Now I'm really angry

[jso1985]

Just came back from a pacific protest to demand the goverment that the Constituent Assembly re-inserts the capital city issue back on their discussion board.
All we want is that topic back on the discussion, The seat of goverment being brought back to Sucre,
But as apparently that topic doesn't fit in Evo Morales' "Democratic and popular revolution" well his "democratic" solution was to send the police to tear as much tear gas as they can to us, when we were doing nothing wrong, just note there was lots of kids and elder people on the protest, yet the police didn't care.
As this wasn't the first time the goverment acts this way agaisnt the ones who not agree with them(this being the third time in one year I "taste" tear gas).
Well I had enough, one thing is to mess up with me, another one is to shoot tear gas a meter away from my mother! :mad:
I'm f***ing angry now but I'm not only one with the "enough" feeling. This goverment hasn't being democratic at all a long time ago, I won't stand dictatorship let alone from that moron!

rant end

[tannat]

JEEZ! Had no idea it was that bad down there, jso...

Just focus on your degree for now-never mind all the politics..

[Drew]

I imagine things got a little bit "heated", that would likely happen anywhere. Still, sad to hear it.

[Daniel]

sorry to hear that. Get your degree and get out is all i can say.

[Will L]

Not good jso. :(

[Daniel]

You know what's funny? People in this country who claim that the government are restricting their freedom and their rights. I mean the worst I've had is having to take my shoes off at the airport. Javier's story kind of puts the complaining of "opressed" British people into perspective doesn't it?

[Drew]

You know what's funny? People in this country who claim that the government are restricting their freedom and their rights. I mean the worst I've had is having to take my shoes off at the airport. Javier's story kind of puts the complaining of "opressed" British people into perspective doesn't it?

Everything's relative. If we started to not complain, we'd just slide down that path anyway :\

[Daniel]

do you really think so? I think Gordon Brown values freedom as much as anyone else. Anyway this is not about the UK, it's about Bolivia. I was merely showing how well we have it and the fact that some whinge rather than enjoy it.

[Malbec]

You know what's funny? People in this country who claim that the government are restricting their freedom and their rights. I mean the worst I've had is having to take my shoes off at the airport. Javier's story kind of puts the complaining of "opressed" British people into perspective doesn't it?

Actually what is happening in Bolivia and other nations is a warning as to where this gradual reduction in civil liberties MAY end up.

You'd be surprised at what powers the government has awarded itself over the past few years. In fact reading the account in this thread about what happened to jso, the British government would be acting totally legally to treat any demonstration it doesn't award a licence to in exactly the same way. It just so happens that the government and the police don't yet exercise their powers fully, but those powers are there.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Actually what is happening in Bolivia and other nations is a warning as to where this gradual reduction in civil liberties MAY end up.



No it isn't

[Daniel]

what the British government COULD do and what they actually do are two totally different things. How can they deal with the terror threat without causing a few headaches.

I think it's extremely RUDE to post such drivel in this thread about how horrible the UK could be when Javier is obviously not having it great in Bolivia NOW.

[Donney]

I'm sorry to hear that Javier I had high hopes on Evo Morales but it seems he's not as good as he seemed to be.

[Captain VXR]

Next time bring a mob because two wrongs CAN make a right because treat others how they treat you - give them a taste of their own medicine :mad:

[Eki]

I imagine things got a little bit "heated", that would likely happen anywhere. Still, sad to hear it.
True. For example in Sweden Muslims protest a cartoon of Prophet Muhammed:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295431,00.html


Muslims Protest Swedish Newspaper's Cartoon of Prophet Muhammad

Friday, August 31, 2007

STOCKHOLM, Sweden — Scores of Muslims staged a demonstration Friday against a Swedish newspaper and demanded that its chief editor apologize for publishing a drawing depicting the Prohet Muhammad with a dog's body.

The rally outside the Nerikes Allehanda newspaper in Orebro followed formal protests by Iran and Pakistan in a brewing conflict over the cartoon made by Swedish artist Lars Vilks.

Sweden's prime minister called for mutual respect between Muslims, Christians and nonreligious groups in an attempt to avert a wider conflict. Last year, fiery protests erupted in Muslim countries after a Danish newspaper published 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Islamic law is interpreted to forbid any depiction of the prophet for fear it could lead to idolatry.

About 300 people rallied outside the newspaper's offices, demanding an apology and saying the cartoon, a rough sketch showing Muhammad's head on a dog's body, was insulting to Muslims, the news agency TT reported.

"We want to show Nerike's Allehanda that Muslims in this city are upset over what happened," Jamal Lamhamdi, chairman of the Islamic cultural center in Orebro, told Swedish public radio. Orebro is a city of about 100,000 residents, 125 miles west of Stockholm.

Earlier, a handful of people, mostly youth, staged a separate demonstration outside the newspaper in defense of press freedom, TT reported.

Nerikes Allehanda editor-in-chief Ulf Johansson met with Lamhamdi but refused to apologize for the cartoon, which was part of an Aug. 19 editorial criticizing several Swedish art galleries for refusing to display a series of prophet drawings by Vilks.

"They say they are offended and I regret that, because our purpose was not to offend anyone," Johansson told The Associated Press. "But they are asking for an apology and a promise that I never again publish a similar image ... and that I cannot do."

The editorial defended "Muslims' right to freedom of religion" but also said it must be permitted to "ridicule Islam's most foremost symbols — just like all other religions' symbols."

The paper said Vilks' drawings were different from the "rotten" cartoons published by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which triggered violent attacks against Danish and other Western embassies in several Muslim countries.

That paper had invited cartoonists to make illustrations of Muhammad in what it said was a challenge to self-censorship among artists dealing with Islamic issues. The cartoons, one of which showed Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb, later were reprinted by dozens of newspapers and Web sites in Europe and elsewhere.

Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt commented on the dispute for the first time Friday, saying Sweden was a country "where Muslims and Christians, those who believe in God and those who don't believe in God can live side by side with mutual respect."

"At the same time we are eager to stand up for the freedom of speech ... which is about not taking decisions politically about what is published in newspapers," Reinfeldt told TT.

Pakistan and Iran summoned Swedish diplomats this week to protest against the publication of the cartoon. The charge d'affaires at the Swedish Embassy in Islamabad, Lennart Holst, explained the press freedom laws in Sweden and said the government cannot interfere with what newspapers publish, Foreign Ministry spokesman Andre Mkandawire said.

"He did not apologize but regretted that the publication had hurt Muslims' feelings," Mkandawire said.

In Pakistan, dozens of supporters from Islamic parties burned the flag of Sweden in the eastern city of Lahore on Friday. In Karachi, others torched an effigy of the Swedish premier to protest the cartoon.

Vilks said he made the drawings after being invited to contribute to an art exhibition in central Sweden on the theme of dogs.

"To begin with, the message was to make a critical contribution on the dog theme, but it took another direction," Vilks told AP in a phone interview. "Why can you not criticize Islam when you can criticize other religions?"

Vilks said he expected protests locally against his drawings but insisted he didn't mean to insult Muslims.

"My images are art. I don't have a xenophobic attitude. I'm not against Islam. Everyone knows that," he said.

[Hondo]

Just my opinion but arguing over who is god and who isn't and what is a capital city and what is not a capital city isn't worth getting hurt over, much less dying for, unless you have no other life anyway.

Over my years on this planet, I have found that governments that use "Democratic" somewhere in their official title, usually aren't.

[Drew]

do you really think so? I think Gordon Brown values freedom as much as anyone else.

I think so, but perhaps that's my sceptical side.



Just my opinion but arguing over who is god and who isn't and what is a capital city and what is not a capital city isn't worth getting hurt over, much less dying for, unless you have no other life anyway.

Over my years on this planet, I have found that governments that use "Democratic" somewhere in their official title, usually aren't.

For us, perhaps it makes no difference, it's just a name. For a poorer country, to be a capital city would mean that that city would receive more foreign and government investment. Therefore better infrastructure, better facilities, better paid jobs and better quality of life.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea ;)

[tinchote]

Sadly, in many South American countries the concept of democracy is reduced to "we vote for the government". This is helping the raise of very authoritarian governments, and as far as I can tell it is only gonna get worse.

[Malbec]

what the British government COULD do and what they actually do are two totally different things. How can they deal with the terror threat without causing a few headaches.

I think it's extremely RUDE to post such drivel in this thread about how horrible the UK could be when Javier is obviously not having it great in Bolivia NOW.

Then why did you choose to compare the situation in Bolivia to that in Britain?

