Go back
Lula proves once again that he is indeed a fool.

Lula proves once again that he is indeed a fool.

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]you said

show me the quote where I said I'd have no problem with the killings of homosexuals.

This is closely related to your assertions about how most people are not personally affected by the repression carried out by a murderous military disctatorship.

Well, Im correct, most people were not affected by the military regime in ...[text shortened]... u to conclude "...therefore generalissimo supports dictatorships..." or any anything similar.[/b]
generalissmo" "all my posts regarding the subject remain with consistent with the view that it [the dictatorship] was the lesser of two evils"

That is supporting the dictatorship; it states there were only two options and that the dictatorship was the better of the two.

The shoe fits; wear it, fascist.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by generalissimo
I don't know what you're talking about, I was only putting things into context, I wasn't saying I approve of those murders or that they were justified.
So now you're spouting rank backpeddling apoligism about your own no longer cocky and rank apologism about the murderous military dictatorship in Brazil. Wow.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
And your "debating skills" are non-existent. You ignore other people's points and refuse to respond in any meaningful way.

You've been exposed as an apologist and defender of murderers and torturers. You've either lied or are profoundly ignorant of the types of people who were victims of your country's brutal military dictatorship. When fac ...[text shortened]... r killed) under the military dictatorship, such an assertion deserves only contempt.
You ignore other people's points and refuse to respond in any meaningful way.

Oh yes, I forgot all those times I called you an "ignorant little fascist who is an apologist for a bunch of murderous thugs."
Surely you must be describing yourself.

You've been exposed as an apologist and defender of murderers and torturers

I haven't been exposed as anything like that, your imagination has been the only base for this claim.

You've either lied or are profoundly ignorant of the types of people who were victims of your country's brutal military dictatorship

again, not at all.

When faced with that fact, you've changed the subject and even more absurdly, tried to claim that examples of said murder and torture are "extreme"

The only thing absurd is your implication that the dictatorship in brazil was some sort of latin american nazi germany, where the majority of people were subjected to torture.

You should be deeply ashamed of your claim that the only people were victims of the brutality of the Brazilian dictatorship were "communists who were trying to establish a dictatorship".

There were innocent victims, but the resistence indeed had communist ideals.

Has for your implied claim that everything was hunky dory for the average Brazilian (except for the ones getting tortured and/or killed) under the military dictatorship, such an assertion deserves only contempt.

Well, if you're so sure why don't you go to brazil yourself and interview those who were alive at that time? Im sure they tell you they were unsatisfied with the censorship, and the restrictions on political freedom, but I find it unlikely they'll tell they had relatives who were killed.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
So now you're spouting rank backpeddling apoligism about your own no longer cocky and rank apologism about the murderous military dictatorship in Brazil. Wow.
So now you're making stuff up again. wow.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by generalissimo
So now you're making stuff up again. wow.
generalissimo: "I don't know what you're talking about [stammer] I was only putting things into context [dry swallow] I wasn't saying I approve of those murders [shifty glances] or that they were justified."

Excuses about your excuses. a.k.a. backpeddling.

The hour's up. You can't edit the stuff you posted earlier on this thread.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]You ignore other people's points and refuse to respond in any meaningful way.

Oh yes, I forgot all those times I called you an "ignorant little fascist who is an apologist for a bunch of murderous thugs."
Surely you must be describing yourself.

You've been exposed as an apologist and defender of murderers and torturers

I haven' ...[text shortened]... freedom, but I find it unlikely they'll tell they had relatives who were killed.[/b]
Gee, why would people complain about a little censorship and restrictions on political freedom when the dictatorship was the "lesser of two evils"? Bunch of whiners.

As I said, go down to Goias and spout this crap to Mr. Batista.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
generalissmo" "all my posts regarding the subject remain with consistent with the view that it [the dictatorship] was the lesser of two evils"

That is supporting the dictatorship; it states there were only two options and that the dictatorship was the better of the two.

The shoe fits; wear it, fascist.
it was the lesser of two evils, but I have said numerous times in the past that I disapprove of the way things turned out to be, so I don't know where you got this idea that Im a fascist, an accusation that is absurd by the way.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
generalissimo: "I don't know what you're talking about [stammer] I was only putting things into context [dry swallow] I wasn't saying I approve of those murders [shifty glances] or that they were justified."

Excuses about your excuses. a.k.a. backpeddling.

The hour's up. You can't edit the stuff you posted earlier on this thread.
There's no backpeddling, there's only you twisting what I said.

I don't regret any of my posts.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by generalissimo
it was the lesser of two evils, but I have said numerous times in the past that I disapprove of the way things turned out to be, so I don't know where you got this idea that Im a fascist, an accusation that is absurd by the way.
You've voiced support on this board for Pinochet, Franco and the Brazilian dictatorship; it's hardly "absurd" to say someone who rationalizes their support for these governments is a "fascist".

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by generalissimo
I don't regret any of my posts.
Then, as has been said already, the shoe does fit.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
You've voiced support on this board for Pinochet, Franco and the Brazilian dictatorship; it's hardly "absurd" to say someone who rationalizes their support for these governments is a "fascist".
yes, and I explained the extent to which I supported their actions, clearly stating my disapproval of their methods.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
Then, as has been said already, the shoe does fit.
None of my posts have expressed support for the unlawful execution of innocent people, none of my posts have supported fascism as an ideology.

so no, the shoe doesn't fit.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by generalissimo
yes, and I explained the extent to which I supported their actions, clearly stating my disapproval of their methods.
What "methods" do you propose that military dictators who overthrow popularly elected governments use when the people resist the loss of their freedom (as they always do)?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
What "methods" do you propose that military dictators who overthrow popularly elected governments use when the people resist the loss of their freedom (as they always do)?
Well, I think they should have targeted left-wing terrorists only, and made sure there was no violation of human rights.

But if you have read my posts in the past, you'll see I disagreed with the fact that the military was in charge in the first place.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by generalissimo
Well, I think they should have targeted left-wing terrorists only, and made sure there was no violation of human rights.

But if you have read my posts in the past, you'll see I disagreed with the fact that the military was in charge in the first place.
You most certainly did not; you said the dictatorship was the "lesser of two evils" and that it left "the majority unharmed". How you get from these statements to "disagree[ing] with the fact that the military was in charge in the first place" is quite puzzling.

A military dictatorship is, in and of itself, a violation of human rights. Your reasoning is incoherent.