Here we go again again with our PM.

[segnosaur]

3 hours ago, Rue said:

I respectfully disagree. Castro is loved by the Cuban people

How do you know they loved him? By the throngs of people who come to see him? Hard to say that's love when not turning out to see him will end up getting you in trouble.

From: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Dissident-Jailed-in-Cuba-For-Refusing-to-Mourn-Castros-Death-403684896.html

The daughter of a Cuban dissident says her father was beaten and taken to jail for refusing to mourn the death of Fidel Castro.

Yup, sounds like love to me.

Trying to judge how Cubans feel about Castro is not easy... being a dictatorship, discourse is routinely silenced, and anyone not seen as appropriately praising Castro could end up in trouble. Accurate polls giving details about how Cubans actually feel are rare, but here is one:

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/poll-shows-vast-majority-of-cubans-welcome-closer-ties-with-us/2015/04/08/6285bfe4-d8c3-11e4-bf0b-f648b95a6488_story.html?utm_term=.c448b9a34902

...the survey reveals deep national discontent. Fifty-five percent would like to leave the country... Nearly 8 in 10 are dissatisfied with the economic system... Fifty-eight percent give negative ratings to Cuba’s Communist Party, and 53 percent say they are dissatisfied with their political system... Fidel Castro — 50 percent view him negatively, compared with 44 percent giving him a positive response.

Certainly doesn't sound like widespread love of Castro, or of the political system he created.

Quote

Trudeau's father was a close friend. That's just fact.

Yes he was. The man who rightfully claimed that the "government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" was close friends with a dictator that had homosexuals rounded up and sent to "reeducation" camps.

All that it shows is that Trudeau's morality was flexible and he had the ability to compartmentalize.

Quote

He didn't say it in a partisan way...

He talked about how even his detractors believe he "loved the cuban people" (false by the way), and he talked about things like health care improvements without mentioning the problems. If you highlight all the good things and ignore the bad things, you are partisan.

Quote

... automatic assumption he can't say anything at  all or anything respectful because those who don't like Castro will be offened is with due respect thin skinned

There are people living here in Canada and the U.S. who have seen relatives jailed by Castro for being gay. Or because they said something the leader did not like. Others have been killed for similar offenses. Do you really think people like that are just being "thin skinned" because they think its wrong to praise someone who was responsible for that?

Quote

I disagree with a lot of what Trudeau does I get it,  but trying to censor him or tell him what he can say...no... come on you will survive.

Trudeau is an elected representative of the Canadian people, and as such what he says reflect on Canada in general.

Quote

Trudeau said very little-much ado about nothing. There's a lot of projection on Trudeau  as to what he meant or what he said or what he should not have said.

People are pretty sure exactly what he meant. They just think he was an idiot for saying it.

Quote

Interesting those saying Castro was against free speech are now so quick to try restrict what Trudeau can say....you see no irony in that?

Freedom of speech only involves restrictions enforced by the government. It says nothing about freedom of repercussions for that speech.

Under Castro, dissent was silenced. Trudeau was not in any way silenced. He has the right to say anything he wants (well, except for shouting Movie in a crowded firehouse or something similar.)... but the fact that he had the right to say stupid things doesn't necessarily mean that we don't have the right to criticize him for those stupid things.

Quote

When you look at the results, the actual results of what the people obtained in the Castro regime as opposed to what they would not have had he not done what he did, its undeniable his people came out ahead.

No, its not. Even under the corrupt Batista regime, Cubans had some of the best health care, and some of the highest incomes in the western world. Improvements may have been made, but they've been marginal compared to some of the improvements in other countries.

Quote

No they did not come out ahead on being able to buy modern cars, material items, but lifestyle-look at it carefully. What makes Castro's people worse off than us in Canada? Lack of TV's? Lack of empty rooms in theor homes that they don't use? Pollution?  Crime? What exactly?

Worse health care for one. Gay people rounded up and sent to prison camps. No freedom to criticize the leaders and choose ones that they might thing better represent their interests. (Some people consider that important.) Access to basic necessities of life.

And why exactly is having a decent income considered a bad thing? While having money itself isn't a guarantee of happiness, it does have benefits... allows people to travel, access to the media provides entertainment and information. More money can also mean a longer life. (There is only so far that a plucky doctor can do without more advanced diagnostic tools like MRIs, which are expensive pieces of machinery.)

Quote

What makes you think Cuban society is so much worse off than yours?

How about the fact that in the poll I referenced earlier, the majority of Cubans would prefer to leave Cuba.

Quote

I met people in Cuba. Sure I was watched.

And you don't think that's a bad thing? Heck, Snowden exposed the NSA for its snooping and people rightfully went nuts. What Cuba does is far in excess of what the NSA was doing.

Quote

Castro said in many interviews that he over controlled Cuba out of fear it would be corrupted with drugs, prostitution, organized crime. He openly stated in interviews to those calling him a brutal dictator that he was what he was warts and all because he considered Cuba his children.

First of all, Castro can claim anything he wants. He can claim that he was doing what he thought was best. That doesn't make it so. (And keep in mind that while Castro was claiming "cuba was his children", he also managed to amass a fortune, becoming one of the wealthiest leaders in South America.)

http://www.ibtimes.com/fidel-castro-net-worth-2016-how-cuban-leader-built-wealth-after-1959-revolution-2451623

Its ironic that someone like Harper gets condemned for his drug policies, yet you seem to be ok with Castro being even more authoritarian over some of the same issues.

Quote

I ain't glorifying the man but he was no Stalin. His tyranny was based on looking after the greater good of h is majority not his own personal needs that's the diff. between him and a Stalin, Hussein, Ghaddafi, Hitler, et al.

The fact that he was different than Stalin doesn't mean that we shouldn't view him negatively. After all, we can claim that Paul Bernardo was no Ted Bundy, but that doesn't necessarily make him "not evil". (And I'm sure that, had people like Hitler been interviewed, they'd probably make the same sort of "greater good" claim.)

As for  him supposedly "looking after the greater good"... once again, he can falsely claim that was his goal, but that doesn't make it so. And keep in mind that other countries (e.g. china, viet nam) have seen the plight of their people improve following economic reforms while Cuba remained relatively static.

So, Castro was either: 1) a lying despot, claiming to want to do things for the greater good while really only doing things for his own benefit, or 2) an incompetent leader, who may have won the revolution with the best of intentions but was unable to see how other countries had been improving and enact the same reforms himself.

Quote

You think our government doesn't hide bad news. You think Trudeau has been open and frank about the F18 Superh decision or the Refugee process or his pipeline decisions?

I'm sure they do, but eventually governments change, and accurate information eventually gets revealed.

The difference between what happens in Canada and Cuba is different by degrees of magnitude.

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by segnosaur

[Rue]

Seg thanks for the time taken in your response. Let me continue the debate saying thank you for taking the time to debate.

You said:

"Even under the corrupt Batista regime, Cubans had some of the best health care, and some of the highest incomes in the western world. Improvements may have been made, but they've been marginal compared to some of the improvements in other countries."

Sure you stated,  "some of the highest incomes in the western world".  SOME being the operative word.

If only  2% of their population or "some" Cubans were  abundantly wealthy while the rest were dirt poor, of course "some" would have high incomes.  

That said who exactly were these people with "some" of the highest incomes in the Western world?   I would love to know their names and their net worths and how they made their monehy. I would also love to see where you got your info on medical benefits under the Batista regime.

