Hitler and Mussolini were both elected to their respective offices. The offices were NOT dictatorships prior to their holding them. They, like other dictators over time (e.g., Julius Caesar) turned their electoral victories into dictatorships AFTER the elections gave them control of the levers of political power. Hitler, for example, was clever enough to fool not only President Hindenburg (who despised Hitler), but the German industrialists (the Junker class) who thought that, by backing him, they'd have a man in office they could 'control'. Unh-huh. 'Control' disappears after the military takes a personal loyalty oath to the top officeholder. As a side note, Hitler's SS bodyguard was known as 'Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler' - they had no role other than to protect HIM from assassination. That's usually a good sign the person in question is a dictator. Wanna try to tell me AlmondJoyDad doesn't have the same kinda protection in place for exactly the same reason while he waits for the 'muddy mahdi' to crawl out from the sewer he ran into sometime in the 7th Century ... ?

i kind of thought ALL presidents had that protection in place,,,there is some history of our NON DICTATOR presidents being assassinated. As far as the current president, considering death threats have increased three or four fold to him AND his family,, why shouldnt he have protection,, fail to see how that determines he is a dictator or not...

True, that all high officials have protection in place. It comes with the job. The DIFFERENCE is having a corps (or body) of armed protectors who have sworn a PERSONAL LOYALTY OATH to an INDIVIDUAL rather than who exist to preserve a Representative Republic. Case in point: The Secret Service exists quite separate and apart from whoever the 'president du jour' is. A 'personal bodyguard' exists ONLY to protect ONE particular individual. There's a HUGE difference in those two concepts.

there is a difference between freedom of speech, and being able to outright make a claim that something is true. for example:


"I believe that President Obama is going to lead this Coutry into the worst times it has ever seen." This is an example of free speech as you are giving your opinion (dis: I do not hold to the belief stated about president Obama, I actually like the guy).

"president Obama is going to kill all the Christians in the Country, as he is a Muslim loving freak". This sentence is NOT protected by free speech as it is stating something to be factual when it is not, and it ALSO is capable of causing dissension and legal problems, when nothing in it can be proven to be true.

Also, the Secret Service is not there ONLY to protect the current President. They also provide protection for all FORMER Presidents and their families, as well as other Government dignitaries as needed.

we have had no president that was a dictator we just allowed them to get away with chit and sat around to complain about it

As long as tea-baggers like Sarah are allowed to speak and sow the seeds of dischord, Mr. Penn can say whatever he wants. I just hope he realizes that his opinions come with a price - his public image.

Charles Lindberg and Henry Ford both received medals from Hitler for their support in America of the Nazi Party

San Penn is just following in their footsteps

I am still pondering the litmus test for dictatorship involving whether a leader has bodygaurds,,,,,

2 wrongs make a right? Surely not what you mean...

You're NOT serious, are you ... ? The distinction that separates a dictator's PERSONAL ARMY OF PROTECTORS and a legitimate, non-affiliated Government agency with the chartered obligation to protect the President AND the nation has been drawn pretty clearly. Where's the confusion?

you misunderstand the question, I am not asking the difference between one type of protection or another, I am asking how HAVING protection makes one a dictator?

Please ... it is NOT about HAVING protection ... it is about the TYPE of protection and TO WHOM or to WHAT they swear their service and their loyalty. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

Oh, I have no problems with reading comprehension at all. My point is that it ISNT about the protection. If my family is in potential danger, IM gonna impose all the PROTECTION I deem fit and can afford and of course, whomever I pay is going to be loyal and service my family...

but what has that to do with whether one is a dictator?
are you implying that dictatorship is the most logical or only logical reason for unpopularity?

Reading this post makes me think of that maxim, "Mean People Suck".
But I’m confused, is the topic’s basic question, “Is HC (and Sean Penn, by association) a mean person? Or is the question more along the lines of “What should HC’s official title be?”

I'm totally staying outta' the "how-many-nightsticks-constitute-a-problem scenario"

good question,, mean is so relative. I dont know if Penn is mean but his opinions seem on the side of prone to violence...

as far as official titles, I dont know. I just know the CIA lists Venezuela as a federal republic, meaning power lies with the people, and the people have voted Chavez three times

which makes me wonder how anyone can say with certainty he is a dictator.....

A fair question to be sure... hope I wasn't coming across as dismissive, it's just not a subject that's close to my heart.

well Chavez hates America and called Bush the devil..by conservatives' definition that's a dictator....so i guess that means i'm a dictator. I'll take Sean Penn's word over any Fox talk show host's since Penn's visited the country many times.

Bush was more of a demon than a devil. Karl Rove was the Devil.

I think you should read your list only one on that list ha been around much . thats iraq . iseral only 212 years until we put them back . iran is what use to be persia but is not persia . panama we made in order to build the water way . and that was a really short time ago .