Sean Penn the Dictator Coddling Traitor

Dr Adequate said:
Well, of course this sort of thing has happened before.

[qimg]http://www.dontamend.com/BushPrinceKiss.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.deanesmay.com/files/deanesmay-rumsfeld-saddam.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Yes it has happened before.
hitler-chamberlain.jpg
 
Beerina said:
Chavez is a dictator, it's true, and nobody should be nice to him.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't classify him as a dictator just yet (have to wait for future elections to tell), although some of his actions do seem to be non-democratic in nature.
However, we are very nice, and allied with, the dictators in Saudi Arabia, who are far worse on their own people, even allowing for the disastrous effects of heavy-handed socializm of Chavez.
Click to expand...

You're right, the U.S. does seem to have a double standard when it comes to handling dictators who are allies vs. dictators who are not.

In the defense of the U.S., I could point out that if Chavez were not in power, Venezuela would possibly revert to being more democractic (or at least, some of Chavez's negative reforms would be undone). On the other hand, if the U.S. wasn't supporting the current Saudi government, it might well end up becoming a theocracy. (So the U.S. is basically supporting the lesser of 2 evils in Saudi Arabia.)
 
Crossbow said:
Yep! That was the case with me anyway.

I had no idea that you were trying to be funny.
Click to expand...

The title was a lampoon of what I expected to hear from conservative pundits. However, in the OP I contrast that with a devil's advocate position pointing out how Penn wasn't playing cheerleader (or at least not yet).



Also, for those of you arguing about Chavez being a dictator. He _is_ an autocrat at this point but not technically a dictator. We discussed that in a different Chavez thread.
 
Segnosaur said:
You're right, the U.S. does seem to have a double standard when it comes to handling dictators who are allies vs. dictators who are not.
Click to expand...
Well, it would only be a double standard if the basis of US actions was because of their status as a dictator. (It may in fact be a double standard, but not necessarily so).

In the defense of the U.S., I could point out that if Chavez were not in power, Venezuela would possibly revert to being more democractic (or at least, some of Chavez's negative reforms would be undone). On the other hand, if the U.S. wasn't supporting the current Saudi government, it might well end up becoming a theocracy. (So the U.S. is basically supporting the lesser of 2 evils in Saudi Arabia.)
Click to expand...

Right, which only shows it isn't a double standard, except superficially. The reason for our support is not solely because fo their status as a dictatorship, but also what we believe (rightly or wrongly) to be the consequences of our support, indifference or opposition to the given regime.
 
Segnosaur said:
I wouldn't classify him as a dictator just yet (have to wait for future elections to tell), although some of his actions do seem to be non-democratic in nature.
Click to expand...


Anti-freedom, perhaps. Seizure of private property, censorship of the airwaves, and demands for "emergency power" are fully in accord with democracy.

Unfortunately.

Hey, who replaced my smilies with sick green teddy bears?!?!? WTF?!?! :clmad: :clshocked: :clrolleyes: :clconfused:
 
Beerina said:
Anti-freedom, perhaps. Seizure of private property, censorship of the airwaves, and demands for "emergency power" are fully in accord with democracy.

Unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Seizure of private property (without due process), while not necessarly 'undemocratic' is often seen as something which is against human rights. In an extreme case, such actions could be used to silence opposition, through intimidation or by removing resources that could be used to speak out against the government in power. (Yes, there are situations where it is done in democracies too... for example, it may be necessary to seize a house if it is in the direct path of a road being built. But usually those cases are subject to various checks through both the legal and polotical systems.)

Yes, censorship of the airwaves is done quite often (example: see nipplegate). However, when such censorship is done for political purposes, opposition groups will find it harder to get their message out (thus depending he leader's power.)
 
I think the diffrence between Autocrat and Dicatator is the diffrence between Bull Crap and Horse Crap: NOt enough to really matter on a practical point of view.
And it is perfectly possible to dislike both Bush and Chavez.
And BTW,the spectacle of someone elected to office becoming for all intents and purpose a dictator is common. The critea is not how someone came to office,but his behavior when in audience. If someone is elected by 80% popular vote,but moves to limit individual rights,supress all oppostion to his regime, and assaults basic freedoms (the right to own Private Propety,etc) then he is a Dictator I don't care if he was elected or how popular he is.
 
dudalb said:
I think the diffrence between Autocrat and Dicatator is the diffrence between Bull Crap and Horse Crap: NOt enough to really matter on a practical point of view.
And it is perfectly possible to dislike both Bush and Chavez.
And BTW,the spectacle of someone elected to office becoming for all intents and purpose a dictator is common. The critea is not how someone came to office,but his behavior when in audience. If someone is elected by 80% popular vote,but moves to limit individual rights,supress all oppostion to his regime, and assaults basic freedoms (the right to own Private Propety,etc) then he is a Dictator I don't care if he was elected or how popular he is.
Click to expand...


He was elected, then he had his legislature make his term not expire and give him complete governmental control.
 
corplinx said:
He was elected, then he had his legislature make his term not expire and give him complete governmental control.
Click to expand...

I know that Hitler comparasions are cheap and often out of place,but that is pretty much how Hitler took control of Germany. People forget that Hitler did not stage a coup,but took over the goverment by perfect "legal" means.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Yes, but you've got to admit --- he doesn't have a moustache.
Click to expand...

Do I have to admit it? Maybe he's holding off on the mustache until after his dictatorship is irreversible. You know, like Emperor Palpatine and his gooey face.
 
marksman said:
Do I have to admit it? Maybe he's holding off on the mustache until after his dictatorship is irreversible. You know, like Emperor Palpatine and his gooey face.
Click to expand...
Yes, it makes sense.

First seize supreme power, then grow facial hair.

* makes note *
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom