Scrameustache believes that it isn't censorship if Chavez only censors people who oppose him strongly. If there are 10 people talking, 1 opposed, 8 neutral and 1 in favour and Chavez only has the 1 person who's opposed silenced then in Scrameustache's mind that means he isn't really censoring people much since 9 out of 10 weren't censored.
"I'd like to note that the one tv station that was closed was one of two which openly expressed opposite opinions to the government. "
You have made me into your straw man, but your argument is empty. He did not have every opponent silenced, like you claim.
It's about government agitators trying to start trouble during a peaceful protest. This case is about rocks, not gunshots, but the point I want you to take from this is that there is such a thing as a false flag operation.
Ask yourself: The people who were ready to throw a coup, what's stopping them from shooting a few people to make the coup seem legitimate? Now, for extra irony, I'm giving you a link where the police got caught trying to start trouble by dressing up as anti-government protesters. Try to cope.
Opposed only to the democratically elected government
That's the whole point of freedom of speech. that you can voice opposition to your government even if it is democratically elected.
Which they still do.
Hey, how's your free speech zone? Chain link fence high enough? Far enough away from your government so that they'll never hear you? Good. Gotta keep those free speech zones! Very important zones, the free speech zones.
Nope, saw the documentary filmed by those who were there, and then went and read every bit of old news I could find on the subject. Then I read up on the recent history of Venezuela, read up amnesty international reports from before and after the Chavez era. You know, good ol' book learning, 21st century style.
Now, the rest of you comment was incoherent, care to try it again?
Wonder who is classified a dictator in his mind...
Since I don't think Chavez is a dictator, and I can't speak for Penn, let me show you an example of someone I think of as a dictator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Musharraf#Emergency_declared_in_Pakistan Emergency declared in Pakistan On 3 November 2007 Musharraf declared emergency rule across Pakistan. He suspended the Constitution, imposed State of Emergency, and fired the chief justice of the Supreme Court.[87] While addressing the nation on State Television, Musharraf declared that the state of emergency was imposed in the country. In Islamabad, troops entered the Supreme Court building, arrested the judges and kept them under detention in their homes. Troops were deployed inside state-run TV and radio stations, while independent channels went off air.
Bush More Emphatic In Backing Musharraf President Bush yesterday offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying the general "hasn't crossed the line" and "truly is somebody who believes in democracy." Bush spoke nearly three weeks after Musharraf declared emergency rule, sacked members of the Supreme Court and began a roundup of journalists, lawyers and human rights activists.
I'd like to note that the one tv station that was closed was one of two which openly expressed opposite opinions to the government.
Opposed only to the democratically elected government: When there was a coup, and Chavez was kidnapped, that station said he had resigned. When a million people took to the streets, waving copies of their constitution saying that the president can't be removed like that, that TV station said that the streets were quiet and the people were happy of the change of government.
So when it came time for their license to be renewed, years later, they were denied. They didn't close down, they're still on cable, and on youTube, and they had public viewings in parks on giant screens. But they didn't get their license renewed after openly supporting an unconstitutional coup. And people say "OMG Chavez is a dictator that closed down all the private TV stations!!!!", because that's the way the propaganda in their country wants them to think. *sigh*
Read the list I linked to, you stupid, stupid fuck: ONE of the TV stations did not get its license renewed, and you infer from that that all private TV stations have closed! How fucking long were you denied oxygen at birth? How many drops on your head did it take to make you hold on to that retarded conclusion after being provided facts correcting your idiotic belief?
"He was tired" isn't a valid answer. [...] Losing 10 minutes of sleep while you put the gun away is nothing
It's a valid answer not because minutes of sleep have value, but because being tired reduces your ability to think coherent thoughts. The answer is valid because it explains the event. It's not a satisfying answer, because a child died as a result of his mundane negligence, but it explains why he was negligent.
...this is about a record label subverting a contract. EMI clearly feels EMI will make more money by subverting the contract and selling tracks, Pink Floyd clearly feels Pink Floyd will make more money by selling entire albums
Pink Floyd doesn't feel there's more money in album sales. They feel that they didn't make individual pieces, they made a whole, and they feel that it should only be sold as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
And you keep ignoring reality.
No, you say he censors every dissenting opinion. I say he does not.
You've trolled me, I admit, you really got me. Congratulation on making me reply to your unending series of bullshit, you must be so proud.
Scrameustache believes that it isn't censorship if Chavez only censors people who oppose him strongly.
If there are 10 people talking, 1 opposed, 8 neutral and 1 in favour and Chavez only has the 1 person who's opposed silenced then in Scrameustache's mind that means he isn't really censoring people much since 9 out of 10 weren't censored.
"I'd like to note that the one tv station that was closed was one of two which openly expressed opposite opinions to the government. "
You have made me into your straw man, but your argument is empty.
He did not have every opponent silenced, like you claim.
Which assertion?
That their audience has been reduced and as such far fewer people can hear what they have to say?
Wow, you just keep moving that fucking goal post, don't you?
denying it was a terrible event shows a lack of ethic.The people shot down by the snipers are shown on that video.
Who denied it was a terrible event?
What I want to know is how you decide who the shooters were.
Read this: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html
It's about government agitators trying to start trouble during a peaceful protest. This case is about rocks, not gunshots, but the point I want you to take from this is that there is such a thing as a false flag operation.
Ask yourself: The people who were ready to throw a coup, what's stopping them from shooting a few people to make the coup seem legitimate? Now, for extra irony, I'm giving you a link where the police got caught trying to start trouble by dressing up as anti-government protesters. Try to cope.
but very quietly where not very many people can hear
Support your assertion.
