Fidel Castro Dead at 90

[Drowsy Emperor]

So we are making a huge connection between the vaccination of livestock and firing squads, blatant Human Rights violations, and huge amounts of poverty? That's a pretty huge mental leap. I will take the word of people who lived under this man's reign Vs someone who lived half a world away many times over. Particularly if those people on the other side of the world are politicians. Considering that politicians seem to have very little moral issue with causing large amounts of death and destruction.

 

Please find me a single government that hasn't engaged in blatant Human Rights violations, especially one in a position as precarious as Cuba's. I'd love to see you, or anyone else, remain a saint while keeping the worlds strongest superpower at bay as it attempts to depose or outright kill you in every way imaginable for decades. 

 

As for poverty, Cuba is poor for a reason. That reason has little to do with Castro and more to do with the fact that the island has little in the way of valuable resources and less ways to utilize what it has since the US tried to keep it in an economic stranglehold for years. Politics is the art of the possible, not living a fantasy. With what little Cuba has, it has done rather well in some respects. 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[licketysplit]

Why would the left associate with this guy? Are they trying to be angry hipsters? What Trudeau said is baffling. 

[the_dog_days]

I never did send him a birthday card. We share the same one.

 

There's always next year. Oh, wait . . .

[Volourn]

"Ask yourself why he used to get a roaring applause prior to opening his mouth at the UN as opposed to any other politican, including those from your own country."

 

Because the people in my country don't care that he mass murders Cubans. They just like the fact he 'stood up' tto the US despite the fact he crippled his country and lied to the Cuban people. He is the reason why millions of Cubans risk their lives to e scape the ****hole HE created. As for Cubans who live in Cuba. There are two types - the ones who drank the Koolaid and then the ones who know if they spoke up too liudly he would happily murder them.

 

And, this is the guy you celebrate.

[Orogun01]

"Ask yourself why he used to get a roaring applause prior to opening his mouth at the UN as opposed to any other politican, including those from your own country."

 

Because the people in my country don't care that he mass murders Cubans. They just like the fact he 'stood up' tto the US despite the fact he crippled his country and lied to the Cuban people. He is the reason why millions of Cubans risk their lives to e scape the ****hole HE created. As for Cubans who live in Cuba. There are two types - the ones who drank the Koolaid and then the ones who know if they spoke up too liudly he would happily murder them.

 

And, this is the guy you celebrate.

Volo I would appreciate if you didn't speculate about what Cubans are, lest of all while i'm around. Reducing an entire group of people to two views just to illustrate a point might be how you get your argument across but I won't stand for such sophistry, specially when its my people you're talking about.

[BruceVC]

 

"Ask yourself why he used to get a roaring applause prior to opening his mouth at the UN as opposed to any other politican, including those from your own country."

 

Because the people in my country don't care that he mass murders Cubans. They just like the fact he 'stood up' tto the US despite the fact he crippled his country and lied to the Cuban people. He is the reason why millions of Cubans risk their lives to e scape the ****hole HE created. As for Cubans who live in Cuba. There are two types - the ones who drank the Koolaid and then the ones who know if they spoke up too liudly he would happily murder them.

 

And, this is the guy you celebrate.

Volo I would appreciate if you didn't speculate about what Cubans are, lest of all while i'm around. Reducing an entire group of people to two views just to illustrate a point might be how you get your argument across but I won't stand for such sophistry, specially when its my people you're talking about.

 

Then why dont you give us your views? I would have long commented on SA to avoid exactly this type of speculation

 

We not going to beg you and the reality is I also agree with much of what Volo says 

[Orogun01]

 

 

"Ask yourself why he used to get a roaring applause prior to opening his mouth at the UN as opposed to any other politican, including those from your own country."

 

Because the people in my country don't care that he mass murders Cubans. They just like the fact he 'stood up' tto the US despite the fact he crippled his country and lied to the Cuban people. He is the reason why millions of Cubans risk their lives to e scape the ****hole HE created. As for Cubans who live in Cuba. There are two types - the ones who drank the Koolaid and then the ones who know if they spoke up too liudly he would happily murder them.

 

And, this is the guy you celebrate.

Volo I would appreciate if you didn't speculate about what Cubans are, lest of all while i'm around. Reducing an entire group of people to two views just to illustrate a point might be how you get your argument across but I won't stand for such sophistry, specially when its my people you're talking about.

 

Then why dont you give us your views? I would have long commented on SA to avoid exactly this type of speculation

 

We not going to beg you and the reality is I also agree with much of what Volo says 

 

I thought I had made myself clear on an earlier post, Castro was in power for over 40 years that's 3 generations of Cubans that have different opinions because they all experienced different aspects of the regime. Suffice it to say that it is complex, there is good and there is bad.