And I'm afraid you're missing the point again. The British government, along with the American, used 9/11 to award itself amazingly extensive powers to crack down on internal dissent which it hasn't chosen to use, powers that are as extensive as those in Bolivia. You better hope that future British governments are totally committed to democracy, otherwise a totalitarian minded one could use existing powers to crack down on any opposition it wants.

I'm with Benjamin Franklin, those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. To quote John Adams, it is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men unfit to be trusted with unlimited power. Yet you appear to be happy with awarding those who govern you with greater and greater powers for the illusion of safety from terrorism.

As was said last century, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Looks like you're asleep Daniel.

[Malbec]

Sadly, in many South American countries the concept of democracy is reduced to "we vote for the government". This is helping the raise of very authoritarian governments, and as far as I can tell it is only gonna get worse.

I would have thought that in the medium to long term economic development would force democratisation just as it has in South East and Far East Asia and will do in China. Otherwise countries like Bolivia will simply be left behind by the likes of Brazil, Argentina and Chile.

[tinchote]

I would have thought that in the medium to long term economic development would force democratisation just as it has in South East and Far East Asia and will do in China. Otherwise countries like Bolivia will simply be left behind by the likes of Brazil, Argentina and Chile.

It is not that clear that something like that will happen. In Brazil, Argentina, and Chile the breach between rich and poor is growing bigger, and that's never good. And in particular, Argentina's current government is very in line with the thinking of Chavez and Morales, although with a little more subtleness.

[Malbec]

It is not that clear that something like that will happen. In Brazil, Argentina, and Chile the breach between rich and poor is growing bigger, and that's never good.

That is never good from the point of view of societal cohesion, but democracy isn't dependent on having a narrow gap between rich and poor. Both the US and India have astonishingly large gaps between rich and poor yet both have been democracies for a very long time.

[Hondo]

That is never good from the point of view of societal cohesion, but democracy isn't dependent on having a narrow gap between rich and poor. Both the US and India have astonishingly large gaps between rich and poor yet both have been democracies for a very long time.

Actually, the USA is a Representitive Republic, not a true democracy. Thats one reason our president is not necessarily elected by the majority popular vote.

[tinchote]

That is never good from the point of view of societal cohesion, but democracy isn't dependent on having a narrow gap between rich and poor. Both the US and India have astonishingly large gaps between rich and poor yet both have been democracies for a very long time.

I cannot speak about India, but the USA has a huge middle class: people who has a comfortable life, but has to work to keep it that way. This is what's dissappearing in Argentina, Chile, and Brazil (with the biggest acceleration in Argentina). The rich are few, and the poor votes are easily bought by a few perks before the election. This is leading to the populist governments we see in Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador these days.

[Daniel]

Then why did you choose to compare the situation in Bolivia to that in Britain?


Because I merely wanted to show that it IS actually bad in other countries rather than being hypothetically bad here.


And I'm afraid you're missing the point again. The British government, along with the American, used 9/11 to award itself amazingly extensive powers to crack down on internal dissent which it hasn't chosen to use, powers that are as extensive as those in Bolivia. You better hope that future British governments are totally committed to democracy, otherwise a totalitarian minded one could use existing powers to crack down on any opposition it wants.

I'm with Benjamin Franklin, those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. To quote John Adams, it is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men unfit to be trusted with unlimited power. Yet you appear to be happy with awarding those who govern you with greater and greater powers for the illusion of safety from terrorism.

As was said last century, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Looks like you're asleep Daniel.

A government can do really whatever it wants. But history has shown that Britain has generally been well governed and has been governed for the people.

That's why I was happy to move here last year. I wouldn't have moved here if I'd suspected that some kind of Vladimir Putin figure was going to be in charge in a years time or even in 50 years time.

