Venezuelian Aggressor Only Changes 10% Of The Constitution!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Do you remember the Sedition Act of 1918?

Which was repealed not long afterwards (1921). Do you really think that the American public would tolerate something like that today? Look at the massive protest at the far tamer PATRIOT Act.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Which was repealed not long afterwards (1921). Do you really think that the American public would tolerate something like that today? Look at the massive protest at the far tamer PATRIOT Act.

Glad you mentioned the Patriot Act. I'm certian that the American public would welcome it today.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Which was repealed not long afterwards (1921). Do you really think that the American public would tolerate something like that today? Look at the massive protest at the far tamer PATRIOT Act.

Better yet, the opposition party at the time this hypothetical situation would happen would jump on it in a heartbeat. The president at the time wouldn't last another term and if he was a lame duck, the TV station would be reinstated next presidency, something Chavez is making sure won't happen in his country.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Agathon
From the LA Times article I linked above:

Wait a second... you think THAT would be enough to get a US station banned? Really?! By totally not showing the government's side (which is really what the LA Times article says they did) and showing the coup side and running ads for people to attend a march aimed at deposing Chavez?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Glad you mentioned the Patriot Act. I'm certian that the American public would welcome it today.

Because Bush's approval ratings indicate that the American public would be more willing to accept restrictions on liberty? Besides, like I said, it was met with great protest at the time and was far tamer than the Sedition Act of 1918, which was repealed 4 years later.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


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.

I thought it was a silly question, as it posited a parallel between US and Ven politics that doesnt exist. Which I tried to point out by indicating that there was no equivalent in US history to the coup of 1992.

If the US was located in the tropics, had a non-white majority, had had a military dictator in the 50s, a democratic restoration, the typical corruption 3rd world oil exporters have, etc, etc would the US govt respond as the govt of Ven did? Yes, because in that case the US govt would BE the govt of Venezuala.

Based on actual US history, with any feasible Point of Departure, could we get to something like Venezuala? Maybe, I dont know. Would the US govt then act like Chavez? Depends on just how we got there. Which is why I gave the Huey Long parallel which is the most likely path there I can think of. In that case, as I said, Long probably WOULD ban the networks. That doesnt mean it would be right.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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.

Bull****.

LOTM's question:

Would a military officer who'd attempted a coup d'etat be allowed to run for president of the US?

This is not a historical question. It is a question about whether it is the case right now that someone who had attempted a coup would be permitted to run for President. It's a hypothetical question, since there is no recent coup leader actually running for US President. It's not based on history, because there is no such history. It's a hypothetical about the present day.

Likewise, mine is also a hypothetical question. Would a network that aided and abetted a coup be allowed to continue to broadcast in the US? I just want LOTM to answer yes or no.

This is like taking candy from babies.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui




Wait a second... you think THAT would be enough to get a US station banned? Really?! By totally not showing the government's side (which is really what the LA Times article says they did) and showing the coup side and running ads for people to attend a march aimed at deposing Chavez?

And the rest which you so conveniently omitted....

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


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.

no one here is required do answer anything. Not me, not IS, not you.

One my refuse to answer at the cost of perhaps making ones arguements look weak. Or not, depending on what folks think of the question. Im willing to take the risk.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Agathon
This is not a historical question. It is a question about whether it is the case right now that someone who had attempted a coup would be permitted to run for President. It's a hypothetical question, since there is no recent coup leader actually running for US President. It's not based on history, because there is no such history. It's a hypothetical about the present day.

Because there has never been a case of an American who attempted a coup against the government. And there was never any reprisal... oh wait... nevermind.

Likewise, mine is also a hypothetical question. Would a network that aided and abetted a coup be allowed to continue to broadcast in the US? I just want LOTM to answer yes or no.

He answered based on the US's history. He pointed to newspapers continuing to be able to publish. That's what we call a good answer based on historical precedent rather than "I think so" followed by "you're nuts if you think that" followed by "no, you are nuts".

This is like taking candy from babies.

What, you are an utter failure at that as well?!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui




Because Bush's approval ratings indicate that the American public would be more willing to accept restrictions on liberty? Besides, like I said, it was met with great protest at the time and was far tamer than the Sedition Act of 1918, which was repealed 4 years later.

The American public doesn't see restrictions on individuals whom they don't identify with as restrictions on themselves. Most of the opposition to the Patriot Act was based on fear for themselves. There would not be such opposition to a ban on a specific media that supported a coup to replace a popular president. The public would be asking for a ban.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Agathon
And the rest which you so conveniently omitted....

If there is more, then post it here. I based it on your post, which showed hardly much of anything to justify banning the station.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

I thought it was a silly question, as it posited a parallel between US and Ven politics that doesnt exist.

As did yours. Apparently, it is fine for you to ask such questions and press for answers, but not for me. Apparently, your question isn't silly, or you suddenly realized it was silly after you made post after post of serious criticism of my answers, and then realized that you were losing the argument because I wouldn't give the answer that you wanted (even though I actually gave an answer, unlike you).

Put up or shut up. Do you think that ABC if it did exactly what RCTV did, would be allowed to continue broadcasting in the US. I mean things like actively doctoring video to make it look like the US government was massacring its own citizens.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The American public doesn't see restrictions on individuals whom they don't identify with as restrictions on themselves. Most of the opposition to the Patriot Act was based on fear for themselves. There would not be such opposition to a ban on a specific media that supported a coup to replace a popular president. The public would be asking for a ban.

What crap that is. The public would in no way be asking for a ban and would protest it greatly. Let's see the administration try to ban Al-Jazeera. Hell, attempts to minimize the network met with protest.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
This is not a historical question. It is a question about whether it is the case right now that someone who had attempted a coup would be permitted to run for President. It's a hypothetical question, since there is no recent coup leader actually running for US President. It's not based on history, because there is no such history. It's a hypothetical about the present day.

It was in reality neither a historical question nor a hypothetical question. It was a rhetorical question. There is not only no coup leader running for US president, there has never been a serious coup against the govt of the US, unless you want to count the case of the Civil War, a stretch. Which is my point. The actions of the Ven media must be seen in the context of the previous coups - coups are not so out of bonds in Ven as in the US, thanks in part to the actions of Mr Chavez himself. Now you properly respond that the '92 coup must be seen in the context of Venezualan society and history - except in my view you paint a rather manichean picture of that society.