[Ganrich]

 

 

So we are making a huge connection between the vaccination of livestock and firing squads, blatant Human Rights violations, and huge amounts of poverty? That's a pretty huge mental leap. I will take the word of people who lived under this man's reign Vs someone who lived half a world away many times over. Particularly if those people on the other side of the world are politicians. Considering that politicians seem to have very little moral issue with causing large amounts of death and destruction.

Please find me a single government that hasn't engaged in blatant Human Rights violations, especially one in a position as precarious as Cuba's. I'd love to see you, or anyone else, remain a saint while keeping the worlds strongest superpower at bay as it attempts to depose or outright kill you in every way imaginable for decades.

 

As for poverty, Cuba is poor for a reason. That reason has little to do with Castro and more to do with the fact that the island has little in the way of valuable resources and less ways to utilize what it has since the US tried to keep it in an economic stranglehold for years. Politics is the art of the possible, not living a fantasy. With what little Cuba has, it has done rather well in some respects.

Why would I bother? I said in the post you quoted that politicians have no problem with causing death and destruction. That's why I'm a small government guy. Because big authoritarian governments can cause more harm to its people and to other countries more easily.

 

Either way, all the sins of other governments of the world and history don't make many of those committed by Castro morally acceptable. You are giving the "but they did it too" argument that doesn't work with children and shouldn't extend to government.

 

On poverty, that's fair, but his decisions led them there. You can't overrun a nation and expect it's neighbors to just play nice with you afterwards. Especially if you are friends with their enemies.

[Guard Dog]

As a teacher, I'm aware of the fact that I don't know everything and am hesitant to pass myself off as knowledgeable about the situation in Cuba and Fidel Castro because I've read a couple books and articles on the internet.  Of course the Cubans in the US have a rather one-sided view of things, but that is still one more side than I can make a claim to. 

Especially since there are literally millions of them and the great majority had family members who were killed, imprisoned, or fled one step ahead of either. Castro is a historical figure in the same league as (although not as bad as) Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and on the level of Pinochet, etc. He is wholly undeserving of the praise he has received these last few days from world leaders and the otherwise intelligent people here on this very forum.

 

I do not understand it but there does seem to be a twisted admiration for dictators and mass murderers from some folks who favor a left leaning political ideology. I'm reminded of Obama's effusive praise of Castro and Chavez a few years back and the way certain Democrat Senators fawned over Soviet leaders in the 80's as examples.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

So we are making a huge connection between the vaccination of livestock and firing squads, blatant Human Rights violations, and huge amounts of poverty? That's a pretty huge mental leap. I will take the word of people who lived under this man's reign Vs someone who lived half a world away many times over. Particularly if those people on the other side of the world are politicians. Considering that politicians seem to have very little moral issue with causing large amounts of death and destruction.

Please find me a single government that hasn't engaged in blatant Human Rights violations, especially one in a position as precarious as Cuba's. I'd love to see you, or anyone else, remain a saint while keeping the worlds strongest superpower at bay as it attempts to depose or outright kill you in every way imaginable for decades.

 

As for poverty, Cuba is poor for a reason. That reason has little to do with Castro and more to do with the fact that the island has little in the way of valuable resources and less ways to utilize what it has since the US tried to keep it in an economic stranglehold for years. Politics is the art of the possible, not living a fantasy. With what little Cuba has, it has done rather well in some respects.

Why would I bother? I said in the post you quoted that politicians have no problem with causing death and destruction. That's why I'm a small government guy. Because big authoritarian governments can cause more harm to its people and to other countries more easily.

 

Either way, all the sins of other governments of the world and history don't make many of those committed by Castro morally acceptable. You are giving the "but they did it too" argument that doesn't work with children and shouldn't extend to government.

 

On poverty, that's fair, but his decisions led them there. You can't overrun a nation and expect it's neighbors to just play nice with you afterwards. Especially if you are friends with their enemies.

 

Well put

[BruceVC]

 

As a teacher, I'm aware of the fact that I don't know everything and am hesitant to pass myself off as knowledgeable about the situation in Cuba and Fidel Castro because I've read a couple books and articles on the internet.  Of course the Cubans in the US have a rather one-sided view of things, but that is still one more side than I can make a claim to. 

Especially since there are literally millions of them and the great majority had family members who were killed, imprisoned, or fled one step ahead of either. Castro is a historical figure in the same league as (although not as bad as) Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and on the level of Pinochet, etc. He is wholly undeserving of the praise he has received these last few days from world leaders and the otherwise intelligent people here on this very forum.

