Official Buyers Remorse Thread

[alexamenos]

the media is in a bit of a quandry cover how to cover some obama stories.

"President Obama's letter presents us with a classic journalistic quandary," executive editor Bill Keller said. "If we print it, then we're giving him control over the kinds of stories we choose to run. It would be an acknowledgment that we somehow give the nation's commander in chief special treatment."

Added Keller, "And that's just not how the press in this country works."

complete story -- > here.

[dude1394]

Possibly Kalifornians are inching towards the correct side of the ledger.

As Jack Nicholson said... "Wait'll they get a load of me!"

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his Democratic allies trotted out the usual human shields in this fight — kindergarteners, firefighters and policemen, nurses, etc. They outspent their opponents by seven-to-one. None of it worked. Although the opposing sides here did not always follow partisan lines (e.g., the SEIU opposes the initiatives), a recent Field Poll showed 72% of voters agreeing that rejecting the measures “would send a message to the governor and the state legislature that voters are tired of more government spending and higher taxes.”

[dude1394]

This guys way on board. Seems pretty right-on but I would think so.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...udging-it.html

When will Barack Obama stop fudging it?

Barack Obama's reluctance to begin confronting difficult decisions is creating the impression that his administration is simply hoping for the best, says Simon Heffer

[dude1394]

VDH is on board.....

Monday, May 25, 2009

Hope and Change's Shelf Life [Victor Davis Hanson]

After listening to Obama's speeches of the last few weeks, I think almost everyone now knows the boilerplate.
In essence, the script is the following: First, the president clears his throat by trashing Bush and/or the prior administration.
Then, as many have noted, Mr. 50/50 creates the proverbial straw men on the two extremes (e.g., those who wish to shred the Constitution to fear-monger, those who do not take threats as seriously as he does), as he places himself in-between two false poles.

Next he evokes his past (three themes usually here: He has lived in a different country; he is of a different race than mainstream America; and, in extremis, his father was of a religion other than Christianity), with a grand finale of pulling all that together to imply to us that if we don't share his present views, then a rare avatar of hope and change such as himself would never have been president — he being the true reification of what America always could have been (a refined trope of Michelle's "first time" she was proud of her country.)

Frankly, and with all due respect to our president, it is time to get a life and move on. It is almost midsummer of President Obama's first year and there is no longer any need to constantly reference the past administration, usually in disingenuous fashion.

We know already that we have elected the first post-racial president whose personal profile represents a landmark change from previous presidents.
And we don't need any more generic nouns like hope/change in lieu of honesty about a lot of things: Our annual borrowing may reach $2 trillion; states are going bankrupt; massive infusions of borrowed cash must be paid back and cannot masquerade the prior ineptness of business and labor models in banking and the auto industry that sent firms into bankruptcy. Even higher taxes won't begin to cover the cost of proposed massive new spending programs that are unprecedented. All the prior demonized Bush anti-terrorism protocols have been kept with mere hope and change veneers.

In other words, rather than explaining the bleak choices before us and explaining why his preferences have the best chance of succeeding, Obama has so far reduced his presidency to two themes: "Bush did it" and "I'm not your normal white male President." If he keeps this monotony up, at some point even the comedians are going to notice the predictability.

Sorry, we need more than that to keep us safe from some creepy enemies and get the economy back on track.

[Mavdog]

victor hanson was an obama supporter? that should be the cirteria to have 'remorse'. right?

not that I'm aware of. he's been consistently in the bush/cheney corner. he probably sleeps with a dick cheney picture under his pillow.

this article is pretty standard fare from him.

[dude1394]

I'm not sure if the Queen was a Barry supporter or not. This may not be a snub, just another case of incompetence...something you would expect from a one-term senator who had never run anything.

Obama Stiffs British Allies Again!

Posted on May 28, 2009
-By Warner Todd Huston
So, let’s see. There was that whole World War Two thingie. There was Germany, Japan and Italy on one side. So, who was on the other? I think it was The United States, Russia, and some other unimportant countries… right?