Britain is not the USSR or Bolivia or Cuba or any other country. Sure we could end up with an opressive dicator in charge who puts laws through parliament that lessen our freedom but does Gordon Brown seem that man? Does anyone else on the horizon seem the type? If the answer is no then why are you so worried? If the answer is yes then you need to stop posting while intoxicated :rolleyes:

The reason for the increased powers the government have is that it's not legal to hold a person without charge for a long period of time. The thing is in the climate we had before the 7/7 (my birthday incidently) attacks, all the police had to worry about was the occasional murderer and various other petty criminals. If the Police aren't able to get enough evidence to hold a murderer or a shoplifter and have to release them then the potential harm to most people is small. But if the Police can't hold someone who is planning to be involved in a large terror attack then the repercussions are huge. Now the people arrested at Heathrow under the terrorism act. Do we actually know what they were doing? Has any of them actually come out and proven that they were just asleep in a field when the police came over and branded them terrorists and took them away to dark and damp cell and left them there to rot? Or were they possibly panning to break into the airport and spray something on a plane or climb up onto a plane and put a banner up or something similarly moronic? If we start trusting people who we don't know over a police force that is respected the world over then all is lost. Perhaps people will think twice about commiting criminal acts next time if they know the police can actually do something to deter them. There should never be a situation where the Police can do nothing to stop something like the blockading of a business place.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/makeplaneshistory.jpg

Slogans like the above tend to illustrate to me that we're not dealing with the most intelligent people in the world who are merely want to illustrate their point in a lawful way that wasn't going to cause any negative impact upon people just doing what they want to do. They should have camped outisde parliament or as near as the law would allow and made their point to people who can actually make a change and not impacted upon a business which is acting lawfully.

BTW Benjamin Franklin wasn't talking about being vigilant against a government giving themselves powers which weren't going to impact upon 99.999999999999999999999999999% of the population. He was talking about being vigilant against the type of people who this law was made to fight against.....

[Malbec]

Actually, the USA is a Representitive Republic, not a true democracy. Thats one reason our president is not necessarily elected by the majority popular vote.

If you're being pedantic ;) then there aren't any true democracies in the world.

Tinchote, I guess you're right about the middle classes, they're the ones being squeezed most both politically and economically with all the instability there. I hope it'll sort itself out though, and since South America has only come out of the artificial Cold War imposed dictatorship period relatively recently, ie just over a decade, there's still hope that things will go in the right direction.

[Malbec]

A government can do really whatever it wants. But history has shown that Britain has generally been well governed and has been governed for the people.

That's why I was happy to move here last year. I wouldn't have moved here if I'd suspected that some kind of Vladimir Putin figure was going to be in charge in a years time or even in 50 years time.

Britain is not the USSR or Bolivia or Cuba or any other country. Sure we could end up with an opressive dicator in charge who puts laws through parliament that lessen our freedom but does Gordon Brown seem that man? Does anyone else on the horizon seem the type? If the answer is no then why are you so worried? If the answer is yes then you need to stop posting while intoxicated :rolleyes:

I wouldn't start assuming things about other people if I were you, especially since I don't drink.

Your ASSUMPTION is that future governments will be benign, one based on a long history of democracy in Britain and one that definitely has strong basis in fact. However it ought to be remembered that totalitarian governments often come to power in most unpredictable ways, and one cannot rule out an insidious shift to the right with successive governments each taking small steps to further increase its power and reduce your rights. The shift may take decades but by the time its made you won't be able to reverse it. Unlike you I don't have an intrinsic trust in my government, I have friends involved in politics and while they are dear to me I certainly am not naive enough to believe that altruism is what they are doing it for.

10 years ago, would you have believed that Britain would have a democratically elected leader that would declare war five times in as many years and who would invade another country on a pretext based on lies?


The reason for the increased powers the government have is that it's not legal to hold a person without charge for a long period of time. The thing is in the climate we had before the 7/7 (my birthday incidently) attacks, all the police had to worry about was the occasional murderer and various other petty criminals. If the Police aren't able to get enough evidence to hold a murderer or a shoplifter and have to release them then the potential harm to most people is small. But if the Police can't hold someone who is planning to be involved in a large terror attack then the repercussions are huge. Now the people arrested at Heathrow under the terrorism act. Do we actually know what they were doing? Has any of them actually come out and proven that they were just asleep in a field when the police came over and branded them terrorists and took them away to dark and damp cell and left them there to rot? Or were they possibly panning to break into the airport and spray something on a plane or climb up onto a plane and put a banner up or something similarly moronic? If we start trusting people who we don't know over a police force that is respected the world over then all is lost. Perhaps people will think twice about commiting criminal acts next time if they know the police can actually do something to deter them. There should never be a situation where the Police can do nothing to stop something like the blockading of a business place.

Daniel, don't rewrite history please. Don't you remember the IRA?

