Military coup in Bolivia

Didn't the CEPR think Hugo Chavez was a swell guy? Besides, it's run by Americans and based in Washington D.C, so it can't be trusted.

Edit: @T.R beat me to the punchline.

Yes, because every single person protesting Morales was dragging people out on the street. Get real. Protests of this nature have happened many times throughout history. I didn't realize you were so ignorant of that. But since you are so thick, here's a better answer....


I DO NOT SUPPORT VIOLENCE AGAINST INNOCENT PEOPLE.

Satisfied?

Then go on believing it. I'm not going to convince you. It's not like the U.S. has a history of backing coups for its own economic interests. You believe what you want. I'm sure things will work out just fine.

Irrelevant.

It happened.

They had an election, there were accusations of corruption, violence ensued and you expressed support.

The US had an election, there were accusations of corruption. Would you therefore support similar violence in the US?

So, is there EVIDENCE that the US is backing a "coup" in Bolivia or is it all just assumption and guilt by association?

No I didn't. Stop saying I did.

None of which have been proven. The same came not be said for Bolivia

I don't support violence against innocent people. Never have and never will. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Guilt by association...unless you are a leftist. Then those rules no longer apply. Because in the end, the ends justifies the means.

So what does "rightfully resisted" mean?

Everything about your posting in this thread oozes support for the people beating socialists in the street in Bolivia. I suggest you'd take a very different tone if it were people beating conservatives in the US.

You seriously need that spelled out for you?

Then you're an idiot.

That "rightful resistance" involved people being beaten and humiliated by mobs.

Those two words were yours.

By all means withdraw them as misplaced or badly chosen, but don't disown them. You explicitly expressed support for the actions of those people.

I don't deny that the US has a history of backing coups.

Something bad happened. Must be the US's fault. Unless it was Israel.

No, beating up a mayor is not resistance. That's just hooligans being hooligans. And that's one story out of many others that didn't involve violence.

Let me break this down to where maybe even you can understand...

In 1992 a black motorist was beaten by multiple cops. It was caught on camera for all the world to see. Pretty open and shut case right? Except the cops were found not guilty by an all white jury. Many people disagreed with that decision and protested peacefully. However, in Los Angelas people looted stores and burned buildings to the ground. Does that one group of people somehow overmask the others who were peacefully voicing their displeasure to an unjust decision and would it be wrong to say that people were rightful to resist? Or should we just always assume that any such wording includes the actions of everyone involved?

Asshole socialist wanted to stay past his expiration date. What is it with socialists that they think they never have to relinquish power?

Army didn't shoot him. It just said it wasn't going to do his dirty work and that he should listen to the protesters and leave. Which he did.

The military isn't in charge. The country is working on getting a new leader.

And if he didn't, then he'd be shot.
And then you'd cream your Underoos.

Yet can you show me an instance of an uprising like this which didn't result in similar scenes?

Anywhere?

Ever?

You seem to think I'm playing games here, I'm not. Political violence is rarely if ever justified, it seems we can agree on that, but how exactly does a population "rightfully resist" without it? Supporting one is supporting the other by proxy whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

You really do have no concept of history...





Read and learn.

Did MLK overthrow a government?

Did Indian resistance to British rule go peacefully?

In @RickDeckard ‘s world, anything is excusable as long a leftist is doing it.

Well, sure, pick two really obscure examples....

First sentence: Maybe.

Second sentence: Hell yeah. Asshole socialist wanted to be a socialist dictator for life. That always calls for a bullet.

It amazes me how many of you on the left support politicians ignoring their countries own laws and their own people in order to set themselves up as president for life as long as those politicians are of the political variety that you like. You don't care he's a dictator as long as he's a leftist dictator.

This guy was in power for fourteen years. Even people who supported him eventually said it was enough and it was time for him to go.

He tried to do an end-run around the laws of his country and than he tried to rig an election.

Neither of which were, in fact, examples.

I asked for instances of public uprisings to overthrow a government which didn't result in violent scenes. Neither MLK nor Ghandi can make that claim.

Both advocated for peaceful resistance, but neither achieved it.

MLK for that matter did not support an uprising, although he was, inconveniently, a socialist.

No, he just got the right to vote to happen in very violent places in america without violence.

It was violent for many years until the Ghandi movement.

I don't get it. The Venezuelan model had worked out so well...

Sorry Obama wasn't perfect - he did the best that he could!

He did not use violence, but violence there was.

Also no uprising.

And frequently continued to be violent.

I can't think "Gandhi" without thinking "car bomb."

Honestly at this point I'm through going round and round with you. Believe whatever fairy tale you want about what I said. Have a good day.

Indeed.

The sad truth is though that both "examples" serve to prove the opposite case. Neither is an instance of a non violent overthrow of any government, but both are examples of individual leaders who sought non violent outcomes to oppression and failed.

Which of those two examples managed to overthrow a government without any violence happening?