|
Post by johng on Jun 30, 2009 20:08:15 GMT -5
Summer time fuel price increases are political in nature IMO and have been used for most of my adult life to contain people to regions vs outright freedom to roam about the country. No hard evidence just pure unadulterated speculation on my part. Same speculation that leads me to believe the same tanker truck that delivers $250 gal gas to El Cajon also delivers from the same tanker the $3 gal to Scripps Ranch and Mira Mesa. I have watched the tankers load up at the Stadium tank farm and it all comes from the same place and goes to various stations. Masterful Manipulation of the market place and our lives which has now given way to added upward cost for "Global Warming". Grin and Bare it!
I watched the interview with the Saudi Prince on Dateline or 60 minutes where he was painfully honest that they can't pay for all the infrastructure and continue to amass large profits unless the oil is above $40 barrell. Pretty straight forward and he did not hesitate in his delivery.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jul 1, 2009 4:12:15 GMT -5
I will admit that I have mixed feelings about the "military coup" in Honduras. For one, the media and many here are making an erroneous statement in calling it a military coup. And supporting the deposed President because of an illegal coup may not be the correct position.
From the many articles I have read about the situation there, their Congress had ordered the military to remove the President because he was violating their law by illegally attempting to extend his presidency. (The current term of president there is ONE four year term.) Therefore, this was not a military coup in that the military was acting upon orders from Congress. I don't know if this is legal either but it was to stop the President from performing an illegal function.
If this is the true case, then I think that the UN, OAS, Chavas (which owns the OAS) and Obama (now pictures of Che' in Obama's campaign offices comes to mine) all have it wrong.
What comes into question, yet is not covered within our newsmedia, is what are the laws in Honduras concerning this matter. If their Congress acted legally by ordering the military to oust the President for illegal actions, then they should be supported for following their laws. If the Congress action was not legal, then the restoration of the President must be made.
It is a matter of what was the legal procedure in Honduras! It makes little difference to the U.S. of which man is President there as they are quite similar when it comes to the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jul 1, 2009 14:10:35 GMT -5
Does Honduras have a SOCHON to bring justice to this scenario? Would it matter since they are all male and would make the wrong decision anyway...
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jul 2, 2009 0:23:59 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090702/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_coup - AP Associated Press Soldiers stormed Zelaya's residence and flew him into exile Sunday after he insisted on trying to hold a referendum asking Hondurans if they want to change the constitution. The Supreme Court, Congress and the military all deemed his planned ballot illegal. Zelaya backed down Tuesday, saying he will no longer push for constitutional changes
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 2, 2009 22:13:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jul 3, 2009 3:27:30 GMT -5
If you READ my posts, you would see that I am in flux right now due to the lack of critical information. None of the news media have thought to bring forth the "legalities" of what the Honduras Supreme Court, their Congress and Military have done. Yet, they take quotes from officials that leads one to believe what they did was legal. If what they did was, in fact, legal then the world is meddling in their affairs. If what they did was, in fact, illegal then I would agree with those who state that the deposed President should be restored. Is this not a reasonable view? My posts have links to VALID news organizations, quoting government officials in Honduras. A marked difference from the spin doctors that want to spin the spin doctors (talk show hosts) that you posted!
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jul 3, 2009 6:10:06 GMT -5
President Zelaya wanted to hold an advisory referendum on extending terms to two four year terms. Doesn't sound too radical to me. There is more to the story than this. The Liar and the idiot are cheering the military takeover (Limbaugh and Hannity) so one has to be suspicious to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jul 3, 2009 8:45:37 GMT -5
President Zelaya wanted to hold an advisory referendum on extending terms to two four year terms. Doesn't sound too radical to me. There is more to the story than this. The Liar and the idiot are cheering the military takeover (Limbaugh and Hannity) so one has to be suspicious to say the least. Advisory referendum? That is new information I haven't heard yet. It doesn't match previous information from the news media as it was listed as a "vote to change" the terms. You should be proud of spreading the gossip from Limbaugh and Hannity. It is such action that keeps them in the money, lots of it too! Even negative comments helps to generate their popularity!
