If Uribe was a different guy...

robi666 says on May 2, 2008, 16:37:

Would you be surprised?

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on May 2, 2008, 16:41:

I thought it was a likely possibility last week when rumors of Uribe's involvement in the massacre and the buying of votes came out. Now, however it seems to have settled. And with his popularity still so high it seems unlikely. I don't think mistrust in the congress can lead to a coup.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 2, 2008, 16:54:

Actually, Uribe's popularity was 79%. It's fascinating for an outside observer to see how the Colombian people hold on to their miracle-maker that is not quite delivering the goods. Yes, I know, statistics show much improvement and yet....just read in the newspaper (ElPais online) that the trade unionist murders are on a sharp upward curve again. There was a time after the death of Raul Reyes that the guerrillas looked like they were going to implode or at least were seriously weakened, but that development seems to have stopped. What we read now is growing fear amongst the socialists/trade unionists/socialdemocratic POLO supporters and indigenous people for the rise of new paramilitary groups like Aguilas Negras.

I just finished watching the Cartagena-based film if García Marquez novel, Love in the Time of Cholera and my daughter asked me..."which was was that?" when there was fighting and the only thing I cvould answer offhand was..."sweetie, they have ALWAYS been fighting there" and yet, Colombia with it's long "democratic" tradition has somehow escaped the tragicomedy of juntas substituting other juntas in a long row of non-legitimate governments in South American nations. It's the legacy of Santander opposing the dictator Bolivar and the time-honoured Colombian tradition of legitimacy: BOTAS NO!"

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sam Salmon says on May 2, 2008, 17:04:

"the trade unionist murders are on a sharp upward curve again."
The justice system-as imperfect as it is-has proved it can deal with that unfortunate development.
People have been arrested for murder and will continue to be arrested-in the meantime Uribe can't protect everyone-that's not the President's job.

"There was a time after the death of Raul Reyes that the guerrillas looked like they were going to implode or at least were seriously weakened, but that development seems to have stopped"
You mean they've somehow become stronger?-that is nonsense.
The proof of their weakening is in the Reyes computer files and in the continued deaths of senior FARC personnel-one of which occurred this week.
They are seriously weakened but still to be reckoned with-the more they are broken up into smaller units the more difficult it can be to stomp out the last ones-it will happen but not for many years yet.

"What we read now is growing fear amongst the socialists/trade unionists/socialdemocratic POLO supporters and indigenous people for the rise of new paramilitary groups like Aguilas Negras."
A case can be made that there is no such group as the Aguilas Negras anymore-just nasty proto-nazi thugs and drug traffickers using that designation to terrorise people.

' a la orden!'

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 2, 2008, 17:16:

"There was a time after the death of Raul Reyes that the guerrillas looked like they were going to implode or at least were seriously weakened, but that development seems to have stopped"
You mean they've somehow become stronger?-that is nonsense."

That's not what I said. I KNOW they are not getting stronger, but I don't read about any large numbers of them turning in and giving up their weapons either.

When Interpol is going to publish their findings on Reyes' laptops n the end of this month it's going to be the final proof that the hawks in Bogotá are grabbing to whatever little straw to make everybody else except Uribe look bad.

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on May 2, 2008, 17:27:

"Uribe can't protect everyone-that's not the President's job"
why do people pay taxes then? I do believe it's part of the government's mandate to protect it's citizens. And I'm not denying that improvement has been made overall, though murders have increased this year.

"Reyes computer files"
mentioning that just ruined your argument. Besides, there was a recent FARC attack (I don't think anybody posted it here) along with more guerrilleros giving up arms, and the killings of key FARC guys, so it's hard to say whether they are getting weaker/stronger.

Who has doubted the existance of Aguilas Negas? certainly not people that live in territories still controlled by the paras.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 2, 2008, 17:41:

Pro-Farcistas can always dream and hope, but pigs will fly before there is ever a coup against Uribe, and as for congress, only the most naive of fools ever trusted any of them in the first place. BTW, defections from FARC continue at an ever increasing pace.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on May 2, 2008, 17:46:

Desi, how do you even begin to know what the Interpol findings will be?

And expecting that the FARC will implode in some sort of grand finale is optimistic, to say the least. A much more likely scenario is that they fragment into numerous smaller criminal gangs and that for a while, at least, rural crime and violence might even get worse.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 2, 2008, 17:55:

Mr. H, they are already splintering like the paras did. Since their communcations have become compromised their command and control has virtually disintigrated and the mandos medios are acting on their own accord. The ones that have taken off with the FARC's loot that is. But like you said, to expect them to implode is just unrealistic at best.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 2, 2008, 18:04:

Further changes may well make it a possibility, but not right now.

For better or for worse, I fear that a coup (either against Uribe or a Fujimori-style move on his part) would only make things that much more chaotic and potentially even more polarized (or it could backfire...Venezuela in 2002, anyone?), so for all our problems I am relieved at the fact such a development seems to be unlikely at this point, as it has been during most of our history.

A rather conflicted and tragic history, to pick up on part of what Desi has said, but not without steps forward as well as, unfortunately but naturally, steps back.

On the other hand, I could well see Uribe failing to end his term if there is a solid investigation that incriminates him in an undeniable crime, but not because of any coup or revolt. Recent events may be foreshadowing such a thing, but I prefer to be patient, especially since there is still no smoking gun. Even the whole Yidis case, as dangerous as it may be, seems to have a few cracks that the Courts will have to sort out.

In the meanwhile...Uribe's "miracles" are overrated, but I wouldn't say that Colombians are dumb either. Even if we may tend to be very individualistic and even worryingly indifferent to the pain of others, or not as caring as one would want, I don't believe that a lot of those people who loyally support Uribe don't have valid reasons to do so.

