Is the US Government pro Dictatorship?

[famousringo]

TheRealMafoo said:

famousringo said:

TheRealMafoo said:

pastro243 said:

MrBubbles said:
it is there to protect everyones freedom. to prevent another dictator coming to power.

Its more like its there to put a militar dictator in power.

I dont know how that protects liberty since anyway the ones who choose the president are still the people.

And in October/November, they get to chose another one.

Anybody except the guy they've already had. And if they talk about how they'd like to re-elect that guy, they're summarily arrested by the army without so much as the need for a court ruling. I thought somebody as obsessed with freedom as you would condemn this kind of tyranny.

Does that sound like a democracy to you? One of the defining characteristics of a democracy is that ultimate power flows from the people. It's clear that in Honduras, ultimate power flows from the army.

Legitimate democracies don't need to control the media. Dictators do.

1. So if I ask congress if it's ok that I don't pay taxes, they say no, and I don't pay them anyway and am arrested, that's tyranny?

2. There are proper ways to change the Constitution. I am for the rule of law, and even a president needs to follow those rules, whether he likes it or not.

3. And last I checked, the US has a FCC that controls the media. That does not make them less of a democracy.

4. If he wanted to change that law, he needed to petition congress to change it. That’s why they have a congress, so one man cannot change the constitution just because he wants to.

5. The Constitution is a document to protect the people of a country. Allowing one man to defy it against the will of the Supreme Court and congress is tyranny. Removing him from office is democracy.

1. Getting arrested for breaking the law isn't tyranny. Getting arrested for talking about how the law should be changed is.

2. If MrBubbles' interpretation of the Honduran constitution is correct, there is no "proper" way to change this part of it. Even talking about changing it is against the law and subject to summary arrest by the military without trial.

3. You're equating a regulatory body with an army storming the offices of every media outlet in the country? Really? I'm sure you'll let me know when Obama gets around to shutting down Fox News.

4. See point 2. Furthermore, Zelaya had downgraded his attempt at a binding referendum to a non-binding plebescite. In other words, he was no longer trying to change it, he was trying to talk about changing it. Apparently that's all it takes for the army to exile you or shut down your newsroom.

5. The courts and the congress had already stopped him from changing the constitution. That's why he had to try to settle for a non-binding plebiscite. And arresting somebody for talking about changing the constitution is tyranny.

Imagine how different America would be today if it were impossible to change its consitution. Freedom of the press was in one of those amendments, wasn't it?