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jul 3, 2009 9:19:11 GMT -5
Some of the local news of Honduras: President Zelaya Sacks Head of Joint Chiefs www.hondurasthisweek.com/national/1158-political-crisis-created-by-president-zelayaCronological Summary of the Facts in Honduras www.hondurasthisweek.com/national/1178-cronological-summary-of-the-facts-in-hondurasHonduras united to defend its Constitution and Democracy ....The news took everyone by surprise but for many it was a time of relief. Ex President Zelaya had been planning and organizing a supposed National Poll to simply ask the people if they agreed on a fourth box during the November elections. However, the poll had second intentions which would summon a National Constituent Assembly with the objective of changing the Constitution and current form of government in order to stay in power longer than it is allowed by the current Constitution. The Supreme Court had already ruled against this act and had called it illegal. But Zelaya ignored the ruling and openly said nothing would stop him from making it happen. The goal behind Mel’s intentions was to re write the Constitution of Honduras and establish a new form of government, just like Venezuelan Chief Hugo Chavez has done in the south. This would completely change the way of life that Hondurans have known and love. Before the arrest of Zelaya, Hondurans had demonstrated they were not about to let their democracy be tumbled and taken away. Many peaceful manifestations took place throughout the country, especially in Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula, Honduras’ two main cities..... www.hondurasthisweek.com/editorial/1186-honduras-united-to-defend-their-constitution-and-democracyUS Reluctant to Cut off Aid to Honduras Although the US government has firmly condemned the ousting of President Manuel Zelaya on June 28 and joined the chorus of nations calling for his immediate return to power, the Obama administration has opted to hold off on any decision to officially characterize the removal of Mr. Zelaya as a military coup. The Obama administration is adopting a wait and see attitude to the unfolding events in Honduras before making any “legal” declaration of what has transpired that could trigger US legislation requiring termination of US foreign aid to Honduras. The Reuters news service has reported that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that the US would continue to offer assistance to Honduras. www.hondurasthisweek.com/editorial/1177-us-reluctant-to-cut-off-aid-to-honduraWhile Obama & Clinton are using destablization of Honduras as their point of continuing foriegn aid to them, it appears that they know that what took place may very well have been legal. That is why they are taking a "wait and see" position.NOTE: There are blogs attached to the end of each article. They are both pro and con.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 3, 2009 16:32:32 GMT -5
If you READ my posts, you would see that I am in flux right now due to the lack of critical information. None of the news media have thought to bring forth the "legalities" of what the Honduras Supreme Court, their Congress and Military have done. Yet, they take quotes from officials that leads one to believe what they did was legal. If what they did was, in fact, legal then the world is meddling in their affairs. If what they did was, in fact, illegal then I would agree with those who state that the deposed President should be restored. Is this not a reasonable view? My posts have links to VALID news organizations, quoting government officials in Honduras. A marked difference from the spin doctors that want to spin the spin doctors (talk show hosts) that you posted! I never said I agreed with any links I post, they are just FYI. Are they "valid"? Who cares?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 4, 2009 18:48:08 GMT -5
It's getting more interesting by the day. The new government of Honduras is telling the OAS to shove it. What should Obama do now? Anything? I would at least cut off military aid, and send home any Honduran officers training in the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jul 5, 2009 3:06:28 GMT -5
It's getting more interesting by the day. The new government of Honduras is telling the OAS to shove it. What should Obama do now? Anything? I would at least cut off military aid, and send home any Honduran officers training in the U.S. Rahm Emmanuel stated this is a crisis to take advantage of! It is obvious that the Obama administration is going to side with the OAS in order to gain favor with them. Our South American policy has fluctuated constantly. Especially since Pres. Kennedy acted against Honduras only to change his mind 2 months later. This event contributed to the so-called Mann Doctrine of 1964, dropping the US insistence on democracy. While South America is going socialist, Obama would rather gain favor of the OAS over a single country. Particularly since the change in Presidents in Honduras will have little actual effect with U.S. policy. Will the OAS look at it as having a weak foriegn policy to gain favor or will the reciprocate in a less agressive view of the U.S.? Only time will tell!
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jul 5, 2009 6:43:16 GMT -5
The coup that removed Zelaya was illegal. Lisa Alexandrovna, an expert on the Honduras constitution, reports that whether the open referendum was legal or illegal, there is no mention in the constituion of a military removal and forced deportation of the president. Some of the evidence on how illegal the removal was; 1. a fake resignation letter 2. no charges were brought 3. deported out of the country 4. a hastily convened congressional meeting AFTER the fact
The right wing in this country is trying to paint Obama as an ally of Castro and Chavez. They have critisized the coup, but so have most leaders, from Gordon Brown to Stephan Harper to Felipe Calderon to Merkel and Sarkozy. Is the right wing hoping for a military coup in this country?
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jul 5, 2009 15:05:30 GMT -5
The right wing in this country is trying to paint Obama as an ally of Castro and Chavez. Is the right wing hoping for a military coup in this country? It is obvious that Obama wants to court the countries of the OAS and to gain favor he must show that he agrees with them. How else is he going to change the confrontational attitude with them? The question is how much is it going to cost the U.S. (not monetarily) and what are we going to get in exchange. I agree that relations need to be improved. I just don't want to see us get "played". Chavez has already outmanuevered Obama on several other issues. Why do you always bring up a coup against Obama? Is that your new choir lead song? It used to be calling everybody racist! Yet, we know where you come from concerning that matter now! As far as my comments concerning the legality of the removal of their president, they are just that, trying to find the truth of legality. You state one source of which I will consider. But that is not the place we need to hear it from. We have to often heard "experts" make statements without quoting sources only to find they were giving "expert opinion", not a statement of fact. They have a constitution, where is it written that what was done was illegal? It makes one wonder when a whole Congress AND their Supreme Court were the ones directing the military to remove the President. You would think that they KNOW THEIR own laws! It is because that the Congress AND Supreme Court took the lead in this action that I question those who state it is illegal. If it was just a military operation, then I would have very little doubt about it being illegal. As I stated previously, it really doesn't matter much which man there is president, they have similar views towards the U.S. I am just searching for the facts concerning legality of what they did. This is NOT a negative statement against Obama and his position. He needs to put in an appearance for show, yet he hasn't actually taken any specific action. Even though he is quoted as saying it was illegal, I am sure he is having his administration check out the facts in their Constitution prior to taking negative action. He will be in an extremely hard position if what was done was legal because then he would appear to have to go against the OAS. I think for that reason he will continue not to take action but speak in a manner to continue support of the OAS. It is them more than Honduras that he needs to improve relations with. Is this a sell out? That only depends upon the legality issue and/or the best interest of the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 7, 2009 0:08:57 GMT -5
|
|