Venezuelian Aggressor Only Changes 10% Of The Constitution!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


I agree, but it wouldn't have prepared us well for democracy.

Let the Venezuelan people prepare their own democracy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Let the Venezuelan people prepare their own democracy.

or their own tyranny.

As Arrian said, we're only discussing this.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Precisely. Thats why I gave mine. We're even. Now drop it.

No.

Answer the question.

Again I asked you whether a major TV news network in the US would be permitted to broadcast if it were actively involved in a coup against the government. You know, like if ABC did it tomorrow and Bush managed to come back against the coup in the way that Chavez did.

That is the question I am asking, and you have failed to answer it directly.

I answered your question. Again, here is my answer: AFAICT there is no legal impediment to any American who meets the age, residency and birth requirements to run for president (even felons like LaRouche and Peltier). Whether, after having attempted a military coup, that person would get any votes is a separate issue.

The US already has an example of a revolutionary who was elected president, and there are many examples from other countries, of whom Nelson Mandela is the obvious example. That's a direct "yes" answer to your question.

Now answer my question. Would a major TV news network in the US would be permitted to broadcast if it were actively involved in a coup against the government? You know, like if ABC did it tomorrow and Bush managed to come back against the coup in the way that Chavez did.

Yes or no.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


or their own tyranny.

As Arrian said, we're only discussing this.

I wasn't accusing Ozzy of proposing action against Venezuela. Maybe is sounded like that. My point is that maybe either way is ok, but maybe there's a way for the US and maybe there's a different way that is for Venezuela.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Quite frankly it seems that LOTM has answered the question very well. For whatever reason Agathon can't accept it and wants him to, well, basically predict something that'd probably never happen in the US (if he knew ANYTHING about LOTM as a poster, he'd realize that he never engages in such speculation... but perhaps that is why he's trying to engage in this silliness) while LOTM wants to point to something that actual happened in US history.

Unlike LOTM, I do at times engage in speculation of such sort. If ABC was actively advocating a coup against Bush and he survived, OF COURSE ABC would be allowed to continue to broadcast (our tradition of free speech would, at the very least have the SCOTUS strike down any attempts to ban ABC). As US history has shown, Confederate sympathizing newspapers are still allowed to be in existence.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Agathon


I asked you whether a major TV news network in the US would be permitted to broadcast if it were actively involved in a military coup against the government. You know, like if ABC did it tomorrow and the elected government managed to come back against the coup in the way that Chavez did.

The only way I can think that a TV news network could be helping a coup in a way that would warrant shutting it down would be if it was passing along military information or sending messages between different factions of the rebel group (e.g. orders of when to attack and such). Is this Chavez's charge or did he merely not like that they station was taking the rebel's side in an editorial sense? Yes the U.S. would do the same if the first is true, but no if the second is true.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Quite frankly it seems that LOTM has answered the question very well. For whatever reason Agathon can't accept it and wants him to, well, basically predict something that'd probably never happen in the US (if he knew ANYTHING about LOTM as a poster, he'd realize that he never engages in such speculation... but perhaps that is why he's trying to engage in this silliness) while LOTM wants to point to something that actual happened in US history.

Except that LOTM asked me a hypothetical question about whether a former coup leader would be allowed to run for President of the United States. That hasn't actually happened in the US, but it didn't stop LOTM asking the question now, did it?

So is the rule that LOTM is allowed to ask hypothetical questions, but not answer them, and that Agathon is required to answer hypothetical questions, but is not required to receive answers to his own?

Unlike LOTM, I do at times engage in speculation of such sort. If ABC was actively advocating a coup against Bush and he survived, OF COURSE ABC would be allowed to continue to broadcast (our tradition of free speech would, at the very least have the SCOTUS strike down any attempts to ban ABC).

If you believe this, then I have a bridge I want to sell.

But kudos to you for actually coming up with an honest answer.

As US history has shown, Confederate sympathizing newspapers are still allowed to be in existence.

Except that the confederate sympathizing newspapers posted no threat to the US government, since the confederacy had its arse well and truly whupped. That is not the case in Venezuela, where there is still a significant threat of a coup against the Chavez government.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon

I answered your question. Again, here is my answer: AFAICT there is no legal impediment to any American who meets the age, residency and birth requirements to run for president (even felons like LaRouche and Peltier).

Perhaps there is no legal impediment. But then apparently Chavez followed no legal procedure in denying the license. So Im sure someone as clever as Chavez could find a legal basis to prevent such a candidacy.

[Shrapnel12]

Oops, didn't read far enough, my question was answered already. I read the article Agathon posted and I'm sure now that the U.S. would not shut them down. I don't call that aiding and abetting a coup at all and many already believe that the U.S. media does on a regular basis much of what this station did.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


Except that LOTM asked me a hypothetical question about whether a former coup leader would be allowed to run for President of the United States. That hasn't actually happened in the US, but it didn't stop LOTM asking the question now, did it?

