Honduras did not have a Coup.

[Sweet Willy]

In Washington, Obama said the United States will "stand on the side of democracy" and work with other nations and international groups to resolve the matter peacefully.

"We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there," Obama said.

"It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," he added. "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions. ... We don't want to go back to a dark past."

yeah....."WE BELIEVE that the coup....."

The president is obviously stating his position, what HE BELIEVES.

There has been no demand made to the Hondurans, THE ONLY FUCKING PEOPLE THAT CAN RESPOND TO A DEMAND.

This is something called diplomacy, politics, nuance.

A demand or an insistance upon another government would be made in no indirect terms and by no indirect fucking press release.

This is dumb. There have been no demands made.

Look, you're just playing word games. Obama and his press secretary made it clear that they felt that there had been a military coup and that Zelaya was still the rightful president of Honduras. A normal person would take that to mean that the position of our government is to support Zelaya. Supporting Zelaya implies that Zelaya should be considered the Honduran president and returned to power. You can dance and spin and play wordsmith but it doesn't change the actual meaning.

I agree with most of what you said. I do not agree that Obama supports Zelaya. I have not heard that anyone has taken any side except to take the side of democracy and to condem a military coup.

In any case, Obama has not insisted that the guy be returned to power. He has said that he thinks he should be, that he thinks that is the right answer and that a coup is illegal.

You can not insist that the press reinstate the man. The press can not do that. The only people that can do that are in Honduras. No one is twisting words here except Divcon with the very first loaded, bullshit question. If the question was: "Do you think it is wrong for Obama to say Zelaya should be reinstated?" My answer would be "No. I do not." If Obama is in the position to either endorse a military coup or support legal recourse, I'd say he made a good decision.

If the question is "Do you think Obama is wrong to INSIST that Zelaya be reinstated?", my answer changes. If Obama had indeed "insisted" that the Hondurans reinstate the man, I would say yes, that is the wrong thing to do. It is not his business to insist anything of another country if it does not directly affect the security of the US.


YOu people don't even understand the most obvious nuance of politics. That one little word makes all the difference. Nothing has been insisted. Obama has stated his position. You fucking hacks wouldn't make it a week in politics.

 

[DiveCon]

yeah....."WE BELIEVE that the coup....."

The president is obviously stating his position, what HE BELIEVES.

There has been no demand made to the Hondurans, THE ONLY FUCKING PEOPLE THAT CAN RESPOND TO A DEMAND.

This is something called diplomacy, politics, nuance.

A demand or an insistance upon another government would be made in no indirect terms and by no indirect fucking press release.

This is dumb. There have been no demands made.

Look, you're just playing word games. Obama and his press secretary made it clear that they felt that there had been a military coup and that Zelaya was still the rightful president of Honduras. A normal person would take that to mean that the position of our government is to support Zelaya. Supporting Zelaya implies that Zelaya should be considered the Honduran president and returned to power. You can dance and spin and play wordsmith but it doesn't change the actual meaning.

I agree with most of what you said. I do not agree that Obama supports Zelaya. I have not heard that anyone has taken any side except to take the side of democracy and to condem a military coup.

In any case, Obama has not insisted that the guy be returned to power. He has said that he thinks he should be, that he thinks that is the right answer and that a coup is illegal.

You can not insist that the press reinstate the man. The press can not do that. The only people that can do that are in Honduras. No one is twisting words here except Divcon with the very first loaded, bullshit question. If the question was: "Do you think it is wrong for Obama to say Zelaya should be reinstated?" My answer would be "No. I do not." If Obama is in the position to either endorse a military coup or support legal recourse, I'd say he made a good decision.

If the question is "Do you think Obama is wrong to INSIST that Zelaya be reinstated?", my answer changes. If Obama had indeed "insisted" that the Hondurans reinstate the man, I would say yes, that is the wrong thing to do. It is not his business to insist anything of another country if it does not directly affect the security of the US.


YOu people don't even understand the most obvious nuance of politics. That one little word makes all the difference. Nothing has been insisted. Obama has stated his position. You fucking hacks wouldn't make it a week in politics.

again, you are showing you are a fucking moron

that is exactly what is the intent behind what was said
it is YOU that doesnt understand politics

 

[Sweet Willy]

Look, you're just playing word games. Obama and his press secretary made it clear that they felt that there had been a military coup and that Zelaya was still the rightful president of Honduras. A normal person would take that to mean that the position of our government is to support Zelaya. Supporting Zelaya implies that Zelaya should be considered the Honduran president and returned to power. You can dance and spin and play wordsmith but it doesn't change the actual meaning.

