Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

[sgtclub]

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

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

[Spanky]

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

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.

[Penske_Account]

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

Does Hillary have property in Cuba?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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.

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.

OK. Did someone say otherwise?

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.

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

Yet I call him illegitimate and that is called absurd?

Who said it was absurd?

I call him a despot and that is called absurd?

Did I say that? I missed it.

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'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.

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

Again, not sure what you're talking about.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Does Hillary have property in Cuba?

You know that we look to you for Rodham esoterica.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint
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.

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK. Did someone say otherwise?

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

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I don't know. The liberals I know don't care for him. Not sure whom you've been talking to.

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).

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who said it was absurd?

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.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did I say that? I missed it.

See above quote

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Again, not sure what you're talking about.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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 (they 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.

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

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.

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?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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

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.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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

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

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.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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?

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

Call me Webster.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You know that we look to you for Rodham esoterica.

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.