Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
Okay, I've tried to be nice because she's dead. Didn't want to be a grave dancer.

But now, if you don't like her and don't think she should be honored, you're some sort of a commie.

Let's make something clear. This woman supported Pinochet. That's what gives me pause. That's what makes me conclude she wasn't for human rights, much less freedom.

More about Pinochet.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...gusto-Pinochet



And btw, that socialist government (say what you will about it) was democratically elected. If you're for overthrowing a democratically elected government, then you're against freedom.





Thatcher's role in this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/304516.stm





Brought democracy to Chile? It was a coup, and he wouldn't allow any meaningful political opposition (either killing or disappearing his opposition). Either she was ignorant or she flat out lied.

If this woman supported Pinochet, then there's probably other nasty cold war stuff about her I don't know. I'm sorry that she's dead, but she was NOT a hero. She was a woman who supported a mass murderer. She doesn't deserve honor. That's just conservatives trying to ram their beliefs down our throats.

Truth is if you support Pinochet, then you don't support freedom. PERIOD.
He used the left's favored methods against them. He did exactly what Mao or Uncle Joe wouldv'e done. He had informers, he tortured, he executed, he was ruthless just as his enemies were. Does it make what he did morally right by our standards? Hell no it doesn't, but it made him very effective. And now, let us apply the universal multicultural relativism standard and we see that he was only doing what his culture allowed. If 100 million assorted victims of Stalin, Mao or Hitler don't get a rise out anyone then why now? Oh wait, his victims were mostly leftists, and the demographic makes all the difference to some, doesn't it?