One might be excused to assume this is the thought process of the Obama

administration as it planned the upcoming D-Day events for the president’s European tour that is in the offing because as currently announced, Team Obama left the Queen out of its D-Day memorial plans. And boy is the she torked, not that anyone can blame her.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I'm not sure if the Queen was a Barry supporter or not. This may not be a snub, just another case of incompetence...something you would expect from a one-term senator who had never run anything.

[qoute]
Obama Stiffs British Allies Again!

Posted on May 28, 2009
-By Warner Todd Huston
So, let’s see. There was that whole World War Two thingie. There was Germany, Japan and Italy on one side. So, who was on the other? I think it was The United States, Russia, and some other unimportant countries… right?

One might be excused to assume this is the thought process of the Obama

administration as it planned the upcoming D-Day events for the president’s European tour that is in the offing because as currently announced, Team Obama left the Queen out of its D-Day memorial plans. And boy is the she torked, not that anyone can blame her.

[/QUOTE]

did you even bother to read the article?
"How the queen came to be excluded has become entangled in a thicket of diplomatic missteps, or misunderstandings, depending on whether the account is given in London or Paris. The French have said officially that they regard the commemorations in the American sector of the landings as “primarily a Franco-American ceremony,” and that it was up to the British to decide who should represent Britain — in other words, that Mr. Brown was at fault for not seeking an invitation for the queen.

The French have also said the Brown government was slow to accept that the ceremonies merited more than a modest British involvement, since British policy had been to give full-scale government backing only to commemorations at decade-long intervals."

hmm...nothing to do with the americans, it's a bruhaha between the british and the french.

just like to lay blame on obama don't you, even when he (or his administration) isn't responsible.

kinda funny to watch tho, this blame slinging that seems to come back to stick on the slinger....

[dude1394]

Read the article...someone competent wouldn't have deferred to la francais at the expense of our most long-term important ally.

And the queen and the british should understand that Barry's stuff don't stink and he can do no wrong.

[Mavdog]

are you serious?

you say it's a question of being "competent", apparently you seem to believe that a "competent" person is one who insults their host by telling them how to do everything.

see, when someone invites you to their place (in this case it's the country of france) they are the ones responsible for putting the party together and deciding who else is invited.

here, it seems you need help, link to miss manners guide on etiquitte

ridiculous to blame anybody outside of france and england for this.

[dude1394]

Now it's the school children in Wisconsins turn.

• Blog Home

The Quiet War against School Choice Posted by Neal McCluskey
First, the Democrats in Washington for all intents and purposes killed the District of Columbia’s proven voucher program, but did it with Ninja-like stealth. The weapons: Nearly impossible reauthorization requirements, late Friday announcements, and politically expedient promises to keep kids currently attending good schools from being very publicly booted.


Now it’s Milwaukee’s turn. The new Democratic majority in Madison is on its way to cutting the value of individual vouchers while raising public school per-pupil expenditures, and even worse, is larding new regulations on private schools participating in the choice program. Perhaps the most ridiculous proposed reg: Requiring all participating private schools with student bodies that are more than 10 percent limited English proficient to provide a “bilingual-bicultural education program.” As if one of the major benefits of choice isn’t that parents can choose such programs if they think they are best for their kids, and can select something else if they don’t! But, of course, political decisions aren’t primarily about what parents want and kids need.


Thankfully, there is a resistance forming to the assault in Milwaukee, with choice advocates now refusing to remain quiet after naively doing so when they were told that fighting back would only make things worse. The choice-supporting national media is also speaking up. But one can’t help but fear that it may be too little, too late.

[dude1394]

Obama Huts.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

In defiance of US President Barack Obama's call on Israel to stop settlement activity, defiant settlers built a new outpost on Friday morning between Migron and Kochav Ya'acov.

Settlers dedicate a Torah scroll in the West Bank outpost of Maoz Esther, which has been dismantled and rebuilt several times in recent weeks.






At the outpost, which they named Oz Yehonatan, the settlers built a wooden structure they mockingly called the "Obama Hut," saying it was a sign of appreciation for the US president for his actions that had led to a dramatic rise in the number of outposts.


On Thursday, settlers and right-wing activists once again rebuilt the illegal Maoz Esther outpost that was dismantled on Wednesday by security forces.