When I was a child I faced daily bomb threats. Hardly any days spent travelling around London went uninterrupted by some suspect package alert shutting down several stations for hours on end. Summer CCF camps all started with a quick briefing on what to do if there was a mortar attack on the base we were in, with a reminder never to stray from the camp with our uniforms on in case we were mistaken for real members of the armed forces and killed/abducted. At least we had the comforting thought that the IRA wouldn't plant major bombs in London for fear of killing American tourists and therefore stemming a lucrative income stream, although that didn't stop them from bombing the City on a regular basis and putting bombs in bins in public places. The IRA threat was very real and impacted onto my life far more than the current threat does.

The Terrorist Act laws weren't needed by the police then to combat terrorism, and that was facing a group that has killed many many times more people than on 7/7. Using then laws the IRA were kept in check sufficiently to push them to the negotiating table. Neither were they needed to combat previous unrest such as the miners strike which was far far more militant than any airport demonstration we face now. So exactly WHY are the new laws required? What real difference are they going to make in this so-called war on terror. Do you really think those laws will be rescinded once the terrorist threat recedes?


Slogans like the above tend to illustrate to me that we're not dealing with the most intelligent people in the world who are merely want to illustrate their point in a lawful way that wasn't going to cause any negative impact upon people just doing what they want to do. They should have camped outisde parliament or as near as the law would allow and made their point to people who can actually make a change and not impacted upon a business which is acting lawfully.

Actually, they wouldn't have been able to peacefully protest outside the Houses of Parliament.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/markthomas.shtml


BTW Benjamin Franklin wasn't talking about being vigilant against a government giving themselves powers which weren't going to impact upon 99.999999999999999999999999999% of the population. He was talking about being vigilant against the type of people who this law was made to fight against.....

I'm afraid you'll have to do a little more reading then.

Benjamin Franklin wrote about democracy and the need for each and every voter to educate themselves about their rights and be prepared to defend them from excessive intrusion from the government. I'm sure you're aware that when he wrote his words the American revolutionaries were, if anything, the side that could be labelled terrorists especially using the recent definitions in the Terrorist act. He was writing about the establishment of the American state and the balance of power between the people and the government, particularly the federal one that was about to be established. He was writing VERY SPECIFICALLY about the erosion of civil liberties by the government in the name of protecting from external threats.

[Drew]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/makeplaneshistory.jpg

Slogans like the above tend to illustrate to me that we're not dealing with the most intelligent people in the world who are merely want to illustrate their point in a lawful way that wasn't going to cause any negative impact upon people just doing what they want to do.


Wahoo make planes history but forget the fact I bought all my clothes, shoes and accesories at new look and topshop and that they were made in China and was probably flown over, wahoo!

[Hondo]

I am middle class and can vouch for the fact that we are squeezed for everything anybody can get from us. Even the most conservative people I know are willing and do try to help those that are trying to help themselves because they see it as a situation that has an end. The old "give a man a fish and you feed him today, teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.". Tin is right about the US. We work damn hard to get what we have and a little more but there are a lot of people in this country that are allowed to vote that love being given the fish. They have no interest in learning to fish but love to vote for those that promise more fish. Guess who pays for the fish?

The deep down never talked about real heart of the firearm issue in this country is an armed population's ability to say "no more" to an out of control government. Would the people win? maybe, maybe not, but it would be damned messy. The powers that be wouldn't just be able to march in and say "this is the way it's going to be whether you like it or not" without a fight. It has very little to do with self protection from local crime. traditionally, Americans don't completely trust governments and feel that a government that fears an armed population is probably up to some underhanded business that we aren't going to like very much.

Many of the governments that today are considered moderate, fair, and even handed exist today because of the blood the citizens of the past were willing to shed to say no more. Kings, queens, dictators, and popes just don't give up power willingly and walk away. Somebody made them go.

[jso1985]

Just my opinion but arguing over who is god and who isn't and what is a capital city and what is not a capital city isn't worth getting hurt over, much less dying for, unless you have no other life anyway.


Perhaps I should have explained it better.
Actually the capital thing isn't much of importance to me(although it is to many people here due the reasons Drew pointed out) but from what i'm upset now is that the goverment took out of the discussion board of the constituent assembly the issue by just ordering the assembleists of his party to do it, while the whole assembly is supposed to work without any influence. So they have proven that they want to impose "their" model of constitution(rumoured to have things like native people being the only ones allowed to have land properties) no matter how, so making the whole assembly a joke. so the protest wasn't only to demand the capital thing to be back on the discussion board but was also to demand respect for democracy.

