Cuba has proven that capitalism and technology are failures - Page 34 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14917750
The Allende myth may be good for keeping the socialist faith alive, but it evidently contradicts the historical facts.


After all, Allende himself had confided to Regis Debray “that his differences with apostles of violence like Guevara were only ‘tactical,’ plus his admission that he was observing legality ‘for the time being,’ and his assertion that he had agreed to the Statute of Democratic Guarantees as a ‘tactical necessity’.” (Sigmund, p. 140). And his own Socialist Party, at its Congress in January 1971, had stated that “the special conditions under which Popular Unity came to power oblige it to observe the limits of a bourgeois state for now” and had warned its members to prepare for “the decisive confrontation with the bourgeoisie and imperialism.” (Sigmund, footnote 7/12)

[...]

at the end of 1971 Fidel Castro visits Chile and stays for a month, clearly intervening in Chilean politics by speaking in support of Allende, calling the opposition “fascists” and calling democratic bastions such as a free press, elections and representative institutions “condemned by history as decadent and anachronistic.”

[...]

In March 1972, thirteen large wooden crates that came from Cuba contained more than a ton of armaments for the Popular Unity (that were stored even in Allende’s own presidential residence), and the arm searches enforced by the military in 1973 revealed stockpiling of arms by both the government and the opposition. This was one of the main factors in the military decision to organize a coup later in the year. On May 23, 1973, eight air force generals protested to Allende his inaction against the MIR. The armed forces began thinking about intervention as far back as April 1972, when Pinochet himself acknowledged “that a peaceful solution to the political impasse was impossible.” (Sigmund, p. 226)

[...]

In July, the Christian Democratic Party issues “a statement accusing the government of attempting to set up an armed militia by distributing arms in the seized factories and the cordones industriales.” “The establishment of this de facto ‘people’s power’ with the evident participation of state authorities is incompatible with the survival of the ‘institutional power’ of law established by the constitution.” The author adds: “(visiting Chile at this time, I was astounded at the widespread acquisition of arms by both pro- and antigovernment Chileans.)” (Sigmund, p. 218)

[...]

On August 6, Allende for the first time retires two senior air force generals to open the way for the promotion of a general sympathetic to the government. (Sigmund, p. 225). This was another clear breach of the Statute of Democratic Guarantees. The following day, the Navy discovers a left-wing plot of enlisted men. Forty-three sailors are arrested and the Navy accuses Socialist Senator Carlos Altamirano, MAPU Deputy Oscar Garretón and MIR leader Miguel Enriquez of being “intellectual authors.” Carlos Altamirano (who was also Secretary General of Allende’s Socialist Party) proudly admits the accusation. Already in July 1973, Congress had rejected Allende’s request for state-of-siege powers by a vote of 82 to 51, and the presidents of the two houses of Congress had issued “a joint statement denouncing the establishment of ‘popular power’, which they said amounted to the de facto creation of a ‘parallel army in which numerous foreigners are involved’.” (Sigmund, p. 216). “The threat to the military’s monopoly of the instruments of coercion, now combined with attempts to subvert the hierarchy of command from below (the infiltration of the navy) and above (the replacement of the top military commanders) provided the classic scenario for a coup d’état.” (Sigmund, p. 227)

https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/4624.html
#14917756
Sivad wrote:....someone else’s argument....


Okay, so Allende said some things that sound like he intended to do something, but he never actually did any of these things, and he even points out to Regis Debray that he does not plan on directly challenging the bourgeoisie or stepping outside of legal bounds, even though he (correctly) believed that the capitalists would pick up guns and try to kill them.

And Fidel Casteo said things in support of Allende. This is irrelevant. This is like arguing that Pinochet was a constitutional monarchist because Thatcher spoke in support of him.

Owning weapons is not a sign of gulagism. If that were the case, every freedom fighter in the world would be totalitarian. Since this is not the case, the argument is faulty.

Again, accusations by people are not evidence that Allende actually did these things. Especially when the accusations come from poltical opponents. By this logic, Allende’s opponenets were actually fascists because Castro said so.

The last paragraph is hilarious.

About a month before the military enacts a coup and imposes a dictatorship (the gulag state you seem to be defending), Allende tries to remove power from the military because he suspects a coup against him. Trying to stop a dictatorship is now, according to you, evidence he was starting one.

But hey, nice opinion piece from a random free marketeer blogger. At least Dorta did some research.
#14917758
Pants-of-dog wrote:You still have not presented any evidence that Allende was totalitarian, except for the failed motion, which does not show he was totalitarian.


