Deposed Honduran president’s wife leads in campaign for presidency; coup backers trail

[Judi Lynn]

Deposed Honduran president’s wife leads in campaign for presidency; coup backers trail
By Associated Press, Updated: Saturday, June 22, 5:13 PM

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Manuel Zelaya was unceremoniously booted from power four years ago when Honduras’ army hustled him out of the country in his pajamas, a coup prompted by fears among Honduras’ business and political elite that he was getting too hungry for power.

Now he’s back with a new shot at the presidential palace, this time as the husband of the leading presidential candidate, Xiomara Castro.

Polls show Castro, 53, leading seven other candidates ahead of the Nov. 24 election, including the military general who conducted the coup. The country’s two traditional parties, which backed the coup, are struggling in third and fourth place, behind Castro and a popular sports TV personality.

The election of a self-proclaimed socialist could be considered a stunning change in a country where oligarchs have maintained political power over a poor, uneducated majority for at least a century. But Zelaya, too, is a wealthy landowner from the old guard, and most people see his wife as his cover in a country that bans presidential re-election. He is running for a congressional seat from his own state.

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/deposed-honduran-presidents-wife-leads-in-campaign-for-presidency-coup-backers-trail/2013/06/22/3a514774-db58-11e2-b418-9dfa095e125d_story.html

[center]

Xiomara Castro [/center]

[ocpagu]

1. Wonderful to know!

Best wishes to Xiomara! The popular will can not be stopped!

[naaman fletcher]

2. Lol

I agree of course, but it's funny how just a few hours ago you had a post removed because you were cursing at the popular will in Brazil..

[ocpagu]

3. No.

It was removed because I told a right-wing poster to f* off. You're lying as usual. The "popular will" in Brazil couldn't be more different from what that poster wants.

[naaman fletcher]

4. Uh huh.

I read the post. You cursed at him for promoting civil war when all he said was that he wanted the protest to be long lived. And the. After that you didn't answer my question to your post.

[ocpagu]

5. Because I can't.

When a post is hidden the poster can no longer reply in the same thread. You probably know this already, since you've had posts hidden. But I don't expect any kind of honesty from you, much less intellectual honesty. Of course he wants the protests to be long lived. He's a right-winger, he hates all progressist governments. He has never defended a single progressist government. Just like you.

[naaman fletcher]

6. When have I been dishonest?

Please quote it or apologize.

But in any event your ad hominem attacks don't change the fact that the masses are protesting in brazil.

You claimed they weren't protesting against the World Cup.

Yet they are.

[ocpagu]

7. You're dishonest in 99.9% of everything you write.

You don't fool anybody here. And what moral standard do you believe you have to talk about "ad hominem attacks". You spend most of your time in this group harassing other posters.

You're lying again: I actually not only CONFFIRMED that THEY WERE protesting agaisnt the World Cup, as I also said that I don't agree with the protesters about that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1108&pid=19381

As you can see, I've just proved YOU ARE dishonest RIGHT NOW.

But feel free to continue with your lies. It's a pleasure to see you showing your colors.

[naaman fletcher]

8. BS

The post you quoted says nothing of the sort. That post of yours basically says they can't possibly be against th le World Cup because they were once for it.

However, since then you have been proven wrong which is why you are so nasty today i presume.

[ocpagu]

9. I said:

"Well... ..this is exactly the point where my opinion completely diverges from that of the protesters."

It couldn't be more clear that I was recognizing that there were protests against the cup and that I opposed such protests.

But feel free to lie.

As I said in my post to JC yesterday, I'm not in the mood to be educated with pathological liars.

[naaman fletcher]

10. Nope

You were saying that the masses were for the World Cup before so can't be against it now, therefore it must be fascists.

But feel free to go back to your nastiness. Doesn't bother me.

[ocpagu]

11. I said it was hypocritical that they were protesting it now...

... when in fact they had celebrated on the streets when Brazil got the bid. And I still think that. The fact that I've started my answer to that thread saying that I oppose people protesting the cup proves that you are lying when you say I denied such information. And anyone can perceive that.

As I said before, if you can't understand what you read, that's not my fault. Go back to elementary school and try again.

[naaman fletcher]

12. Ok,

So, I thought our interpretation was "they must be fascists". Ou are saying "they are hypocritical"

Ok, I get it.

Either way,

We know whose side you are on in the protests.

Question:

Whose side are you on in the Turkish protests?

[ocpagu]

13. You didn't understand anything so far.

It's pathetic to try to draw parallels between Brazil and Turkey, as if they were going through the same situation.

The protests in Turkey are homogeneous. There is a general demand which is to ouster Erdogan. This will appears to be legitimate and authentic.

The protests in Brazil are heterogeneous. There are not "two sides" as you imply when you say "We know whose side you are on in the protests". No. You know nothing about the subject. You are oversimplifying a very complex phenomenon to make it feasible for your binary mindset to understand.

There are dozens of groups protesting in Brazil. Some of them are protesting for better wages for teachers, for example. I'd support such a protest. Others are protesting against the right to make an abortion. I'd be against such a protest. You are still trying to label these protesters in Brazil as if they were all on the streets fighting for the same cause, i.e., against the government. That's not the case. The groups have specific demands. A group near my house is right now making a protest agains Marcos Feliciano, a televangelist.

You have no clue of what's going on. That's quite clear.

[naaman fletcher]

14. BS again

I was the one who said to you a few days ago that there were multiple reasons for the protests.

You are the one who denied that.

Now that the bus fare hikes have been repealed you are eating crow. The record is the to see that I said there are multiple reasons while you are denying that

[ocpagu]

15. Prove it.

Post my comment denying that there were multiple reasons for the protest. Show it.

It's your chance to prove you're not a liar.

[naaman fletcher]

16. Will do in morning

Wasted too much time this Saturday night already on a chavista

[naaman fletcher]

17. Meanwhile

You called me a liar first. Why don't you prove that?

[ocpagu]

18. I just did.

Some posts above, when I proved you were lying about me denying people were protesting against the world cup.

Your turn. Don't make us wait.

[naaman fletcher]

19. Lol

You of course admitted that "people" were. Only you suggested they were fascists as opposed to "the people" protesting.

[ocpagu]

20. You're fast about changing your own opinions aren't you?

You just said in this very thread: "You claimed they weren't protesting against the World Cup"

Now you are saying, in this same thread:

"You of course admitted that "people" were".

Thanks for admitting you were lying, though.

[naaman fletcher]

21. You've been distorting from day one on these protests

OCPAGU:

Since Day one you have been downplaying the thought that the protests were against anything but the bus fares, and, by extension against the government you support:

In response to Josh Cryer saying that the protests were against corruption you said”

“Can you tell us more about what "corrupt policies" the protesters are fighting against? Please?”

followed up with:

“The high approval ratings of Dilma's government are in great part due to her actions against corruption. “

You added in that the mainstream media was to blame.

In response to an article that said:

“Brazil might be the world's sixth biggest economy but it is also a chronically corrupt and bureaucratic giant state. Decisions made at the top, hardly impact favourably those at the bottom. The country is plagued by endemic social inequality.

Billions of dollars have been spent on preparing for next year's World Cup, R$27bn according to the federal government. Projects are already vastly over-budget and we are a year away. Meanwhile Brazil continues to invest below the OECD average in education. Public health expenditure is even lower. “

You responded with:

“I believe most protesters would be OUTRAGED with both HP articles posted by you and Bacchus.
“

followed up by your quoting someone who said:: “"No, reactionaries, we are not on your side. Don't come here to transform a legitimate protest in a depoliticisation action against corruption. (...) We can not admit that our fight is converted by the right-wing into an act against corruption. We are not fighting for the neoliberal cause. We are not fighting for moral values and the families. We are not asking the end of the State - quite the contrary “


Of course, the various layers of government then reversed the Bus hikes, and the protests are bigger than ever. According to this article that you did not refute:

“An estimated 1 million people took to the streets in cities across Brazil on Thursday as the country's biggest protests in two decades intensified despite government concessions meant to quell the demonstrations.

Undeterred by the reversal of transport fare hikes that sparked the protests, and promises of better public services, demonstrators marched around two international soccer matches and in locales as diverse as the Amazon capital of Manaus and the prosperous southern city of Florianopolis. “

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110819464


So what did you post? You posted:

“Fascists in the upper classes are infiltrating the movement. This is a coup d'état on the making.”



So there it is. A debate over what the protests are about. And you decided that since the bus fares have been repealed, it must now be fascists running the protests.

And you followed up with this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/110819428

Suggesting the same thing

And of course you posted this thread:

The fascist temptation: Far-right tries to manipulate protests in Brazil

[ocpagu]

22. A bunch of lies as usual. And I see you couldn't find the proof I asked.

"Since Day one you have been downplaying the thought that the protests were against anything but the bus fares, and, by extension against the government you support"

The first protests WERE INDEED against bus fares in the beginning. The agenda grew AFTER police brutality in the fourth act brought dozens of thousands to the streets. When that happened I was also the first in the group to say there were other demands. The only reason why my earlier posts didn't mention other reasons for the protests is because those reasons only started to appear LATER. As even mainstream press reported. You are the one distorting things here.

