Why does Obama Support Zelaya?

[eagleseven]

Ex-President Zelaya of Honduras was exiled from the country on order of the Honduran Supreme Court and Parliament. He has been temporarily replaced by the Chairman of Zelaya's Liberal Party.

Zelaya, considered by his people to be a puppet of Hugo Chavez, was exiled because he sought to eliminate all term limits on the Presidency. The Supreme Court rightfully believes that he seeks to become dictator, following in the footsteps of Hugo Chavez.

Unsurprisingly, Chavez threatens to invade Honduras for exiling his buddy Zelaya. So how does America respond?

Mr. Obama publicly supports Chavez and Zelaya. Besides shocking pretty much anyone who follows the news, Obama's actions signal a complete 180 of American policy, by directly supporting Communist Dictators.

In fact, it appears the only countries supporting the Honduran people are Panama and Columbia. Hmm.


So, why does Obama openly support the destruction of democracy in Honduras?

Rush suggested that, in Obama's ideal world, Mr. Obama is president for life, without an annoying Congress or electorate to please. This would give Mr. Obama all the power he needs to remake American in his image.


Do I think Obama dreams himself dictator? Most certainly, yes! Even with supermajorities in Congress, he still continually seeks ways to limit the power of the legislative branch. Further, his detainment policies, outlined so far, are an affront to the Constitution and basic human rights.

Key Points:

1. Obama's policy of indefinite, preventative detainment without trial.
2. Obama's policy of indefinite, preventative detainment of individuals already found not guilty.
3. Obama's policy of signing and enforcing treaties without the approval of Congress, until after the fact.
4. Obama's near-complete control of the press, according to the oldest member of the Washington Press Corps.
5. Obama's de-facto nationalization of the world's largest companies.


Had you given me these links one year ago, I would've laughed and called you crazy. But this is our new reality. When will our Congress, our Supreme Court, when will America wake up?

P.S. For any liberals about to say "But Bush did it too!" If you didn't like it under Bush, you should be outraged about it now! Saying "The other guy did it, too" does nothing to help the situation.

 

[DiveCon]

Sweet willy will be along soon to tell you how wrong you are

 

[eagleseven]

Sweet willy will be along soon to tell you how wrong you are

I look forward to the hoops posters here will jump through to justify Obama's actions...

 

[Epsilon Delta]

In fact, it appears the only countries supporting the Honduran people are Panama and Columbia. Hmm.

The Panamanian government condemned the coup. Colombia rejected the removal by force of Zelaya. I guess every single government in the continent is run by dictators who want to destroy freedom. What a twist of irony; now only Republicans and Military establishments care about our freedom now. Hahaha.



I think Obama is doing it because it sets bad precedent. Military coups are unnacceptable. If he was doing something illegal he should've been arrested, tried, and sent to jail. They had no business dumping him here.

 

[DiveCon]

In fact, it appears the only countries supporting the Honduran people are Panama and Columbia. Hmm.

The Panamanian government condemned the coup. Colombia rejected the removal by force of Zelaya. I guess every single government in the continent is run by dictators who want to destroy freedom. What a twist of irony; now only Republicans and Military establishments care about our freedom now. Hahaha.



I think Obama is doing it because it sets bad precedent. Military coups are unnacceptable. If he was doing something illegal he should've been arrested, tried, and sent to jail. They had no business dumping him here.

except is wasnt a military coup
no one from the military was put in power
the military was following the orders of the legislative branch and the judicial branch
and the Honduran Congress appointed the replacement

 

[eagleseven]

In fact, it appears the only countries supporting the Honduran people are Panama and Columbia. Hmm.

The Panamanian government condemned the coup. Colombia rejected the removal by force of Zelaya. I guess every single government in the continent is run by dictators who want to destroy freedom. What a twist of irony; now only Republicans and Military establishments care about our freedom now. Hahaha.



I think Obama is doing it because it sets bad precedent. Military coups are unnacceptable. If he was doing something illegal he should've been arrested, tried, and sent to jail. They had no business dumping him here.

*Facepalm*
How many Military Coups put the ousted President's political party back in charge? Not any

That is like the Supreme Court ousting Obama, and then making Harry Reid President.