I wasn't aware of this but the motion didn't actually fail, the supreme court determined that the supermajority rule the Allende regime invoked was a misreading of the constitution.

The final battleground between the Popular Unity and the opposition was Congress. The Christian Democrats introduced an amendment to the nationalization law, the amendment was approved and Allende vetoed it. The fight then translated to whether congress needed a simple majority or two-thirds to overrule the presidential veto. The “constitutional confrontation [was] likened by many to the one in 1891 between President Balmaceda and the Congress which had led to a bloody civil war.” (Sigmund, p. 168). The impasse reached a point of crisis, the Supreme Court and the Controller General ruling that “[the veto] does not conform to the norms of the Constitution…” (Alexander, p. 317). In June 1973, the Ministry of the Interior ordered the Carabineros (police) not to carry out court orders, and the Supreme Court wrote two “open letters to President Allende protesting the press campaign and asserting that nonfulfillment of court orders and the abuse of legal loopholes were leading to ‘the imminent breakdown of the judicial order.’ However, the campaign against the judiciary continued, and now it was broadened to include the controller general as well.” (Sigmund, p. 210).



At best, it shows that his political opponents wanted to portray him as totalitarian.


It was the Christian Democrats, the party that voted unanimously for his presidential confirmation, that were now calling for his resignation. These weren't rightwing aristocrats, they were left populists. :lol:

How can a person know so little about the recent history of their own country?
#14917763
Pants-of-dog wrote:...someone else’s argument....

:knife:

Okay, so Allende said some things that sound like he intended to do something, but he never actually did any of these things,


He did all of those things. He created parallel bureaucratic and military structures, he illegally seized private property, he vacated the ruling of the judiciary, and on and on.

and he even points out to Regis Debray that he does not plan on directly challenging the bourgeoisie or stepping outside of legal bounds, even though he (correctly) believed that the capitalists would pick up guns and try to kill them.


What? He told him that the pretense of legality was just a tactic and that he was biding his time until he had the opportunity for full revolutionary takeover.

And Fidel Casteo said things in support of Allende. This is irrelevant. This is like arguing that Pinochet was a constitutional monarchist because Thatcher spoke in support of him.


It may be irrelevant for a dishonest revisionist, but Allende was obviously allowing Castro to speak on his behalf. He invited him to his country for that very reason. Anyway he never contradicted him and all reasonable people would take Allende's invitation to Castro as endorsement of Castro's gulagist views.

Owning weapons is not a sign of gulagism. If that were the case, every freedom fighter in the world would be totalitarian. Since this is not the case, the argument is faulty.


The constitution didn't allow for the executive to establish a parallel military armed by a foreign revolutionary government. That would be like Trump militarizing the neonazis and arming them with Russian weapons. :lol: That's not even remotely constitutional. :lol:


The last paragraph is hilarious.


Your hilarious.
#14917766
Sivad wrote:I wasn't aware of this but the motion didn't actually fail, the supreme court determined that the supermajority rule the Allende regime invoked was a misreading of the constitution.


No. You misread. The text you quoted disproves your assertion.

Also, you are confusing two separate things: the veto to prevent rolling back nationalisation, and Allende’s refusal to carry out court orders that would have hindered the path to socialism.

Please note that these are both different from the original motion you cited. Perhaps you are confusing all three things?

It was the Christian Democrats, the party that voted unanimously for his presidential confirmation, that were now calling for his resignation. These weren't rightwing aristocrats, they were left populists. :lol:

How can a person know so little about the recent history of their own country?


Obviously, you are unaware of how the CD party was supportive of Pinochet by the time 1973 rolled around, despite their supoort for Allende in 1970. They formally broke ranks in September of 1971, by the way.

Sivad wrote:He did all of those things. He created parallel bureaucratic and military structures, he illegally seized private property, he vacated the ruling of the judiciary, and on and on.


No, he did not. Or if he had, you have not guven any evidence for it. His conversation with Debray was just words, not actions.

What? He told him that the pretense of legality was just a tactic and that he was biding his time until he had the opportunity for full revolutionary takeover.


Again, he could claim that he was gong to turn the moon to cheese, but since he was never in a position to do any of this it doesn’t matter.

It may be irrelevant for a dishonest revisionist, but Allende was obviously allowing Castro to speak on his behalf. He invited him to his country for that very reason. Anyway he never contradicted him and all reasonable people would take Allende's invitation to Castro as endorsement of Castro's gulagist views.


