Anyone?
 

Is there anyone on this board that agrees with this?

"The system is highly flawed, but to say Castro is an illegitimate despot is patently ridiculous."

I want a t-shirt that says "Free Gavrilo Princip"
 

Yes. What you propose ain't nothing. Taxwonk's vision is way weirder.

Anyone?
 

I agree with that more than whatever you were saying, but only because I trust the source more.

ETA I know nothing about Cuba.

I want a t-shirt that says "Free Gavrilo Princip"
 

Rebutting my point on argument technique with a conclusive statement? I hope this was ironic and not literal.

What? You don't want to hear about my father?!?!?! PB Spanky is a total dick.

I will let dtb handle this one. And once again, that is an incorrect use of Form over Substance.




No its not. It is Format over Substance. Close but no cigar.

etft, and because I love it when Paigow starts posting about cigars -- t.s.

Anyone?
 

I dissent. I remain in agreement that Castro should be forcibly removed by the application of US military strength. The sooner the better, for Elian's sake........it takes a village.

Just curious
 

1.) He is a dictator. Whatever you want to call him. (When I hear the word "despot," I picture Sultans or Emperors armed with jeweled scimitars and hiding hot chicks in the Seraglio. Too much Flashman as an impressionable youth.)

2.) Define "legitimate." He's recognized as the lawful ruler of Cuba by just about everyone, but he came to power via the barrel of a gun. (And, btw, you may be the only person I've heard in the last 20 years say that Cuba was a democracy before he took over.) May or may not win leadership in a free and fair election, but does seem to have popular support in the country. I dunno. As legitimate as the Chinese communists you seem to love. Or coup-leader Augusto Pinochet.

Just curious
 

I disagree with both statements.

He is thug.

I want a t-shirt that says "Free Gavrilo Princip"
 

the babyjesus says hate the hate, crush the hater.

Just curious
 

I hate the RedChinese and their protege, Hillary.

I remain steadfast in my support of Spanky, on this board and the Spanky Show.


eta: until my handlers in the insurgency direct me otherwise, no offence

I want a t-shirt that says "Free Gavrilo Princip"
 

RT

I want a t-shirt that says "Free Gavrilo Princip"
 

There's the confirmation we were looking for. Thanks!

ETA, and maybe I should post this to the FB instead, hey RT, is it weird kissing someone with an upside-down mouth?

I want a t-shirt that says "Free Gavrilo Princip"
 

Nope. I rather enjoy it actually.

I want a t-shirt that says "Free Gavrilo Princip"
 

Yay!

Apropos of nothing, I am just so proud that my re line flies proudly over this post. Sniff.

I voted for Augusto Pinochet . . . uh, wait, I guess I didn't. My bad.
 

Unless the people decide democratically to adopt socialism, in which case it's OK to subvert their government in favor of someone who violates human rights but supports free markets.

Anyone?
 

I wish this were not true, but I suspect that Castro has real support in Cuba, giving him some legitimacy.

Anyone?
 

Looks like I picked a great day to be out of the fold. My head is spinning from all the cuba talk.

Liberals - go figure
 

The guy took power through the barrel of a gun and has held power throught the barrel of a gun for forty years. During that time he has crushed all dissent. He may have some support, but so did Pol Pot. Still does. Since when did some support create legitimacy.

To equate his political prisoners with the detainees at guantanomo is beyond ridiculous. Bush and the military did not place those guys there because they supported Kerry in the last election. If Kerry and his supporters were at Guantanamo then it would make more sense.

Why do liberals love Castro so much? I just don't get it. He locks up and tortures political opponents and he has destroyed his country.

Yet I call him illegitimate and that is called absurd?

I call him a despot and that is called absurd?

He runs the most opressive regime in Latin America. Yet that is considered ridiculous. Can someone name a regime in Latin America right now that is more oppressive than Cuba?

I guess, in the liberal mind, if you critisize capitalism, no matter what you do, it can't be all that bad.

Anyone?
 

Does Hillary have property in Cuba?

Liberals - go figure
 

Spanky, the democrats and their liberal cohorts count a racist oppressor, Bobby Byrd*, as their conscience. Is it any wonder they think Castro is a heroic figure?

*DEMOCRAT Sen. bobby Byrd, once said (in response to the issue of integrating the military), "I would never fight with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Castro is the minour leagues compared with that guy, a Democrat.