 

[xsited1]

Why does Obama Support Zelaya?

Because Obama is a Marxist.

Venezuela Chavez says Comrade Obama more left-wing | Reuters

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro risk being more conservative than U.S. President Barack Obama as Washington prepares to take control of General Motors Corp.

 

[eagleseven]

Let's put this in terms liberals can understand.

Richard Nixon in 1974 declares an emergency election to make him President for Life. The Supreme Court says he cannot do that, it is against the constitution. Nixon, with the full support of the USSR, brings in ballots anyways, and starts riots to force an election.

The Supreme Court is fearing the rioters, and so calls in the US Military to exile Nixon to Cuba and install Gerald Ford as President. The Supreme Court then begins working out a legal case with which to try Nixon.

Suddenly, the USSR threatens to invade if the Supreme Court does not re-install Nixon back to power. The USSR manages to rally the entire UN and condemns the US Supreme Court and Gerald Ford.


Now, in this situation, how would it protect democracy to re-install Nixon as President?

 

[eagleseven]

Also, there is no set procedure for impeaching Presidents in the Honduran constitution...

 

[Sweet Willy]

What a croc of shit. I don't even know where to start.

Chavez is not a dictator. He is an elected official. The people of Venezuela VOTED to remove term limits so that he can run as often as he likes. The measure FAILED once, voted down by the poeple. Then it was voted on again, including no term limits for ALL politicians, and it passed. He is no more of a dictator than FDR.

In Russia, President Obama Explains His Support for Ousted President of Honduras - Political Punch

This link you posted in the OP was absolutely a lie. There is no mention of anything AT ALL regarding Obama's disposition to Chavez.

Zelaya, allied with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez , fired top military commander Romeo Vásquez Velásquez for refusing to carry out the referendum. Every branch of government sided against Zelaya and Congress began discussing impeachment proceedings.

This is the only mention of Chavez in your cite. Exaclty how does this support anything regarding what Baral Obama thinks of Chavez?

So, why does Obama openly support the destruction of democracy in Honduras?

Obama has repeatedly stated that Democratic principle is his focus in this matter. If you can demonstrate "open support" for the destruction of democracy, please do. Your own cites say other wise.

“America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies,” the president told graduate students at the commencement ceremony of Moscow’s New Economic School. “We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not. “

In short, you're a douchebag, lying piece of shit.

Other than that, have a nice day!

\

 

[asaratis]

What a croc of shit. I don't even know where to start.

Chavez is not a dictator. He is an elected official. The people of Venezuela VOTED to remove term limits so that he can run as often as he likes. The measure FAILED once, voted down by the poeple. Then it was voted on again, including no term limits for ALL politicians, and it passed. He is no more of a dictator than FDR.

In Russia, President Obama Explains His Support for Ousted President of Honduras - Political Punch

This link you posted in the OP was absolutely a lie. There is no mention of anything AT ALL regarding Obama's disposition to Chavez.

Zelaya, allied with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez , fired top military commander Romeo Vásquez Velásquez for refusing to carry out the referendum. Every branch of government sided against Zelaya and Congress began discussing impeachment proceedings.

This is the only mention of Chavez in your cite. Exaclty how does this support anything regarding what Baral Obama thinks of Chavez?

So, why does Obama openly support the destruction of democracy in Honduras?

Obama has repeatedly stated that Democratic principle is his focus in this matter. If you can demonstrate "open support" for the destruction of democracy, please do. Your own cites say other wise.

“America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies,” the president told graduate students at the commencement ceremony of Moscow’s New Economic School. “We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not. “

In short, you're a douchebag, lying piece of shit.

Other than that, have a nice day!

\

You seem to confuse "elections" with "fair elections". Chaves has not won the latter. Chavez is a piece of South American shit.

 

[eagleseven]

What a croc of shit. I don't even know where to start.

Chavez is not a dictator. He is an elected official. The people of Venezuela VOTED to remove term limits so that he can run as often as he likes. The measure FAILED once, voted down by the poeple. Then it was voted on again, including no term limits for ALL politicians, and it passed. He is no more of a dictator than FDR.

