[marianoguerra]

so we can say that obama is an authoritarian thug too?

visit this and tell me what you see:

http://rojadirecta.com/

please don't overgeneralize, this was a court ruling (which I'm against) but don't use it as an excuse to make Argentina look like a dictatorship.

since you say she has a "long record of abusing private property rights, and now, free speech."

I would like to know some cases so people outside Argentina know (an for that matter me too)

PS: before you attack me with the easy label of being a peronist, let me tell you that I'm not.

[burgerbrain]

>so we can say that obama is an authoritarian thug too?

Yes, you can say that. You can say whatever you want and when you say that in particular, I think I'll even join you.

Bringing up other rulers when someone accuses one nation's of being a tyrant is a meme that needs to die. It is logically unsound and terribly offtopic.

[marianoguerra]

two lines below that line I say

"please don't overgeneralize, this was a court ruling (which I'm against) but don't use it as an excuse to make Argentina look like a dictatorship."

I don't know how to bold but there it says that I'm against the ruling.

analogy tried to prove another point, I think I wasn't clear

[cualunque]

Can I mention the 125 resolution, pension funds, football TV contracts, disproportionate propaganda funds spent on ridiculous newspapers, the prohibition to sell Clarin in some newstands, the public attack on journalists?

[mrleinad]

You mean the 125 resolution? The one Biolcatti admitted having lied to stop from being approved at congress? The same Biolcatti who admitted that "we're doing good.. and perhaps in the future we will do very good"? That one? There's no such prohibition to sell Clarin. Show me proof about that if you can.

[cualunque]

What does his admission have to do with anything? The resolution was an attack on private property no matter what, read your constitution. You are right, there is no proof, the news stands in the "Mercado Central" where shut down because of what? There were other points in my response, are you intentionally ignoring them?

[wslh]

Proof in spanish: http://www.cij.gov.ar/nota-7387-Designan-juzgado-en-causa-po...

[marianoguerra]

just to answer to the questions, I don't want to discuss unrelated things or support any of the sides, but since you answered my question I will answer yours :)

125 was a modification on the tax structure for farmers, it was treated in congress and rejected, so the president didn't used a DNU for that, also doesn't have anything to do with free speech, almost nothing to do with private property.

pension funds, was a law treated in congress and approved (where FPV wasn't a majority), so no DNU and not related to free speech, related to private property but since it was approved by congress and the constitution says that the state should give social security doesn't seem so wrong (I still don't have a position on this, just stating facts).

football TV contracts, AFA rescinded the contract with TyC before signing with the government, so it's a problem between AFA and TyC, I think there is a trial on this, not related with free speech, maybe related with private property but more with contract obligations than anything else (again, I don't have a position on this, just stating what I know).

about propaganda funds, you are right, I think they use a lot of resources on that and in some points they use it to pressure, but still the two biggest media companies don't require that funding and are openly against the government, maybe affects free speech but there is a lot of press against the government so I think that proves free speech (people calling the president a bitch or a whore can be an example of that).

the prohibition on clarin on the central market is censorship and should be clarified, still don't know if it was an order from the government, if that is then it should be punished.

there I answered your questions, I think you have a point on the publicity funds and the last one if it's proved to be related to the government.

but as I said it doesn't prove "a long record of abusing private property rights, and now, free speech." just some wrong doings that should be clarified and brought to justice.

[cualunque]

I never mentioned DNUs.

The 125 was treated in the Congress because of public rejection. It doesn't have to do with free speech but the grandparent asked for examples of attack on private property.

The pension funds were the response to the failure on the 125. I'm not saying she did it by herself, but we are talking about a government, it was the government project.

Football TV contract was violated and instead of defending the private property, the government supported one side when at least should have been neutral. You would say this is proof of nothing but I just heard Arujo and J.Ricardo praise Cristina's "inquietud para que todos puedan ver todos los partidos".

As for the "long list", that's a subjective point and I respect your opinion.

[wslh]

Do you know how many decrees Cristina signed? without congress intervention?

[marianoguerra]

yes, less than any other president outside alfonsin:

http://www.nuevamayoria.com/images/stories/notas/090330graf8...

EDIT: that chart is not up to date but still shows that what you say is just repeating what the media says, so you ask questions without knowing the answer (and the answer doesn't help your point)

[wslh]

I am not repeating what the media says since I am talking about the decrees signed by Kirchner as an unipersonal approach to governing. Can you describe the details about Cristina's decrees? like protecting the 1978-1983 dictatorship secret decrees?

Also, Cristina vetoed the law to protect glaciers.

Continuing with your point of view, you say that Cristina promotes free speech? I say that her followers censors free speech with many practices.

[marianoguerra]

decrees by definition are uni personal approach to governing, weren't invented by her and she was the one that least used it since alfonsin.

I'm against DNUs, but you just say baseless stuff, I provide facts to counter your argument and someone (maybe you) downvotes my reply.

I'm providing facts, why the downvotes?

I'm not the one that started talking about DNUs, it was, you, and you didn't knew she used it too little compared to other presidents, can you provide links to your facts?

what have the glaciers to do with free speech, DNUs and this particular case? you are all over the place trying to justify that you don't like the president (I don't like it either, but I don't like people that talks without facts like you more than that)

where did I said that cristina promotes free speech? please point that for me please, I want to know.

that is not my point of view either, you are inventing that too.

please provide the practices you say she uses to censor free speech, you are the one throwing baseless facts in this post not me, I expect you to provide the facts.

just to provide some fact about this: it's pretty interesting that all the mainstream media is against the president when you say she censors free speech...

PS: I hate to say this again, but I don't like the president, but people like you make me put on the other side

EDIT in answer to burgerbrain (I answer here because I can't reply to your comment for some reason)

thanks for the note, didn't knew about the downvoting rule.

about the link between the argentinian president and obama I was just trying to provide an analogy, blaming a president by an action taken by an independent organism doesn't make sense, in that case the DoJ.

I'm not implying anything about obama, just showing that that relationship doesn't make sense.

the disclamer is made because is common in argentina to try to shoot down an opinion based on the party you support, so I was just clarifying to avoid that kind of behavior, it's almost impossible in argentina to say something positive to one side without being labeled as supported of that side and I don't like that.

but of course, this may be seen as a pattern in this kind of discussions and turn the red flags.

I just commented here because I think the title is misleading (read the EFF link I posted in another thread) it says that the judge asked for the domain to be blocked and the ISPs were the ones that blocked by IP, so I'm proving that trying to link a whole country in a mistake made by some ISPs doesn't make sense. Also, the title doesn't clarify that the blogs were blocked by mistake.

[burgerbrain]

The people to which you respond cannot downvote comments, although they can upvote them. Myself and others have however downvoted your comments.

I did it because you are being offtopic, unrational (comparisons to the US president (why the US president?) do not negate the accusations being made), and read like an astroturfer ("I'm not [whatever you are] but [statement suggesting you are in fact whatever you are]" is an all to common pattern that sends up serious red flags).