[Hondo]

Ok, I'm with you now, I think. You think you have elected representitives to go to and participate in your central government to protect your interests when possible, and to look at the big picture on national issues. If I understand your explaination, the leader of your central government is using the other members of his party and their political majority to force things to go his way. Thats actually pretty normal in all governments at one time or another. Although if you are amending or writing a new constitution, in this country those changes have to ratified by a popular vote in each state. Our representives are not allowed to monkey with the constitution on their own. We don't trust them that much and I hope we never do.

I never really noticed until tinchote pointed out one day, but Central and South America do seem to have a hard time finding a government that works for them for any length of time. Perhaps the opinions on national issues are way too far apart to allow for a peaceful settlement.

[Eki]

Central and South America do seem to have a hard time finding a government that works for them for any length of time. Perhaps the opinions on national issues are way too far apart to allow for a peaceful settlement.
In northern nations, people seem to think "OK, I don't like this, but I'll wait 4 to 6 years until the next elections", in Latin America, people seem to think "I don't like this, I'll get to the streets RIGHT NOW!"

[BDunnell]

In northern nations, people seem to think "OK, I don't like this, but I'll wait 4 to 6 years until the next elections", in Latin America, people seem to think "I don't like this, I'll get to the streets RIGHT NOW!"

I do think that cultural, maybe psychological, differences between nations and their peoples play a role. The way in which Italian politics are riven with instability compared with, say, those of Germany and Britain is possibly quite a good example.

[schmenke]

Wahoo make planes history but forget the fact I bought all my clothes, shoes and accesories at new look and topshop and that they were made in China and was probably flown over, wahoo!

The vast majority of Asian goods are exported by sea transport. Air cargo is simply too ineficient and expensive.

[jso1985]

Ok, I'm with you now, I think. You think you have elected representitives to go to and participate in your central government to protect your interests when possible, and to look at the big picture on national issues. If I understand your explaination, the leader of your central government is using the other members of his party and their political majority to force things to go his way. Thats actually pretty normal in all governments at one time or another. Although if you are amending or writing a new constitution, in this country those changes have to ratified by a popular vote in each state. Our representives are not allowed to monkey with the constitution on their own. We don't trust them that much and I hope we never do.


sort of, we elected a constituent assembly that had to write a new constitution in one year(they've been "working" for 1 year and 1 moth now), on those elections, the president's party(MAS) won by 52% gaining 141 seats in the assembly of 256 possible. Wich such majority well they've being doing whatever they want there(or more properly doing what the central goverment or Hugo Chavez tells them do), the minority parties have alomost no voice there. the fact that the central goverment is deciding everything kille the whole idea and serves them perfectly to a constitution thats suits them and helps them make their dictatorship "legal"

[Hondo]

sort of, we elected a constituent assembly that had to write a new constitution in one year(they've been "working" for 1 year and 1 moth now), on those elections, the president's party(MAS) won by 52% gaining 141 seats in the assembly of 256 possible. Wich such majority well they've being doing whatever they want there(or more properly doing what the central goverment or Hugo Chavez tells them do), the minority parties have alomost no voice there. the fact that the central goverment is deciding everything kille the whole idea and serves them perfectly to a constitution thats suits them and helps them make their dictatorship "legal"

Bummer. Looks like you're f@#ked. Never, never, ever let government build their own constitution that can become effective without a direct, majority vote. I'm sorry for you jso.

[tinchote]

Bummer. Looks like you're f@#ked. Never, never, ever let government build their own constitution that can become effective without a direct, majority vote. I'm sorry for you jso.

I would add that a main constitution change should be approved with at least 2/3rds majority.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Javier, I am with you in spirit. People in the developed nations have no idea of how frustrating it must be for you to be wanting the best for your country, to love it, and have these yobs dancing to Hugo Chavez's idolytes and tighting their grip on Power. The reason Bolivia has suffered so over the decades is because of dictatorial people running a nation to suit their own purposes. As time goes on, populists like Morales and Chavez will show their true colours, and then a lot of democratic liberals who have cheered them on will have to make more excuses.

