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

  • BELGRAVE
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    Hold on a sec... what?

    Okay, that ain't cool. Maybe it was how you asked, or who you asked, but lets take care of that.
    This is Extremely informative re; myth-busting about the man and has some fascinating revelations about the political situation in the USA today--

    Hope that helps.
    Much obliged.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
    Obviously, I can't speak for " all the people", so I wouldn't know.
    And being an OUTsider I 'm not really in a position to be any sort of authority on Trump, pro or con.
    (I did ask for more info about the man on this forum but was told to mind my own business).
    Hold on a sec... what?

    Okay, that ain't cool. Maybe it was how you asked, or who you asked, but lets take care of that.
    This is Extremely informative re; myth-busting about the man and has some fascinating revelations about the political situation in the USA today--

    Hope that helps.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    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.
    I would expect a Marxist duck to swim, walk and quack like a Marxist duck.

    Bernie and Maobama are two sides of the Marxist coin.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by R. Evans View Post
    And I just like the way "Corporate Shill" or "Corporate Lapdog" sounds. You choose.
    You have to choose your own insults... I would just recommend choosing insults that "sing."

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    When it comes to "values" on the Left, you usually get clap trap like this:

    Howard Dean lists these "Core Values" of the Democratic Party

    1. Fairness and Equal Rights for all
    2. Strength and Toughness
    3. Fiscal Responsibility

    These are demonstrated by providing Health Care for all.
    Define "fairness." Does fairness mean taxing the snot out of the rich because it's "unfair" they're rich and you aren't? Does fairness mean quotas for jobs so that protected races and genders are represented according to their numbers in the population rather than hired for their skills?

    "Strength and Toughness," I have no idea what the hell that means in concrete definable terms.

    "Fiscal Responsibility." Yea, right...

    These are demonstrated by providing Health Care for all.
    I have to ask, how?

    Then there's this version by George Lakoff:

    Progressive core values are:
    * Caring and responsibility, carried out with strength

    * Protection, fulfillment in life, fairness

    * Freedom, opportunity, prosperity

    * Community, service, cooperation

    * Trust, honesty, open communication
    Can you turn any of that into actual concrete systems that would allow that to work? I can't. It's so vague it's useless.

    Or this "Worker's Bill of Rights"

    Workers are entitled to certain fundamental rights in the course of earning a living. These include:

    1. The right to organize and form a union, engage in collective bargaining, exercise full freedom of association and designate representative of their own choosing for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment;

    And if workers choose not to participate will their choice be honored or will they be forced to join in a "Closed shop?" My bet is the answer is NO!

    2. The right to engage in a lawful strike without being permanently replaced or losing their jobs;

    Define lawful. Can they strike indefinitely? I'm sure part of this prevents scabs or replacement workers during the strike, after all the employer / capitalist owning the business is evil and should know better...

    3. The right to maintain an equitable standard of living derived from compensation for their labor;

    Even if that standard is well above the value of the labor provided?

    4. The right to job training, other services and education that will empower them to maximize their earnings, improve their occupational skills and enhance the productivity of the Nation;

    Who pays for this?

    5. The right to be assured safe and healthful working conditions and to receive from their employers a conscientious effort to reduce the number of occupational safety and health hazards at their places of employment;

    To what degree? What's the standard or is this "Zero Tolerance?"

    6. The right to health care for wage earners and their families;

    Who pays for this? If it's the employer does it count as wages in kind?

    7. The right to earn their living in an environment free from all forms of discrimination;

    Define "all forms..."

    8. The right to a livable and economically secure retirement;

    Who's paying for that?

    9. The right to engage in the political process as guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution, which would include voluntary participation in the union's political action committee and the use of union dues money as currently provided under state and federal law.

    And if a worker objects to the union's position can they opt out of having their money used thusly? What if a worker on that committee is diametrically opposed to the other's position? Will accommodation be made to be inclusive or will they be shut out?
    [Red my answers]

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1...ressive-Values

    This is the sort of clap trap and rhetoric that the Left shouts for at the beginning of a revolution. Vague, undefined ideals that appeal to the stupid and poor in particular. Once in power, the Left finds that they can't make any of this happen without strong arm repression of the opposition, crushing taxes, confiscation of property, and in general setting up a dictatorship of virtue as they see it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
    Obviously, I can't speak for " all the people", so I wouldn't know.
    And being an OUTsider I 'm not really in a position to be any sort of authority on Trump, pro or con.
    (I did ask for more info about the man on this forum but was told to mind my own business).
    As far as I'm concerned you can ask all the questions about tRump as you will.

    I find his behavior to be quite embarrassing. I find this set of losers on both sides to be much the same. That we keep getting progressively worse candidates each time makes me kinda depressed. Maybe its shame that is the reason someone told you off.

    Leave a comment:


  • BELGRAVE
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    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.
    Obviously, I can't speak for " all the people", so I wouldn't know.
    And being an OUTsider I 'm not really in a position to be any sort of authority on Trump, pro or con.
    (I did ask for more info about the man on this forum but was told to mind my own business).

    Leave a comment:


  • R. Evans
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BELGRAVE
    replied
    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 ?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BELGRAVE
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X