The overall picture is quite mixed, with some very good signs but also some very horrible ones, but there are enough good parts that might make some people reach a pro-Uribe conclusion, at least in the short term.

Just as some of us can reach a different one, because our interests, ideas or priorities may differ, or because we think the medium and long term consequences of the situation may make short term "miracles" pyhrric.

Stability is a difficult thing to argue against, unless and until there is something that breaks it.

Even in purely political terms, Uribe has managed to isolate himself from the negative effects of the parapolitical scandal and, rather incredibly I might add, some people justify his faults because of the difficulty of his task.

Not only in terms of corruption (where the image of an honest king surrounded by evil retainers comes to mind), but also in far more deadly fields.

Union murders are definitely up, and are unfortunately going to be higher than 2007's, which is indeed a worrying development. Even if it may still be a relatively low number, unless the increase goes all the way up to 50, 60, 70 or more, it's a sign of intolerance and indifference, as well as showing the limits of the government's policies and their failure to close off the door to bloodshed. That is shameful enough, but Uribe is pretty much immune to any *internal* political flak from it.

Finally, how will we get out of the current crisis? I am not sure, but can speculate a bit. If Uribe does make it to the end of the his term, I believe that most of the fallout will blow up in our faces only afterwards, but that may well give us a chance to rebuild our institutions after all.

If there is a second reelection, all bets are off but I don't think the result will be pretty either. In fact, that could be the worst scenario (or one of the worst, at least...outside of a FARC victory or something like that).

I'm not certain if the opposition will be able to win in 2010, although that is my personal wish...certainly not if Uribism either presents an unified candidacy (somewhat difficult but not impossible) or if Uribe himself enters the game (if he can, that is).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on May 2, 2008, 18:19:

Sam:
"A case can be made that there is no such group as the Aguilas Negras anymore-just nasty proto-nazi thugs and drug traffickers using that designation to terrorise people."
Finally, I see something right written about it on PBH... although I would not call them nazi.

Desi:
"Actually, Uribe's popularity was 79%." When? Before the last "encuesta" was 84, now 83.

"What we read now is growing fear amongst the socialists/trade unionists/socialdemocratic POLO supporters and indigenous people for the rise of new paramilitary groups like Aguilas Negras."
I posted a good extensive report a while ago. It proves what anyone with a little know how of the situation always knew. Aguilas Negras is not a group.
The biggest group in Colombia, Los Nevados, has just been disolved. Did you read the big news?

"It's fascinating for an outside observer to see how the Colombian people hold on to their miracle-maker that is not quite delivering the goods"
It is just because no doubt he is delivering good. Which has nothing to do about if he is clean or not.
Do you believe that Colombians are completely fool?

" There was a time after the death of Raul Reyes that the guerrillas looked like they were going to implode or at least were seriously weakened"
They are seriously weakened, no doubt about it.

"When Interpol is going to publish their findings on Reyes' laptops n the end of this month it's going to be the final proof that the hawks in Bogotá are grabbing to whatever little straw to make everybody else except Uribe look bad."
We'll see, although I am more propense to believe that it will confirm what we already know about it.

Romy:
"Who has doubted the existance of Aguilas Negas? certainly not people that live in territories still controlled by the paras."
If with the generic name of Aguilas Negras you mean Paracos in general, I agree with you.

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 2, 2008, 18:37:

Análisis
Es una caída marginal

Por: Alfredo Rangel

Que el nivel de favorabilidad del presidente de la República, �lvaro Uribe Vélez, haya descendido tres puntos en el último mes es una caída muy marginal. Sin embargo, el Primer Mandatario mantiene una altísima favorabilidad entre la opinión pública colombiana. Sigue siendo el Presidente con mayor respaldo entre las democracias occidentales y es muy difícil atribuirle a hechos recientes esa disminución tan marginal en su favorabilidad. Creo que de ninguna manara afecta la evaluación que la opinión pública está haciendo de la gestión del Gobierno.

Es importante, también, tener en cuenta que en el pasado reciente ha habido meses en los que la imagen presidencial ha caído levemente, pero posteriormente, ha vuelto a recuperar esa favorabilidad e incluso, superando los índices de los meses anteriores.

Así que este leve descenso no puede interpretarse como un cambio en la tendencia de la opinión pública con respecto a la percepción que tiene del presidente �lvaro Uribe y del Gobierno Nacional.

Es importante, además, tener en cuenta que el margen de error de la encuesta de Gallup varía entre tres y cinco puntos. Lo que significa que el descenso de tres puntos es inferior al margen de error, con lo cual se podría deducir que, muy seguramente, el presidente Uribe mantiene el mismo nivel de favorabilidad que tenía en la encuesta anterior, donde alcanzó un máximo de 82%. Y no es que temas como el de la parapolítica hayan sido repelidos por el llamado efecto teflón. Ese efecto lo ponen los resultados de la gestión del Gobierno en campos trascendentales como: la seguridad pública, la recuperación de la economía, el crecimiento del empleo, la disminución de la pobreza y otros temas fundamentales para el país y que han sido consignados en la agenda nacional.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

fecherklyn says on May 2, 2008, 18:39:

Desi,

You stated "When Interpol publishes their findings on Reyes' laptops in the end of this month it's going to be the final proof that the hawks in Bogotá are grabbing to whatever little straw to make everybody else except Uribe look bad". I'm sorry, I have already said this before but I have different expectations of a moderator....I understand you may have personal opinions but I do not think you should enter into the fray. In this case, you appear to be expressing a biaised opinion which is HOPEFUL that "spin" allegations against Uribe and his supporters are accredited.