Again, this is as stupid as arguing that Pinochet was a constitutional monarchist.

The constitution didn't allow for the executive to establish a parallel military armed by a foreign revolutionary government. That would be like Trump militarizing the neonazis and arming them with Russian weapons. :lol: That's not even remotely constitutional. :lol:


Please quote the part of the Chilean constitution that says that the government is not allowed to arm the people in defense of the nation. Thanks.

Your hilarious.


As long as we agree that by August 6th, the coup against him was already being planned by the CIA and Pinochet. And thus Allende was actually correct that he needed to defang the military before they imposed a military dictatorship.
#14917772
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. You misread. The text you quoted disproves your assertion.

Also, you are confusing two separate things: the veto to prevent rolling back nationalisation, and Allende’s refusal to carry out court orders that would have hindered the path to socialism.

Please note that these are both different from the original motion you cited. Perhaps you are confusing all three things?


The one follows from the other. If the veto was in violation of the constitution then the nationalization was illegal, as was the disregard of court rulings. So it doesn't really matter if the final resolution was shy of a supermajority by three votes, Allende was clearly abusing his executive power. His presidency was lawless and undemocratic and his countrymen did what all good citizens should do with a tyrant.


Everything else you wrote is just crap. You're being deliberately obtuse and there's no sense arguing with that.
#14917774
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please quote the part of the Chilean constitution that says that the government is not allowed to arm the people in defense of the nation. Thanks.


You've never read your own country's constitution or the congressional resolution that deposed your hero? :lol: The resolutions cites all the articles Allende had violated, maybe you should go read it.
#14917789
“The [official] political strategy of the Popular Unity stemmed from a central assumption, that the transition to socialism proceeded by a series of stages, the first of which was winning an electoral majority.” The second stage in the transition was to repeat that majority in a plebiscite that was key to the transformation because it would destroy the fundamental balance of the three government powers: it would have approved a single-chamber Congress and Supreme Court based on the East German model, who would be a rubber-stamp for the executive, plus neighborhood popular tribunals modeled after Cuba’s. The plebiscite, however, was never called by Allende because he knew the Popular Unity could not win it."
(Roxborough, pp. 71-73; Moss, pp. 101-103, 107)

Instead Allende just ignored congress and the courts and went right ahead with establishing parallel structures.
#14917797
Sivad wrote:The one follows from the other.


Hmm. You seem to have forgotten that you are discussing three things.

If the veto was in violation of the constitution then the nationalization was illegal,


No, as the veto was for an amendment to the nationalisation law that would regulate said law. The nationalisation would still be legal. It would just be regulated.

as was the disregard of court rulings.


Whether or not the refusal to carry out court orders was illegal or unconstitutional, this has nothing to do with the veto.

So it doesn't really matter if the final resolution was shy of a supermajority by three votes,


And finally, the motion was also not related to the veto or the refusal to carry out judicial orders, except insofar as all three were attacks against his presidency and his attempts to democratically institute socialism, and that each previous attack became a justification for the next one.

To be honest, Dorta is a little unclear here, but hey, English is not his first language and he is not a scholar.

Allende was clearly abusing his executive power. His presidency was lawless and undemocratic and his countrymen did what all good citizens should do with a tyrant.


Actually, he was attempting to give control of the means of the production to the working class while simultaneously following a legal system designed by the bourgeoisie and the aristocrats. This is, unfortunately, the burden of democratic socialism: to use the system against itself.

The vast majority of what he did was legal and constitutional.

His use of Decrees of Insistence were no different from any POTUS’s use of executive orders.

In fact, the only thing that he did that is arguably illegal was to selectively enforce court penalties. The correct response, in that situation, is to impeach the head of state and preserve government continuity, not get a foreign government to conspire with the military to install an authoritarian regime.

Apparently, you believe that “what all good citizens should do with a tyrant“ is sell out to a foreign government and get an even worse tyrant.

Everything else you wrote is just crap. You're being deliberately obtuse and there's no sense arguing with that.


Another personal attack. One point for me!

So you have no rebuttal for the following:

The Christian Democratic party (CD) changed its support from Allende to Pinochet between 1970 and 1973. Did you know they expected Pinochet to hand power to them after the coup? :roll:

Allende did not create parallel bureaucratic and military structures. In fact, he only started to try to do so when it became apparent that the military and bureaucracy were literally conspiring to impose an authoritarian state.
And this is, in fact, the exact opposite of trying to create an authoritarian state.