 

I do not understand it but there does seem to be a twisted admiration for dictators and mass murderers from some folks who favor a left leaning political ideology. I'm reminded of Obama's effusive praise of Castro and Chavez a few years back and the way certain Democrat Senators fawned over Soviet leaders in the 80's as examples.

 

GD I have raised this with you many times, on this forum there are several members who for various reasons want the USA and the West to fail. Its nothing unusual in the sense there is always someone who wants the USA to fail but most of the general animosity globally towards the West is reduced 

 

Anyway these members will always support anyone who is perceived as " anti-Western " ....thats all that matters to them, its okay if the person is a dictator as long as they dislike the USA

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

So we are making a huge connection between the vaccination of livestock and firing squads, blatant Human Rights violations, and huge amounts of poverty? That's a pretty huge mental leap. I will take the word of people who lived under this man's reign Vs someone who lived half a world away many times over. Particularly if those people on the other side of the world are politicians. Considering that politicians seem to have very little moral issue with causing large amounts of death and destruction.

Please find me a single government that hasn't engaged in blatant Human Rights violations, especially one in a position as precarious as Cuba's. I'd love to see you, or anyone else, remain a saint while keeping the worlds strongest superpower at bay as it attempts to depose or outright kill you in every way imaginable for decades.

 

As for poverty, Cuba is poor for a reason. That reason has little to do with Castro and more to do with the fact that the island has little in the way of valuable resources and less ways to utilize what it has since the US tried to keep it in an economic stranglehold for years. Politics is the art of the possible, not living a fantasy. With what little Cuba has, it has done rather well in some respects.

Why would I bother? I said in the post you quoted that politicians have no problem with causing death and destruction. That's why I'm a small government guy. Because big authoritarian governments can cause more harm to its people and to other countries more easily.

 

Either way, all the sins of other governments of the world and history don't make many of those committed by Castro morally acceptable. You are giving the "but they did it too" argument that doesn't work with children and shouldn't extend to government.

 

On poverty, that's fair, but his decisions led them there. You can't overrun a nation and expect it's neighbors to just play nice with you afterwards. Especially if you are friends with their enemies.

 

 

Where does this small government you speak of exist?

Edited November 27, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[Drowsy Emperor]

Ben No.3, on 27 Nov 2016 - 09:47 AM, said:

Utopia by Thomas More

 

 

S' nice, but it was an absolute monarch that put bread on his table 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[Ganrich]

 

 

 

 

So we are making a huge connection between the vaccination of livestock and firing squads, blatant Human Rights violations, and huge amounts of poverty? That's a pretty huge mental leap. I will take the word of people who lived under this man's reign Vs someone who lived half a world away many times over. Particularly if those people on the other side of the world are politicians. Considering that politicians seem to have very little moral issue with causing large amounts of death and destruction.

Please find me a single government that hasn't engaged in blatant Human Rights violations, especially one in a position as precarious as Cuba's. I'd love to see you, or anyone else, remain a saint while keeping the worlds strongest superpower at bay as it attempts to depose or outright kill you in every way imaginable for decades.

 

As for poverty, Cuba is poor for a reason. That reason has little to do with Castro and more to do with the fact that the island has little in the way of valuable resources and less ways to utilize what it has since the US tried to keep it in an economic stranglehold for years. Politics is the art of the possible, not living a fantasy. With what little Cuba has, it has done rather well in some respects.

Why would I bother? I said in the post you quoted that politicians have no problem with causing death and destruction. That's why I'm a small government guy. Because big authoritarian governments can cause more harm to its people and to other countries more easily.

 

Either way, all the sins of other governments of the world and history don't make many of those committed by Castro morally acceptable. You are giving the "but they did it too" argument that doesn't work with children and shouldn't extend to government.

 

On poverty, that's fair, but his decisions led them there. You can't overrun a nation and expect it's neighbors to just play nice with you afterwards. Especially if you are friends with their enemies.

Where does this small government you speak of exist?

They created it in 1789, but then a bunch of guys decided to star growing it in 1913 by allowing income tax on a federal level and ruined it. Then more guys came along and created a huge unregulated bank to create a fiat currency that caused massive inflation but allowed for a century of Wars to occur.

 

So, right now, it doesn't exist because a bunch of people expect the government to take care of them. So, year after year it keeps getting bigger. Eventually it will do what everything that is too top heavy for its foundation does, and it will topple. It's a sad story to be sure.

[Guard Dog]

Wouldn't you say the government SHOULD in fact take care of its people?

No. The government should protect the people by securing the border, enforcing the laws and regulating and administrating in such a way that allows for a fair opportunity for economic success. It is incumbent on the people to take care of themselves.

[Ganrich]

 

 

Wouldn't you say the government SHOULD in fact take care of its people?

No. The government should protect the people by securing the border, enforcing the laws and regulating and administrating in such a way that allows for a fair opportunity for economic success. It is incumbent on the people to take care of themselves.

This. It's no job of the government to take care of me. It is my life to do with as I please, and I am no more or less important than any other US Citizen. I have no right to demand them of their prosperity via the government and no one has the right to demand a piece of mine. Half our problem as a society is that people don't take responsibility for themselves anymore.

[Ganrich]

Also, what do you mean by allowing for a century of wars to occur? America has little to do with the causes of the First World War and while the financial crisis did play a big part in allowing figures as Hitler to rise to power, the crises was not caused by to many faces but rather by a huge stock market bubble. The Cold War wars were mainly due to fear of communism spreading.

 

So... How did taxes affect any those?

The world wars are an exception IMHO, because I think they were a necessary and morally justified fight. Maybe I should have said half a century.

 

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc are different. although, i dont condemn Afghanistan because of 9/11, and the paranoia of those attacks led to iraq 2.0.

 

Ironically the declaration of war is the job of Congress, and they haven't declared war since WW2. Which imho is BS.

 

Either way we have been in one conflict or another for the past 25-30 years, and im tired of footing the bill.

[Barothmuk]

 

 

Well I think if Marx was alive today he'd be pretty satisfied with Germany's state

Only a liberal would be able to toss aside a person's entire life's work and hijack them as one of their own.

But... I'm not taking it as my own, I'm spending it in ways that benefit society. And I think your expression is a bit... Well extreme. Take away all your life's earnings... No definitely not. More like a high income tax, at least for those with high income. And isn't free health care and education including university worth it?

 

Jesus Christ. You have to be a Bruce-alt because no one else could possibly misinterpret a post this bad.

[213374U]

No. The government should protect the people by securing the border, enforcing the laws and regulating and administrating in such a way that allows for a fair opportunity for economic success. It is incumbent on the people to take care of themselves.

 

Hmm. What about those who _can't_ take care of themselves? Let's say, disabled veterans. Let's say, miners afflicted by silicosis from working towards *another's* "prosperity". Let's say, firefighters and ER personnel suffering from 9/11 sequels. Amputees? Retards? People with ALS? Autists?

 

It's great to blather on about one's hard earned success when one has only had to face a fraction of the obstacles others have. It's only human to be narrow minded and extrapolate one's experience to the rest. But it's also basic human decency to admit that you are privileged just lucky in that regard. The idea that everyone's survival must be predicated upon their "economic success" is an aberration of neoliberal-social Darwinist dogma. Please explain using your own words why this should be so.

 

 

I have no right to demand them of their prosperity via the government and no one has the right to demand a piece of mine.

 

Maybe when you look at how said "prosperity" is achieved, things aren't so clear cut. Once you realize that work is a scam, that private property is absurd and that the ability to sell money for more money is something that virtually guarantees that the effort-reward utopia you folks worship will actually never come to pass, the "prosperity" of others suddenly doesn't look so sacrosanct anymore.

 

Oh, look. It's Marxism rearing its ugly head again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited November 27, 2016 by 213374U

[Raithe]

[Ganrich]

I have no problem with government intervening in businesses growing too large. The US has done it with AT&T, MS, etc. They were right to do so, but that was then and today they don't bother. I think big corporations and big government are both something to be feared. The irony is big corps are paying to make your governent huge by buying your politicians. The difference between a company and a government is you can bargain with a company, or choose not to spend your money. Where the government takes through force, and you have little avenue for arguing the point. It's pay or enjoy your cell.

 

@213374U - All disabled vets should be covered by the government, but that's where they were injured. So it makes sense. However, the VA needs an overhaul, and anyone with friends/family that have used it (or used it personally) can attest how atrocious it is. Every government worker injured during their job should be covered this way IMHO. Police, FF, etc are covered by the state and not the fed though. If injured on the job working for private corps then that is where the aid should come from. Both from said company, it's insurance, and/or private non-profit aid foundations, and last but not least family. It doesn't "have" to be government.

 

On the note of work being a scam. I don't disagree, but until everything is automated then someone's got to do it. I make Ethernet cable at my job. So, you're welcome that we can communicate via the internet. Because if I, and others, didn't contribute to the scam then we wouldn't be debating this.

