flags. I just commented here because I think the title is misleading (read the EFF link I posted in another thread) it says that the judge asked for the domain to be blocked and the ISPs were the ones that blocked by IP, so I'm proving that trying to link a whole country in a mistake made by some ISPs doesn't make sense. Also, the title doesn't clarify that the blogs were blocked by mistake.

mrleinad 15y ago

How does she have anything to do with some ISP (mistakenly) blocking an IP, because a judge ruled that two sites should be blocked? May I remind you of the Communications Media Law that was passed some time ago, protecting free speech from monopolies? You're just trolling AND off-topic. You should be downvoted.

cualunque 15y ago
The reasons given by the authors of a law don't make the law fulfill that objective. In the case of the law you mention, I'd believe it was to protect free speech if they'd included provisions to distribute the official funds between every media outlet, otherwise I'd say it's another way to support only those that think like the current government and stagnate every dissenting opinion.