He did not illegally seize private property. What he should have also done, though, is change the constitution so that nationalization of the means of production would not have required the convoluted use of legal loopholes, decrees, vetoes, etc. that he did use. But this goes back to the problem of trying to institute socialism in a capitalist legal paradigm.

His moves towards arming the working class and using violence were too little too late and stemmed mostly from the fact that he was reacting to foreign and capitalist violence, illegalities, and intervention instead of relying on the capitalists being hindered by the same democratic principles that were slowing him down.

And while Castro supported him, this does not mean that Allende is guilty by association, even if we accept the incorrect notion that Castro is evil.

Sivad wrote:You've never read your own country's constitution or the congressional resolution that deposed your hero? :lol: The resolutions cites all the articles Allende had violated, maybe you should go read it.


Then it should be easy for you to copy and paste the argument into here, like you did with Dorta’s argument.

Sivad wrote:“The [official] political strategy of the Popular Unity stemmed from a central assumption, that the transition to socialism proceeded by a series of stages, the first of which was winning an electoral majority.” The second stage in the transition was to repeat that majority in a plebiscite that was key to the transformation because it would destroy the fundamental balance of the three government powers: it would have approved a single-chamber Congress and Supreme Court based on the East German model, who would be a rubber-stamp for the executive, plus neighborhood popular tribunals modeled after Cuba’s. The plebiscite, however, was never called by Allende because he knew the Popular Unity could not win it."
(Roxborough, pp. 71-73; Moss, pp. 101-103, 107)

Instead Allende just ignored congress and the courts and went right ahead with establishing parallel structures.


I have no idea why you copy pasted this paragraph of Dorta’s.

Are we supposed to pretend that Dorta’s speculations are somehow facts?

Let me ask you a simple question: were there any actual gulags in Allende’s regime?

We already established that Pinochet did.

We know the US does, the most famous of which is (amusingly enough) in Cuba.

Are these gulag states? If not, why not? How do you define a gulag state?
#14917857
I'm really glad Sivad brought up Pinochet.

While I was in Cuba, many people asked me if a lot of Cubans lived in Montreal.

I answered: "No, not very many. But we have lots of Latinos from other countries though. And most of them were admitted to Canada as refugees."

We have a lot of Chileans in Montreal from Pinochet's death squads. Lots from Columbia's death squads. Lots from El Salvador's death squads.

But just a few Cubans.

Shit governments produce a lot of misery and a lot of refugees. That ought to be your first cue as to Pinochet versus Allende.

The second clue is that Allende was elected by a majority of Chileans, while Pinochet was a CIA imperialist project. That produced thousands of dead and dissappeared, and hundreds of thousands of frightened refugees.

But all they wanted was a community-based form of goverance that involved sharing instead of maximizing production and consumption. But the capitalist empire wouldn't allow these people the freedom to choose.

Nor would they allow Iranians to choose socialism. Nor would they allow Egypt to choose Islamism. Neither would they allow... any freedom other than the freedom of the rich to consume everyone else's lives.
#14918427
skinster wrote:I miss Cuba.

Me too. And I bet jimjam misses Cuba as well.

Last winter, after I got back from my first trip, I would occasionally "smell Cuba" while falling asleep.

The smell is a combination of farm (manure), salty air, fish, and organic vegetables. This smell now haunts me occasionally.

Smells are the most powerful souvenirs.
#14918432
QatzelOk wrote:All my life, I have wanted to visit Latin America.

So this year, I saved some money and decided to take my bicycle to somewhere in Latin America to explore the countryside and towns alone on my bike.

I needed somewhere safe from crime and safe from cars.

After doing research, there was only one country where I was unlikely to get killed by a car or robbed by criminals, and that country is... Cuba. Communist.

All of capitalist Latin America is made up of dangerous shit-holes for singly guys on a bike. In Cuba, there are few cars and fewer crimes. People are trusting and kind because... it's safe to be trusting and kind.

At all other Latin American destinations, the visitor is a prisoner of the resort and of guided tours.

Capitalism is an abject failure.



Q, they blame it on our inferior violent genes. It has nothing to do with the economic rape system of capitalism neoliberalism style. They dont see correlations between these urban ghettos in the USA cities filled with the same desperation, crime, drugs and problems. They dont see a damn thing they dont want to see.

Communism is about repression of buying. Your life is sheer nonsense if you can{t spend money. But how much buying and spending can ghetto folks do on fixed incomes anyway.....they are the most illogical thinkers in the world.

Talk about brainwashed fools Q? Cuba is a failure. They need prostitution, Lucky Luciano, rich white elites and lots of malls and a bunch of crime and drug dealing like the rest of Latin America. A damn paradise of Capitalistic perfection.

Puerto Rico the success story. What you said about 'table scrap' crap. It made me cry Q. Because of its TRUTH. That is what the future is for their damn colonial success story. They can take their idea of success Q and shove it up their ass....

You lose your dignity and self respect and you become a useless piece of shit of dependency and they suck you dry with banksters on the prowl...and you got to be GRATEFUL to these pieces of trash people who have no sense of decency! It angers me something awful.

I was born on that island and I love it. But I can't live there at all. Unless there is some real movement for real change and not sit eating table scraps? I would rather live in Mexico and become a Mexican citizen with time and fight for a better Latin America in a sovereign nation. Not with bullshit.
#14918444
Pants-of-dog wrote:Hmm. You seem to have forgotten that you are discussing three things.


I know what I'm talking about, I don't think either of us know what you're talking about.

No, as the veto was for an amendment to the nationalisation law that would regulate said law. The nationalisation would still be legal. It would just be regulated.


It would have rolled back much of it, which is why he illegally vetoed it.


Whether or not the refusal to carry out court orders was illegal or unconstitutional, this has nothing to do with the veto.


He used the veto as justification for ignoring the judiciary and controller general.

And finally, the motion was also not related to the veto or the refusal to carry out judicial orders, except insofar as all three were attacks against his presidency and his attempts to democratically institute socialism, and that each previous attack became a justification for the next one.


The resolution references all of his many constitutional violations, so even one violation validates the resolution. Your entire case rests on a bullshit technicality. You're essentially claiming Allende was legit because his co-conspirators in the legislature were successful in obstructing both democracy and the rule of law. :lol:

Chile Under Allende: The Decline Of The Judiciary And The Rise Of The State Of Necessity


His use of Decrees of Insistence were no different from any POTUS’s use of executive orders.


Many executive orders are unconstitutional.

The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives

Apparently, you believe that “what all good citizens should do with a tyrant“ is


depose them by any means necessary.


So you have no rebuttal for the following:

The Christian Democratic party (CD) changed its support from Allende to Pinochet between 1970 and 1973. Did you know they expected Pinochet to hand power to them after the coup? :roll:


Exactly, they just wanted to restore the republic and reestablish the rule of law. Allende is responsible for the rise of Pinochet, not the Christian Democrats.

Allende did not create parallel bureaucratic and military structures. In fact, he only started to try to do so when it became apparent that the military and bureaucracy were literally conspiring to impose an authoritarian state.
And this is, in fact, the exact opposite of trying to create an authoritarian state.


Obtuse denial isn't an argument.

What he should have also done, though, is change the constitution so that nationalization of the means of production would not have required the convoluted use of legal loopholes, decrees, vetoes, etc. that he did use.


Now why didn't he think of that? :lol: He wanted to do exactly that, it was his original plan, he just didn't have the democratic support to do it.

I have no idea why you copy pasted this paragraph of Dorta’s.


It shows that not only did Allende abandon his own democratic standards, but also that he fully intended to abolish all checks and balances and institute autocracy at the earliest opportunity.

Are we supposed to pretend that Dorta’s speculations are somehow facts?


I love how you hold motivated skepticism as an intellectual virtue.

Let me ask you a simple question: were there any actual gulags in Allende’s regime?


Yes, the MIR was going around evicting and murdering land owners and setting up "citizens councils" with the tacit approval of Allende's government. That's budding gulagism.
#14918479
Sivad wrote:I know what I'm talking about, I don't think either of us know what you're talking about.

It would have rolled back much of it, which is why he illegally vetoed it.

He used the veto as justification for ignoring the judiciary and controller general.

The resolution references all of his many constitutional violations, so even one violation validates the resolution. Your entire case rests on a bullshit technicality. You're essentially claiming Allende was legit because his co-conspirators in the legislature were successful in obstructing both democracy and the rule of law. :lol:

Chile Under Allende: The Decline Of The Judiciary And The Rise Of The State Of Necessity


Okay, your confusion about three separate events is not an argument.

In that paper for which you provide a link, you can find a good argument as to why his refusal to carry out the orders of the judiciary, but it does not support anything else you may have said.

This brings us back to my point that this one act does not merit inviting a foreign government to hand all power to a dictatorship.

Many executive orders are unconstitutional.