In direct response to YOUR hypothetical.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Quite frankly it seems that LOTM has answered the question very well. For whatever reason Agathon can't accept it and wants him to, well, basically predict something that'd probably never happen in the US (if he knew ANYTHING about LOTM as a poster, he'd realize that he never engages in such speculation... but perhaps that is why he's trying to engage in this silliness) while LOTM wants to point to something that actual happened in US history.

Unlike LOTM, I do at times engage in speculation of such sort. If ABC was actively advocating a coup against Bush and he survived, OF COURSE ABC would be allowed to continue to broadcast (our tradition of free speech would, at the very least have the SCOTUS strike down any attempts to ban ABC). As US history has shown, Confederate sympathizing newspapers are still allowed to be in existence.

Do you remember the Sedition Act of 1918?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12

The only way I can think that a TV news network could be helping a coup in a way that would warrant shutting it down would be if it was passing along military information or sending messages between different factions of the rebel group (e.g. orders of when to attack and such). Is this Chavez's charge or did he merely not like that they station was taking the rebel's side in an editorial sense? Yes the U.S. would do the same if the first is true, but no if the second is true.

From the LA Times article I linked above:

But after Chavez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to another endeavor: ousting a democratically elected leader from office. Controlled by members of the country's fabulously wealthy oligarchy including RCTV chief Marcel Granier, it saw Chavez and his "Bolivarian Revolution" on behalf of Venezuela's majority poor as a threat.

RCTV's most infamous effort to topple Chavez came during the April 11, 2002, coup attempt against him. For two days before the putsch, RCTV preempted regular programming and ran wall-to-wall coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators spewed nonstop vitriolic attacks against him — while permitting no response from the government. ][NB: by Venezuelan law, they were required to air responses. A.]

Then RCTV ran nonstop ads encouraging people to attend a march on April 11 aimed at toppling Chavez and broadcast blanket coverage of the event. When the march ended in violence, RCTV and Globovision ran manipulated video blaming Chavez supporters for scores of deaths and injuries. [NB: you can see this for yourself, as it is all over the internet. A.

After military rebels overthrew Chavez and he disappeared from public view for two days, RCTV's biased coverage edged fully into sedition. Thousands of Chavez supporters took to the streets to demand his return, but none of that appeared on RCTV or other television stations. RCTV News Director Andres Izarra later testified at National Assembly hearings on the coup attempt that he received an order from superiors at the station: "Zero pro-Chavez, nothing related to Chavez or his supporters.... The idea was to create a climate of transition and to start to promote the dawn of a new country." While the streets of Caracas burned with rage, RCTV ran cartoons, soap operas and old movies such as "Pretty Woman." On April 13, 2002, Granier and other media moguls met in the Miraflores palace to pledge support to the country's coup-installed dictator, Pedro Carmona, who had eliminated the Supreme Court, the National Assembly and the Constitution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Agathon
Except that LOTM asked me a hypothetical question about whether a former coup leader would be allowed to run for President of the United States. That hasn't actually happened in the US, but it didn't stop LOTM asking the question now, did it?

So is the rule that LOTM is allowed to ask hypothetical questions, but not answer them, and that Agathon is required to answer hypothetical questions, but is not required to receive answers to his own?

Err... the differences in how speculative the questions are are stunning and to equate the two is highly amusing. The answer to LOTM's question is a quite obvious no. BECAUSE ITS BASED ON HISTORY! Which is also how he answered your question about the TV stations.

If you knew anything about posting styles on this site, you'd realize that.

If you believe this, then I have a bridge I want to sell.

So you've already made up your mind no matter what he'd say. That's wonderful, really. Especially since it is incredibly speculative and has no precedent in history. Let me counter by saying, I think you are full of crack if you think the country is going to let a revolutionary winning leader (a highly speculative act in itself) ban a network.

Except that the confederate sympathizing newspapers posted no threat to the US government, since the confederacy had its arse well and truly whupped. That is not the case in Venezuela, where there is still a significant threat of a coup against the Chavez government.

Wow... you really think there is a "significant threat of coup"? You've been drinking the kool-aid for a long while, haven't you?

Is this like how the situation in Venezuela is still a "crisis", but the Cold War wasn't?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon

Except that the confederate sympathizing newspapers posted no threat to the US government, since the confederacy had its arse well and truly whupped. That is not the case in Venezuela, where there is still a significant threat of a coup against the Chavez government.

In fact I think that both misrepresents the situation in the reconstruction era US, where the US Army was unable to enforce the law of the land, and the situation in Venezuala today.

The military is under Chavez control. The previous coup was based in the oil company , which is now also in Chavez control. What is to be the power base for a coup now?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

In direct response to YOUR hypothetical.

So what?

You clearly thought that it was an appropriate question, as you pushed for an answer and criticized the ones I gave. And don't tell me that you never ask hypothetical questions.

Now answer the damn question. At least Imran had the cojones to give an honest answer, but you believe that you somehow are better than the rest of us, and don't have to answer when you clearly require others to do so.