Desi, can you not entertain the notion that all is not "black and white?" That many of today's actors were part of yesterday's cast that that had more limited options than are available today? My wife's family have described to me in detail that factors that determined their day to day decisions 20/30 years ago. An inadequate summary of the situation and their options would state "you are either for.....or against".....there was no middle ground. Those who sought a middle ground were suspected and primary targets of both "extreme" fronts.

I find today's international, intellectualised, but much removed opinion that past alignements should prone over today's intentions to be suspect from the point of view of today's legitimate interests.I agree, it is a difficult debate....should one be excused past errors if your contribution to today's problems is positive? I can see both points of view.
.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on May 2, 2008, 18:40:

Aunque baja, popularidad del presidente se mantiene alta

En los últimos dos meses, cuando el país ha asistido a una situación política crítica, Uribe solo perdió un punto en la calificación que los encuestados dieron a su gestión. Bajó del 84 al 83.

Y la opinión favorable sobre el mandatario descendió tres puntos. Bajó del 82 al 79.

Según Jorge Londoño, gerente de Gallup, el alto margen de confianza de los colombianos en Uribe se sostiene en buena parte "porque hoy se sienten más seguros que hace un año y este sentimiento hace que el optimismo en el país se mantenga alto y los niveles de popularidad del Presidente prácticamente no se vean afectados por los problemas de la parapolítica".

http://www.eltiempo.com/politica/2008-05-02/ARTICULO-WEB-NOTA_INTERIOR...

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on May 2, 2008, 18:49:

"Desi, can you not entertain the notion that all is not "black and white?" That many of today's actors were part of yesterday's cast that that had more limited options than are available today? My wife's family have described to me in detail that factors that determined their day to day decisions 20/30 years ago. An inadequate summary of the situation and their options would state "you are either for.....or against".....there was no middle ground. Those who sought a middle ground were suspected and primary targets of both "extreme" fronts."

Agree, 100%.

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gator says on May 2, 2008, 19:37:

For you who do not live here do NOT underestimate this man's popularity 75%The poll had a margin of error of 3 percent and was carried out in the cities of Bogota, Medellin, Cali and Barranquilla. In late March it was an astounding 84%. In the March poll it was:

Do you approve or disapprove of �lvaro Uribe’s performance as president?

Mar. 2008 Jan. 2008 Nov. 2007

Approve
84% 81% 78%

Disapprove
13% 14% 19%

The problem I have with most polls in Colombia is they are done by telephone. But the results are too much the same for them not to be valid for the most part.

"Credidi pretio parvo emere et magno vendere tibi in animo fuisse!" .

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 2, 2008, 19:48:

But Gator, the fact that he is popular in Colombia is irrelevant, what really matters are his single digit ratings in Sweden as most Colombians are too stupid to know what is good for them.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 2, 2008, 20:18:

He's certainly incredibly popular, and at least partially with good reason, but that's not necessarily a good thing. Even for his own administration.

I fear it may have gotten to his head, and that's why he's so reluctant to accept criticism, since he knows he can always appeal to the audience for backup. Sometimes it's necessary to be critical of one's own actions, and Uribe has shown too little of that.

And what's more, despite that popularity, he stills holds onto the electoral barons, no matter the costs...if not for his own good, then for the country's sake, he could have distanced himself from them and enacted comprehensive reforms (and not just those in the 2003 referendum, in case you bring that up), precisely because of his popular support. But he has chosen not to, and we know how things turned out.

His administration depends on an uneven mix of populism and clientelism, that may well prove to be formidable while a certain degree of stability lasts, but may not survive future debacles...especially since political polarization hasn't been prevented and, on the contrary, Uribe himself (and, to be fair, some of his most virulent opponents as well) has fed it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 2, 2008, 20:27:

I think most of us realize he is far from being perfect, but seeing how the next couple of years are probably going to be the most critical and deffinitive for Colombia in at least the last half century, most colombians can't think of a better man for the job. Once the problem with the FARC has been settled, as i belive it will be soon if we keep the course Uribe has set, then we can think about directing the country in a new direction that will concentrate more on the social aspects, specially where the poor are concerned. But make no mistake, nothing of that sort will be accomplished (by any administration) until the FARC cease to exist in any meaningful way, without compromising the country's security and, by extension, the progress it has made in the last six years.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gator says on May 2, 2008, 20:48:

By God, Billy B, I never thought of it that way

"Credidi pretio parvo emere et magno vendere tibi in animo fuisse!" .

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on May 2, 2008, 20:59:

I agree Billy. It is normal: gone the security problem, the time comes to think about else.
Even if it is always a mix of it. And I would add Paramilitarism (or Mafia) to FARC.

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 2, 2008, 21:08:

" And I would add Paramilitarism (or Mafia) to FARC"

Agreed, all the scum needs to go.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 2, 2008, 21:29:

billyb: Leaving aside the fact that the fight against FARC per se could be better handled in several tactical and strategic respects, I'll clearly admit most of his administration's virtues lie there and I recognize the immediate need to continue with its most essential aspects.

The thing is, I fear that Uribe himself has compromised those next and potentially critical years you speak of (although I am prepared for a far, far longer struggle, given past precedent) by, precisely, handling his administration rather poorly and excessively linking its success to his own persona.

If he would just come out and said, for example, in very explicit and unequivocal terms, that he will not support any further reelection amendments, that he will not run again and that he will support someone else from his party coalition, that would begin to create a far less polarized political environment, with more room for consensus and for elevating the main positive elements of "democratic security" into a real state policy, without alienating and intimidating the opposition.