The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives


Perhaps. But this does not mean that Allende’s use of Decress of Insistence was unconstitutional.

depose them by any means necessary.


And this includes handing power to a military dictatorship allied wuth foreign powers?

Exactly, they just wanted to restore the republic and reestablish the rule of law. Allende is responsible for the rise of Pinochet, not the Christian Democrats.


So you agree with me that your prevuous assertuon that the CD supoorted Allende at the time of the coup was incorrect.

Obtuse denial isn't an argument.


Again, Allende was trying to get rid of those in the military who were seeking to take power and put in a military dictatorship. He started doing this on August 6, which was approximately one month before the coup happened.

Obviously, at that point in time there were people in the military who were conspiring with a foreign government and planning a coup and military dictatorship.

You are arguing that he should have done nothing about this.

Now why didn't he think of that? :lol: He wanted to do exactly that, it was his original plan, he just didn't have the democratic support to do it.


Well, when you are trying to take down capitalism, the business class, the aristocracy, and large portions of the middle class will work against you. So even though Allende had the support of most people (i.e. the poor, the working class, and indigenous people) the people with all the pwoer were actively working against him.

This is obvious to anyone who is aware of how classist Chilean society was at the time, and probably still is.

It shows that not only did Allende abandon his own democratic standards, but also that he fully intended to abolish all checks and balances and institute autocracy at the earliest opportunity.


Not as far as I can tell.

Yes, the MIR was going around evicting and murdering land owners and setting up "citizens councils" with the tacit approval of Allende's government. That's budding gulagism.


Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.
#14918483
Pants-of-dog wrote:Okay, your confusion about three separate events is not an argument.


:knife:

In that paper for which you provide a link, you can find a good argument as to why his refusal to carry out the orders of the judiciary, but it does not support anything else you may have said.


So you're just pretending to have read it? That's lame. It's crazy that you just blatantly lie about what is says when anyone can just click the link and read it for themselves. WTF? :lol: :knife:

This brings us back to my point that this one act does not merit inviting a foreign government to hand all power to a dictatorship.


That didn't happen, you're just making shit up.

Perhaps. But this does not mean that Allende’s use of Decress of Insistence was unconstitutional.


They were totally unconstitutional according to the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court, a near supermajority of the legislature, and the Controller General.

And this includes handing power to a military dictatorship allied wuth foreign powers?


That's not what they did.

So you agree with me that your prevuous assertuon that the CD supoorted Allende at the time of the coup was incorrect.


I've never made any such assertion. Stop making up crazy shit already, it's not helping your case.

The rest of your responses are just obtuse denials and other stupid shit so I'm not going to bother with it.
#14918484
Pants-of-dog wrote: Allende had the support of most people (i.e. the poor, the working class, and indigenous people)


Which is why he didn't even come close to holding majority support. Do see how crazy these lies are? Anyone can just go to Wikipedia and see that you just made that up. It's just asinine. I don't get it?
#14918487
Sivad wrote::knife:

So you're just pretending to have read it? That's lame. It's crazy that you just blatantly lie about what is says when anyone can just click the link and read it for themselves. WTF? :lol: :knife:


Yes, they should read it. I completely agree.

That didn't happen, you're just making shit up.


No, there really was a dictatorship: Pinochet.

And there really was a foreign power behind it: the USA.

They were totally unconstitutional according to the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court, a near supermajority of the legislature, and the Controller General.


How so?

That's not what they did.


Yes.

They (if we are discussing Allende’s Chilean opponents) put a dictator in power (Pinochet) who was allied with a foreign power (the USA).

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you and you are not actually denying this.

I've never made any such assertion. Stop making up crazy shit already, it's not helping your case.


If you say so.

The most important thing is that we agree that the legislature resolution of August 22, 1973, did not show that Allende was totalitarian and at best, it shows that his political opponents wanted to portray him as totalitarian.

And that his political opponents at the time included the Christian Democrats, the party that voted unanimously for his presidential confirmation, and that were now calling for his resignation.

The rest of your responses are just obtuse denials and other stupid shit so I'm not going to bother with it.


So no evidence for actual gulags.

Do you need evidence for the claim that the US actually has gulags? Yes or no?

Either way, do you think the US is a gulag state?

Sivad wrote:Which is why he didn't even come close to holding majority support. Do see how crazy these lies are? Anyone can just go to Wikipedia and see that you just made that up. It's just asinine. I don't get it?


Feel free to quote this evidence that supposedly disproves my claims.
  • 1
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 148
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Why would you Americans care? For years you got a[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]