Venezuelian Aggressor Only Changes 10% Of The Constitution!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


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.

Sure there's always protests. And there's plenty of these types of folks. http://www.stopterroristmedia.org/

Protests don't indicate popular sentiment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Sure there's always protests. And there's plenty of these types of folks. http://www.stopterroristmedia.org/

Protests don't indicate popular sentiment.

Seeing as how, say, Al Jazeera hasn't been banned in the US (Hell, the courts would stop the government if it tried), I'd say the administration has weighed things and realized that popular support would be entirely against it, even though it is an unpopular news source.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Agathon

As did yours. Apparently, it is fine for you to ask such questions and press for answers, but not for me.

Its fine for you to ask any question you want. I believe in free speech.

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).

No, I was willing to discuss GW as coup plotter, if you would discuss the Richmond Daily Dispatch. You rightly pointed out that answer was silly. I pointed out that your answer was silly. you then reverted to discussing, not GW, but a hypothetical today.

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.

For ABC to do EXACTLY as RCTV did, we would have to BE Venezuala. Our history is different, and any POD would lead at best to a kinda, sorta comparable situation.

I would point out that a few years ago Oliver Stone made a movie accusing the US govt of having assasinated a former President, and he seems to be doing allright. I dont follow antimedia websites, but I would be very surprised if there were not instances of networks having been accused on some strong basis of lying about US govt involvement in some claimed massacre. Im not going to delving into such places to satisfy your hypothetical though. If that makes you feel all warm and cuddly, so be it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Seeing as how, say, Al Jazeera hasn't been banned in the US (Hell, the courts would stop the government if it tried), I'd say the administration has weighed things and realized that popular support would be entirely against it, even though it is an unpopular news source.

Oh, is Al Jazeera asking for overthrow of the US govt? I didn't know that.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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.

It's a hypothetical question. Can you be any dafter.

He answered based on the US's history. He pointed to newspapers continuing to be able to publish.

Except that the cases are hardly equivalent. One is a case of failed secession, and the other is a case of ongoing threat of overthrowing the government.

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".

But LOTM hasn't even answered that, because he knows there are huge differences.

I'm still laughing my ass off at your belief that the US would not impose censorship if there was a clear and present danger to the constitutional government.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon

I'm still laughing my ass off at your belief that the US would not impose censorship if there was a clear and present danger to the constitutional government.

If they did, do you think folks wouldnt present that as evidence that the govt was no longer constitutional?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
I'm still laughing my ass off at your belief that the US would not impose censorship if there was a clear and present danger to the constitutional government.

Lets get back to the American Civil War.

Do you have even a vague notion of what went on in the NORTHERN press between 1861 and 1865.

Chavez was called a ******? Well so was Lincoln. Only it definitely was not seen as a good thing then. He was called lots of things.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

For ABC to do EXACTLY as RCTV did, we would have to BE Venezuala. Our history is different, and any POD would lead at best to a kinda, sorta comparable situation.

Utter bull****.

I never asked that ABC do exactly what RCTV did. That would be absurd and impossible, since they would have to, among other things, broadcast entirely in Spanish, and broadcast about Chavez.

I asked about a comparable situation in the general. You still have not answered.

It was in reality neither a historical question nor a hypothetical question. It was a rhetorical question.

No it wasn't. I didn't know your answer, and I still don't. I'm guessing from your responses that your answer will be the same as Imran's, and I'm happy to accept that as an answer (in part because it exposes the absolute absurdity of your position).

[Kidlicious]

LotM,

You honestly think they didn't mean ****** in a bad way? It definitely means lower class at best.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious
LotM,

You honestly think they didn't mean ****** in a bad way? It definitely means lower class at best.

But what harm did it do? If you called someone running for office in the neighborhood where I grew up a "****" it might have been meant in a bad way, but it would only have helped them electorally.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Oh, is Al Jazeera asking for overthrow of the US govt? I didn't know that.

I believe the Socialist Workers Party of the United States does... they probably put out a newsletter. How much do you exactly want to narrow things here so no comparison is actually possible?

[q=Agathon]It's a hypothetical question. Can you be any dafter.[/q]

A hypo with some sort of historical basis. That's the closest thing the US has, so it makes sense it'd be looked to in case the very, very, very rare coup attempt happens. Otherwise, it's impossible to judge.

Except that the cases are hardly equivalent. One is a case of failed secession, and the other is a case of ongoing threat of overthrowing the government.

As pointed out, Chavez controls just about everything now that was used in a prior coup... how exactly is the opposition going to "overthrow the government"? What, if one guy in a hut somewhere is talking about overthrowing Chavez, that is enough to make some grand declaration?

I'm still laughing my ass off at your belief that the US would not impose censorship if there was a clear and present danger to the constitutional government.

What was the clear and present danger a TV station presented to the Chavez government that controlled the other big media and the army? What, it'd completely show the other side and maybe advocate a coup (extremely unlikely after the failed one).

If they did, do you think folks wouldnt present that as evidence that the govt was no longer constitutional?

ZING!

I'm sure Aggie would be on the front lines declaring that against the Constitution and the first step to dictatorship.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

If they did, do you think folks wouldnt present that as evidence that the govt was no longer constitutional?

Not with any justification. And this exposes the fundamental idiocy of your position.

What's the point of having a consitution if you are going to stand idly by while it is overthrown by people taking advantage of the freedoms it affords to overthrow those very freedoms?

In certain cases governments are justified in suspending traditional or constitutional rights to ensure their preservation in the long run. Either you believe that, or you don't really believe that the rights are worth preserving. Pretty much every government has emergency powers, and pretty much every government will accrue to itself the emergency powers it needs to overcome a situation if the previous ones are insufficient.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Lets get back to the American Civil War.

Do you have even a vague notion of what went on in the NORTHERN press between 1861 and 1865.

Chavez was called a ******? Well so was Lincoln. Only it definitely was not seen as a good thing then. He was called lots of things.

Of course he doesn't. He's talking out of his ass.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


Utter bull****.

I never asked that ABC do exactly what RCTV did. That would be absurd and impossible, since they would have to, among other things, broadcast entirely in Spanish, and broadcast about Chavez.

I asked about a comparable situation in the general. You still have not answered.

There are many situations that might be comparable.

Is the new justice seeking president someone with the deep respect for liberty of Alberto Gonzales? Then yeah, hed probably seize on the excuse to ban the papers. If it was Russ Feingold? Abe Lincoln? Herbert Hoover? I dont know.

[Agathon]

As pointed out, Chavez controls just about everything now that was used in a prior coup... how exactly is the opposition going to "overthrow the government"? What, if one guy in a hut somewhere is talking about overthrowing Chavez, that is enough to make some grand declaration?

Oh I don't think they're in huts. We likely know where a lot of them are. Living in your country, under the protection of your government.


But I'm quite happy for you to believe that the US government would allow a network that did what RCTV did to continue broadcasting. I think that is fundamentally absurd and unrealistic, but there are no shortage of such opinions on this site, and others can make of it what they will.

The fact that you are now reduced to squabbling about the very idea of hypothetical questions demonstrates the poverty of your arguments.