In fact, believe it or not, there are people, even in the Democratic Pole, that agree with the need to keep up the pressure on FARC. You could even say that for some of those in the Liberal Party as well, and I believe most Colombian voters wouldn't be moronic enough to overlook the issue at this point, even if and when the pendulum swings in another direction for various reasons. It's not like everyone in the opposition believes that a duplicate of the Pastrana model is all we need, even if they are still very critical of certain aspects of current security policy. There is a lot of room for consensus, but I believe Uribe has done his best to destroy the bridges and bring out the prophets of apocalypse in order to boost his own ratings. Ironically enough, he may get his wish if events take a nastier turn further down the road, in part because of his own scare tactics.

If things were different, we wouldn't be wasting so much time and so many resources with needless (and dangerous, in more than one sense and direction) political theatrics and shadow puppets. FARC will take political advantage (with non-political consequences as well), internally and internationally, of every weakness it identifies, so this much infighting isn't helping on that front.

Or how about the whole parapolitics scandal and the paramilitary demobilization process. If Uribe had steered clear of certain persons and certain actions, not just now but during a lot of his earlier political and administrative career, his government wouldn't have such a weak underbelly, even if his own persona currently enjoys the benefits of resistant armor. But all things must come to an end, and the state as a whole doesn't share that armor, especially internationally. In fact, Congress is a complete mess and barely functions right now, and the FTA is pretty much stuck in limbo (admittedly local U.S. concerns also play a role there, but that could have been easier to handle as well).

The current crisis may have been inevitable because some of those links would have never gone away, but it could have been handled in a better manner, or with less polarizing and divisive results at least. If the Justice and Peace bill supported by the opposition, way back when, had been approved by the government and voted into law by Congress, that would have been a step in the right direction, for example. That bill wasn't too different from what we ended up getting (thanks to the Constitutional Court), but the key element we now lack was there: consensus.

The way I see it, Uribe may be "borrando con el codo lo que escribe con la mano" (literally "erasing with his elbow what he is writing with his hand").

I really, really hope that things turn out OK, either way...but I can't help but think that Uribe has messed up way too much.

Just because FARC may be "a priority" doesn't mean that there aren't better ways of addressing the issue, or that his administration's flaws can be justified for the sake of a struggle they may even be hurting.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 2, 2008, 21:52:

I am sure there are many polticians that say they will do this and will do that and when it comes down to it, all they do is line their pockets. Like I said, Uribe is not perfect, but he has done everything he said he was going to do. Maybe that is why so many of his opponents (and I in no way include you in this group) are becoming so behement and somewhat hysterical. Do you really think that if one of these lilly livered leftist politicians gets elected after promising to keep up the good fight he is not going to get sidetracked by all the special interests of his party that are intent on stopping the onslaught against the FARC? And BTW, I have yet to see a better way of addressing the FARC issue than Uribe's.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

christobeldawg says on May 2, 2008, 21:59:

and from a north American perspective, looking south[no offense goin south], kicking the FARC's ass, as the main agenda, is likely the best thing to happen in Colombia in the last 30-40 years.

admittedly, arriving can feel great too

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 2, 2008, 22:03:

billyb: Perhaps in some cases, but the same could be said of anyone else who ISN'T Uribe even among his own political coalition, as corrupt as many of them are or are perceived to be, including their own sets of special interests...so does that mean we should keep Uribe as President as long as he's willing to run, even indefinitely if necessary? Don't think so.

However, for the record, I'd be perfectly willing to accept a more reasonable and less intolerant Uribist as President, even if I didn't vote for him (or her)...at least at first, anyways.

That would in fact be a step in the right direction, and it could allow for further consensus without making you think "oh no, he's a leftist, so he won't do what needs to be done to stop the FARC onslaught".

But Uribe again, and while he's still his mostly uncritical and intolerant self? No, not at all.

In the meanwhile, I don't want him to fall to a coup or revolt, but I'm not exactly celebrating everything he is doing.

Also for the record, I don't think a leftist politician would be able to win at this point without having to make alliances with non-leftists, one way or another, so that should keep things in check at the presidential level.

Not to mention that Uribism will likely continue to control Congress and probably other regional posts, so that's one more thing to keep in mind, for better and for worse.

Finally, I am not saying that the "FARC issue" should be handled in a *completely* different way, strategically, but there are enough tactical and operational problems worth mentioning (human rights, social bases and so on), their inherent morality aside (but not forgotten), that should be resolved or at least addressed a lot more than what we are now seeing. Do you really think that we can beat FARC without shrinking their remaining social bases through non-military action? Even if Marulanda dies in an attack, or even together with a couple of additional Secretariat members, the structure will remain, even if it has to adapt and disperse.

I don't exactly have a magical crystal ball at my side, but I can tell that much.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 2, 2008, 22:11:

"Perhaps in some cases, but the same could be said of anyone else that ISN'T Uribe even among his own political coalition, as corrupt as many of them are or are perceived to be...so does that mean we should keep Uribe as President as long as he's willing to run, even indefinitely if necessary? Don't think so.'

Precisely, I don't trust the pols in his coalition either, so for now, he is a neccessary "evil' so to speak.


"But Uribe again, and while he's still his mostly uncritical and intolerant self? No, not at all."

In a perfect Colombia I might agree, but I have a feeling that these very same qualities (or flaws) are what have allowed him to succeed where others have failed miserably.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 2, 2008, 22:23:

billyb: The legitimacy of Uribe's coalition is crumbling on an almost weekly basis and I don't see him taking any effective measures to prevent the crisis from ballooning into his third term, the way things are going. The current political reform is a tiny step, and thus it may buy him some time, but it doesn't fix the leak.

HIs own personal immunity and resistance can only last for so long, although I continue to believe he has a right to due process, legal presumption of innocence and all that involves. If his own persona crumbles, last but certainly not least, that will not be pretty.

I'd at least want to believe some Uribists would be willing to try doing something else, however, and spare us some of the pain.

Stubbornness is a powerful double-edged sword, indeed, yet I'd prefer if we didn't depend so much on just one person (and on his own fate) for such an important task.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, billyb...we may agree with the ultimate destination, essentially, but we are clearly not reading the same road map even if the two of us do follow some overlapping routes.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 2, 2008, 22:27:

"billyb: The legitimacy of Uribe's coalition is crumbling on an almost weekly basis and I don't see him taking any effective measures to prevent the crisis from ballooning into his third term, the way things are going. The current political reform is a tiny step, and thus it may only buy him some time.
"
All the more important for him to continue the course for the next two years then. As long as Colombia gets to that same ultimate destination, I will be happy.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 2, 2008, 22:28:

Same here about that last part, but not the rest. Good night.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 2, 2008, 22:32:

Have a good one Juance.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Medellin Traveler says on May 3, 2008, 05:16:

What should be truly worrisome for all of Colombia is a Colombia without Uribe only because it seems that without Uribe´s aggresive campaign against the FARC, Colombia would probably be controlled by outside influences today, such as Chavez.

Uribe´s strong hand with an open heart methods to destroy the FARC has my support only because it offers alternatives to many FARC members who were forced to join, along with those members who are tired of the fight, especially after the initial reasons for fighting were exchanged for drugs trafficking.

And speaking of drugs..... Colombia will never be free of armed groups as long as there is cocaine up in them hills to sell to gringos.

And less not forget, organized crime, FARC and paracos included, actually have a positive affect on the decline of street crime, which can sometimes be worse for the average citizen.

Uribe may have many skeletons in his closet, but I hate to think of a Colombia without him, at least in the near future.

¿How will Sergio Fajardo do as un neuvo presidente de Colomba?

And speaking of Fajardo, I almost got arrested for visiting his former home in centro prado yesterday. I was just taking pictures, tranquilos.

"Huevos Rancheros en Medellin, No Quiero Taco Bell." - www.medellintraveler.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on May 3, 2008, 05:25:

My knowledge is severely lacking here. However, if it is necessary that a politician be clean to continue in office, we wouldn't have many in office in the US. Maybe Sweden is different.

I like your comments, Billy. Human rights and unions are great. But the killing has to stop first.

MT, nice signature. Only a Mexican could get away with that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 3, 2008, 05:29:

It's extremely important for us for a politician to be clean. The former minister of social welfare Mona Sahlin had to rersign from her post because she bought diapers for her baby with a "wrong" card.

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on May 3, 2008, 05:39:

I used to think that many politicians were clean. That opinion changed when I started lobbying. There were very few that could not be bought. The stories I could tell.

But I do believe that things are getting better. The illegalities are becoming more subtle. But as long as we have humans, the illegalities will remain.

I worked with the legislature in Wisconsin. Of the 50 States, Wisconsin is relatively clean. So I extrapolate a bit.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on May 3, 2008, 06:13:

...A yo, déjenme queto y no me jodan má! ...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on May 3, 2008, 06:14:

Sweden is not Colombia.
It is probably impossible to be clean in Colombia if you were not born yesterday.
Not to talk about politicians.
Tell me, who's clean? Piedad Cordoba?

That said, Colombia has the right to try to start all over.
Two more years, hold your nose and a new president.
And, still, Colombians must thank Uribe for what he has done.

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 3, 2008, 08:07:

I don't believe that, robi. It's always possible to be clean, where ever you are, what ever you do, It's a personal choice, it's a question about integrity.But as long as people look at being fraudulent, tramposo, vivo a virtue and where corruption, clientelismo, chancuco and embezzlement is built into the system and the crooks are being cheered instead of being punished it's going to be a rocky road.

Yes, Colombia needs a clean slate and a new start. Colombia needs a new generation to be raised up from the cradle with a different mindset, different priorities, different virtues.

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on May 3, 2008, 08:15:

Desi, the "you are either for.....or against", as fecherklyn put it, was all over Colombia. No personal choice.
Uribe had his father kidnapped by FARC. So, do you really believe that he did not have to taste the "evil way"?
If you think that some rich guy or politician could be exempt from handling some evil in Colombia, you're dreaming.

Fajardo once said that it will take seven generations before the bloody past is being forgotten in Medellin.
Yes, maybe seven generations...

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 3, 2008, 09:31:

You don't have to be a rich guy to be a politician, not in these parts, at least. You only need to have the will to serve your people.

Colombians will need to take a lesson of collective amnesia to break the circle of evil. They haven't been able to do it in 200 years, but I haven't lost my hope. Perhaps in another 200 years?

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 09:31:

"I don't believe that, robi. It's always possible to be clean, where ever you are, what ever you do, It's a personal choice, it's a question about integrity."

Funny you say that Desi, because I remember you saying the opposite on another blog, and I paraphrase (sorry about using the word para) , where you said that Finland had to basically hold is nose and accept the Nazi embrace, because it helped you fight off the greater evil of the russian bear. Rather inconsistent of you no?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 3, 2008, 09:38:

Your example is not good, billyB, you don't have a case. We're talking about corruption. There are always agreements being signed at wartime and they are seldom individual choices. I'm talking about the responsibility of an individual. Anyway, it was the Finnish president, Risto Ryti who signed the agreement with the nazis "as long as I remain the president of Finland". As soon as it was possible, in just a few months, he stepped down and was tried as a war criminal. However, I consider him a man of great integrity He made the deal with the Devil and accepted the consecuencies. He never deceived or betrayed anybody or tried to hide any facts.

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on May 3, 2008, 09:46:

Desi, are you lumping Uribe's behavior while he has been president with the behavior he may have been part of 15 years ago in Medellin? Part of moving on is accepting that people change, as do circumstances. The things people needed to do to survive in Medellin in 1990 are very different from the things they do now, just like your beloved Risto Ryti had to make his own deal with the devil.

If you were to disqualify everyone from politics in Colombia who ever made some sort of arrangement with an illegal group or individual, that would leave a very few people, and probably some of the least qualified to run the country.

I say judge people by their recent and current behavior, let the past fade away. That's the only way Colombia is ever going to break the cycle.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on May 3, 2008, 09:49:

It certainly is possible to be clean. The simple reality of life is that few are, in any field of endeavor. We are all human. We are all sinners. We are all imperfect.

I believe that most politicians start out fairly clean. But power corrupts. And the kind of power wielded by politicians, corrupts absolutely.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on May 3, 2008, 09:49:

"It's always possible to be clean, where ever you are, what ever you do, It's a personal choice, it's a question about integrity." For a lot of people I would agree, especilly politicians. However, if you look at many of the pepole that join the paras or the guerrillas it's not about making a choice of integrity, but rather it is a choice of survival. In my mind that is NO choice because basic survival (natural) instincts need to prevail rather than social constructions like integrity, morality, and such.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 09:54:

"He never deceived or betrayed anybody or tried to hide any facts"

And you know this for a fact? Or are you just repeating as yet unfounded rumours and innuendo? The only reason it might no be a good comparison is that we don't know Uribe ever made deal with the devil, but we know for a fact that Finland did. Not that I blame them, under the circumstances, but I am not hypocritical about it either.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on May 3, 2008, 09:57:

Mr. Hollywood- How much of people's past should we forget then? Only consider what they have done over the past 2-3 years or what's a reasonable timeframe?
what would you say about Uribe's grudge with the FARC for killing his father? or does he get special 'permits' to remember unlike us?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 10:08:

Romy, that is an irrelevant point since Uribe's mandate is to exterminate the FARC, whether he has a grudge or not.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 3, 2008, 10:09:

" Finland was in dire need of food, but in particular of weapons and ammunition, as the Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop demanded guarantees that Finland would not again seek a separate peace. Ryti gave this guarantee, expressed as his personal guarantee that Finland under his presidency would not. Soon after the situation was stabilized, Ryti resigned and peace negotiations could begin again, this time from a stronger position although most territorial gains had been lost again." (Wiki)

This is just history.Not rumours or innuendo.

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 3, 2008, 10:11:

Just want to add a couple of things.

A person's past can and should be scrutinized, but I accept that the present should be more important than the past.

The thing is, in several situations, like in Uribe's case, you can tell that even the kindest presentation and interpretation of his past is having some effects on his present activities, one way or another.

Many of his current allies and friends are tied to his past, the existence of certain skeletons in his closet directly affects Colombia's reputation, and the failure to address certain subjects can also be linked to Uribe's past behavior. It's not like the past is totally disconnected from the present, and I fear that Uribe has not changed enough.

Absolutely perfect purity may be a rarity in the political arena, unfortunately, but I do believe that there are enough people who are cleaner than others, and in particular cleaner than Uribe at least.

I still don't see why we should tie the struggle against FARC to one person alone, as if we were dealing with some sort of messiah.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 10:15:

I know english is not your first language, but when is said rumours or innuendo, I was refering to you repeating rumours and innuendo regarding Uribe, not Finland's situation. I know their situation was dire and I would have done the same in their place, but my point is that I would not be hypocrital about my country embracing history's greatest murderers, while at the same time castigating Colombia for embracing paramiltarism when the majority of Colombians saw them as their only defense against the terrorists in view of that panty waiste Pastrana's complete deriliction of his duty to protect the country.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on May 3, 2008, 10:16:

billyb, you didn't undertand the argument... regardless, how are Uribistas defending his singleminded policies nowadays? Still the, FARC is the all evil of Colombia rhetoric?
What I'm getting to is that the rules of this forgetting 'game' have to be clear. what are we supposed to forget? and what are we not?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 10:24:

Yes, but your premise was that Uribe is acting out of revenge for his father and not out of his official duty to exterminate terrorists in Colombia, so there shoud not be a timetable for Uribe to stop acting against the FARC, or the paras and mafia for that matter.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on May 3, 2008, 10:29:

"I still don't see why we should tie the struggle against FARC to one person alone, as if we were dealing with some sort of messiah"
But don't you know that Uribe can do no wrong.... or at least it's a lesser wrong eh billyb? To me it's truly amazing that convictions have not been made (if they even will) and the propaganda has already started leaking suggesting that if it was true then it's so because it was necessary. It's as if Colombians (excusing myself from the 84;81;79% whatever it is) are convinced that criminality is a part of the culture and Colombia's only choice is to pick the lesser criminal.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 3, 2008, 10:30:

"the majority of Colombians saw them as their only defense against the terrorists " I have never, ever seen any such statistics. Could this be just your personal opinion?

It could've been read either way, billy, rumours and innuendo...you did not specify and I was talking about Ryti. I'm not a mind reader, in any language.

(I used to read Caracol's public forums at the time of Uribe's election and without knowing the first thing about him I reacted to the messages of his supporters...."with friends like that who needs enemies")

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on May 3, 2008, 10:33:

Romy, clearly you haven't studied Uribe's policies if you think it's a singleminded case of "FARC is all evil of Colombia."

And when I talk about the difference between a person's past and present, that's, of course, within reason. Show me some concrete evidence, for example, that Uribe ever planned or participated in an AUC massacre, and I'll grant that he should resign and face charges like anyone else. But these bullshit innuendos about stuff like his father providing helicopters to Escobar (and after his father was dead, no less) or Uribe having simply known particular characters simply don't do it for me. It's just not a realistic standard to judge someone by.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Monpirri says on May 3, 2008, 10:34:

Romy, I really do not think you are from Colombia and do not think you have ever been in South America or Argentina as you have claimed.
Did you use to post here under a different name?

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on May 3, 2008, 10:42:

Mr. Hollywood- then you tell me why we need Uribe other than to get rid of FARC. I agree until the evidence comes out (for anybody) people should not be assumed guilty.

Monpirri, you are funny. Especially, from my side of things as I have nothing to hide.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 10:51:

"Mr. Hollywood- then you tell me why we need Uribe other than to get rid of FARC"

I guess you haven't looked at the economy the last sixe years. Romy, have you been in Colombia recently and in the not too distant past? I am not asking this to cast any aspersions on your credentials as a Colombian (those are questions worried about by others on other threads and not my thing), but rather to see if you have been there and yet have not noticed the improvement.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 10:58:

"Mr. Hollywood- then you tell me why we need Uribe other than to get rid of FARC"

Are you reffering to Uribe? And if yes, on what proof? If not reffering to Uribe, you must not have heard of the fifty or so politicians in jail for parapolitica. Romy, be consistent, you can't have your argument both ways, even if you hate Uribe. As to choosing the lesser of two eveils? This world is made out of difficult choices, ask Desi about Finland's.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on May 3, 2008, 10:59:

Yes, I know the rich are getting richer, the middle class is fading. I've said it before, if it was just for me I'd be an Uribista, maybe naiively but I care about others as well. And yes most recently I was there for about a month during the Christmas season and into the new year and believe me I had an amazing time as did my Canadian friend that came along. But reflection on the injustice that is happening is truly hurtful.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on May 3, 2008, 11:02:

"Are you reffering to Uribe? And if yes, on what proof? If not reffering to Uribe, you must not have heard of the fifty or so politicians in jail for parapolitica Rom, be consistent, you can't have your argument both ways, even if you hate Uribe."
I have no clue what you are referring to or even saying

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 11:03:

So all those millions of lower class workers that have found jobs in the expanding economy during the last six years don't count as far as you are concerned? Don't forget, it is the rich that create jobs and as sitifying it might be personally for you to destroy the rich, it will be the poor who ultimately suffer thet greatest in the if that were to happen. The rich can just pack up and go to the US or elsehwere and still live well. If you want an example of how wrongheaded your type of thinking is, just look at the recent history of Zimbabwe.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 11:19:

""Are you reffering to Uribe? And if yes, on what proof? If not reffering to Uribe, you must not have heard of the fifty or so politicians in jail for parapolitica Rom, be consistent, you can't have your argument both ways, even if you hate Uribe."
I have no clue what you are referring to or even saying"

Ooops sorry, below is your quote I was reffering to above, pasted the wrong one, my bad.

"To me it's truly amazing that convictions have not been made'

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on May 3, 2008, 11:25:

that's a misquote though read the whole sentence, I'm not implying he's guilty

the other comment, I disagree, and enough has been said on these matters maybe later I'll respond.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 11:27:

Convictions are only made when somebody is found guilty, maybe you meant to say "indictments"?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on May 3, 2008, 11:43:

"why do we need Uribe other than to eliminate the FARC?"

Romy, I'm not a Colombian and I'm not so presumptuous as to tell Colombians who they should elect as president or why.

Given the history, though, I can understand why many would find a strong anti-FARC position to be attractive.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 11:58:

"(I used to read Caracol's public forums at the time of Uribe's election and without knowing the first thing about him I reacted to the messages of his supporters...."with friends like that who needs enemies")

Gaviria was the candidate of choice for the FARC, what do you have to say about friends like that, Desi?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 3, 2008, 12:08:

BillyB, I was in Colombia two years ago when Uribe was re-elected. The FARC were telling people to boycott the elections.

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 12:20:

Desi, they didn't officially endorse him as they knew that would harm his already non-existent chances, but he was their candidate of choice and supported him. Buggy, normally i don't respond to you, but since you made an attempt at a semi intelligent comment, i will point out that the fact that you were ABLE to travel from Bogota to Armenia only proves my point that things have improved, as you would not have been able to have taken that trip six years ago. Thanks for making my argument for me ;)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 3, 2008, 12:44:

I was in Colombia a couple of times too in the end of the nineties. I didn't do any extensive travel in Colombia at that time but I canonly tell that Cali has never looked worse thannow and Buenaventura has never been more dangerous than right now. Perhaps there's an increased security from Bogotá and Medellin to the fincas of the corrupt congresistas, friends of Mr. Uribe and the paraco-controlled north coast...

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 12:53:

Cali is a mess now because of a succession of corrupt left-wing politicians and the same goes for B'ventura, so if you have any intellectual integrity, you will not blame that on Uribe. And i guess i spoke too soon about that embarrassment known as buggy, making semi-intelligent commnets, jaja.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 13:01:

Desi it is also safer to go up the carretera al mar to el saladito, el carmen, K18 etc, is that because all the landowners up there are paracos and friends of Uribe? Or are you just talking sh!t? I've been back to Colombia six times in the last two years and as opposed to your comment that you didn't get out much to see the rest country, I have traveled all over the country, having visited all of Colombia's major cities except for Cucuta and B'manga over the last few years or so, and there has deffinately been an improvement. Could it be better? Of course.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 13:13:

"In 1993 I made by car the road from Bogota to Medellin, the road from Bogota to Bucaramanga. I was in Santafe de Antioquia. I was in Manizales. I was in Fomeque.
There were very few militaries along the roads and I got no problem."