In Russia, President Obama Explains His Support for Ousted President of Honduras - Political Punch

This link you posted in the OP was absolutely a lie. There is no mention of anything AT ALL regarding Obama's disposition to Chavez.

Zelaya, allied with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez , fired top military commander Romeo Vásquez Velásquez for refusing to carry out the referendum. Every branch of government sided against Zelaya and Congress began discussing impeachment proceedings.

This is the only mention of Chavez in your cite. Exaclty how does this support anything regarding what Baral Obama thinks of Chavez?

That's funny....you call my links lies? I wasn't aware ABC was a right-wing rag

Oh, and here's more on Obama's and Chavez's cooperation. Since you believe Chavez is a wonderful guy, why would you doubt Obama's support of Chavez?

Frankly, Chavez's elections are comparable to Iran's.

So, why does Obama openly support the destruction of democracy in Honduras?

Obama has repeatedly stated that Democratic principle is his focus in this matter. If you can demonstrate "open support" for the destruction of democracy, please do. Your own cites say other wise.

Obama can talk all day and night about "supporting democracy." His actions betray his words.

Back in 2008, he used to talk a lot about balancing the budget. Yeah, that was a bunch of bullshit, too.

“America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies,” the president told graduate students at the commencement ceremony of Moscow’s New Economic School. “We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not. “

Empty rhetoric. If Chavez's Venezuela is the new model of Democracy, we're fucked.

In short, you're a douchebag, lying piece of shit.

1. It's nice to know you can discuss things in a civil manner...

2. You believe that the NYT, ABC, Reason Magazine, Reuters, and CNS all publish lies? There goes your credibility, shot to hell.

3. Oddly enough, you chose to attack me personally rather than address my Key Points. Here they are, I suggest you read them and respond.

Key Points:

1. Obama's policy of indefinite, preventative detainment without trial.
2. Obama's policy of indefinite, preventative detainment of individuals already found not guilty.
3. Obama's policy of signing and enforcing treaties without the approval of Congress, until after the fact.
4. Obama's near-complete control of the press, according to the oldest member of the Washington Press Corps.
5. Obama's de-facto nationalization of the world's largest companies.


Had you given me these links one year ago, I would've laughed and called you crazy. But this is our new reality. When will our Congress, our Supreme Court, when will America wake up?

 

[Sweet Willy]

Allright, if you "insist" I break down this pile of dog crap, I'll make a better effort of it.

Ex-President Zelaya of Honduras was exiled from the country on order of the Honduran Supreme Court and Parliament. He has been temporarily replaced by the Chairman of Zelaya's Liberal Party.

The first "untruth", we will call them, is that Zelaya was exiled by order of the SCOH. The order was to detain him, at his residence. The order made by the court was for detaining him. Also, the congress DID NOT vote to remove Zelaya until AFTER it had already been done. You don't suppose that's a loaded question for the congress do you? "Hey, we've removed the President by force form the country, now let's take formal vote on the matter". If you think that's an honest vote, I've got some swamp land...

Honduras's Supreme Court gave the order for the military to detain the president, according to a former Supreme Court official who is in touch with the court.

Later, Honduras's Congress formally removed Mr. Zelaya from the presidency and named congressional leader Roberto Micheletti as his successor until the end of Mr. Zelaya's term in January. Mr. Micheletti and others said they were the defenders, not opponents, of democratic rule.

Coup Rocks Honduras - WSJ.com

Zelaya, considered by his people to be a puppet of Hugo Chavez, was exiled because he sought to eliminate all term limits on the Presidency. The Supreme Court rightfully believes that he seeks to become dictator, following in the footsteps of Hugo Chavez.

I couldn't argue with the vague terms of "his people", although I get the idea his support isn't the majority. Perhaps he does have similar ideas as Chavez and the courts and congress appear to be within their legal rights to legally remove him. What can I say, none of these idiots can do much right.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...support-for-ousted-president-of-honduras.html
Mr. Obama publicly supports Chavez and Zelaya. Besides shocking pretty much anyone who follows the news, Obama's actions signal a complete 180 of American policy, by directly supporting Communist Dictators.

