Can I mention the 125 resolution, pension funds, football TV contracts, disproportionate propaganda funds spent on ridiculous newspapers, the prohibition to sell Clarin in some newstands, the public attack on journalists?
You mean the 125 resolution? The one Biolcatti admitted having lied to stop from being approved at congress? The same Biolcatti who admitted that "we're doing good.. and perhaps in the future we will do very good"? That one?
There's no such prohibition to sell Clarin. Show me proof about that if you can.
What does his admission have to do with anything? The resolution was an attack on private property no matter what, read your constitution.
You are right, there is no proof, the news stands in the "Mercado Central" where shut down because of what?
There were other points in my response, are you intentionally ignoring them?
just to answer to the questions, I don't want to discuss unrelated things or support any of the sides, but since you answered my question I will answer yours :)
125 was a modification on the tax structure for farmers, it was treated in congress and rejected, so the president didn't used a DNU for that, also doesn't have anything to do with free speech, almost nothing to do with private property.
pension funds, was a law treated in congress and approved (where FPV wasn't a majority), so no DNU and not related to free speech, related to private property but since it was approved by congress and the constitution says that the state should give social security doesn't seem so wrong (I still don't have a position on this, just stating facts).
football TV contracts, AFA rescinded the contract with TyC before signing with the government, so it's a problem between AFA and TyC, I think there is a trial on this, not related with free speech, maybe related with private property but more with contract obligations than anything else (again, I don't have a position on this, just stating what I know).
about propaganda funds, you are right, I think they use a lot of resources on that and in some points they use it to pressure, but still the two biggest media companies don't require that funding and are openly against the government, maybe affects free speech but there is a lot of press against the government so I think that proves free speech (people calling the president a bitch or a whore can be an example of that).
the prohibition on clarin on the central market is censorship and should be clarified, still don't know if it was an order from the government, if that is then it should be punished.
there I answered your questions, I think you have a point on the publicity funds and the last one if it's proved to be related to the government.
but as I said it doesn't prove "a long record of abusing private property rights, and now, free speech." just some wrong doings that should be clarified and brought to justice.
The 125 was treated in the Congress because of public rejection. It doesn't have to do with free speech but the grandparent asked for examples of attack on private property.
The pension funds were the response to the failure on the 125. I'm not saying she did it by herself, but we are talking about a government, it was the government project.
Football TV contract was violated and instead of defending the private property, the government supported one side when at least should have been neutral. You would say this is proof of nothing but I just heard Arujo and J.Ricardo praise Cristina's "inquietud para que todos puedan ver todos los partidos".
As for the "long list", that's a subjective point and I respect your opinion.