I said six years ago, 1993 is 15 years ago. I guess your math skills are as lacking as your social ones.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 3, 2008, 13:14:

Alcaldes de Cali (1990-2010) [editar]Alcalde Inicio Fin
Germán Villegas Villegas enero 1990 enero 1992
Rodrigo Guerrero Velasco enero 1992 diciembre 1994
Mauricio Guzmán Cuevas enero 1995 agosto 1997
Julio César Martínez Payán agosto 1997 diciembre 1997
Ricardo H. Cobo Lloreda enero 1998 diciembre 2000
John Maro Rodríguez Flórez enero 2001 diciembre 2003
Apolinar Salcedo Caicedo enero 2004 mayo 2007
Sabas Ramiro Tafur Reyes mayo 2007 diciembre 2007
Jorge Ivan Ospina Gomez enero 2008 diciembre 2012

Obtenido de "http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcalde_de_Cali"

Of those who were left-wingers?
El Polo was independent, Cobo and Guzman right-wingers, the other two I have no idea. Guzman and John maro Rodrigues I believe were the corrupt ones and yet it was Guzman that built those puentes peatonales over the Quinta. I don't know whose fault it is; I admit that the local administration has been dismal but then again, Cali and Buenaventura have not been very high up in the list of Uribe's priorities.

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 13:19:

Cali didn't start to really go downhill until the mid to late 90s and since then you can't win in Cali without the Agua Blanca vote, and believe they are not voting for Uribistas there, they are voting for corrupt demagogues who make them promises that they don't have any intention of keeping.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on May 3, 2008, 13:21:

desi, i'm honestly surprised w/ you. typically, you're the leftist voice of reason. but you somehow know the outcome of the Interpol investigation, before it's released? you honestly believe it's remotely realistic to try applying swedish standards to ANY ethics discussion of latin american politics?

"Perhaps there's an increased security from Bogotá and Medellin to the fincas of the corrupt congresistas, friends of Mr. Uribe and the paraco-controlled north coast..." and this one is just patently absurd.

someone pee in your corn flakes today? ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 3, 2008, 13:32:

Perhaps not Uribistas, but do you really believe Cobo Lloreda and Mauricio Guzman Cuevas are left-wingers??? One of my best friends is closely related to one of these guys and this family would rather have a collective suicide than be called izquierdistas.

Pee on my flakes? Nah, slguy, it's just that BillyB brings out the worst in me. :)

But I do believe that the Interpol investigation is not going to confirm the accusations of the Colombian government made offhand about the money Chavez was supposed to pay the FARCS or that The FARCS were inthe process of manufacturing a dirty bomb true. Of course I don't know for sure; call it a hunch.

And yes, I think some of the Swedish transparency would not be a bad idea in Colombian politics.

And yes, I have problem with the illegitimacy of Uribe's presidency and his interfering in the matters that are out of his jurisdiction. I like the separation pf powers like inthe US and the chief executive should not be fiddling with the Supreme court judges.

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on May 3, 2008, 13:52:

Desi, it's my understanding that Interpol is simply going to say whether the data on the computers is authentic or not. Authentic meaning hasn't been tampered with or planted, post capture.

I would be extremely surprised of Interpol offered any interpretation of the data on those computers or commented on the interpretations offered by Colombian authorities.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 3, 2008, 13:56:

I'm pretty sure the data is authentic

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on May 3, 2008, 14:01:

Mr. Hollywood is right. One of the questions that interpol will answer is if the computers even belonged to the FARC. and then also, if they were recovered in the recent raid or if the government has had them for a while now.
I don't know who's going to decide what interpretation is right.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on May 3, 2008, 14:41:

I'm also pretty sure the data is authentic, Desi.

Of course there has been handling of the computers, Buggy, or else they would still be in Ecuador and nobody would have acted on the timely information found on them. Nobody, least of all the Colombians, has said the computers have been untouched. But computer forensics are pretty scientific and it's pretty easy to verify if any information was tampered with or planted. I don't believe that will turn out to be the case.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

lpdiver says on May 3, 2008, 15:09:

Johnny walks in on his mother and father having passionate sex and is shocked and horrified. His father is speechless as well. Not knowing what to say Johnnys dad just nervously laughs and tell Johnny to got to the kitchen and have some breakfast.

Johnny's father returns to the business at had with Johnny's mom. After a short while to recuperate and get dressed Johnny's father wanders into the kitchen to have a talk with Johnny.

To Johnny's fathers horror he finds Johnny has his grandmother bent over the kitchen table. Her panties are down around her ankles and her skirt is raised over her bottom. Johnny is behind her pounding away. Johnny's father screams, "WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU DOING???!!!"

Johnny looked his father square in the eye and said, "See; it's not so funny when it's YOUR mother, is it?"

The point of this parable? The moderator overlooking personal attacks on a topic that has nothing to do with Colombia. One of the posters has had a duplicate account deleted and others continue to have duplicate accounts with impunity!

I am starting to agree with UTC. There are rules for some and not for others.

t

"cook some rice!"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 3, 2008, 15:20:

Your comment is totally off-topic. If you have a complaint please forward it to me or Peter.

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on May 3, 2008, 15:44:

"Pee on my flakes? Nah, slguy, it's just that BillyB brings out the worst in me. :)"

Desi I'm aghast ;))

0 funny, 0 helpful.