I agree with most of what you said. I do not agree that Obama supports Zelaya. I have not heard that anyone has taken any side except to take the side of democracy and to condem a military coup.

In any case, Obama has not insisted that the guy be returned to power. He has said that he thinks he should be, that he thinks that is the right answer and that a coup is illegal.

You can not insist that the press reinstate the man. The press can not do that. The only people that can do that are in Honduras. No one is twisting words here except Divcon with the very first loaded, bullshit question. If the question was: "Do you think it is wrong for Obama to say Zelaya should be reinstated?" My answer would be "No. I do not." If Obama is in the position to either endorse a military coup or support legal recourse, I'd say he made a good decision.

If the question is "Do you think Obama is wrong to INSIST that Zelaya be reinstated?", my answer changes. If Obama had indeed "insisted" that the Hondurans reinstate the man, I would say yes, that is the wrong thing to do. It is not his business to insist anything of another country if it does not directly affect the security of the US.


YOu people don't even understand the most obvious nuance of politics. That one little word makes all the difference. Nothing has been insisted. Obama has stated his position. You fucking hacks wouldn't make it a week in politics.

again, you are showing you are a fucking moron

that is exactly what is the intent behind what was said
it is YOU that doesnt understand politics

No Divecon. That is the exact opposite of insisting.

Now you claim that even though there is nothing direct there, even though we have to firgure out and go on "intent", that was the meaning.

You can comprhend the meaning of "insist"? And you are now trying to say that veiled intent in the statement is insistance?

Hint: that is the opposite of "insist". " Insist" means direct and firm. These statement are anything but direct and firm. They are made to third parties. Not direct at all. And we have to make implications to tickle their intent from them.

No Dive, you aren't that dumb. You place that word "insist" in the question because you know it implies more than what has occured.

Either that, or you are just dumb.

 

[Vel]

That one little word makes all the difference. [/B] Nothing has been insisted. Obama has stated his position. You fucking hacks wouldn't make it a week in politics.

I'll take THAT as a compliment. You might do quite well in politics as it seems that spin and deception comes easily to you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ya, sure thing, when the President of the US refuses to recognize the new Government and STATES for the record he BELIEVES the former President is STILL the President, he has made no position known. I think even a 5 year old would understand what the President said and means.

 

[DiveCon]

I agree with most of what you said. I do not agree that Obama supports Zelaya. I have not heard that anyone has taken any side except to take the side of democracy and to condem a military coup.

In any case, Obama has not insisted that the guy be returned to power. He has said that he thinks he should be, that he thinks that is the right answer and that a coup is illegal.

You can not insist that the press reinstate the man. The press can not do that. The only people that can do that are in Honduras. No one is twisting words here except Divcon with the very first loaded, bullshit question. If the question was: "Do you think it is wrong for Obama to say Zelaya should be reinstated?" My answer would be "No. I do not." If Obama is in the position to either endorse a military coup or support legal recourse, I'd say he made a good decision.

If the question is "Do you think Obama is wrong to INSIST that Zelaya be reinstated?", my answer changes. If Obama had indeed "insisted" that the Hondurans reinstate the man, I would say yes, that is the wrong thing to do. It is not his business to insist anything of another country if it does not directly affect the security of the US.


YOu people don't even understand the most obvious nuance of politics. That one little word makes all the difference. Nothing has been insisted. Obama has stated his position. You fucking hacks wouldn't make it a week in politics.

again, you are showing you are a fucking moron

that is exactly what is the intent behind what was said
it is YOU that doesnt understand politics

No Divecon. That is the exact opposite of insisting.

Now you claim that even though there is nothing direct there, even though we have to firgure out and go on "intent", that was the meaning.

You can comprhend the meaning of "insist"? And you are now trying to say that veiled intent in the statement is insistance?

Hint: that is the opposite of "insist". " Insist" means direct and firm. These statement are anything but direct and firm. They are made to third parties. Not direct at all. And we have to make implications to tickle their intent from them.

No Dive, you aren't that dumb. You place that word "insist" in the question because you know it implies more than what has occured.

Either that, or you are just dumb.

no, i'm not dumb, but you sure are
as to being a hack, you have admitted that what has happened in Honduras is legal, and justified, yet you still back Obama's support of putting that assholew back

THAT is nothing but your own patisan HACK coming out

 

[Sweet Willy]

That one little word makes all the difference. [/B] Nothing has been insisted. Obama has stated his position. You fucking hacks wouldn't make it a week in politics.