 

On Private property - things are mostly useless, but I've grown more into productive hobbies Vs toys. As long as I can own a PC and a guitar I don't really care about much else. However, I think that owning yourself a home is something everyone should be able to do. This is something we've lost sight of in America. And renting doesn't cut it for some of us. I play electric guitar, and I can't do that easily in an apartment.

 

Also, effort to gain reward- what's the point of life if you aren't being productive? It doesn't have to be at work either. It could be doing stuff you love. Learning, reading, developing a talent, seeing the world, fixing your home, etc. Too many people bury themselves solely in their electronics, media, and crap that they live a truly hollow life. That's a fault of capitalism that I do agree with, but it's more a fault of advertising constantly being in your face IMHO. People wouldn't constantly want the junk if it wasn't always in your face.

 

Anyway, the last one hundred years have been the first time where most people weren't killed in the name of God. They were killed in the name of giant governments. NAZI Germany, USSR, Mao's China, Fascist Italy... There's about 150,000,000 people. Let's keep growing these governments and bureaucracies though. What could go wrong by ignoring history and pretending it can't be repeated? I hate to be the pragmatist but if we lose a person here or there because of falling through the cracks then it is a necessary evil to allowing a dying gigantic government to go rogue and start dropping bombs. That's just me, though.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

 

So we are making a huge connection between the vaccination of livestock and firing squads, blatant Human Rights violations, and huge amounts of poverty? That's a pretty huge mental leap. I will take the word of people who lived under this man's reign Vs someone who lived half a world away many times over. Particularly if those people on the other side of the world are politicians. Considering that politicians seem to have very little moral issue with causing large amounts of death and destruction.

Please find me a single government that hasn't engaged in blatant Human Rights violations, especially one in a position as precarious as Cuba's. I'd love to see you, or anyone else, remain a saint while keeping the worlds strongest superpower at bay as it attempts to depose or outright kill you in every way imaginable for decades.

 

As for poverty, Cuba is poor for a reason. That reason has little to do with Castro and more to do with the fact that the island has little in the way of valuable resources and less ways to utilize what it has since the US tried to keep it in an economic stranglehold for years. Politics is the art of the possible, not living a fantasy. With what little Cuba has, it has done rather well in some respects.

Why would I bother? I said in the post you quoted that politicians have no problem with causing death and destruction. That's why I'm a small government guy. Because big authoritarian governments can cause more harm to its people and to other countries more easily.

 

Either way, all the sins of other governments of the world and history don't make many of those committed by Castro morally acceptable. You are giving the "but they did it too" argument that doesn't work with children and shouldn't extend to government.

 

On poverty, that's fair, but his decisions led them there. You can't overrun a nation and expect it's neighbors to just play nice with you afterwards. Especially if you are friends with their enemies.

Where does this small government you speak of exist?

They created it in 1789, but then a bunch of guys decided to star growing it in 1913 by allowing income tax on a federal level and ruined it. Then more guys came along and created a huge unregulated bank to create a fiat currency that caused massive inflation but allowed for a century of Wars to occur.

 

So, right now, it doesn't exist because a bunch of people expect the government to take care of them. So, year after year it keeps getting bigger. Eventually it will do what everything that is too top heavy for its foundation does, and it will topple. It's a sad story to be sure.

 

 

Lol, that "small" government also went on to all but obliterate Native Americans.

 

Writing in September 1864, the Reverend William Crawford reported on the attitude of the white population of Colorado: “There is but one sentiment in regard to the final disposition which shall be made of the Indians: ‘Let them be exterminated—men, women, and children together.’” - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302#sthash.YNcea894.dpuf

 

 

Paradise indeed

 

Why do Castro's acts against his political opponents disqualify his legacy but those of your ancestors do not?

Edited November 27, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[Guard Dog]

Rather than using a lot of words to drive home the points Ganich & I are tying to make, in true internet fashion here is a meme: 

 

[the_dog_days]

 

Wouldn't you say the government SHOULD in fact take care of its people?

No. The government should protect the people by securing the border, enforcing the laws and regulating and administrating in such a way that allows for a fair opportunity for economic success. It is incumbent on the people to take care of themselves.

 

 

As somebody who grew up a ward of the state, I can't tell you how much I agree with this.

[Hurlshort]

In regards to the whole "The US does bad things, too" response when criticizing Castro.  The big difference I see is that US Presidents only have 4-8 years to do messed up things.  Congress only has 2-6 years to do messed up things.  Then the people get to vote to remove them, and despite what the media likes to cling to, those elections are remarkably fraud free.  So you have a shared responsibility for the terrible things that the government does, and they face constant criticism while doing it.

 

Castro wielded absolute power and put himself above criticism.  That's an incredibly dangerous position for anyone to be in.