cualunque

4 ms·

1.
by cualunque 14y ago
That's a good one... maybe you don't remember what the "left-wing leader" did in the '70s, or '90s, or what happened up until 2003. Or maybe you are reading 6,7,8's account of history, very well written in Newspeak.
2.
by cualunque 15y ago
It seems not to be Y2K safe. Try changing your date to something around the '80s, having done that I didn't get the "Please type the date..." prompt.
3.
by cualunque 15y ago
I never mentioned DNUs. The 125 was treated in the Congress because of public rejection. It doesn't have to do with free speech but the grandparent asked for examples of attack on private property. The pension funds were the response to th
4.
by 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
5.
by cualunque 15y ago
What does his admission have to do with anything? The resolution was an attack on private property no matter what, read your constitution. You are right, there is no proof, the news stands in the "Mercado Central" where shut down because o
6.
by cualunque 15y ago
Can I mention the 125 resolution, pension funds, football TV contracts, disproportionate propaganda funds spent on ridiculous newspapers, the prohibition to sell Clarin in some newstands, the public attack on journalists?
7.
by cualunque 15y ago
Or the claim is so vague that there's no way you can escape it.