I'll take THAT as a compliment. You might do quite well in politics as it seems that spin and deception comes easily to you.

It's not deception. It's perception in this very instance. Obama had already promised the OAS to deal with them on Central American issues. This one comes up, he has thus far directed his responses and positions to them. Just like HE SAID HE WOULD DO. He hasn't broken to insist that anything be done.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Ya, sure thing, when the President of the US refuses to recognize the new Government and STATES for the record he BELIEVES the former President is STILL the President, he has made no position known. I think even a 5 year old would understand what the President said and means.

He has absolutely made his position known.

He has not insisted that Honduras bend to it.

He has not made direct and firm statements to Honduras.

You can twist this crap all day and the claim that Obama has insisted that Honduras do anything is baloney.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Can we ask some honest questions now?

Do YOU think Zelaya should be reinstated as president?

Do YOU think the US should recognize the coup installed government?

Etc. Etc.

 

[DiveCon]

Can we ask some honest questions now?

Do YOU think Zelaya should be reinstated as president?

Do YOU think the US should recognize the coup installed government?

Etc. Etc.

NO, he shouldnt be reinstated
YES, we should, since they followed their laws

 

[Sweet Willy]

Can we ask some honest questions now?

Do YOU think Zelaya should be reinstated as president?

Do YOU think the US should recognize the coup installed government?

Etc. Etc.

NO, he shouldnt be reinstated
YES, we should, since they followed their laws

#1 I don't know if he should be reinstated.

#2 No. We should not, at least immediately, recognize a coup installed President. Anyone with any inkling of foreign policy knows this.


IF it is found that military removal of the president is prescribed in the Honduran constitution, then this is legal.

I, however, do not believe he was legally removed from office. There was no vote to do so. There was no proceeding at all to establish if he had violated any law and if he had violated the law, what the legal punishment should be. Removal by military coup, I am willing to bet, is not the legal prescription for removing him, although I do think he should have been removed from office. They just didn't go about it in an acceptable manner. It is not good policy to recognize coup installed governments. Period. And Sure as hell not a week after they are installed. What are you? Some kind of idiot?.....oh yeah, you are.

 

[DiveCon]

he was legally removed by the Honduran legislature and Supreme court
he is no longer the president of Honduras
the congress replaced him

 

[Sweet Willy]

he was legally removed by the Honduran legislature and Supreme court
he is no longer the president of Honduras
the congress replaced him

Could be true.

Can you cite the Honduran law that expressly gives the right to the Court or Legislature to remove him?

BY what mechanism? Was there an impeachment I didn't hear about? Do they not require impeachment proceedings? If not, what is the procedure for it, according to Honduran law? Does the Honduran Constitution say that removal is to be accomplished by court order to the military?

What si this law you are refering to? I don't know it.

 

[DiveCon]

he was legally removed by the Honduran legislature and Supreme court
he is no longer the president of Honduras
the congress replaced him

Could be true.

Can you cite the Honduran law that expressly gives the right to the Court or Legislature to remove him?

BY what mechanism? Was there an impeachment I didn't hear about? Do they not require impeachment proceedings? If not, what is the procedure for it, according to Honduran law? Does the Honduran Constitution say that removal is to be accomplished by court order to the military?

What si this law you are refering to? I don't know it.

since i'm not honduran, i will go by what they say
and since they are saying they followed their laws, i'm not gonna tell them they arent
and i highly doubt you know their laws either
so i really dont give a rats ass what your opinion is
but, you are intitled to it

 

[Sweet Willy]

he was legally removed by the Honduran legislature and Supreme court
he is no longer the president of Honduras
the congress replaced him

Could be true.

Can you cite the Honduran law that expressly gives the right to the Court or Legislature to remove him?

BY what mechanism? Was there an impeachment I didn't hear about? Do they not require impeachment proceedings? If not, what is the procedure for it, according to Honduran law? Does the Honduran Constitution say that removal is to be accomplished by court order to the military?

What si this law you are refering to? I don't know it.

since i'm not honduran, i will go by what they say
and since they are saying they followed their laws, i'm not gonna tell them they arent
and i highly doubt you know their laws either
so i really dont give a rats ass what your opinion is
but, you are intitled to it

So now we get to the truth.