[Mavdog]

the operative word in the article is "illegal" outpost.

the continued expansion of illegal settlements is a mistake that must be stopped.

this has to be addressed by the new government of israel, but that seems unlikely as the far right has too much influence.

these settlements were a bad idea when they were first done and expanding them today is even worse.

israel is in the wrong, period.

[dude1394]

Say it ain't so Barry.. sniff, sniff.

Dan Savage is rightly pissed:
Barack Obama's record on gay rights so far: disturbing, unsound, false, discriminatory, damaging, nonsensical. Before today you could argue that the Obama administration was too busy with the economy and the war and health care to focus on making good on his campaign promises to gays and lesbians, that Obama simply didn't have the time to take up our issues. But you can't make that argument anymore. The Obama administration has the time to take up gay rights issues—but only, it seems, to do harm.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Say it ain't so Barry.. sniff, sniff.

apparently the obama administration is supportive of congress addressing the issue and not an advocate for judicial activism to change the law.

[dude1394]

....

[dude1394]

Heh...

Putin Warns US Democrats Against Socialism (Video)

"We must not revert to isolationism and unrestrained economic egotism... Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence is another possible mistake. True, the state's increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent...

In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin
Opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland
January 28, 2009

[dude1394]

Well we can't put Castro or Chavez on this list, that's for sure. Heh...

Today, Barack Obama joined Marxist tyrants Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez to rally around ousted Leftist Honduran President Manuel Zelaya.

[Mavdog]

rather than use the names of castro and chavez (are we supposed to recoil in horror when their names are tosed out?)), why not list the names of any head of state who disagrees with what obama said about honduras or supports the coup?

go ahead and try....

[dude1394]

All heads of states want to rewrite the constitution so that they can be re-elected. What do you expect? There is already a movement to do the same for barry.

Heh...

[Mavdog]

so you can't find any country that is supportive of the coup in honduras?

bottom line, the coup is viewed by all the world as illegal and contrary to the democratic principles we americans support?

so the bs about obama agreeing with castro and chavez is absurd as the whole world agrees on this issue?

thanks for playing....

[dude1394]

I haven't looked to be honest. What I do know is that the president of honduras illegally (according to their supreme court, constitution and congress) tried to change said constitution to allow himself to be re-elected, I'm not sure if it was for life or not. And the supreme court ordered the military (who are the protectors of said constitution) to stop the dude and the congress selected a new president (again via their constitution).

Funny...I sorta thought obeying the constitution WAS being legal, but obviously barry (and yourself) do not think so.

Thanks for playing yourself, chavez, ortega, barry thank you very,very much.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I haven't looked to be honest. What I do know is that the president of honduras illegally (according to their supreme court, constitution and congress) tried to change said constitution to allow himself to be re-elected, I'm not sure if it was for life or not. And the supreme court ordered the military (who are the protectors of said constitution) to stop the dude and the congress selected a new president (again via their constitution).

Funny...I sorta thought obeying the constitution WAS being legal, but obviously barry (and yourself) do not think so.

Thanks for playing yourself, chavez, ortega, barry thank you very,very much.

dude, you come off as a bit of a tool here.

why didn't you say

"thanks for playing yourself Harper, Uribe, Obama thank you thank you very much"
(ie the most CONSERVATIVE leaders in the hemisphere, who are also denouncing the coup)

why not?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

dude, you come off as a bit of a tool here.

why didn't you say

"thanks for playing yourself Harper, Uribe, Obama thank you thank you very much"
(ie the most CONSERVATIVE leaders in the hemisphere, who are also denouncing the coup)

why not?

If I look like a tool so be it. Before the referendum was to go out the supremes ruled it illegal, however the president went forward with it anyway, trying to force the action.

It seems to me like the correct thing to do to a president who was trying to subvert their constitution by voting himself in for life. And congress (elected by the people also) almost unanimously agreed to this and replaced him with someone from his own party.

Sounds like some damn good democracy to me.