Liberals - go figure
 

I seem to recall reading somewhere that this country also got its start through the barrel of a gun. And if you're saying that taking power through the barrel of a gun is wrong, then isn't this an indictment of our glorious history in general? I put it to you, Spanky - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

Liberals - go figure
 

Legitimacy is akin to support. It's a positive concept, not a normative one, at least in the (Weberian) sense I'm using it. Pol Pot had some measure of legitimacy, too, notwithstanding that he was a nutcase, etc.

OK. Did someone say otherwise?

I don't know. The liberals I know don't care for him. Not sure whom you've been talking to.

Who said it was absurd?

Did I say that? I missed it.

I'm really not qualified to answer that question. Fujimori was no ball of fun, but he's gone now. I hear Venezuela is not a groovy place to be. Brazil is oppressive if you're poor.

Again, not sure what you're talking about.

Anyone?
 

You know that we look to you for Rodham esoterica.

Liberals - go figure
 

You are not going to get away with it this time. You have gone to far. You are through. Do you hear me? You're through.

Liberals - go figure
 

In my opinion the only legitimate government is one voted in by the people. That is not to say we should necessarily undermine it, but it is only legitimate if voted in by the people.


Yes - if you had been paying attention people were saying that the detainees in Gitmo were political prisoners.

Do you know the liberals on this board? They all seem to like him. He is the legitimate leader of Cuba and he is not a despot. And he has significant support in Cuba (how anyone would know this is beyond me).


I asked you if you agreed with this statement. "The system is highly flawed, but to say Castro is an illegitimate despot is patently ridiculous." You said you did. I think 'patently ridiculous is pretty close to absurd.


See above quote


You don't need to read the newspaper every day to know that Cuba is much more opressive than any other country in Latin America. It is the only one party state left in Latin America and the only government that openly admits that it jails dissidents (there may be some small insignificant island with less than a hundred thousand people that does this - but Cuba is definitely the only significant Country) You know very well that Venezuela, Brazil and Peru are much less oppresive than Cuba. The contest is not even close.


If Castro was a right wing dictator people on this board would be all over him. If he was a right wing dictator that had outlawed opposition partys, tortured political prisoners and had the only one party state in Latin America, you would be singing to the rafters about how awful he is. However, he is a left wing dictator so all of sudden you are not to sure if he runs the most opressive government. He is legitimate and is not a despot.

If you want to use the word as a synonym for "democratically elected," that is your right, but that's not what the word means.

In light of the story today that military prosecutors think the trials will be a sham perhaps that's right, but I still don't think you can equate the prisoners at Gitmo and those elsewhere in Cuba.

Eh? I don't think anyone particularly likes Castro. I think they're arguing with you for other reasons and on other grounds.

I think I said that Castro has some legitimacy, in the sense in which other people use the word, not in the sense in which you use the word.

I find it odd that you are talking to me as if (a) I disagree with you, and (b) I am three years old.

As I said, my observation that he has some legitimacy is positive, not normative. I.e., I'm not saying that it's a good thing, I'm just saying it is. Who on this board supports Castro? Why do you decide that people who disagree with you about policy must support foreign despots?

Posner
 

Hon. Richard Posner had a very interesting piece in the NYT Book Review yesterday discussing liberal and conservative complaints about the media, and their economic causes. I recommend it to y'all, especially while the NYT still lets you read it for free. I have said here some of the things Posner says, but not as well. There are a few statements that seem empirically wrong to me, but those are details.

What word - legitimate. Are you trying to tell me the is only one definition for legitimate?


When people are saying he is not a despot, he is legitimate, he has signficant support in Cuba, he has done a lot of wonderful things in Cuba. Call me crazy - but I call that if not support, sympathy.



The word was originally used on this board as meaning popular support.


When you say things incredibly stupid things like - "I'm really not qualified to answer that question. Fujimori was no ball of fun, but he's gone now. I hear Venezuela is not a groovy place to be. Brazil is oppressive if you're poor." Either you are a three year old or you are being disengenuine. To compare any of these governments to Castro is beyond absurd.



By definition if you did not support our invasion of Iraq you felt it was better to leave Saddam there. Therefore you supported keeping Saddam in power. You may have wanted Saddam to step down without our involvement, but your position was that we should leave Saddam in power.

Call me Webster.

I think you confuse other people's acceptance of reality with approval of it.

What's stupid about any of that? Bite me. I haven't traveled to Central or South America and am not particularly well informed about it. I named some other countries that have their unpleasant bits, but are not as bad as Cuba. So kiss my ass already.