The cite you give for this Jewel of a comment isn't even remotely relevant to the claim that Obama supports Chavez on anything. Although, I am sure he agrees with Chavez on at least one thing? Maybe they both wear boxers with formal dress and tightie whities in their jeans? My, the free world would ultimately collapse if it we're true.

In fact, it appears the only countries supporting the Honduran people are Panama and Columbia. Hmm.

I think someone already directed you to the thruth on this matter. And I would take this opportunity to remind you, and our other potential readers, that politics has at least enough nuance to allow for positions other than "support it" or "don't support it".

So, why does Obama openly support the destruction of democracy in Honduras?

If you can provide one ounce of support to the fact that Obama supports "the destruction of democracy" anywhere, I'll eat my hat.

Rush suggested that, in Obama's ideal world, Mr. Obama is president for life, without an annoying Congress or electorate to please. This would give Mr. Obama all the power he needs to remake American in his image.

You listen to Rush? Who would have guessed? This is completely irrelevant. But I have to admit, it takes me back to the days when I would read anything following "Rush suggested".

Do I think Obama dreams himself dictator?

I'd say you do think that. And probably masturbate on your bathroom floor while thinking it.

 

[Metternich]

The first "untruth", we will call them, is that Zelaya was exiled by order of the SCOH. The order was to detain him, at his residence. The order made by the court was for detaining him. Also, the congress DID NOT vote to remove Zelaya until AFTER it had already been done. You don't suppose that's a loaded question for the congress do you? "Hey, we've removed the President by force form the country, now let's take formal vote on the matter". If you think that's an honest vote, I've got some swamp land...

So let me get this straight, the military has just taken out the President, apparently has the Supreme Court 'in hand' and has guns pointed at the backs of the Congress. Yet, they bend over backwards to make sure that the President is just a slightly milder form of the replacement and refuse to capitalize on any of those, as you describe it, moves that have basically checkmated the country? If they had everybody under the thumb, and don't say that it was easy to do, why go through all of this? Why not kick out the President and his cabinent, his administrators? His whole party? Why just him?

From the way you describe, there is no reason why the military shouldn't have set up a junta, or made it easier for their canidates to win.

And that's all I have to say.

 

[Sweet Willy]

The first "untruth", we will call them, is that Zelaya was exiled by order of the SCOH. The order was to detain him, at his residence. The order made by the court was for detaining him. Also, the congress DID NOT vote to remove Zelaya until AFTER it had already been done. You don't suppose that's a loaded question for the congress do you? "Hey, we've removed the President by force form the country, now let's take formal vote on the matter". If you think that's an honest vote, I've got some swamp land...

So let me get this straight, the military has just taken out the President, apparently has the Supreme Court 'in hand' and has guns pointed at the backs of the Congress. Yet, they bend over backwards to make sure that the President is just a slightly milder form of the replacement and refuse to capitalize on any of those, as you describe it, moves that have basically checkmated the country? If they had everybody under the thumb, and don't say that it was easy to do, why go through all of this? Why not kick out the President and his cabinent, his administrators? His whole party? Why just him?

From the way you describe, there is no reason why the military shouldn't have set up a junta, or made it easier for their canidates to win.

And that's all I have to say.

I will get the cites for you if anyone wants them, but the short answer to your query is: They didn't just toss him out. The entire Zelaya cabinet was vacated and replaced. His Foreign minister and others replaced, sent into hiding. Several former cabinet members and a couple ambassadors detained during the removal.

The truth of the matter is, the US is not and has not been particularly friendly with Zelaya. Despite the extreme claims here, you do know that there are some in Central America who claim the other extreme? That Obama engineered the coup?

Now, if you really want to figure if this was a bonafide coup, find out if there were any orders or legal process for the cabinet and others that were detained by the military in order to facilitate the coup.

I'm betting no.

 

[Metternich]

The first "untruth", we will call them, is that Zelaya was exiled by order of the SCOH. The order was to detain him, at his residence. The order made by the court was for detaining him. Also, the congress DID NOT vote to remove Zelaya until AFTER it had already been done. You don't suppose that's a loaded question for the congress do you? "Hey, we've removed the President by force form the country, now let's take formal vote on the matter". If you think that's an honest vote, I've got some swamp land...