[Mavdog]

it's pretty clear the side of the story you have been following.

the deposed president wanted to have a referendum (he didn't want "to change the constitution", he wanted a referendum on changing the constitution). the honduran supreme court ruled that he couldn't (the referendum had to be further spaced form other voting), and the head of the army, who is in charge of running the election/referendum, said the army wasn't going to distribute the ballots...so the president fired him, and that is when they ended up shipping the president to costa rica.

the issue is the rule of law. if the president was afoul of the law, there are legal avenues to prosecute him. there was a coup; the military took him at gunpoint, put him on a plane, and sent him out of the country.

tell me, do you believe the constitution of honduras says it is legal for the army to seize the president of honduras, force him to sign a resignation letter and put him on a plane to another country, is somehow legal? I seriously doubt it.

so the question is do we as a principle of our foreign policy respect the will of the voters in a country, and respect the rule of law, or do we just throw those out the door and say that if a country's army wants to seize power we are OK with it?

obama, and the rest of the world, says the former. the fact that castro and chavez also say the same isn't a knock on obama, and to portray the confluence of castro, chavez and obama's opinions as somehow being evidence of obama being in error is just asinine.

[Underdog]

I wonder how you guys (or President Obama, for that matter) would feel if the EXACT same thing happened in Iran instead of Honduras...

(my guess is that everyone would be seeing this situation through different-colored glasses...)

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I wonder how you guys (or President Obama, for that matter) would feel if the EXACT same thing happened in Iran instead of Honduras...

(my guess is that everyone would be seeing this situation through different-colored glasses...)

so you expect that a coup in iran would be OK?

hmm, there is the issue with an election that was seen by most of the world as stolen, therefore the legitimacy of admenijobbies rule is pretty much zero....

but then again the army isn't much different than the fascist currently in power.

yeah, it's quite the conundrum you've come up with.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I wonder how you guys (or President Obama, for that matter) would feel if the EXACT same thing happened in Iran instead of Honduras...

(my guess is that everyone would be seeing this situation through different-colored glasses...)

You mean if the military arrested the president under orders of the supreme court as stated in the constitution of the deomocratically elected iranian government. I think I'd be quite happy with it.

It appears to me that there really isn't much that is illegal going on in honduras, but perfectly legal (except for the president trying to vote himself in for life).

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You mean if the military arrested the president under orders of the supreme court as stated in the constitution of the deomocratically elected iranian government. I think I'd be quite happy with it.

It appears to me that there really isn't much that is illegal going on in honduras, but perfectly legal (except for the president trying to vote himself in for life).

uh, there was no "arrest", they put a gun to his head and flew him out of the country. don't believe that act is "stated in the constitution" of honduras, so it is not "perfectly legal" is it?

you and others somehow fail to understand that critical point. it was a coup, not a legal action.

you and the others on the right who support the coup and the military thumbing their nose at the law have more in common with castro and chavez, who are prone to do that very same action, than those who criticize this coup.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

uh, there was no "arrest", they put a gun to his head and flew him out of the country. don't believe that act is "stated in the constitution" of honduras, so it is not "perfectly legal" is it?

you and others somehow fail to understand that critical point. it was a coup, not a legal action.

you and the others on the right who support the coup and the military thumbing their nose at the law have more in common with castro and chavez, who are prone to do that very same action, than those who criticize this coup.

Lessee...it was commanded by the supreme court..isn't that the definition of a legal action?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Lessee...it was commanded by the supreme court..isn't that the definition of a legal action?

what makes you believe that the honduras supreme court ordered the military to take the president at gunpoint and ship him out of the country?

a court would at the most order the arrest of the person and their being held for adjudication, rather than the banishment, of someone seen as violating the law.

that is what rule of law is all about, being charged and tried, a point that seems to escape your vision.

[GermanDunk]

[dude1394]

You tell me which party you believe in this case.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/worl...5/9938466.html

Honduran president says he will not obey court order

By Freddy Cuevas, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Last Updated: 25th June 2009, 7:55pm

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — The Honduran president vowed Thursday to ignore a Supreme Court ruling ordering him to reinstate the military chief he fired, escalating a showdown that has threatened the leftist leader’s hold on power.


President Manuel Zelaya’s attempt to hold a referendum Sunday on changing the constitution has pitted him against the country’s top courts, the attorney general, military leaders and even his own party, all of whom argue the vote is illegal.
But Zelaya has galvanized the support of labour leaders, farmers and civic organizations who hope constitutional reforms will give them a greater voice in a conservative country where 70 per cent of the population is poor.


The crisis quickly ballooned when Zelaya fired Gen. Romeo Vasquez as head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff late Wednesday for refusing to support the referendum, which is intended to measure popular support for possible constitutional changes. Zelaya has not said what he wants, but critics accuse him of trying to extend presidential terms before his ends in January, like his ally Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela.


The Supreme court ordered Vasquez reinstated Thursday and warned Zelaya would face penal consequences if he does not respect the ruling.


“We will not obey the Supreme Court,” Zelaya told more than 2,000 cheering supporters gathered in front of the presidential offices. “The court, which only imparts justice for the powerful, the rich and the bankers, only causes problems for democracy.”


The top court, Congress and the attorney general say the vote is illegal because it would violate constitutional clauses barring some changes.
The president’s dismissal of Vasquez prompted the chiefs of the army, navy and air force to resign. The president himself announced Wednesday night that Defence Minister Edmundo Orellana had resigned.


Vasquez said he could not support a referendum that the courts had declared illegal, but he ruled out the possibility of a coup.
“We are prudent and we accept the decision of the president, whom we respect and who has the right to dismiss whom he wants,” Vasquez said.
The Organization of American States called an emergency meeting Friday to discuss the Honduras crisis.
The president’s nonbinding referendum asks voters if they want a further, formal election on whether to call an assembly to write a new constitution.


Zelaya, who is close to Chavez and the Castro brothers in Cuba, has argued that Honduras’ social problems are rooted in the 27-year-old constitution. Critics say Zelaya, like Chavez and other Latin American leaders, wants to expand presidential powers and remove limits on re-election.


Venezuela’s socialist president offered Zelaya his full support. “We’re willing to do whatever it takes to make sure the Honduran people’s will and sovereignty is respected,” Chavez said during his “Alo, Presidente!” program.
Zelaya, a wealthy landowner grappling with rising food prices and a sharp spike in drug violence, is currently barred from seeking re-election when his four-year term ends in January.


“What you see is the growing delegitimizing of a president by a larger and growing group of leading elites, including the military,” said Manuel Orozco, a political analyst with the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based think-tank .
But Zelaya has tapped into discontent among civil organization who see their chance to have greater influence in Honduran politics, Orozco said. And it will be hard to prevent the referendum from happening unless the military steps in directly, he added.


“This fragmentation of the political circles of power have given an opportunity to leverage the demands that civil society has, such as more freedom of expression in a country where the media is owned by a few families,” Orozco said. “I think he has the upper hand right now. The army is uncertain as to whether they should prevent the referendum.”


U.N. General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, a leftist Nicaraguan priest and former foreign minister, “clearly and strongly condemns the attempted coup d’etat that is currently unfolding against the democratically elected government of President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras,” his spokesman said.


Earlier Thursday, the Supreme Court ordered police to remove all electoral material stored an air force base at the international airport in the capital, Tegucigalpa. After his speech, Zelaya and his supporters headed to the military base and took ballots and other materials out in military trucks and headed to an undisclosed location.


Attorney General Luis Alberto Rubi, who was appointed by Congress, is urging the legislator to remove Zelaya from office. It is unclear if there is support in Congress for Zelaya’s ouster, but the legislature clearly opposes the referendum.


On Wednesday, the 128-seat unicameral chamber voted unanimously to ask a group of international election observers to leave, arguing their presence legitimized an illegal vote.

[Mavdog]

are you supportive of the rule of law, or are you supportive of those who act outside the law?

the law does not support arrest and banishment without trial of the president. it supports arrest with a trial to determine the guilt or innocence.

it's really a simple question of if you subscribe to the rule of law. nobody here (or obama or the rest of the world either) is arguing that zelaya was or was not guilty of violating honduran law, only that zelaya, like any other person, should be determined to be guilty or not guilty within the framework of the legal system and not by the military and the barrel of a gun.

it seems this simple concept escapes you.

[dude1394]

It's hilarious to me for you to talk about "outside the law" when the supreme court was the one that very legally ordered him arrested. I haven't seen their order (nor have yourself) so I don't know what they expected the military to do with him, but up until he was removed from the country(alleged illegal by you), everything was very legal.

