Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"No, Mr. President, 1776 Wasn’t Anything Like Castro’s 1959 Putsch"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by R. Evans View Post
    And you don't think that is exactly how the Crown viewed our Founding Fathers in 1776? Do some reading on the Empire's reaction to our revolution. Hell, we didn't achieve Ambassador status to the UK until 1893.
    We didn't seize power. We seceded from the Empire.

    That said, the Crown clearly viewed our forefathers as "thugs and hoodlums." "Left-wing" didn't really exist in 1776.

    Originally posted by R. Evans
    You're probably still stirred up because some of your corporate masters lost money when Castro took over. Give it up. It was over 50 years ago.
    My "corporate masters" were children and/or not even born when Castro took over. Most of them would like to see the embargo lifted because the Cuban government has a lawful energy policy, unlike #OccupyWhiteHouse.

    87% off limits...



    Open for business, except for U.S. businesses...



    That said, Dear Leader said this...

    "The ideals that are the starting point for every revolution, America’s revolution, Cuba’s revolution, the liberation movements around the world, these ideals find their truest expression, I believe, in democracy.”


    Maobama clearly states that all revolutions have common ideals which form their starting point. This is a cold, hard fact.

    The ideals of the American Revolution were antithetical to those of every Communist revolution in history. It is politically and philosophically impossible for the American revolution to have common ideals with Communist revolutions. This is another cold, hard fact.

    The ideals of Communist revolution...
    1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

    3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

    4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

    5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

    6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

    7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

    8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

    9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

    10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

    http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html

    Ideals of the American Revolution...
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

    Planks 1, 3 and 4 of the Communist Manifesto are diametrically opposed to the "pursuit of Happiness."


    Is Maobama ignorant of the cold, hard fact that the ideals of the American Revolution were totally different than those of Communist revolutions? Does he actually believe that the ideals of every revolution are the same?

    Or was he just blabbing whatever popped up on the teleprompter?
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
      Which is what I said. ( posting # 41).

      Very often whatever idealism there might have been is submerged in the red flags and gunfire.
      The difference is that the ideals of the American Revolution were not to liberate the wealth and property of the ruling class for redistribution to the masses; while these are the ideals of every Communist revolution and most "liberation movements."

      While, these United States have never fully realized our ideals, we have generally moved in the right direction. Pretty well every Communist revolution and most liberation movements just redistributed the wealth and property to new ruling classes.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
        Just when I thought Dear Leader Chairman Maobama couldn't become any more anti-American..."In one of his last acts in Havana, President Obama threw out a false equivalency between the American Revolution and Cuba’s 1959 communist takeover."
        No, Mr. President, 1776 Wasn’t Anything Like Castro’s 1959 Putsch

        Diplomacy: In one of his last acts in Havana, President Obama threw out a false equivalency between the American Revolution and Cuba’s 1959 communist takeover. What are we to make of a U.S. president who embraces such hoary Marxist equivalencies?

        In his Tuesday address to the Cuban people, Obama declared that the communist takeover that led to the Castros’ 57-year dictatorship was a “liberation movement,” same as America’s 1776 revolution. Obama’s well-known for his false equivalencies, but this one stands out for its idiocy.

        “Here’s my message to the Cuban government and the Cuban people,” Obama said.”The ideals that are the starting point for every revolution, America’s revolution, Cuba’s revolution, the liberation movements around the world, these ideals find their truest expression, I believe, in democracy.”

        It must have drawn a stifled horse-laugh from Cuban military dictator Raul Castro.

        Because the fact is, the American Revolution — whose courageous patriots pledged “to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor” — wasn’t anything like the Castroites’ 1959 communist takeover. The latter was a gang of thugs’ brutal destruction of a weak democracy with the sneaky aim of installing a totalitarian tyranny. The American patriots of 1776 were all about a free press, a fiery and open interplay of ideas, and the bravely signed names of 56 men of liberty standing up for what they believed in.

        The bearded Castroite revolutionaries were a different beast altogether. They claimed to favor democracy as part of their Orwellian Newspeak, making use of willing media toadies such as New York Times correspondent Herbert Matthews to fool U.S. policymakers. But for those on the ground, the Castroite takeover was nothing but a brutal leftist oligarchy intent on installing a communist agenda and turning Cuba into a Soviet satellite. From the very beginning, the Castroites and their so-called revolution had absolutely no democratic ideals. None.

        [...]


        'Putsch' The Cuban revolution lasted for almost 6 years, at least use the correct terminology for Christ's sake.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          I intentionally created a poll choice, "Maobama didn't equate America’s revolution and Cuba’s revolution," because I thought the author might have read too much into Maobama's words. However, to interpret his words as "calling out Raul Castro for betraying the" Cuban revolution, would require reading even more into Maobama's words than the author did.
          You intentionally conflate Obama with Mao virtually every time you mention him, therefore disqualifying yourself from grown up discussions on stuff like history. Again, you are notionally smart enough to know better, so you've either self-brainwashed or you are trolling. Either way, the thread was dead the moment you produced a source who described Cuba as a 'weak democracy'. Continually zapping electricity into the corpse won't help.
          Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by BF69 View Post
            You intentionally conflate Obama with Mao virtually every time you mention him, therefore disqualifying yourself from grown up discussions on stuff like history. Again, you are notionally smart enough to know better, so you've either self-brainwashed or you are trolling. Either way, the thread was dead the moment you produced a source who described Cuba as a 'weak democracy'. Continually zapping electricity into the corpse won't help.
            I just like the way "Dear Leader Chairman Maobama" sounds... it works better than Franklin Delanobama...

            Cuba was a weak democracy before the revolution. If it was a strong democracy, Batista couldn't have seized power in 1952.

            That said, Dear Leader said this...

            "The ideals that are the starting point for every revolution, America’s revolution, Cuba’s revolution, the liberation movements around the world, these ideals find their truest expression, I believe, in democracy.”


            Maobama clearly states that all revolutions have common ideals which form their starting point. This is a cold, hard fact.

            The ideals of the American Revolution were antithetical to those of every Communist revolution in history. It is politically and philosophically impossible for the American revolution to have common ideals with Communist revolutions. This is another cold, hard fact.

            Is Maobama ignorant of the cold, hard fact that the ideals of the American Revolution were totally different than those of Communist revolutions? Does he actually believe that the ideals of every revolution are the same?

            Or was he just blabbing whatever popped up on the teleprompter?
            Last edited by The Doctor; 26 Mar 16, 06:43.
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
              'Putsch' The Cuban revolution lasted for almost 6 years, at least use the correct terminology for Christ's sake.
              Castro's Putsch came after the revolution, when he quickly wiped out his competition.

              Attack the source all you want...Dear Leader said this...

              "The ideals that are the starting point for every revolution, America’s revolution, Cuba’s revolution, the liberation movements around the world, these ideals find their truest expression, I believe, in democracy.”


              Maobama clearly states that all revolutions have common ideals which form their starting point. This is a cold, hard fact.

              The ideals of the American Revolution were antithetical to those of every Communist revolution in history. It is politically and philosophically impossible for the American revolution to have common ideals with Communist revolutions. This is another cold, hard fact.

              Is Maobama ignorant of the cold, hard fact that the ideals of the American Revolution were totally different than those of Communist revolutions? Does he actually believe that the ideals of every revolution are the same?

              Or was he just blabbing whatever popped up on the teleprompter?
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                Castro's Putsch came after the revolution, when he quickly wiped out his competition.

                Attack the source all you want...Dear Leader said this...
                That wasn't not a putsch, that was a purge.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
                  That wasn't not a putsch, that was a purge.
                  Putsch, purge, whatever...

                  If Washington and Hamilton had exterminated Jefferson and the rest of the Anti-Federalists in 1789, the American and Cuban revolutions might have been analogous...
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    In summary, Dear Leader said this...

                    "The ideals that are the starting point for every revolution, America’s revolution, Cuba’s revolution, the liberation movements around the world, these ideals find their truest expression, I believe, in democracy.”


                    The left's defense of Maobama has thus far consisted of:
                    1. Ad hominem arguments against the author of the article and me.
                    2. The claim that Maobama said something other than what he said.
                    3. The interpretation of his words as a veiled swipe at the Castro bro's.


                    Number 3 at least employs some logic, although it doesn’t answer the question...

                    Is Maobama ignorant of the cold, hard fact that the ideals of the American Revolution were totally different than those of Communist revolutions? Does he actually believe that the ideals of every revolution are the same?

                    Or was he just blabbing whatever popped up on the teleprompter? Are his speechwriters who are ignorant? Or are they just accustomed to the lingo of Marxist ideologues?
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by BF69 View Post
                      You intentionally conflate Obama with Mao virtually every time you mention him, therefore disqualifying yourself from grown up discussions on stuff like history. Again, you are notionally smart enough to know better, so you've either self-brainwashed or you are trolling. Either way, the thread was dead the moment you produced a source who described Cuba as a 'weak democracy'. Continually zapping electricity into the corpse won't help.
                      I have to agree. Like him or not , Obama is still the President of the United State of America, Head of State and Commander in Chief. He was elected to that high office by the majority of the electorate . (Unless it is thought that American democracy is,itself, a sham).

                      His performance in office might well be disappointing - and certainly not to the liking of what appears to be the majority of the members of this forum-
                      but to inevitably refer to him as "Maobama " because his ideology is at variance with yours inhibits intelligent discussion.
                      "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                      Samuel Johnson.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                        I have to agree. Like him or not , Obama is still the President ...
                        His performance in office might well be disappointing - and certainly not to the liking of what appears to be the majority of the members of this forum-
                        but to inevitably refer to him as "Maobama " because his ideology is at variance with yours inhibits intelligent discussion.
                        You have a good point there.
                        However, can we apply the same standards to any discussions about Trump?
                        At any point, in the years to come?

                        Yeah, didn't think do.

                        Doc- I can't answer your poll up there, I don't think anything fits.
                        The Cuban "Revolution" wasn't much of a war, only about 200 men were killed in action and there were no real battles of any note. The Batista Govt lost it's support in the newsrooms, social circles and back-room committees of New York and Washington, an early case of the enemy within sabotaging allies abroad. A bunch of dummies just let it happen, and then acted all shocked and amazed when it was over.
                        The Mahdi's take over of the Sudan might have some parallels.
                        "Why is the Rum gone?"

                        -Captain Jack

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                          You have a good point there.
                          However, can we apply the same standards to any discussions about Trump?
                          At any point, in the years to come?

                          Yeah, didn't think do.

                          Doc- I can't answer your poll up there, I don't think anything fits.
                          The Cuban "Revolution" wasn't much of a war, only about 200 men were killed in action and there were no real battles of any note. The Batista Govt lost it's support in the newsrooms, social circles and back-room committees of New York and Washington, an early case of the enemy within sabotaging allies abroad. A bunch of dummies just let it happen, and then acted all shocked and amazed when it was over.
                          The Mahdi's take over of the Sudan might have some parallels.
                          "Yeah didn't think so" ?!
                          You're putting words into my mouth.
                          Should Trump be successful I hope that he makes good.
                          He'll be the POTUS and therefore be entitled to the proper respect that goes with being a successor to Washington and Lincoln. He would also be subjected to OBJECTIVE criticism. Why should it be otherwise ?
                          "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                          Samuel Johnson.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                            In summary, Dear Leader said this...

                            "The ideals that are the starting point for every revolution, America’s revolution, Cuba’s revolution, the liberation movements around the world, these ideals find their truest expression, I believe, in democracy.”


                            The left's defense of Maobama has thus far consisted of:
                            1. Ad hominem arguments against the author of the article and me.
                            2. The claim that Maobama said something other than what he said.
                            3. The interpretation of his words as a veiled swipe at the Castro bro's.


                            Number 3 at least employs some logic, although it doesn’t answer the question...

                            Is Maobama ignorant of the cold, hard fact that the ideals of the American Revolution were totally different than those of Communist revolutions? Does he actually believe that the ideals of every revolution are the same?

                            Or was he just blabbing whatever popped up on the teleprompter? Are his speechwriters who are ignorant? Or are they just accustomed to the lingo of Marxist ideologues?
                            If his understanding of society especially economics comes from being a community organizer what would you expect?

                            One thing I will give Sanders is he seems a more sincere socialist. Obama seems to be just along for the fun and perks of office.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                              "Yeah didn't think so" ?!
                              You're putting words into my mouth.
                              Should Trump be successful I hope that he makes good.
                              He'll be the POTUS and therefore be entitled to the proper respect that goes with being a successor to Washington and Lincoln. He would also be subjected to OBJECTIVE criticism. Why should it be otherwise ?
                              Why wait?
                              Why can't all the people (inside and OUTside the US) that have something to say about Trump every day... start being Objective now?

                              It would seem to be more important now, before the big decision is made.
                              "Why is the Rum gone?"

                              -Captain Jack

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                                I just like the way "Dear Leader Chairman Maobama" sounds... it works better than Franklin Delanobama...

                                Cuba was a weak democracy before the revolution. If it was a strong democracy, Batista couldn't have seized power in 1952.

                                That said, Dear Leader said this...

                                "The ideals that are the starting point for every revolution, America’s revolution, Cuba’s revolution, the liberation movements around the world, these ideals find their truest expression, I believe, in democracy.”


                                Maobama clearly states that all revolutions have common ideals which form their starting point. This is a cold, hard fact.

                                The ideals of the American Revolution were antithetical to those of every Communist revolution in history. It is politically and philosophically impossible for the American revolution to have common ideals with Communist revolutions. This is another cold, hard fact.

                                Is Maobama ignorant of the cold, hard fact that the ideals of the American Revolution were totally different than those of Communist revolutions? Does he actually believe that the ideals of every revolution are the same?

                                Or was he just blabbing whatever popped up on the teleprompter?
                                And I just like the way "Corporate Shill" or "Corporate Lapdog" sounds. You choose.
                                Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X