Well, to be ruthlessly fair, I took his first remark as simply a one-sided assessment of the effects of the revolution. Revolutionaries are seldom humane, the successful ones are as cold and brutal as Lenin, the unsuccessful ones are dead. And so it goes.
But that second remark does not have even that shred of justification, ARENA were monsters. The policies of that era on the part of our country is a source of enduring shame and revulsion. I was shocked and sickened then, and remain so now.
So am I. I used to fly occasionally with a bunch of Salvadoran and Nicaraguan pilots (delivering cropdusters) whom, AFAIK, were totally unpolitical. Every one of the Salvadorans has apparantly been “disappeared.”
And as far as the comparison between ARENA and the guerillas, from Wiki on the Salvadorian Civil War:
"At war’s end, the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador registered more than 22,000 complaints of political violence in El Salvador, between January 1980 and July 1991, 60 percent about summary killing, 25 percent about kidnapping, and 20 percent about torture. These complaints attributed almost 85 percent of the violence to State agents, private paramilitary groups, and the death squads. The Salvadoran armed forces were accused in 60 per cent of the complaints, the security forces in 25 percent, military escorts and civil defense units in 20 percent of complaints, the death squads in more than 10 percent, and the FMLN in 5 percent. The Truth Commission could collect only a significant sample of the full number of potential complaints, having had only three months to collect it.[97]
Why is my one word, “Yes,” taken literally, but the comma and the succeeding portion of the very same sentence taken as sarcasm?
Why isn’t it clear to you that the entire sentence is sarcasm?
You obviously didn’t parse the entire sentence literally – that is, you don’t believe i was actually saying the leftists were good for El Salvador. Why do take a single word out of that sentence as gospel literal truth and the remainder as sarcasm?
Because you said “Yes” when asked if you would stand with Arena. Anyway, I can tell from many, many of your comments on this board that your ideas of democracy align perfectly with the Salvadoran right wing.
Now kindly fuck off. I feel dirty just replying to you. And I stand by everything I have ever said on this board. and I don’t try to cower behind “I was only being sarcastic.”
But I didn’t say “Yes.”
I said “Yes COMMA because because the leftists were so great for our people, weren’t they QUESTION MARK.”
Why did you omit eleven words of my response and treat the “yes” as a literal answer?
Don’t lump me in with people that kill priests and nuns. That’s utterly repulsive.
LOL, no, literally, out loud.
Instead you cower behind a false bravado. You realize of course that in speech, you can ‘stand behind’ even sarcasm?
I mean, it’s sarcasm but I can stand behind it. In your haste to go get you some of Bricker, I fear you left all measurable intelligence in another forum.
That argument would be a lot stronger if Bricker weren’t constantly showing us the amount of contempt he has for the basic principle of democracy.
What possible connection is there between Bricker’s gyrations in support of “voter confidence” and the guilt-by-association bullshit hurled against him? Yeah, Bricker’s a right winger, and yes, sympathetic to right wing policies in Latin America and opposed to left wing policies. That doesn’t allow anyone to attach to him the actions or executive (extrapolitical) policies of every right wing group that operated in the hemisphere -or in his father’s country- or to take his rejection of left wing revolutionary actions as approval for brutality on the other side.
There’s plenty of honest rationale to express disgust and disdain for Bricker’s positions in this thread. Would that we could stick to not making things up or drawing untenable connections based on loose ideological affiliation. That, after all, is a preferred tactic of the “voter confidence” scammers.
That argument would be a lot stronger if Bricker were actually expressing outrage at being so associated.
Do please note that this doesn’t come out of the blue, as you suggest. The reasons for drawing the association are laid out for you here already.
Yes he has, see post #2625 above. Last paragraph.
But this charge seems familiar to me. I think it’s because I had to keep arguing with dimwits in September of 2001 who thought I supported terrorism because my condemnations of the attacks were considered “tepid.” Don’t be those dimwits please.
Must’ve missed those reasons. I saw one repeated assertion that “Bricker still supports ARENA” interspersed with a very brief list of ARENA atrocities. That assertion was supported by snipping one word out of a direct quote that was acknowledged to have been sarcastic in nature.
Calling that “tenuous” would be generous. ** Mapache**'s beef with Bricker (and I share it) is with the latter’s unrepentant support for the right wing in general as it is manifested in Latin American politics. But there’s no evidenciary basis for the smear, which is a stupid (and poorly pursued) distraction.
You can kindly fuck off as well. I’ve been living in Latin America for thirty three years now, and I am well aquainted with the murderous contempt the wealthy have for the poor. What surprised me a long time back was the sneering disdain people who go in one generation from poverty to wealth have for those who aren’t as fortunate.
Bricker is a fine upstanding example of this attitude. And exactly what “false bravado” are you accusing me of? No, scratch that. Just fuck off.
Well, I’m certainly developing sneering contempt for one Latin American, anyway.
So am I, but it ain’t Mapache. I disagree with the smear tactic but stuff like this:
…is compelling and persuasive in a way your logical and ethical gymnastics could never be. If he sticks to that line of argument, sneer all you want, poor little rich man.
What a witty remark! Anyway, I’m not a Latin America, I.m a seventy one year old American citizen, born in the USA, who has been visiting LA for 56 years and living here for 33. And I’m not rich, so I already knew you feel sneering contempt for anyone like me.
The Sandanistas certainly let down the team, didn’t they? Won their war, held elections, lost, and turned over the government to the winners. Lenin would not approve. How can we have any respect for people who refuse to behave like we expect them to?
And another one bites the dust…
From our good friends at ThinkProgress, purveyor of liberal cooties…
An honest conservative? Does he know the other one?
This news makes me re-issue my invitation to Bricker. Those peanuts in my shit aren’t going to eat themselves.
Voter ID Advocates: Laws Fight Perception Of Fraud
“Ignore the outdated, confusing voting methods and mishmash patchwork of state voting law which affects elections by orders or magnitude than voter fraud. We can not let the poor vote!”
“Breads distrust?” Like a dinner roll with nervous twitch? Or a rye loaf that won’t look you in the eye? Something like that?
The Emergency Unicorn Abatement laws currently being offered by Americans concerned with the threat of unicorn stampedes are essential to the well being of our nation. Our efforts have been rewarded by a ten fold increase in American awareness of the threat, and we anticipate that actual evidence of such a threat will be discovered soon. Pretty soon. Someday.
The absence of any such evidence after years of effort clearly shows that the pro-unicorn forces have been successful in their efforts to conceal their vast conspiracy. We hasten to remind the concerned citizen that ACORN, which has been proven to have committed thousands of acts of voter fraud, fraudulent voting, and various and sundry acts of depravity…that self same ACORN can be translated from the Latin cornum, meaning horn. Hence, A cornum is just another way of saying “A horn”! Not “horns”, mind you, but in the singular, a single horn!
A unicorn!
Connect the dot, people, connect the dot!