"In response to Josh Cryer saying that the protests were against corruption you said” “Can you tell us more about what "corrupt policies" the protesters are fighting against? Please?” followed up with: “The high approval ratings of Dilma's government are in great part due to her actions against corruption. “ You added in that the mainstream media was to blame."

And so far I didn't obtain an answer. Can you tell us more about "what corrupt policies" the protesters are fighting again? Please? Anyone who has a MINIMUM understanding of Brazilian history - which is not your case, of course - knows that moralist, hypocritical cruasade against "corruption" as some people are trying to impose in Brazil was one of the [link:National Democratic Union|udestinas] favorite talking points and ended up in a fascist government that lasted for two decades. That's why the left-wing is so careful about this topic - including the groups organizing the original protests that said themselves they were not fighting against corruption. Most of the time, groups using the anti-corruption speech are right-wingers who can not find another argument to appeal to the masses on the ballot boxes. I wanted JC to prove me that Dilma's government is corrupted and which corrupted policies of HER the protesters were against. Didn't receive any answer from him, as generally also happenes with neo-udenistas.

"So there it is. A debate over what the protests are about. And you decided that since the bus fares have been repealed, it must now be fascists running the protests."

No, I didn't "decide" anything. Left-wing movements and parties that were since the first protect taking part in the acts WERE SPANKED AND EXPELLED by some protesters as reported even by mainstream media. Groups self-declared "non-partisan" and "centrist" are expelling left-wing associations, organizations and movements from the protests. Ideological cleansing. Yep. Fascists taking control.

Not surprised that ONLY now you are at their side. I was with them while the LEFT-WING was still allowed to go to the protests without getting beaten. I will no longer join them.

[Judi Lynn]

23. You're right on target. DU'ers recognize what people like this one are,

and they can spot others like them, or smell them, a mile away.

They are so easy to identify when all they have ever done is attack democratic people here around the clock, with absolutely no substance or character to their own comments. They are without moral standing.

Dishonest is the best thing you can say about them. After that, the rest is really ugly!

[Judi Lynn]

24. Their goal is to draw you out, harrass, mock, attack you over and over,

until you feel you'd like to swat them down, then they race off to alert on your post and get it deleted.

That, for some reason, is their entire cycle of mental self-pleasure they seek.

They come to throw real democrats off the subject by trying to protect themselves then they interrupt the flow of information between us.

Disruption, destroying communication, ####ing up the conversation we seek in coming here to communicate with other progressives.

[Judi Lynn]

26. You highjacked this thread concerning Honduras and Xiomara Castro,

and used it to attack a progressive DU poster concerning her progressive posts on a thread about Brazil.

What do you have against keeping your dirty attacks on DU's Brazilian poster out of this thread on Honduras?

You trying to disrupt? You certainly did disrupt this thread, didn't you?

[naaman fletcher]

27. I'll post what I want

But thanks for your concern

[Judi Lynn]

25. Guest commentary: Violence plagues Honduras

Guest commentary: Violence plagues Honduras
By HELGA FELLAY
Posted: 06/22/2013 04:45:12 PM PDT
Updated: 06/22/2013 04:45:12 PM PDT

In 2005, Honduras elected its first left-leaning president, Manuel Zelaya, thus joining other Latin American countries moving against domination by the "U.S. Empire's" capitalist system, neoliberalism and militarization.

Under Zelaya, Hondurans enjoyed free education for children, subsidies for small farmers and lower bank interest rates. The minimum wage increased 80 percent; school meals were guaranteed for 1.6 million poor children; domestic employees were integrated into the social security system, and poverty was reduced sharply. All this ended June 28, 2009, when a military coup, which was condemned worldwide, deposed the democratically elected Zelaya. Honduras has since become the most violent country with the highest murder rate in the world.

Mark Weisbrot of The Guardian Unlimited wrote in April: "Zelaya later told the press that Washington was involved in the coup itself" and &quot the) coup unleashed a wave of violence against political dissent that continues to this day."

Planning for the coup began June 2008 and involved well-established military, business and diplomatic networks, which have long shaped U.S. policy toward Latin America. The New York Times reported Llorens and Shannon spoke with military leaders before the coup. Adm. James Stavridis, then head of U.S. Southern Command, met with Honduran military and political leaders in January 2009, praising an "excellent state of cooperation between our two militaries."
It is inconceivable the Honduran military would have acted against the wishes of the U.S. military or Ambassador Llorens and risk losing millions of dollars in military support.

More:
http://www.montereyherald.com/rss/ci_23519789?source=rss