By definition you do not seem to be able to think logically or express those thoughts in the English language. You could think Saddam sucks rocks, and yet think that an invasion would make things worse. This might lead you to support regime change by way of, e.g., funding the opposition to Hussein, but to oppose an invasion.

The hour is late and my temper is short. Good night.

fraudian slip?
 

The first dozen times I read this post I thought you had written "erotica", which brought me back to my the days of my youth when I would wax longingly about her decolletage, npi.

The next dozen or so times I read the post I scoured it for signs of editing.

Posner
 

Yes, ironically you were number 19 on my short-list. But for Posner, you coulda been a contender.

The liberals' stamina is questionable........no wonder you guys are so willing to cut and run in Iraq and leave the fate of tens of millions to the hands of fanatical oppressors.

FDR at Yalta-style.

Anyone?
 

She did claim the Children of america as "Her own special" mission, then she turned around and had one young boy snatched out of sunny florida and delivered into Cuba. Surely you are familar with the Catholic dogma that one owns the fruits of one's sins?

Liberals - go figure
 

I think Ty's pont will be that whatever Byrd says is fine, because he has support in his home state.

Anyone?
 

I'd call him a despot, but I don't know WTF illegitimate means in the context of the statement. Yeh, he grabbed power in a revolution. But that doesn't make him illegitimate. If it did, you could say Musharraf and the govt of Romania are also illegitimate. I'd call Castro a man who rose to power on a legitimate basis and then became a criminal dictator.

I think your definition of illegitimate is anyone who comes to power by overthrowing a US-friendly govt or who espouses a government which we do not like.

BTW, we're not "legitimate" rulers of Iraq. If you buy the pitch that we're "liberators," then what we did is exactly the same as what Castro did. He saw abject poverty and wealth disparity and "liberated" his people. Just like we think democracy is a perfect system which will liberate everyone, he thought Communism was the answer.

Now, wait... before you reply. Let me guess what you'll say. Oh, yes. "Democracy is freedom for all, and true liberation, while Communism is inherently evil and persecutes its subjeccts." Wrong. They're both just poli-societal systems. One seems to work better than the other, but both are designed and intended to make the best living conditions for the people living under them. That Communism hasn't turned out to be quite as successful in making its subjects happy as Democracy has been doesn't mean it is inherently evil.

Liberals - go figure
 

FWIW, this is why I never PM Ty anymore.

Anyone?
 

I'd like to see if you have the immoral weakness of bad character to look Elian in the face and feed him that gobbledeegook. Who is watering down your libations with the cheap liberal kool-aide?




http://sortakinda.com/images/elian.jpg

Have you ever taken a political geography class? You seem to think the US has the right - no, the obligation - to act as a star chamber, deciding for the world which despots and dictators get to stay in power.

Its unfashionable these days, but there is a thhing called international law. You seem to think we can act like a schoolyard bully and run some sort of Global Manifest Destiny policy (which is the Neocon's entire platform).*

We are not the World's policemen. We can't just destroy whatever doesn't appeal to our moral tastes. Your belief that we have a moral right to blow out states all over the place because they oppress their people is a modern repackaging of the Crusaders' mentality. I'm sure many European nations look at our system as persecuting millions of poor US citizens. If they were bigger than us, would they have the right to attack us to "liberate" us? Of course not.

You're totally ignoring international law. If we chuck the sovereignty of states, even a state run by a tin pot despot like Hussein, then we're saying "There is no intl law except 'might makes right.'" You do that and you're basically rolling back civilization a few hundred years.

*The neocons are not brilliant at all. Bill Kristol and Perle are uncreative hacks. A fucking four year old could come up with the idea of Global manifest Destiny. And a ten year old who studied Roman and British history for half a day could explain why such a policy is hopelessly naive and idiotic.

Anyone?
 

Most of your shtick is offering the heart wrenhcing exception to the rule. I'd like to live in your world. It must be interesting to see how you'd make macro policies based on micro concerns.

Sorry, Penske. Intl law is not predicated on the concerns of what might happen to one five year old kid someday. Sounds cruel, but its a big world we live in...

But you know this already. Your Elian claptrap is just more of your "be absurd" shtick.

Liberals - go figure
 

How can Ty claim to be the legitimate moderator here? Does he have popular support? I admit he "keeps the trains running on time," but at what cost?