On 3 November 2007 Musharraf declared emergency rule across Pakistan.
[...]
Bush spoke nearly three weeks after Musharraf declared emergency rule
President Bush yesterday
You do realize that Bush isn't the President of the US anymore, right?
Reading comprehension is hard.
Opposed only to the democratically elected government
That's the whole point of freedom of speech.
that you can voice opposition to your government even if it is democratically elected.
Which they still do.
Hey, how's your free speech zone? Chain link fence high enough? Far enough away from your government so that they'll never hear you? Good. Gotta keep those free speech zones! Very important zones, the free speech zones.
Scrameustache believes that it isn't censorship if
They still get to say what they want on cable, on the internet, and in public places. Which they did.
The point is: Chavez is abusing his power to force TV and radio stations to broadcast his messages.
If you say so. The guy does seem like he loves to hear himself talk.
I was sort of hoping you'd expand on that "sniper" talk, though.
but the ammount of people who turn off their TVs when he starts speaking is enormous
:)
A dictatorship is [...] Hugo Chavez.
Is Columbia's president, Uribe, a dictator?
Chavez is a dictator and obviously
[citation needed]
Was that "Brainwashed nutjob" directed at me, or at Scrameustache? It's not clear.
I'm the one questionning the propaganda, therefore I'm the brainwashed nutjob.
I countered "ZOMG CHAVEZ SHUT DOWN ALL PRIVATE TV" with facts to the contrary. Clear sign of brainwashing nutjobbery that, presenting facts.
Speaking of facts, so you were there, that doesn't make the rest of that previous post any less unintelligible. So, WHAT were you on about?
Wait, wait, were you here when the coup happened?
Nope, saw the documentary filmed by those who were there, and then went and read every bit of old news I could find on the subject. Then I read up on the recent history of Venezuela, read up amnesty international reports from before and after the Chavez era. You know, good ol' book learning, 21st century style.
Now, the rest of you comment was incoherent, care to try it again?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/sean-penn-hugo-chavez-venezuela
Wonder who is classified a dictator in his mind...
Since I don't think Chavez is a dictator, and I can't speak for Penn, let me show you an example of someone I think of as a dictator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Musharraf#Emergency_declared_in_Pakistan
Emergency declared in Pakistan
On 3 November 2007 Musharraf declared emergency rule across Pakistan. He suspended the Constitution, imposed State of Emergency, and fired the chief justice of the Supreme Court.[87] While addressing the nation on State Television, Musharraf declared that the state of emergency was imposed in the country. In Islamabad, troops entered the Supreme Court building, arrested the judges and kept them under detention in their homes. Troops were deployed inside state-run TV and radio stations, while independent channels went off air.
Bush More Emphatic In Backing Musharraf
President Bush yesterday offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying the general "hasn't crossed the line" and "truly is somebody who believes in democracy."
Bush spoke nearly three weeks after Musharraf declared emergency rule, sacked members of the Supreme Court and began a roundup of journalists, lawyers and human rights activists.
I'd like to note that the one tv station that was closed was one of two which openly expressed opposite opinions to the government.
Opposed only to the democratically elected government: When there was a coup, and Chavez was kidnapped, that station said he had resigned. When a million people took to the streets, waving copies of their constitution saying that the president can't be removed like that, that TV station said that the streets were quiet and the people were happy of the change of government.
So when it came time for their license to be renewed, years later, they were denied. They didn't close down, they're still on cable, and on youTube, and they had public viewings in parks on giant screens. But they didn't get their license renewed after openly supporting an unconstitutional coup.
And people say "OMG Chavez is a dictator that closed down all the private TV stations!!!!", because that's the way the propaganda in their country wants them to think. *sigh*
This isn't shocking. In fact, I'm surprised it took him this long.
Keep holding your breath: "but the socialist leader has not given any sign that he is planning such a move." -TFA
It's as though the headline was somehow giving an impression that something more sensational is happening... Shocking!
sudden movements like this one.
FTFA: "but the socialist leader has not given any sign that he is planning such a move."
Yes, used to, you google illiterate fuck
Read the list I linked to, you stupid, stupid fuck: ONE of the TV stations did not get its license renewed, and you infer from that that all private TV stations have closed! How fucking long were you denied oxygen at birth? How many drops on your head did it take to make you hold on to that retarded conclusion after being provided facts correcting your idiotic belief?
You must be new... to Venezula.
They used to have private TV broadcasters you know...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Venezuelan_television_channels
"Used to", huh?
genetic discrimination
I think even the most coldhearted persons must admit that your genetic makeup is something you cannot influence
Tell that to my lump of thorium!
for the sake of sales (or "artistic integrity" if you buy that nonsense) is a completely separate issue.
The issue is that you think artistic integrity is unbelievable nonsense, you philistine.
"artistic integrity" but I think that argument is nonsense. If it was a single work then why did they make individual tracks?
If [author] thought their book was a single work, why did they make individual chapters?
An IQ test should be part of the purchase process for a firearm.
An IQ test only measures your ability at taking a test at that moment.
"He was tired" isn't a valid answer. [...] Losing 10 minutes of sleep while you put the gun away is nothing
It's a valid answer not because minutes of sleep have value, but because being tired reduces your ability to think coherent thoughts. The answer is valid because it explains the event. It's not a satisfying answer, because a child died as a result of his mundane negligence, but it explains why he was negligent.
...this is about a record label subverting a contract. EMI clearly feels EMI will make more money by subverting the contract and selling tracks, Pink Floyd clearly feels Pink Floyd will make more money by selling entire albums
Pink Floyd doesn't feel there's more money in album sales. They feel that they didn't make individual pieces, they made a whole, and they feel that it should only be sold as a whole.