Dylan, Iam with with your defending liberty and all that it stands for, and I think the American solution is the best one. An Armed populace...eventually your power will not go far enough to take over the country without a fight. The reality is though, you can say the freedoms are reduced, but lets not kid ourselves. People will push back in Western nations if pushed hard enough, and politicians always try to win them over with kindness and saying the right things, rather than taking away votes and ignoring the public will. That, I believe is why the monarchy is still around. I suspect if ole Gordy Brown stepped too far onto the police state without cause, he would be asked to be gone by his Majesty,and I suspect the military would follow her, NOT him.

We live in a fragile democracy in most of the west, and we shouldn't take it for granted, but at the same time, realistic people get elected, not complete boobs...(Dubya has his lucid moments ya know).

[jso1985]

Bummer. Looks like you're f@#ked. Never, never, ever let government build their own constitution that can become effective without a direct, majority vote. I'm sorry for you jso.

well, when we voted fot the assembly we were fooled to believe the constitution was going to be aproved with a referendum, as now if they aprove the new constitution with more than 50% of votes inside the assembly(ie they don't need other parties) there's no need for a referendum :(

Thanks for the support guys, the city is rioting again, kinda getting used to...

[Hondo]

well, when we voted fot the assembly we were fooled to believe the constitution was going to be aproved with a referendum, as now if they aprove the new constitution with more than 50% of votes inside the assembly(ie they don't need other parties) there's no need for a referendum :(

Thanks for the support guys, the city is rioting again, kinda getting used to...

Something else to remember when dealing with government, the b@stards always change the rules when the game doesn't go their way.

[rah]

Dylan, Iam with with your defending liberty and all that it stands for, and I think the American solution is the best one. An Armed populace...eventually your power will not go far enough to take over the country without a fight. The reality is though, you can say the freedoms are reduced, but lets not kid ourselves. People will push back in Western nations if pushed hard enough, and politicians always try to win them over with kindness and saying the right things, rather than taking away votes and ignoring the public will. That, I believe is why the monarchy is still around. I suspect if ole Gordy Brown stepped too far onto the police state without cause, he would be asked to be gone by his Majesty,and I suspect the military would follow her, NOT him.

We live in a fragile democracy in most of the west, and we shouldn't take it for granted, but at the same time, realistic people get elected, not complete boobs...(Dubya has his lucid moments ya know).

I don't reckon that the American solutions is a good one. Too many guns make me nervouse. There are plenty of succesful democracies without an armed populace.

[Hondo]

I don't reckon that the American solutions is a good one. Too many guns make me nervouse. There are plenty of succesful democracies without an armed populace.

Then, if you are not an American, you are well served to stay where you are. And if you live in a successful democracy, it probably came to be so at the point of a weapon.

[rah]

Then, if you are not an American, you are well served to stay where you are. And if you live in a successful democracy, it probably came to be so at the point of a weapon.

If you are talking of the intial invasion and subsequent genocide. Then yes that was a result of weapons. The democracy however did not come at the point of a gun.

[Hondo]

If you are talking of the intial invasion and subsequent genocide. Then yes that was a result of weapons. The democracy however did not come at the point of a gun.

Which country? invasion and genocide applies to all of them at one time or another.

[Malbec]

I would add that a main constitution change should be approved with at least 2/3rds majority.

Is that 2/3rds majority to agree a new Bolivian constitution or to amend it in the future?

Out of curiosity, are any outside parties involved in writing the constitution? Some countries like the Baltic states acknowledged their lack of history in running a democracy and asked outside agencies to help them draft one which was then put to vote. It might be helpful in South America too.

[tinchote]

Is that 2/3rds majority to agree a new Bolivian constitution or to amend it in the future?



I wasn't quoting a law, rather suggesting the way it should be. The way it is, apparently, simple majority by the ruling party seems to be enough :s

[jso1985]

Is that 2/3rds majority to agree a new Bolivian constitution or to amend it in the future?

Out of curiosity, are any outside parties involved in writing the constitution? Some countries like the Baltic states acknowledged their lack of history in running a democracy and asked outside agencies to help them draft one which was then put to vote. It might be helpful in South America too.

The Venezuelan Bolivarian party and the Cuban Communist party are "helping" the govermente party(and other not so legal foreing guys also rumoured to be helping them, like ETA), although they deny it, since it's not suppossed to happen, the country has already experience in writing a new constitution, the main opposition party is rumoured that they're being helped by the Spanish PP, so they're no saints anyway