[robomartin]

> The good news for the US is that they don't have an imperialist neighbour

I don't think you know the history of Latin America.

If you speak Spanish you should watch the many excellent videos out there with Gloria Alvarez. If you don't, she has been doing more and more work in English, here's one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xP-epEQikI

If you do understand Spanish, here's a short history of Latin American history by her:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WylR8EvhnE

[littlestymaar]

That's funny how libertarians get all their reading from libertarian sources.

Gloria Alvarez is no historian, she is a politician with a libertarian agenda…

[robomartin]

That's funny how people who don't understand history and facts always choose to attack the messenger rather than the arguments being presented.

I studied in Latin America and lived there for nearly 20 years in total. I KNOW THIS HISTORY because I both studied and lived some of it. She is telling the truth.

[littlestymaar]

I'm not «attacking» anyone, but you wouldn't trust Lenin talking about the Russian history (and you'd be right) and you shouldn't trust a libertarian politician about history either.

[robomartin]

> I'm not «attacking» anyone

Had you studied Philosophy and Logic in university you would have understood my comment.

This is what's colloquially known as "shooting the messenger" or attacking the source. You said:

> Gloria Alvarez is no historian, she is a politician with a libertarian agenda…

BTW, she is not a politician. She recently tried to run for President of Guatemala but didn't get very far. She was not a politician before that and is not a politician today.

The fallacy you are committing is "argumentum ad hominem". Here's a reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

The simple explanation is to attack the person ("she is a politician with a libertarian agenda") rather than to address the argument she presents by offering-up evidence that proves your case and disproves hers. The implication, of course, being that nothing she says is valid because of who she is, regardless of the nature and content of her presentation.

> you wouldn't trust Lenin talking about the Russian history

Not true, you are attacking the messenger again. There is no reason to assume Lenin (or anyone else) is lying just because of who they are or what they did. You can be skeptical about it, sure, but the only LOGICAL approach --if what you seek is the truth-- is to listen (or read) and then confirm the validity and soundness (these are two different things) of the argument Lenin would be making. Only after confirming the validity and soundness of the argument can you conclude whether Lenin is telling the truth or not about a particular argument. He could be lying about one thing and telling the truth about another.

As Einstein said, paraphrasing, the solution to a problem requires a higher perspective than the one that created it in the first place.

Please be careful about what you believe and why you believe it.

It's much easier to accept a conclusions "don't listen to her, she is just a libertarian" than to actually take the time to listen to somebody, perhaps even engage with them in a respectful manner and consider the arguments being presented. This is the only way we move forward as a society. Politicians (notice I did not specify party affiliation) would prefer to herd us all like sheep with false promises and stuff that sounds great. Politicians hate it when we actually think and challenge what comes out of their mouths. That requires work and emotional separation from any affiliation, which isn't necessarily easy for a lot of people.

[nec4b]

And we should take you communist word for it? /s