You don't know. You admit you are going on what "they" say. Who is this mysterious "they"? Can you cite "them" for us. Give us a link to "them" so we too can see what "they" are saying.

This is your normal way of behaving when you don't know something? You form a position, in your admitted ignorance, and you stick to it.

Give us a link to the information that has lead you to beleive that this was legal. Show us "they".

YES, we should, since they followed their laws

But you have admitted you don't know their laws. Why did you say this?

he was legally removed by the Honduran legislature and Supreme court

Another previous statement. But now you tell us you don't know Honduran law.



Divecon, it is not only OK, but it is admirable and intelligent to say "I'm not sure" or "I don't know", when you in fact, are not sure or do not know. Believe me, everyone else has already figured it out.

 

[DiveCon]

Could be true.

Can you cite the Honduran law that expressly gives the right to the Court or Legislature to remove him?

BY what mechanism? Was there an impeachment I didn't hear about? Do they not require impeachment proceedings? If not, what is the procedure for it, according to Honduran law? Does the Honduran Constitution say that removal is to be accomplished by court order to the military?

What si this law you are refering to? I don't know it.

since i'm not honduran, i will go by what they say
and since they are saying they followed their laws, i'm not gonna tell them they arent
and i highly doubt you know their laws either
so i really dont give a rats ass what your opinion is
but, you are intitled to it

So now we get to the truth.

You don't know. You admit you are going on what "they" say. Who is this mysterious "they"? Can you cite "them" for us. Give us a link to "them" so we too can see what "they" are saying.

This is your normal way of behaving when you don't know something? You form a position, in your admitted ignorance, and you stick to it.

Give us a link to the information that has lead you to beleive that this was legal. Show us "they".

YES, we should, since they followed their laws

But you have admitted you don't know their laws. Why did you say this?

he was legally removed by the Honduran legislature and Supreme court

Another previous statement. But now you tell us you don't know Honduran law.



Divecon, it is not only OK, but it is admirable and intelligent to say "I'm not sure" or "I don't know", when you in fact, are not sure or do not know. Believe me, everyone else has already figured it out.

its not my fault you are completely ignorant

 

[Sweet Willy]

since i'm not honduran, i will go by what they say
and since they are saying they followed their laws, i'm not gonna tell them they arent
and i highly doubt you know their laws either
so i really dont give a rats ass what your opinion is
but, you are intitled to it

So now we get to the truth.

You don't know. You admit you are going on what "they" say. Who is this mysterious "they"? Can you cite "them" for us. Give us a link to "them" so we too can see what "they" are saying.

This is your normal way of behaving when you don't know something? You form a position, in your admitted ignorance, and you stick to it.

Give us a link to the information that has lead you to beleive that this was legal. Show us "they".




But you have admitted you don't know their laws. Why did you say this?

he was legally removed by the Honduran legislature and Supreme court

Another previous statement. But now you tell us you don't know Honduran law.



Divecon, it is not only OK, but it is admirable and intelligent to say "I'm not sure" or "I don't know", when you in fact, are not sure or do not know. Believe me, everyone else has already figured it out.

its not my fault you are completely ignorant

Focus Divecon.

Who is "they"?

Please cite this source of "they" or the Honduran people you are refering to.

Do they exist?

Or did you make them up?

 

[DiveCon]

So now we get to the truth.

You don't know. You admit you are going on what "they" say. Who is this mysterious "they"? Can you cite "them" for us. Give us a link to "them" so we too can see what "they" are saying.

This is your normal way of behaving when you don't know something? You form a position, in your admitted ignorance, and you stick to it.

Give us a link to the information that has lead you to beleive that this was legal. Show us "they".




But you have admitted you don't know their laws. Why did you say this?




Another previous statement. But now you tell us you don't know Honduran law.



Divecon, it is not only OK, but it is admirable and intelligent to say "I'm not sure" or "I don't know", when you in fact, are not sure or do not know. Believe me, everyone else has already figured it out.

its not my fault you are completely ignorant

Focus Divecon.

Who is "they"?

Please cite this source of "they" or the Honduran people you are refering to.

Do they exist?

Or did you make them up?

fuck off asshole
i'm done with your ignorance

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Ouch!

 

[Sweet Willy]

its not my fault you are completely ignorant

Focus Divecon.

Who is "they"?

Please cite this source of "they" or the Honduran people you are refering to.

Do they exist?

Or did you make them up?

fuck off asshole
i'm done with your ignorance

I take it you will not be providing any material to support your position that this was a legal action.