In article <1113251348.777738.130290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

Arturo Magidin wrote:

In article <1113249161.779700.65810@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

Arturo Magidin wrote:

In article <18510aff.0504081211.b66fc85@posting.google.com>,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

magidin@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote in message

news:<d3623p$28cn$1@agate.berkeley.edu>...

In article

<1112946957.235214.210470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,

maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

[.snip.]

That won't save Vicente Fox at the elections.

What are you talking about?

Fox cannot run again. There is no re-election of president

Mexico. What exactly does Fox need "saving" from?

You should ask Fox's would be successors.

This answer makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Maff, usually you are quite informative. This time, it seems

you

don't really have much of a clue of what is or has been going

in

Mexico.

Perhaps you should just quit now.

Isn't it upto the Mexican electorate to decide?

To decide what?

Mexico is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic, just

the US.

So how it becamea one party state Constitutional Republic since

This is not even a grammatical sentence. Perhaps you should take a
breath or two.

It was not a "one party state" in the sense of only allowing one

(e.g., China, North Korea). It was a country where only one party had
true force up through the 60s and 70s.

Agents of the state did whatever they wanted. Why should it be any
different now?

Because it is supposed to be trying to become a country where the

of law is actually in force?

Perhaps you don't realize that it has been over 30 years since the

held majority in all state Houses, over 20 years since the PRI lost
state governorships, over 10 since the PRI lost majority in the
Federal House of Representatives and stopped having a majority of
states, and 5 since it lost the presidency?

[.snip.]

Only if he continues to fight it and thus postpones his punishment
does he risk not being elligible to be a candidate. He is milking

for political purposes, just as he has milked every violation of

law he has committed in his career.

On technically, even Bush can be indicted for war crimes.

So? This is not a "technicality." That's what he claims, but it is
empty rehtoric nonsense. This is flagrant and continued violation of
the law and the orders of the Court.

The proceedings against Nixon were politically motivated. Does that
make his crime excusable or the proceedings invalid? No.

Being popular is no defense against violating the law. Especially not
when you violate the law and ->threaten<- judges that they will be

victims of "public violence" if they come after you.

[.snip.]

It is not a "special case", and it is not a step back in
democracy. Quite the contrary: it is a step forward. Finally

the law to someone who violates it whenever the whim hits him,

instead

of ignoring the violations because it is politically inconvenient

because he threatens the state with violence if they go after him.

So it is ok for State to use violence in Chiapas?

The State is not using violence in Chiapas and never did. The
->ZAPATISTAS<- initiated armed rebellion in Chiapas and threatened

killed civilians during their offensive. The army came in to repel
armed rebels who declared war on the government and the
population. This was not only a reasonable use of state force, it was
a ->required<- use of state force. I ->want<- the police to

remove people who illegally threaten my property or my person; I
->want<- the army to stop those who arm themselves and threaten to
kill me because I don't support them.

I think you're protesting too much.

Maff, you are being complete and utter ignoramus and moron
here. Which is quite unlike you.

->You<- are protesting too much. I posted quite a bit of explicit

and

accurate information about Obrador, which you have ignored. Your
replies have shown that you don't know what is going on, you don't
know who is running, and you don't know what to say. You talked

"Fox being saved", obviously unaware that re-election was
impossible. Your further reply about "ask his would be successors"

was

a non sequitur nonsense. Your current response is equally idiotic

empty of content.

You simply do not know what you are talking about, but you don't

to just shut up, let alone admit that you don't know what you are
talking about.

So you don't want to talk about the 'special' interests then?

What 'special' interests are you ranting about now?

Fox is
still young enough to be indicted for his crimes.

Yes. I would love to see him indicted for his campaign finance

and they are currently being investigates. I would love to see him
indicted for violating the separation of church and state.

And you know why he was not prosecuted for those violations?

Because he was ->popular<-. Because he claimed prosecution would be a
political "ploy" to stop him from running.

And the government acquiesced.

I don't ->want<- the government to acquiesce because someone popular
violates the law.

Having placemen in
the State orgaans isn't going to save them or Fox.

I hope not. I don't like Fox either (were you by any chance under to
incredibly ignorant and stupid impression that I was ->defending<-
Fox?).

No wonder Mexico is
going for another revolution.

This is yet more nonsense. Really, maff, you need to inform yourself

lot more and shut up now. I know what I'm talking about; I lived

Fox and Obrador. I lived in Mexico for 30 years. You don't know what
you are talking about.

--

"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")

Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu