Venezuelian Aggressor Only Changes 10% Of The Constitution!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


Um... because it means "Indian" or "Part Indian". You know... not a member of the white ruling class.

Do you know nothing of Latin America?

From what I can gather of venezuala today, being called a non-member of the white ruling class would be very desirable to gaining public support. Being called a member of the white ruling class would be political death.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I already did. Richmond Dispatch, New Orleans Times Picayune, and dozens of other newspapers which had actively and repeatedly supported a rebellion which went on for 4 years and took hundreds of thousands of lives.

You think those papers arent comparable to TV stations with licenses? Yet you think the US rev, or LaRouches credit card fraud are comparable to the the '92 coup?

BTW, you may not be aware of it, but the ABC network, Foxnews, etc dont HAVE licenses. We license local stations in this country. Which then affiliate with networks as they please.

This is your answer? Something that happened 150 years ago, and which didn't involve a television network?

The qualifications for running for US president include nothing about crimes one may have committed. Nevertheless, if the US government was corrupt in the way that the Venezuelan government was, and a patriot tried to restore the original constitution via a failed but popular coup, I'm sure that person would be very successful in a run for president.

And that's not what I asked. 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.

I'm still waiting for an answer to that question. Enough of your slimebag tactics. Your attempts at evasion are pathetic, because you know you have no case.

[Whoha]

Nobody worry about this, the CIA is in charge.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Agathon


His name was George Washington.

Now answer my damn question.

Interesting you invoke the name of George Washington in this debate. The single greatest thing he did for our democracy was step down after two turns even though he was popular enough to remain president for life or be made "King George I".

He realized that it was undemocratic and would damage this country so he declined to run after his second term.

Powerful lessons for Chavez.

Furthermore, if removing term limits is entirely compatible with democracy then why is Chavez also trying to install term limits on local governors and mayors?

[lord of the mark]

http://www.icftu.org/displaydocument.asp?Index=991223962&Language=EN

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


This is your answer? Something that happened 150 years ago, and which didn't involve a television network?

As opposed to something that happened 224 years ago, and didnt involve a coup d'etat?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Interesting you invoke the name of George Washington in this debate. The single greatest thing he did for our democracy was step down after two turns even though he was popular enough to remain president for life or be made "King George I".

He realized that it was undemocratic and would damage this country so he declined to run after his second term.

Powerful lessons for Chavez.

Furthermore, if removing term limits is entirely compatible with democracy then why is Chavez also trying to install term limits on local governors and mayors?

No one would have complained if he would have ran for another term.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon

The qualifications for running for US president include nothing about crimes one may have committed. Nevertheless, if the US government was corrupt in the way that the Venezuelan government was, and a patriot tried to restore the original constitution via a failed but popular coup,

actually the 2002 constitution was trying retain the previous constitution from changes by Chavez. Nonetheless, unlike yourself, I dont justify that coup.


Indeed, look at post 16 by LS. Theres plenty of corruption in Ven today. And constitutional changes that certainly wont make a presidential dictatorship more difficult. You seem bent on justifying another coup.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
http://www.icftu.org/displaydocument...62&Language=EN

Enough of your bull****. Answer my question.

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.


I've given you my answers to your questions, which I will repeat. Revolutionaries often end up being elected as President. Washington did, and so did Chavez and countless others. If the US was suffering as Venezuela was, then damn straight an American Revolutionary might well end up being president.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Kidicious


No one would have complained if he would have ran for another term.

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

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

As opposed to something that happened 224 years ago, and didnt involve a coup d'etat?

You asked for an American example, and that is the obvious one I can think of. Nevertheless, if the US was being run as Venezuela was at the time of Chavez attempted coup, and an American attempted to overthrow the government, it is likely that he would be permitted to run for President down the road. This happens in other countries. Many revolutionaries end up running for President of their country and being elected, like Nelson Mandela There is nothing weird about it. My answer to your question is yes.

Now answer my question. You have gone on for over a page now without answering it.

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.

Answer the damn question or STFU.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


Enough of your bull****. Answer my question.

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.


I've given you my answers to your questions, which I will repeat. Revolutionaries often end up being elected as President. Washington did, and so did Chavez and countless others. If the US was suffering as Venezuela was, then damn straight an American Revolutionary might well end up being president.

I dont know what would happen to ABC, but I do know that in the USA when we had a bitter civil war, our notion of freedom of the press meant that we DID allow such newspapers to continue to publish.

I would like to think that we would punish individuals for specific crimes, and allow networks to continue to function. There is of course no procedure in US law allowing suspension of a "network" license, as networks are not licensed here, only stations. Im no expert on FCC law on licenses myself. My understanding is that if, for any reason, there is a move to suspend a stations licence, certain standard legal procedures are followed, and that station is given full opportunity to defend itself. Which I understand did not happen in Venezuala.

As for times of suffering, we did have such times in the US. And yes, a populist demagogue arose then too, name of Huey Long. And yes, I suppose if he had begun changes to cement his rule, that folks saw as leading to dictatorship, they might well have tried a coup against him. and he might well than have shuttered networks.

Thanks be that didnt happen, and we remained free.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
As for times of suffering, we did have such times in the US. And yes, a populist demagogue arose then too, name of Huey Long. And yes, I suppose if he had begun changes to cement his rule, that folks saw as leading to dictatorship, they might well have tried a coup against him. and he might well than have shuttered networks.

Thanks be that didnt happen, and we remained free.

That's a shameful comparison.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


You asked for an American example, and that is the obvious one I can think of. Nevertheless, if the US was being run as Venezuela was at the time of Chavez attempted coup, and an American attempted to overthrow the government, it is likely that he would be permitted to run for President down the road.

thats precisely why the betancourt reference was relevant. Venezuala wasnt RSA, which since formal indepence had not allowed universal suffrage. Only a few decades earlier Ven had been one of the best governed countries in the developing world. It had corruption, as it still does under Chavez and his Boligarchs. It hit hard times, and it was then that Chavez launched his coup.

In the US Chavez probably would have not been released from prison, like Jeff Davis. In most countries he would have been executed. Well, the Ven govt was too weak to do that.

Just as Chavez has been too weak to implement his dictatorship. But he is growing stronger.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


You asked for an American example, and that is the obvious one I can think of. .

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