So let me get this straight, the military has just taken out the President, apparently has the Supreme Court 'in hand' and has guns pointed at the backs of the Congress. Yet, they bend over backwards to make sure that the President is just a slightly milder form of the replacement and refuse to capitalize on any of those, as you describe it, moves that have basically checkmated the country? If they had everybody under the thumb, and don't say that it was easy to do, why go through all of this? Why not kick out the President and his cabinent, his administrators? His whole party? Why just him?

From the way you describe, there is no reason why the military shouldn't have set up a junta, or made it easier for their canidates to win.

And that's all I have to say.

I will get the cites for you if anyone wants them, but the short answer to your query is: They didn't just toss him out. The entire Zelaya cabinet was vacated and replaced. His Foreign minister and others replaced, sent into hiding. Several former cabinet members and a couple ambassadors detained during the removal.

The truth of the matter is, the US is not and has not been particularly friendly with Zelaya. Despite the extreme claims here, you do know that there are some in Central America who claim the other extreme? That Obama engineered the coup?

Now, if you really want to figure if this was a bonafide coup, find out if there were any orders or legal process for the cabinet and others that were detained by the military in order to facilitate the coup.

I'm betting no.

They did not send the cabinent out of the country it was replaced by the next President who had the full right to pick a cabinent of his choosing. Of course, I know that would just be evidence, to you, of more military interferance but to me I always expect a President to replace the previous administration's assistants. If the military had executed them, exiled them or sent them to prison without a court order: then yes, I'd agree with where you're coming from. As it is, however, I believe they are all free to live out the remainder of their lives after being held (within Constitutional limits) until the transition period is over and even more interestingly: not all cabinent members are. Just the people who are so good at exploiting the people they're supposed to represent.

 

[Sweet Willy]

So let me get this straight, the military has just taken out the President, apparently has the Supreme Court 'in hand' and has guns pointed at the backs of the Congress. Yet, they bend over backwards to make sure that the President is just a slightly milder form of the replacement and refuse to capitalize on any of those, as you describe it, moves that have basically checkmated the country? If they had everybody under the thumb, and don't say that it was easy to do, why go through all of this? Why not kick out the President and his cabinent, his administrators? His whole party? Why just him?

From the way you describe, there is no reason why the military shouldn't have set up a junta, or made it easier for their canidates to win.

And that's all I have to say.

I will get the cites for you if anyone wants them, but the short answer to your query is: They didn't just toss him out. The entire Zelaya cabinet was vacated and replaced. His Foreign minister and others replaced, sent into hiding. Several former cabinet members and a couple ambassadors detained during the removal.

The truth of the matter is, the US is not and has not been particularly friendly with Zelaya. Despite the extreme claims here, you do know that there are some in Central America who claim the other extreme? That Obama engineered the coup?

Now, if you really want to figure if this was a bonafide coup, find out if there were any orders or legal process for the cabinet and others that were detained by the military in order to facilitate the coup.

I'm betting no.

They did not send the cabinent out of the country it was replaced by the next President who had the full right to pick a cabinent of his choosing. Of course, I know that would just be evidence, to you, of more military interferance but to me I always expect a President to replace the previous administration's assistants. If the military had executed them, exiled them or sent them to prison without a court order: then yes, I'd agree with where you're coming from. As it is, however, I believe they are all free to live out the remainder of their lives after being held (within Constitutional limits) until the transition period is over and even more interestingly: not all cabinent members are. Just the people who are so good at exploiting the people they're supposed to represent.

And I don't find most of what you say here objectionable. I was only answering your question. You asked that if this was a coup, why didn't they take out his cabinet? And his appointments? I'm just telling you, they did. And now you carry on as if it doesn't make any difference to you if the cabinet was taken out or not.

Is your position disingenuous or your argument? Both?

The Hondurans screwed the pooch. But, I do give them credit for doing a little better than previous affairs. It's not that big a deal to us, in the shceme of things. Zelaya has been no friend to the US, a pain and they will be glad to see him go. And they can get that without making a scene and without making risky international demands or setting a poor tone. They make only a few, rather soft statements on the issue, set up a mediation, appease Zelaya, head off any early cliams that we are behind the coup... nice work so far.