But if the entire issue is whether he is being held in a jail cell somewhere versus on the world stage chatting up barry to you, then we can't reach rapprochement.

It appears to me that his opportunity to get his position back is much helped by being out on the national stage, versus locked in his bedroom. The dude wasn't killed, wasn't harmed, but was VERY LEGALLY arrested and jailed.

So the issue is where is his jail cell and would he have the same freedom of action in IT or at the UN (for example).

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

It's hilarious to me for you to talk about "outside the law" when the supreme court was the one that very legally ordered him arrested. I haven't seen their order (nor have yourself) so I don't know what they expected the military to do with him, but up until he was removed from the country(alleged illegal by you), everything was very legal.

But if the entire issue is whether he is being held in a jail cell somewhere versus on the world stage chatting up barry to you, then we can't reach rapprochement.

It appears to me that his opportunity to get his position back is much helped by being out on the national stage, versus locked in his bedroom. The dude wasn't killed, wasn't harmed, but was VERY LEGALLY arrested and jailed.

So the issue is where is his jail cell and would he have the same freedom of action in IT or at the UN (for example).

uh, he wasn't "arrested and jailed" he was effectively kidnapped, and he won't have the opportunity for a trial to prove his innocence or the state to prove his guilt.

the whole idea of law and jurisprudence seems to be foreign to you....

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

uh, he wasn't "arrested and jailed" he was effectively kidnapped, and he won't have the opportunity for a trial to prove his innocence or the state to prove his guilt.

the whole idea of law and jurisprudence seems to be foreign to you....

So if he were being held under house arrest you would be okay with all of this. It would have been legal?

His arrest by the military and his removal (possibly, I don't know their impeachment portions of their constitution).

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

So if he were being held under house arrest you would be okay with all of this. It would have been legal?

His arrest by the military and his removal (possibly, I don't know their impeachment portions of their constitution).

sure, if he were arrested and allowed the opportunity to defend himself in court according to the honduran laws I'd expect the world opinion to be different, probably favorable.

[dude1394]

I think the Marx brothers are missing gummo and zeppo. Heh...

Latin American Marxists Raul Castro and Hugo Chavez rallied with ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya in Managua yesterday.
Barack Obama, who supports Zelaya, did not make the rally.

Honduras' President Manuel Zelaya poses with his Cuban counterpart Raul Castro (L) and Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez (R) during the Central American integration meeting in Managua June 29, 2009. (REUTERS/Miraflores Palace)

[dude1394]

I also think you are being pretty naive to be imposing your beliefs of what would be happening here to what might be happening in Honduras. Those countries have a pretty big problem with despots taking over the governments and it appears the hondurans are very,very sensitive to that...as they probably should be. That's why they claim it treason for someone that is not the congress to try and enact constitutional changes.

With our much more open and wealthy society barry couldn't pull this off at all, but someone in honduras might. See the above parrots.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I also think you are being pretty naive to be imposing your beliefs of what would be happening here to what might be happening in Honduras.

yeah, "imposing [our] belief" in the rule of law is just so damn naive.

Those countries have a pretty big problem with despots taking over the governments and it appears the hondurans are very,very sensitive to that...as they probably should be.

uh, those "despots", esp in the case of honduras, have been the military leaders, the generals who use the guns of the army to seize power. the people are very sensitive to the military stepping in and acting outside the legal system.

That's why they claim it treason for someone that is not the congress to try and enact constitutional changes.

that is not at all what this is all about. the president wanted to have a referendum by the people on if they wanted to change the constitution (this vote was not to make changes to the constitution). the court said the law stated these votes (there is another election scheduled) cannot be within a specific time from each other, and the president's plan to hold the referendum was in violation of that law, ordered the vote to be stopped. the president said he would hold the election anyway and that's when al;l hell broke loose.

again, charge the president with a crime and hold the trial to determine guilt or innocence. that's what the law says to do, not to stahe a coup and put the offender on a plane to costa rica.

With our much more open and wealthy society barry couldn't pull this off at all, but someone in honduras might. See the above parrots.

that's very interesting...so you see the problem in honduras being due to their not being an "open" society and their relative poverty?