decrees by definition are uni personal approach to governing, weren't invented by her and she was the one that least used it since alfonsin.
I'm against DNUs, but you just say baseless stuff, I provide facts to counter your argument and someone (maybe you) downvotes my reply.
I'm providing facts, why the downvotes?
I'm not the one that started talking about DNUs, it was, you, and you didn't knew she used it too little compared to other presidents, can you provide links to your facts?
what have the glaciers to do with free speech, DNUs and this particular case? you are all over the place trying to justify that you don't like the president (I don't like it either, but I don't like people that talks without facts like you more than that)
where did I said that cristina promotes free speech? please point that for me please, I want to know.
that is not my point of view either, you are inventing that too.
please provide the practices you say she uses to censor free speech, you are the one throwing baseless facts in this post not me, I expect you to provide the facts.
just to provide some fact about this: it's pretty interesting that all the mainstream media is against the president when you say she censors free speech...
PS: I hate to say this again, but I don't like the president, but people like you make me put on the other side
EDIT in answer to burgerbrain (I answer here because I can't reply to your comment for some reason)
thanks for the note, didn't knew about the downvoting rule.
about the link between the argentinian president and obama I was just trying to provide an analogy, blaming a president by an action taken by an independent organism doesn't make sense, in that case the DoJ.
I'm not implying anything about obama, just showing that that relationship doesn't make sense.
the disclamer is made because is common in argentina to try to shoot down an opinion based on the party you support, so I was just clarifying to avoid that kind of behavior, it's almost impossible in argentina to say something positive to one side without being labeled as supported of that side and I don't like that.
but of course, this may be seen as a pattern in this kind of discussions and turn the red flags.
I just commented here because I think the title is misleading (read the EFF link I posted in another thread) it says that the judge asked for the domain to be blocked and the ISPs were the ones that blocked by IP, so I'm proving that trying to link a whole country in a mistake made by some ISPs doesn't make sense. Also, the title doesn't clarify that the blogs were blocked by mistake.
The people to which you respond cannot downvote comments, although they can upvote them. Myself and others have however downvoted your comments.
I did it because you are being offtopic, unrational (comparisons to the US president (why the US president?) do not negate the accusations being made), and read like an astroturfer ("I'm not [whatever you are] but [statement suggesting you are in fact whatever you are]" is an all to common pattern that sends up serious red flags).
I'm against DNUs, but you just say baseless stuff, I provide facts to counter your argument and someone (maybe you) downvotes my reply.
I'm providing facts, why the downvotes?
I'm not the one that started talking about DNUs, it was, you, and you didn't knew she used it too little compared to other presidents, can you provide links to your facts?
what have the glaciers to do with free speech, DNUs and this particular case? you are all over the place trying to justify that you don't like the president (I don't like it either, but I don't like people that talks without facts like you more than that)
where did I said that cristina promotes free speech? please point that for me please, I want to know.
that is not my point of view either, you are inventing that too.
please provide the practices you say she uses to censor free speech, you are the one throwing baseless facts in this post not me, I expect you to provide the facts.
just to provide some fact about this: it's pretty interesting that all the mainstream media is against the president when you say she censors free speech...
PS: I hate to say this again, but I don't like the president, but people like you make me put on the other side
EDIT in answer to burgerbrain (I answer here because I can't reply to your comment for some reason)
thanks for the note, didn't knew about the downvoting rule.
about the link between the argentinian president and obama I was just trying to provide an analogy, blaming a president by an action taken by an independent organism doesn't make sense, in that case the DoJ.
I'm not implying anything about obama, just showing that that relationship doesn't make sense.
the disclamer is made because is common in argentina to try to shoot down an opinion based on the party you support, so I was just clarifying to avoid that kind of behavior, it's almost impossible in argentina to say something positive to one side without being labeled as supported of that side and I don't like that.
but of course, this may be seen as a pattern in this kind of discussions and turn the red flags.
I just commented here because I think the title is misleading (read the EFF link I posted in another thread) it says that the judge asked for the domain to be blocked and the ISPs were the ones that blocked by IP, so I'm proving that trying to link a whole country in a mistake made by some ISPs doesn't make sense. Also, the title doesn't clarify that the blogs were blocked by mistake.