Here is an interesting article on Batista:

http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~jidoming/images/jid_batista.PDF

Ironically Batista was a dictator and a socialist at least so he claimed.  He led what as called the “Revolt of the Sargeants” in 1933, which was a military coup against the then dictator Gerardo Machado. Interestingly he led non-commissioned officers to defeat  Machado’s commissioned officers. Batista actually was supported by leftist students and unions. At first they chose the head of the University of Havana, Ramón Grau, to became the President to replace Machado but after only 100 days as President, Batista became the Cuban Army’s Chief of Staff, and then he immediately  pushed Grau out and put a puppet in, Carlos Mendieta. He lasted 2 years. Then in the next 4 years betwen 1936 and 1940 Cuba went through 3 Presidents, Barnet, Gomez, then Bru before Batista claimed electoral victory in 1940 and ran the country as its dictator until the revolution led by Castro et al in 58.

Batista was supported by a "Democratic Socialist Coalition"  when he was first elected.

You really want to defend this guy? Not me. He turned his country into a flop house. Marijuana, Cocaine, and other drugs were sold openly, alcohol flowed like water and prostitution  was wide spread. The Mafia owned the country. Batista was a flunkee for the mob. Meyer Lansky, had full control of the Cuban Casinos. Cubans were dirt poor. Where you get this idea they had great medical care or were living very well I don't know. A very limited rich elite lived very well.

It was a playground for the Mafia while most of the country was run by dirty cops and politicians. This is precisely why a revolution came about. If I had been a Cuban I would have fought to get rid of those corrupt bastards. No I wouldn't want a government controlled by the mob. 

Next about income. First off I have nothing against people making a good income  or living. I don't envy people with more money. They work hard, they deserve it. I  in fact made an argument about  social relativity and  I did not talk about income as you do to measure the difference in Western and Cuban societies. Income in the West creates bank notes. The value of the bank notes constantly changes. Its an illusion. Income is relative to what material it can obtain. Inflation as you do makes a mockery of paper wealth. That's why I challenge pissing on Cuba by saying they don't have as much income. Income is relative to what you need to make you happy. Gross or even net income doesn't  necessarily determine the quality of life. If I put you in say some small tropical Island where you had all he food and shelter you needed, money would not be as crucial to you. Would you still need a t.v.,, cell phone, car, huge house, hard to say. Maybe, maybe not and your perspective would slow down and change. I made a point that Cubans may not have the material goods we have in Canada or the US but your assuming they don't have income to buy a new tv, a car, a big house, all based on debt and leases and loans  may be how you value life, but not the way the average  Cuban does.

That brings me to the next comment you made. You engage in the argument through some poll and some articles you quote that..what....the million people who showed up to commemorate Castro were all threatened with death if they didn't show up and no one wants to be in Cuba? Sorry its not North Korea.

I've sat and gotten drunk on rum with Cubans in Havana and Trinidad, Cuba who told me from their hearts things were tough and yah the government could be tough but they had relatives in Miami and given the choice of a country with drugs, crime, unemployment like in the US or staying where they were wasn't really a choice. They preferred where they were. Hard as it is for you to believe they loved their simple homes. Sure to you they may be simple and not jammed with material goods but they were clean. Yah they would have liked toothpaste, aspirin, shampoo, toilet paper, milk, more food variety but that was caused by US embargos. The US thought it would cause Cubans to rise up against Castro. All it did was unify them even more.

The sources you quote  I don't take much stock in anymore the I swallow any commy propaganda wholesale.

Cuba is in many ways a sheltered country. Castro smothered it trying to protect it from corruption through a strong all-controlling centralized bureaucracy. For the most part withstood the corruption of the Batista and earlier regimes.

Raoul Castro is 85. He will die soon. No one knows who the next in line is within the Cuban political machine. Excuse me though if I don't evaluate it using cold war rhetoric. I see corporations controlling millions of North Americans. We work within their institutions and they control us no different than the commie parties do in China or Cuba. Its all relative.

Look I am grateful for what I have in Canada. Make no mistake. Totally grateful. I am not complaining but I don't look down at Cubans as victims, oppressed, or captured. Sorry. Been there done that. They may not have t.v.'s or cars but they have what counts, clean homes, sufficient food in everyone's stomach, access to doctors and dentists and school. The basics, the fundamental basics they have.

All I ask is you talk to Cubans.

A lot of Cuban Americans want to go back to Cuba and turn it into timeshares, casinos, fast food franchises-they have ideas. Who says that will make Cuba "better'?

We shall see what Cubans have to say about that.

One last thing-it is true gay  Cubans were and still are discriminated in Cuba. They are all across the West Indies.  Its not  particular to Cuba. Its all of the West Indies, Central and South America and I got news for you, its rampant in the US particularly in the Southern states. You ever try being gay in Georgia or Florida?  How about Canada? You think its safe for gays everywhere?  You think in smaller towns being openly gay won't get you beaten silly? I am no expert on gays, you'd have to speak to them but all I know is Canada exactly free of violence against gays. You do make a point though that it is two faced for Trudeau to champion gay rights and magically dettach from Cuba;s record on that. It was a good point.

Now one last thing. You missed the point I made about freedom of speech. 

Our government we vote for...but  our politicians are just as shrouded in layers of secrecy as any commie party official. Instead of communist party, we call it liberal party or conservative party. You vote outside your party's imposed line you get ex-communicated. You have to toe the party line no different then commies.

So? You think Trudeau or Harper consult with you because you voted an mp in?

Tell me, nitty gritty down and dirty what makes Trudeau different than Harper? They both have partisan patronage networks. They both do what is necessary to keep themselves and their cronies  in power. What makes you think they are more caring and accountable to Canadians than Castro and his party were?

True Trudeau won't arrest anyone like his father did under the War Measures Act but what is he doing for the mass suicide of aboriginal children up North any different than Harper?

See what I think is Castro would never have let his Cuban children commit mass suicide like our government is doing right now.

I do  know Castro dealt head on with drug addicts, prostitution, illiteracy by putting his people to work in fields. Yah it was hard and tough.

No in Canada we can't round up drug addicts, force them to collective farms, make them detox and work their poison out while learning to use their hands again to do tangible work that directly makes them believe again they can do something meaningful like they did in Cuba.

That's our world. We have the greatness of individual freedom which is a wonderful thing but it also for some is a nightmare-its all relative is what I am saying.

Look neither you or I want a police state right or left or like phoney leftist b.s.. We both cherish democracy. I can't argue to you Castro was all good, he wasn't and I do not mean to. Of course he wasn't.  I am just saying you might be a bit one sided in your analysis.

I am a middle of the roader, to the right of centre on economy to the left a tad on social benefits so I am pretty much a moderate Tory or Liberal. Robert Stanfield in many ways was more progressive than Trudeau. The difference between Diefenbaker and Pearson was simply Dief had more chins. Chretien and Mulroney no difference other than patronage networks. Harper? He barely was that different than Paul Martin. Trudeau? He's just a hot air balloon. The people handling him and calling the shots are doing only one thing different than the Tories and that is running his country into a huge debt we can't pay off.  What is he really? He believes in spending tax money he has yet to earn. Does that make him socialist, democratic, commie, whatever? Its just a name. No commie was ever a commie. They ended up being elitist dictators.

The closet I came to communism was working on a kibbutz in Israel. We shared all the chores and worked until we were tired and had shelter and food and I never saw an exchange of money. It works fine on a small scale. You get any bigger then that inevitably elites rule it and give themselves privileges.

I have no illusions as to freedom. Its relative. On one level, spiritually I can make myself as free as I want. On the material level, its all about taxes, loans, debts.

That's all I meant. Of course I should not glorify Cuba or Castro - bad stuff happened. I get you. Lol I don't expect you to wear a beret. It was hypocritical students embracing Che Guevara at one point not knowing how cold blooded he was. I get that.

I am telling you the baseball is as good as it gets in Cuba and I know boxing, grew up with Irish people. They taught me to box. Cuba has incredible boxers. Their gyms are full of champs that the US will never see because they choose to stay home and away from the mob that owns boxing in the US.  Their volley ball is super advanced as well.

I do not condone Cuba being used as a Soviet proxy in Africa which Castro was part of and led. Castro got into bed with the Soviets. They were just as imperialist as the US but Castro felt he had no choice. He really thought the US was Cuba's no.1 source of danger and maybe he was right. Maybe the corruption from the US, the mob, the drug pushers, the pimps, the time share sob's, the fast food franchises, maybe they are Cuba's biggest threat.

Raoul is 85. He's next. Me personally  I don't think flooding Cuba with casinos, time shares and fast food joints will make it free.

 

 

[segnosaur]

Just now, Rue said:

You said:

"Even under the corrupt Batista regime, Cubans had some of the best health care, and some of the highest incomes in the western world. Improvements may have been made, but they've been marginal compared to some of the improvements in other countries."

Sure you stated,  "some of the highest incomes in the western world".  SOME being the operative word.

That said who exactly were these people with "some" of the highest incomes in the Western world?   I would love to know their names and their net worths and how they made their monehy. I would also love to see where you got your info on medical benefits under the Batista regime.

 

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba#History

In the 1950s the number of doctors per thousand of the population ranked above Britain, France and the Netherlands. In Latin America it ranked in third place after Uruguay and Argentina...  According to the World Health Organization, the island had the lowest infant mortality rate of Latin America

Or how about from: http://econweb.umd.edu/~davis/eventpapers/CUBA.pdf

On the eve of the revolution, we find that incomes were fifty to sixty percent of European levels. They were among the highest in Latin America .. As best we can tell, current levels of income per capita are below their pre-revolutionary peaks.

Here is an interesting article on Batista:

You really want to defend this guy?

Nope, never claimed he was a good leader. Only that as bad as he was, Castro may have been worse.

Where you get this idea they had great medical care or were living very well I don't know. A very limited rich elite lived very well.

From, you know, actual references. You know, from universities. The world Health Organization. Places like that.

It was a playground for the Mafia while most of the country was run by dirty cops and politicians.

And now its a playground for thugs working under Castro, with the claim that they are working for the people, but in fact are often working to line their own pockets. Its not an improvement. At best its a lateral movie.

That brings me to the next comment you made. You engage in the argument through some poll and some articles you quote that..what....the million people who showed up to commemorate Castro were all threatened with death if they didn't show up and no one wants to be in Cuba? Sorry its not North Korea.

No, its not North Korea. Its Cuba. A country that has been run for decades by a man who has thrown dissidents in jail, and has killed thousands of its own citizens. Not sure why you think North Korea is the bar by which other countries should be measured.

The sources you quote  I don't take much stock in anymore the I swallow any commy propaganda wholesale.

You see, that's the problem... I've quoted reputable sources... universities, mainstream media, medical professionals. These are sources that should be respected. Its not like I'm quoting some right-wing gas-bags or anti-castro activists. The fact that you are rejecting them (for whatever reason) is a failure on your part to illustrate rational thought.

Cuba is in many ways a sheltered country. Castro smothered it trying to protect it from corruption through a strong all-controlling centralized bureaucracy.

No, he smothered it with the intent of making himself wealthy.

For the most part withstood the corruption of the Batista and earlier regimes.

I see corporations controlling millions of North Americans. We work within their institutions and they control us no different than the commie parties do in China or Cuba. Its all relative.

No, actually its quite a bit different. As big and powerful as Walmart or Ford is, I will not go to jail for saying "The Ford Focus Sucks" or "The Walmart happy face logo is creepy". And if I don't like what those companies are doing, I have the option of not purchasing from them. If I were in Cuba, I would not have the ability to crticize the government, nor avoid them in business dealings. So yes, the situation in Cuba is completely different than the situation involving North American companies.

I don't look down at Cubans as victims, oppressed, or captured.

Then you are a fool. Cubans are oppressed. 

Sorry. Been there done that. They may not have t.v.'s or cars but they have what counts, clean homes, sufficient food in everyone's stomach, access to doctors and dentists and school. The basics, the fundamental basics they have.

Yes, even the people who have been thrown in jail for criticizing the government have the basics! Free meals from the prison! A roof over their head and walls all around them! (Granted the walls have bars, but hey who's being picky!) 

Course there were thousands that were killled. But I'm sure in the time that they were alive they were quite happy with their clean homes and food, right before they were killed by Fidel's firing squads.

All I ask is you talk to Cubans

You know, there's a saying... The plural of "anecdotes" is not "data". I suggest you make an attempt to understand it..

You've made claims that you know what's happening in Cuba because you went there and talked to them. Well, how do you know that the people you were talking to were representative of Cubans in General? How do you know you just didn't happen to stumble on the few people who were happy? Or how do you know that the people you talked to actually felt comfortable talking to you about how they really felt?

That's why statistics are important. That's why looking at a survey giving people's low satisfaction with Fidel is more valuable than talking to a dozen people on vacation. 

One last thing-it is true gay  Cubans were and still are discriminated in Cuba. They are all across the West Indies.  Its not  particular to Cuba. Its all of the West Indies, Central and South America and I got news for you, its rampant in the US particularly in the Southern states. You ever try being gay in Georgia or Florida?  How about Canada? You think its safe for gays everywhere?

There is a difference between government oppression of homosexuals (What happened in the years following the Cuban revolution) and violence/discrimination caused by other citizens. The first cannot be corrected by legal means because the government is in charge. The second has legal remedies, given the various laws we have regarding assault, etc. 

Now one last thing. You missed the point I made about freedom of speech. 

Our government we vote for...but  our politicians are just as shrouded in layers of secrecy as any commie party official. Instead of communist party, we call it liberal party or conservative party. You vote outside your party's imposed line you get ex-communicated. You have to toe the party line no different then commies.

No, party members don't have to toe the party line. They always have the option of crossing the floor. Or the rank and file of a party can have a vote of non-confidence in the leader. Although those things don't happen often, they have occurred in Canada. In Cuba, such actions would likely result in jail or execution.

 

So? You think Trudeau or Harper consult with you because you voted an mp in?

No, but they should consider what the average Canadian will think before they make statements on behalf of Canadians. And if they foolishly gush all over a man who had thousands killed, we have the right to say "You're an idiot".

Tell me, nitty gritty down and dirty what makes Trudeau different than Harper? They both have partisan patronage networks. They both do what is necessary to keep themselves and their cronies  in power. What makes you think they are more caring and accountable to Canadians than Castro and his party were?

Because if they don't make at least some attempt to improve the lives of Canadians, they will get voted out of office in a later election. Castro had no such concerns.... he could make things worse for his people with no risk of loosing power.

True Trudeau won't arrest anyone like his father did under the War Measures Act but what is he doing for the mass suicide of aboriginal children up North any different than Harper?

See what I think is Castro would never have let his Cuban children commit mass suicide like our government is doing right now.

No, he'd kill them himself if he thought they were making him look bad. 

Seriously, Castro had thousands of people executed because they opposed him. Not sure why you think he's some paragon of virtue who cares so much for his people that he'd "never let children commit mass suicide". 

Look neither you or I want a police state right or left or like phoney leftist b.s.. We both cherish democracy. I can't argue to you Castro was all good, he wasn't and I do not mean to. Of course he wasn't.  I am just saying you might be a bit one sided in your analysis.

Did you ever stop to consider that the reason that I'm one-sided in my analysis is because the other side actually has no validity?

That's all I meant. Of course I should not glorify Cuba or Castro

Yet you seem to claim that Castro "loved his people".

 

I don't think flooding Cuba with casinos, time shares and fast food joints will make it free.

Oh no! People might be able to make decisions about their personal life that you don't agree with! The horrors!

 

[segnosaur]

Just now, Rue said:

 

Look I am grateful for what I have in Canada. Make no mistake. Totally grateful. I am not complaining but I don't look down at Cubans as victims, oppressed, or captured. Sorry. Been there done that. They may not have t.v.'s or cars but they have what counts, clean homes, sufficient food in everyone's stomach, access to doctors and dentists and school. The basics, the fundamental basics they have.

 

One little thing I wanted to add... (My previous posts had the quotes screwed up so I'll post the addition here.)

Does that "sufficient food" in everyone's stomach include cat?

From: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/millions-of-cubans-facing-starvation-hunger-is-fuelling-an-exodus-of-desperate-refugees-writes-phil-1417691.html

Under ever-tighter rationing... the poorest of Cubans began devouring the cat population last year. 

There's also this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15811770
A high malnutrition rate was observed among participating hospitals.

Oh, and how about: https://food-aid.org/cuba-receives-57024-meals-from-food-aid-international.html

The nation of Cuba has long been troubled by epidemic food shortages resulting in widespread hunger and malnutrition.

So it looks like Castro hasn't ensured that everyone has "sufficient food" in everyone's belly.

But at least he had his $billion dollars to console himself with. Glad to see Trudeau admit that everyone knew Castro loved the cuban people.

 

[betsy]

The problem with some folks who lean towards socialism.......

 

......................they romanticize the hard brutality of dictatorship, turning it into something preferable than the old "evil" capitalism.  

 

When you actually live in it (and you are not among the top elite who live way above the ordinary folks), perhaps your favorable opinion about it will be noted (provided you aren't just saying it under duress).

 

 

Another problem for those trying to maintain a balancing act with political correctness:  they end up sounding so naive. 

 

When you have to, you gotta call a spade a spade.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

Quote

The problem with some folks who lean towards socialism.............................they romanticize the hard brutality of dictatorship, turning it into something preferable than the old "evil" capitalism.  

I think you nailed something here, but not the point you were trying to make maybe.  Popular socialist uprisings come from a choice between two systems, one of which being a form of capitalism that doesn't really exist today.  Most governments saw an existential threat and initiated socialist-style reforms that are seen as a normal part of government now.  

Also, you really need to be specific these days when using terms like 'socialism' which can mean a lot of things.

Quote

Another problem for those trying to maintain a balancing act with political correctness:  they end up sounding so naive. 

This is another vague term.  'Political Correctness' came to the public view in a speech from George HW Bush as I recall.  He said ""The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits.""

The PMs admiration for this revolutionary is entirely a different subject than, say, trying to use language that respects LGBT people.

---

 

To take this back to the topic... Trudeau's statements and his (rare) unprepared comments at that press conference reveal a host of subtexts: Canadian nationalistic assertions under Pierre Elliot Trudeau, changing attitudes towards socialism and the cold war, liberal unease with authoritarian socialism, a young PM trying to fill his daddy's boots, and - yes, I agree - naive sounding statements that draw fire in the diplomatic arena.

 

 

[betsy]

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think you nailed something here, but not the point you were trying to make maybe.  Popular socialist uprisings come from a choice between two systems, one of which being a form of capitalism that doesn't really exist today.  Most governments saw an existential threat and initiated socialist-style reforms that are seen as a normal part of government now.  

Also, you really need to be specific these days when using terms like 'socialism' which can mean a lot of things.

This is another vague term.  'Political Correctness' came to the public view in a speech from George HW Bush as I recall.  He said ""The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits.""

The PMs admiration for this revolutionary is entirely a different subject than, say, trying to use language that respects LGBT people.

---

 

To take this back to the topic... Trudeau's statements and his (rare) unprepared comments at that press conference reveal a host of subtexts: Canadian nationalistic assertions under Pierre Elliot Trudeau, changing attitudes towards socialism and the cold war, liberal unease with authoritarian socialism, a young PM trying to fill his daddy's boots, and - yes, I agree - naive sounding statements that draw fire in the diplomatic arena.

 

 

 

Like I've said:  when you have to, you gotta call a spade a spade.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by betsy

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, betsy said:

The problem with some folks who lean towards socialism.......

......................they romanticize the hard brutality of dictatorship, turning it into something preferable than the old "evil" capitalism.

Why do right-wingers only qualify the communist dictatorships but never the capitalist ones? Are they ashamed of something or proud? Is one form really less preferable than the other and why? 

[betsy]

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Why do right-wingers only qualify the communist dictatorships but never the capitalist ones?

Could it be because the issue/topic is not about capitalism?

 

It's called, "FOCUS."   Refusing to rise to the bait or typical attempt at pathetic left-wing deflection.

Edited December 1, 2016 by betsy

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, betsy said:

Could it be because the issue/topic is not about capitalism?

Exactly, its about dictatorship.

Why would you prefer one type over another?

[segnosaur]

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Why do right-wingers only qualify the communist dictatorships but never the capitalist ones? Are they ashamed of something or proud? Is one form really less preferable than the other and why? 

A couple of things here...

First of all, you are assuming that only the communist dictatorships get criticized, but that is far from universal. Some people that you might consider "right wing" would likewise be willing to condemn right-wing dictatorships under similar circumstances.

Secondly, for better or worse, there tends to be a shorter shelf-life for right wing dictatorships. Heck, Pinochet had his little death squads, but amazingly he voluntarily gave up power. Meanwhile, Castro clung to his little socialist revolution, letting his people survive on cat meat and other luxuries long after Pinochet retired. Same with Nicaragua, Panama, etc.If I'm going to live under a brutal dictatorship, I'd rather it last for a short period of time rather than a long period.

Lastly, I think the nature of the support for the different dictatorships is important. When a left-winger praises Castro, they point to his "successes" in things like health care, suggesting the country is some sort of socialist utopia. (Its not... but its the lie that gets passed around.) On the other hand, a right winger may not see it as a case of the right wing dictatorship as being superior, but more as a necessary evil.

At least that's my opinion.

If someone wanted to criticize Harper for being too generous in his condolences to the King of Saudi Arabia, I'd probably agree that you have a point.

[cybercoma]

6 hours ago, betsy said:

they romanticize the hard brutality of dictatorship

You really need to look up strawman arguments. Because this is the stupidest thing I've ever seen anyone say. Socialists romanticize brutality. smdh.

I guess capitalists romanticize slave labour and foxcomm employees jumping off the roof of their factories then, right? 

Can we not discuss the issues without resorting to complete idiocy here?

Edited December 1, 2016 by cybercoma

[Omni]

On 11/29/2016 at 10:48 PM, poochy said:

Killed loits of people doing it, just curious, how many people is it ok to kill when enforcing your favored ideology, is there a precise number?  Yea yea, Batista was bad, now answer my question, while you are at it, how long should homosexuals be jailed for in such a regime?

Try asking sensible questions and they may get some consideration.

[segnosaur]

20 hours ago, Rue said:

They may not have t.v.'s or cars but they have what counts, clean homes, sufficient food in everyone's stomach, access to doctors and dentists and school. The basics, the fundamental basics they have.

Not sure if you're getting tired of being shown how wrong you are, but just in case you're not:

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/01/justin-trudeaus-claim-that-castro-made-significant-improvements-to-cuban-health-care-and-education/?utm_term=.0d163bb8358f

...per capita consumption of calories in Cuba was 2,730 in the mid-1950s — and 2,357 in 1996. Meanwhile, other countries in the region saw an improvement; for example, Mexico went from 2,420 to 3,137 calories. In other words, Cuba declined about 13 percent, while Mexico gained almost 30 percent.

So much for your argument about people having "sufficient food".

And what about that access to doctors? I've already pointed out that prior to Castro, Cuba had more doctors per-capita than even many western nations.

From the same article:

...when Castro became ill in 2006, a specialist arrived from Spain to treat him,

Wait, what? I thought all Cubans had equal access to doctors.

...pharmacies stock very little and antibiotics are available only on the black market.

So you can see a doctor, but he can't do anything to help your pneumonia. Do you consider basic medication to be one of the "fundamental basics"?

[poochy]

4 hours ago, Omni said:

Try asking sensible questions and they may get some consideration.

So there is no limit then, kill as many as you like so long as the ideology is one you prefer, thanks for the answer.

[Rue]

On ‎2016‎-‎12‎-‎01 at 7:32 PM, segnosaur said:

Not sure if you're getting tired of being shown how wrong you are, but just in case you're not:

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/01/justin-trudeaus-claim-that-castro-made-significant-improvements-to-cuban-health-care-and-education/?utm_term=.0d163bb8358f

...per capita consumption of calories in Cuba was 2,730 in the mid-1950s — and 2,357 in 1996. Meanwhile, other countries in the region saw an improvement; for example, Mexico went from 2,420 to 3,137 calories. In other words, Cuba declined about 13 percent, while Mexico gained almost 30 percent.

So much for your argument about people having "sufficient food".

And what about that access to doctors? I've already pointed out that prior to Castro, Cuba had more doctors per-capita than even many western nations.

From the same article:

...when Castro became ill in 2006, a specialist arrived from Spain to treat him,

Wait, what? I thought all Cubans had equal access to doctors.

...pharmacies stock very little and antibiotics are available only on the black market.

So you can see a doctor, but he can't do anything to help your pneumonia. Do you consider basic medication to be one of the "fundamental basics"?

Seg when it comes to discussing the pro's and con's of the Castro regime you choose to only focus on the cons. The fact you use a termw ith me like "how wrong you are"shows you believe when discussing his record, there is "right" and "wrong". When I discuss a political regime I see no rights or wrongs. Invariably there are those opposed to the regime and those for it and the truth as to the actual regime's record is somewhere in the middle.

Now you make a lot of comments and positions but not much that would have me piss on Castro like you do. To start with your attempt to defend Batista's record and sugest people were better off under him especially medical is patently false. Next since when does food calories alone define whether people have sufficient food to eat?

Since when does having more food calories alone allow anyone to infer it means people are eating better? What a ridiculous thing to say. In fact poor people tend to have lots of calories but calories in high processed fat food or food with too much sugar. Look in Canada. Calories are not the issue, lack of fresh fruit, vegetables and a varied diet is.

Canada's poor have record rates of diabetes, heart disease, and specific types of cancer related to poor diets. Do I really have to tell you counting calories alone is not the way to define if people are eating properly?

Really?

Now your attempt to suggest I am wrong, well I have no idea why you think I would be wrong or right? All I have done is challenge some of your biases. I haven't given a blanket endorsement of Castro or worshipped him but unlike you I try look at his legacy in a balanced manner.

To start with he inherited a corrupt regime where there was no wealth creation or distribution other than for an elite 2% serving the mafia. He came in seeking to enable fairer distribution of the country's income making activities.

When he came in the majority of Cubans could not read or write. He achieved almost 100% literacy, higher than the US and far higher than many wealth capitalist countries. In fact its universal access too education and health under Castro is as good as any nation.

Cuba is not the US. When compared to country's of the same populations ize in Latin America like Bolivia, El Salvador  and Columbia it does not have the uneven extremes in income level between the elite 2-3% and the masses at or below the poverty line. Its done away with the extremes. No of course its not the US or many capitalist regimes precisely because  it didn't set down rules where certain people only get rich instead it implemented egalitarian policies. So yes there are no wealthy people with fancy cars and t.v.'s or huge mansions and by the way Che Guevara practiced what he preached and did not live in an opulent home and for that matter neither did Castro.

No its not Haiti or the Dominican Republic where capitalism has done nothing for the people.

Your statistics are selective. Under Castro under Batista in 1958 half of Cuba;s children did not go to school. By 1970 UNESCO declared Cuba as having the highest primary and secondary school enrolment in Latin America.

State led economies or economies totally controlled by the state are not healthy. No one argues it is. For any economy to really thrive, it can't only be created by government initiative. I have never argued otherwise. What I have argued however is that simply writing off Castro as a commie is pointless.

What we do know is that in China the Communist Party broke away from strict Communist party centralized controls to allowing individuals to spear head economic activity.

China today is not Mao's China but have its people done better? There is now a middle class. There is now again an upper class but is the economy being fairly re-routed back to the people or coagulating into the hands of a few and not being reinvested in the country?

If the US brand of capitalism is as great as you say it is good for you. I say its poor are real, they exist and they would fare better under Castro then they have Reagan or Bush or now Trump or Clinton.

Is socialism completely bad? No. Not for me. Medicare is important to me. I want it, I appreciate it. I believe Canada has tried its best to balance government initiated programs (social, collectivist) with individual/capitalist like approaches. For me its a balancing act not one extreme or the other.

Raoul Castro is slowly trying to loosen the grip on total government control over the economy but do give me a break suggesting the world is a fre market place for Latin America, South America, the West Indies. The IMF serves as the proxy agent controlling them all. Yes Castro is trying to seek to implement small businesses.

Whether notable economic benefits will come to Cuba's people by transferring   public to  private sector its economic activities remains to be seen.

What you seem oblivious to is that Cuba most certainly has a social psychological profile and cultural that does not reject collectivist principles as you do.

Cuban youth like all world youth has access to the cell phone and the cultural values broadcast through it.  They are no more immune to the Hip Hop MacDaonald's Coca Cola virus than any other youth in the word. Cuba like other controlled environments, such as the Muslim world of the Middle East or China or India finds its youth demanding individual freedoms.

Change if it comes too fast can't be adjusted to. What now Castro is dead should it simplyswing back open the doors to the Mafia and their casino hotels and, fast food franchises because you say so? In Cuba hotels were built. The difference was 50% of the wealth they made was given to the state. The state then took that money and built apartments for the hotel workers. Maybe in your world that's evil but in Cuba it put shelters over the heads of workers who once were paid very little and lived in shanties.

Maybe going to school or having access to medical doctors is something you take for granted but Cubans did not have it.

The fact is Castro eradicated the kind of poverty that existed under Batista and replaced it with a society where there was an egalitarian concept that did sacrifice individuality and creativity on a certain level for it yes.

There's nothing romantic about saying Cuba under Castro took care of its poor and still does. Yes according to one perspective you Seg would argue its people make subsistence level wages.  What you won't concede however is that compared to the rest of South and Latin-Central America, those alleged "meagre" salaries are ALSO supported by free education, medical care, housing and partially subsidized food.

I do note you did not mention that according tot he Human Development Report's (HPI) human poverty index, which analyzes the proportion of people below the threshold level of basic human development including life duration and healthy life style, access to education and standard of living, Cuba ranked no.5 in Latin America and the Caribbean in 2003, and remains there.

Cuba is trying to diversify its economy.  in 2014 it started to initiate reforms. It passed a lot that state owned companies could use 50% of their profits after tax to make their own non government directed investments. This is an initial step in having them eventually detach completely from the government and set their own income generating projects..

The fact is sugar which was one if its chief exports fell from 8 million tons in 1989 to 1 million tons by 2009 because of government mismanagement which caused 100,000 lay offs. That hurt its people.

One of its most important income generating activities is tourism as is the case across the West Indies. In 2010, 2.53 million tourists generated 2.4 billion for Cuba because of its policy to hotels that for every two dollars the hotel makes, one dollar is given to Cuba.

Cuba is one of the world's leader's in exporting nickel. In 2009 it made $870 million from nickel exports. It doesn't just export cigars, rum and sugar. It also because of developments in Castro's superior education system now able to export pharmaceutical and biotech products that were worth  between $300 and $350 million in 2007-2008 and jumped to $520 million in 2009.

So you know Seg you can quote all the polls you want but who you kidding, you won't ever acknowledge anything positive Cuba is doing.

Its no.1 export you even know what it is? Its doctors to third world countries.

Finally let me deal directly with your distorted take on calorie consumption. Please go to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake

Cuba ranks 22 in the entire world.

What you don't discuss is how much of the food shortages in Cuba were in fact caused by US imposed embargos.

In Cuba yes you register with a local supply store and you are given a ration book called a libreta. You get about 10 kgs (22lbs) of rice, 6 kgs of white sugar, s kg of brown suar, 250 millilitres of cooking oil (l cup), 5 eggs and a pocket of coffee per person per month, 2 kgs of meat (mostly chicken) every 10 days, a bun a day, and a bag of salt every 3 months. Only pregnant women and children under 7 get milk.

Sure compared to what people eat in Canada or the US that's pittance. Yes Cubans have to line up. Yes they have to go to different places when one place empties of its produce. Yes its hard to find eggs.

Yes beef and pork are often too costly for the average Cuban.

You can buy things in either Pesos or the CUC (convertible unit of currency) or American dollars traded for both although that's illegal.

A kilo of milk powder is a third of a month's salary, a steak dinner half a month's salary.

Sure there are always shortages.

Its why hotel workers eat the left overs tourists don't eat before they go home. Yes.

Now you want to blame Castro for that. Tell me did the 1960 US embargo forced on Cuba to cause these food shortages do what it was supposed to? The people were supposed to riot for food and depose of Castro. Instead it unified them. They saw the US as a bully. You really think embargoing milk and aspirin caused its people to turn on Castro? What world do you live in where you believe if you try starve people collectively they support you. The British did it to the Irish, the Romans to the Jews, The Russians to th e Ukrainians, did it work? Well? You think people starved embrace the people starving them as theUS governments thought?

Inefficient farming had something to do with Cuba's problems yes certainly. So did this embargo. So did the collapse of the Soviet Union and the predatory pricing schemes of China who Cuba turned to.

To conclude Cuba is no utopia. I never said it was. Castro was not Moses or Jesus or Joan of Arc. No. But he did what he did to try lift his people from what he saw was an unfair system.

I don't glorify him. No one should. That brings us back to Trudeau. Yah people think his father was too close to him. Trudeau Sr,. was an arm chair socialist, a sheltered rich boy who lived vicariously through revolutionaries like Mao and Castro. Trudeau was an affluent rich boy brought up on a trust fund, insulated from the real world where there were limits. He motorcycled around during WW2 wearing a Nazi war helmet. He marched picket lines wearing fancy clothes and  cashmere sweaters tied around his neck. He was a rich boy slumming it up. Now Justin does. I get that.

However fair is far. Justin Trudeau did not glorify him or say anything inappropriate and people who want to embrace cold war rhetoric, be my guest but I don't evaluate Castro using 1950's cold war rhetoric.

I live in a world where BOTH capitalism and so called socialism or communism or whatever you want to call it, they have all failed one way or the other.

The bottom line is too much government control or too little government control of economy causes problems.

There is no such thing as a 100% free market which the myth of capitalism is built on. If Canada did not have the banking regulations it did, we would have gone through as bad if not worse a mortgage melt down as they did in the US. Medicare excuse me but I fully support it.

I believe in a balance between he left and the right. I believe in the dynamic tension between the two just as I do in the dynamic tension between federal and provincial politics.

I don't see things as black or white, wrong or right, I do see a lot of greyish mud in between. I see a constantly moving pendulum. I don't think you see one. I think you see WWE wrestlers and some commie character of Castro no different then we once had The Shiek or other one dimensional bad guys. Hell even the WWE had to update its scripts to acknowledge good and bad are in the same character now.

If Vince McMahon could except that maybe you should.

Regards

Rowdy Roddy Rue

 

 

 

[segnosaur]

On 12/2/2016 at 8:26 PM, Rue said:

Seg when it comes to discussing the pro's and con's of the Castro regime you choose to only focus on the cons. The fact you use a termw ith me like "how wrong you are"shows you believe when discussing his record, there is "right" and "wrong". When I discuss a political regime I see no rights or wrongs.

 

The reason that I only discus the 'cons' of the Castro regime is because there aren't really that many serious 'pros' to discuss. Anything you've held up as a 'pro' has been shown to be false... that "people are happy", that they "have food and health care".

Anything that you've pointed out as a pro is either completely incorrect, something that Castro didn't actually do well (even if he didn't mess it up), or overshadowed by problems.

At the risk of Godwinning this thread, by your logic we couldn't even condemn Nazi Germany, or Italy during WW2 because "Hey the facists made the trains run on time so not everything was bad".)

To start with your attempt to defend Batista's record...

I'm not defending Batista's record. What I'm doing is pointing out how he wasn't worse than Castro.

Its like comparing Malaria (Batista) with Ebola (Castro). Both of them are horrible, I wouldn't want either one. The fact that I'm saying Malaria is not as bad as Ebola doesn't mean I'm defending Malaria, its just pointing out that Ebola is just worse.

...and sugest people were better off under him especially medical is patently false.

Ummm... I posted a reference that showed that prior to the revolution, the number of doctors per person and infant mortality rates were among the best in the region. And unlike today, the medical system had access to basic supplies like antibiotics. Now, things like antibiotics are unavailable, patients often have to supply their own bedding, and patients often suffer malnutrition during their stay.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/01/justin-trudeaus-claim-that-castro-made-significant-improvements-to-cuban-health-care-and-education/?utm_term=.ca53f03f4438

Yeah, sounds like such a wonderful health care system under Castro.

Next since when does food calories alone define whether people have sufficient food to eat?

Its not the only measure but it is significant. And its fairly easy to measure.

# of calories /day cubans had pre-revolution: 2730

# calories mid-90s: 2357

Canada recommends that an adult male should have between 2500-3000 calories/day (depending on activity). Having fewer Calories than required means an individual becomes sluggish, muscles are often canibalized,

Now, I could have pointed to other factors... For example, did you know that parts of Cuba have problems with Anemia, caused in part by not having enough meat in the diet?

Now your attempt to suggest I am wrong

I'm not suggesting you're wrong... I'm stating it outright, along with evidence.

All I have done is challenge some of your biases.

All you've done is that, when presented with actual hard evidence (such as incomes or health care before the revolution, and similar information after the revolution) launch into some bizarre irrelevancies. "Hey kids eat junk food in Canada so its equivalent to thousands of Cubans starving to death!" (No, no its not.)

I haven't given a blanket endorsement of Castro or worshipped him but unlike you I try look at his legacy in a balanced manner.

Actually no you haven't. When I pointed out that his "success" with health care was over-rated, you claimed I was wrong (without any evidence). When I pointed out that there were significant problems with food under Castro, you jumped in and suggested that "food wasn't everything".

To start with he inherited a corrupt regime where there was no wealth creation or distribution other than for an elite 2% serving the mafia. He came in seeking to enable fairer distribution of the country's income making activities.

He took over a corrupt regime... and replaced it with one that was just as corrupt, if not more so.

When he came in the majority of Cubans could not read or write. He achieved almost 100% literacy, higher than the US and far higher than many wealth capitalist countries.

Cuba literacy early 1950s: 76%. Literacy rate 1995: 96%. Rise: 19%

Want to brag about that? Well, in the same time period, Columbia's literacy rate went up by around 30% (to 91%). While their literacy rate in 1995 wasn't as high, they were also starting from a much lower rate. The Dominican Republic went up by 39% in the same period.

And while Chile's literacy rate is currently 97%, they are managing to maintain that rate (and they've transition to a democracy in the 1990s.) I wonder what people would prefer... a high literacy rate and a brutal dictatorship that keeps you from reading anything the government disagrees with, or an almost as high literacy rate but one that allows you a significant amount of free speech.

[quote[Cuba is not the US. When compared to country's of the same populations ize in Latin America like Bolivia, El Salvador  and Columbia it does not have the uneven extremes in income level between the elite 2-3% and the masses at or below the poverty line. Its done away with the extremes.[/quote]

Actually no it hasn't. Its just that in Cuba, the "extremes" are between the ruling elite (Castro is extremely wealthy) and the poor, rather than the business class and the poor.

No of course its not the US or many capitalist regimes precisely because  it didn't set down rules where certain people only get rich instead it implemented egalitarian policies.

Actually those rules allowed Castro et al to become very rich.

Oh, and by the way, while you may decry the idea of a "wealthy" minority, keep in mind that such a system is not any better if the regular person is dirt poor. Yes, the U.S. does have their 1%ers (and I have no problem if the government decided to increase taxes on them), but I have never heard of even the poorest in the U.S. being forced to eat cats on a regular basis, as they have in Cuba.

So yes there are no wealthy people with fancy cars and t.v.'s or huge mansions and by the way Che Guevara practiced what he preached and did not live in an opulent home and for that matter neither did Castro.

Ahem... Bull.

From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/keithflamer/2016/11/26/10-surprises-about-castros-extravagant-life/#75e3f1f47302

A decade ago, Forbes estimated Fidel Castro’s personal net worth at $900 million....  Luxurious living arrangements were especially appealing to Castro. .. retired to the gated community “Punto Cero” (Point Zero), his top-secret 75-acre suburban Havana home

State led economies or economies totally controlled by the state are not healthy. No one argues it is. For any economy to really thrive, it can't only be created by government initiative. I have never argued otherwise.

Yet when I point out that people don't have enough food to eat and that their heath care system may not be as good as claimed, you seem to argue against it.

What we do know is that in China the Communist Party broke away from strict Communist party centralized controls to allowing individuals to spear head economic activity. China today is not Mao's China but have its people done better? There is now a middle class. There is now again an upper class but is the economy being fairly re-routed back to the people or coagulating into the hands of a few and not being reinvested in the country?

Yup. Thanks to economic reforms, China's poverty rate fell from 88% in the early 1980s to 6.5% in 2012. Pretty good don't you think? We're talking people going from situations where they may not have enough food to eat on a daily basis to having a stable food supply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China

If the US brand of capitalism is as great as you say it is good for you. I say its poor are real, they exist and they would fare better under Castro then they have Reagan or Bush or now Trump or Clinton.

Not really. As I pointed out, people under Castro were forced to eat house cats to survive. In the U.S,? Not so much. Yes, poor people exist. But even the poorest person usually has access to things like welfare, medicare, etc.

Cuban youth like all world youth has access to the cell phone and the cultural values broadcast through it.

Actually, only around 11% of all cubans have cell phones (2011 numbers).

http://www.ibtimes.com/cuba-technology-development-cell-phones-internet-remain-rare-island-stuck-past-1913349

Change if it comes too fast can't be adjusted to. What now Castro is dead should it simplyswing back open the doors to the Mafia and their casino hotels and, fast food franchises because you say so?

People should have the right to go to Casinos or fast food restaurants if they choose to. Whether you agree with it or not, it should not be your choice (or Castro's) to make.

As for your continual references to "the mafia", as I pointed out, Castro has his own class of thugs that are just as brutal as the mafia.

Maybe going to school or having access to medical doctors is something you take for granted but Cubans did not have it.

Already gave a reference showing Cuba had one of the highest number of doctors per capita in the region.

The fact is Castro eradicated the kind of poverty that existed under Batista and replaced it with a society where there was an egalitarian concept that did sacrifice individuality and creativity on a certain level for it yes.

What he did was replaced a system where some were wealthy and some were poor, with one where HE and his buddies were wealthy, and everyone one else was even poorer than they were before.

There's nothing romantic about saying Cuba under Castro took care of its poor and still does.

Its not romantic... its just plain wrong. I've already given figures giving wages pre- and post-revolution. Castro is not "taking care of its poor".

Cuba is trying to diversify its economy.  in 2014 it started to initiate reforms.

Why didn't Castro initiate those reforms decades ago, when China started?

So you know Seg you can quote all the polls you want but who you kidding, you won't ever acknowledge anything positive Cuba is doing.

Well, they have certainly taken care of the population of Cats on the island.

Finally let me deal directly with your distorted take on calorie consumption. Please go to :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake

Ok, lets consider that, shall we? The figures in that link were from 2006-2008. The ones I counted earlier were from the 1990s.

So, what could the reason be for the difference? Simple... foreign aid.

From: https://www.devex.com/news/un-plans-to-send-food-aid-to-cuba-45920 ($3.7million in 2005 from World Food Program)

From: http://reliefweb.int/report/cuba/wfp-appeals-emergency-food-aid-615000-victims-el-niño-induced-drought-eastern-cuba ($20 million in 1998 from the World Food Program)

From: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/12/23/better-economic-relations-with-cuba-could-be-a-win-win (References food aid started under Bill Clinton)

Yeah, that sounds great... Castro was such a great leader my making Cuba so pathetic that other countries are giving food to feed his people.

What you don't discuss is how much of the food shortages in Cuba were in fact caused by US imposed embargos.

Why would we need to discuss that? Yes, there was a U.S. embargo (although that didn't mean they couldn't sell food and medical supplies, albeit with a bit of paperwork). But you know what? There was over a hundred countries that Cuba could have traded with to provide the food they needed. But they didn't. Why? Because their economy was in shambles thanks to Castro and didn't really have anything to trade.

Yes beef and pork are often too costly for the average Cuban.

Cats are cheap.

You can buy things in either Pesos or the CUC (convertible unit of currency) or American dollars traded for both although that's illegal. A kilo of milk powder is a third of a month's salary, a steak dinner half a month's salary. Sure there are always shortages.Its why hotel workers eat the left overs tourists don't eat before they go home. Yes.

Wait a sec... earlier in the thread you were bragging about how people there were happy because they had "food to eat"... now you're saying they are more or less eating leftovers?

Now you want to blame Castro for that. Tell me did the 1960 US embargo forced on Cuba to cause these food shortages do what it was supposed to?

The embargo didn't cause the food shortages. Poor management by Castro did. There are over a hundred different countries with which Castro could have traded. Heck, after a decade or 2 he could have said "I'm done being a dictator. Democracy for all!" (much like Pinochet did). But he didn't. He stayed around until the very end.

The people were supposed to riot for food and depose of Castro. Instead it unified them. They saw the US as a bully.

Independent polls show that most people dislike the government and Castro.

To conclude Cuba is no utopia. I never said it was. Castro was not Moses or Jesus or Joan of Arc. No. But he did what he did to try lift his people from what he saw was an unfair system.

What he did was try to replace one brutal dictatorship with one that was even more brutal.

However fair is far. Justin Trudeau did not glorify him or say anything inappropriate and people who want to embrace cold war rhetoric, be my guest but I don't evaluate Castro using 1950's cold war rhetoric.

This is not 'cold war rhetoric'. This is people getting annoyed by someone glorifying a dictator by heaping praise on him while ignoring the brutal things he did.

 

[PIK]

Cuba had great education, so what. What could they do with it, not so much. Cant leave to work somewhere elkse unless you are in the inner circle and there is so many jobs available in Cuba.

[Rue]

On ‎2016‎-‎12‎-‎05 at 5:48 PM, segnosaur said:

At the risk of Godwinning this thread, by your logic we couldn't even condemn Nazi Germany, or Italy during WW2 because "Hey the facists made the trains run on time so not everything was bad".)

Yet when I point out that people don't have enough food to eat and that their heath care system may not be as good as claimed, you seem to argue against it.

Not really. As I pointed out, people under Castro were forced to eat house cats to survive. In the U.S,? Not so much. Yes, poor people exist. But even the poorest person usually has access to things like welfare, medicare, etc.

Actually, only around 11% of all cubans have cell phones (2011 numbers).

People should have the right to go to Casinos or fast food restaurants if they choose to. Whether you agree with it or not, it should not be your choice (or Castro's) to make.

As for your continual references to "the mafia", as I pointed out, Castro has his own class of thugs that are just as brutal as the m

 

Wait a sec... earlier in the thread you were bragging about how people there were happy because they had "food to eat"... now you're saying they are more or less eating leftovers?

The embargo didn't cause the food shortages. Poor management by Castro did. There are over a hundred different countries with which Castro could have traded. Heck, after a decade or 2 he could have said "I'm done being a dictator. Democracy for all!" (much like Pinochet did). But he didn't. He stayed around until the very end.

Independent polls show that most people dislike the government and Castro.

 

 

 

I did not have a chance to respond to your comments about Castro. I lost track of how many subjective opinion statements without proof you posed as facts and the misrepresentations as to the points I made. I will try clarify a few of your areas of confusion.

You stated: " At the risk of Godwinning this thread, by your logic we couldn't even condemn Nazi Germany, or Italy during WW2 because "Hey the facists made the trains run on time so not everything was bad".)"

Your above comment makes no sense. It in fact is your opinion as to what I am arguing about Castro presented as mine. You believe since I am trying to present another view about Castro other than yours I am a supporter of Mussolini and Hitler. Its interesting because you project your views onto me and present them as my own and they don't even make sense. The facf I have presented the comments I have made on Castro does not mean I support Hitler or Mussolini, or for that matter Satan or anyone else you loath.

Next you have totally misrepresented my views on food and calorie intake in Cuba. What I have shown is that your simply taking calories as a sign of health is wrong. You also confuse and do not understand the difference between my showing that lack of choice and limits on food is very true, but lack of variety and starvation is something different.

You not I have made comments to suggest Cubans eat cats and were starving and you even make the ridiculous statement that and I quote "not much so in the US".

What world do you live in where you suggest people are not hungry in the US and not eating properly?

There is another side of the story you won't  even consider:

http://www.iammyownreporter.com/misconceptions.htm

https://www.wfp.org/countries/cuba

https://youthandeldersja.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/unicef-cuba-has-0-child-malnutrition/

Your sweeping statement the US embargo did not harm Cubans only its own mismanagement did is the kind of one sided statement I challenge:

http://medicc.org/ns/documents/The_impact_of_the_U.S._Embargo_on_Health_&_Nutrition_in_Cuba.pdf

Now if you think not having cell phones makes one a victim of communism knock yourself out.

If you think because I find your one sided arguments to be inaccurate a blanket endorsement of communism knock yourself out.

What I have shown is there is more than one side to the positions you present.

So you want to refer to all the articles he was rich and lived lavishly, sufe but there is another side as well:

https://amte.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/is-fidel-castro-one-of-the-richest-men-in-the-world/

Back to the thread, Trudeau I suppose in your world should have called him names.

By t he way I love discussions about Cuba and Cubans that can't differentiate them from Castro.

I also like people who think the US doesn't have anyone eating cats:

http://www.worldhunger.org/hunger-in-america-2015-united-states-hunger-and-poverty-facts/

http://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/5-facts-about-hunger-in-america

https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-hunger-us

Here is a summary of what I presented:

http://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-cuba/

 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2016 by Rue

[Derek 2.0]

Honeymoon over:

 

 

Quote

 

A new Forum Research poll conducted at the beginning of the week shows the Liberals dropped from 51 per cent a month ago to 42 per cent nationally.

 

 

Much of the erosion for the federal Liberals appears to have come in B.C. and Ontario, where the Liberals and the Conservatives find themselves nearly tied for support.

 

 

In the past month, the Conservatives’ national approval rating under interim leader Rona Ambrose ticked up to 34 per cent from 28. That narrows a recent gap between the Liberals and the Conservatives — who do not yet have a permanent replacement for Stephen Harper — from 23 percentage points to just eight points.

 

 

There was no significant change for the New Democratic Party, which stands stalled at 12 per cent, nor for the Greens at 6 or the Bloc Québécois at 5 per cent.

 

 

 

 

Not surprised he tanked in BC, but Ontario is surprising........likewise the NDP and Greens did not receive a bounce over the pipelines.......and that Ambrose is on the heels of Trudeau, I don't think its so much Ambrose (though I think she is capable and doing a better job then what most running for the leadership would do), but people are getting fed up with Trudeau....one year in, with a placeholder Opposition............I think if O'Leary runs, Trudeau is toast in 2019......but with the current field, they will need help in the form of more scandals and poor economic performance.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

double tap

Edited December 10, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[Smallc]

You also thought the Trudeau didn't have a chance last time.

I wouldn't expect any party to hold at 50% forever.

[Derek 2.0]

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

You also thought the Trudeau didn't have a chance last time.

I wouldn't expect any party to hold at 50% forever.

I expected him to drop once the Tories and NDP selected new leaders, then closer to the next election........but a drop of near 10 points in one month, after being in office for only a year, is huge.......The Harper government didn't even drop that much when they lost their majority Government.......and Trudeau has only just started pissing the electorate off.

[Smallc]

The Harper government didn't ever have that kind of support, outside of the 2008 parliamentary crisis.  Trudeau himself still has an approval rating of over 50%.  It's also worth noting that this is only one poll.  We'll need more to actually understand what if any change is happening.

[Derek 2.0]

3 minutes ago, Smallc said:

The Harper government didn't ever have that kind of support,

Harper never dropped that amount of support inside one month.

 

3 minutes ago, Smallc said:

It's also worth noting that this is only one poll.  We'll need more to actually understand what if any change is happening.

 

I agree, that's why I said I'm surprised by the numbers themselves, no gain for the NDP/Greens, Ambrose closing the gap with Trudeau and a loss of support in Ontario.....if true, and we can be certain other polls will be commissioned soon, this is really bad news for this government.