We give them the cold shoulder, probably not even inflict anything more than a symbolic sanction of some sort, if that, and come next year, assuming elections are scheduled, the whole thing will be a non issue.

 

[Metternich]

I will get the cites for you if anyone wants them, but the short answer to your query is: They didn't just toss him out. The entire Zelaya cabinet was vacated and replaced. His Foreign minister and others replaced, sent into hiding. Several former cabinet members and a couple ambassadors detained during the removal.

The truth of the matter is, the US is not and has not been particularly friendly with Zelaya. Despite the extreme claims here, you do know that there are some in Central America who claim the other extreme? That Obama engineered the coup?

Now, if you really want to figure if this was a bonafide coup, find out if there were any orders or legal process for the cabinet and others that were detained by the military in order to facilitate the coup.

I'm betting no.

They did not send the cabinent out of the country it was replaced by the next President who had the full right to pick a cabinent of his choosing. Of course, I know that would just be evidence, to you, of more military interferance but to me I always expect a President to replace the previous administration's assistants. If the military had executed them, exiled them or sent them to prison without a court order: then yes, I'd agree with where you're coming from. As it is, however, I believe they are all free to live out the remainder of their lives after being held (within Constitutional limits) until the transition period is over and even more interestingly: not all cabinent members are. Just the people who are so good at exploiting the people they're supposed to represent.

And I don't find most of what you say here objectionable. I was only answering your question. You asked that if this was a coup, why didn't they take out his cabinet? And his appointments? I'm just telling you, they did. And now you carry on as if it doesn't make any difference to you if the cabinet was taken out or not.

No, I said that and I quote, "kick out the President and his cabinent, his administrators?" Now, looking at this critically - what would constitute a "kicking out" in this case? A simple removal of power? No, of course not. A "kicking out" is exile in this case, President Zelaya was exiled. In essence, "kicking out" replaces a more proper but semantically identical word, such as exiled, with a laymen methaphor. If you merely think for a second what that methaphor implies then you come upon "Why not exile the President and his cabinent, his administrators?"

In this case, they did not. They only exiled the President. My point was that if it was a true military coup, using previous one's as blueprints, would not the military have exiled/killed/'thrown in prison forever' (viz, Gulags) the ministers instead of merely letting the President replace them like countless other administrations have before?

Is your position disingenuous or your argument? Both?

I think you just like hearing yourself talk, or type, while you eschew such quaint ideas like reading my posts.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

The first "untruth", we will call them, is that Zelaya was exiled by order of the SCOH. The order was to detain him, at his residence. The order made by the court was for detaining him. Also, the congress DID NOT vote to remove Zelaya until AFTER it had already been done. You don't suppose that's a loaded question for the congress do you? "Hey, we've removed the President by force form the country, now let's take formal vote on the matter". If you think that's an honest vote, I've got some swamp land...

So let me get this straight, the military has just taken out the President, apparently has the Supreme Court 'in hand' and has guns pointed at the backs of the Congress. Yet, they bend over backwards to make sure that the President is just a slightly milder form of the replacement and refuse to capitalize on any of those, as you describe it, moves that have basically checkmated the country? If they had everybody under the thumb, and don't say that it was easy to do, why go through all of this? Why not kick out the President and his cabinent, his administrators? His whole party? Why just him?

From the way you describe, there is no reason why the military shouldn't have set up a junta, or made it easier for their canidates to win.

And that's all I have to say.

Did you see how the entire continent reacted by just the military kicking him out? If they had killed him and instated a military junta, all hell, and I do mean ALL HELL, would've broken lose, and the military know that [finally]. This move might've been idiotic [going through a coup and then exiling the president], but for god's sake, they're not THAT stupid. Only the most bloodthirsty and extreme would've actually gone along with something like that.

 

[editec]

Have any of us yet established whether the removal the Honduran president was in fact a constitutionally legal event?

I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

I mean I know the Supreme Court of Honduras believes it was, and one would certainly think that they would be the world's experts in the laws of that land.

So I am at something of a loss to understand why the opinions of other nations (ours included) really matter.