Making Baby Jesus Cry - Page 29

Spanky · 08-01-2005, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dtb
HA! If there's anyone on this forum who has a personal reason to hate Castro, I am that person. (I know you're kidding NB.) There are obviously plenty of reasons to think communism is a failure, my personal situation notwithstanding. I don't need to go into them here; but to say that Castro is an illegitimate leader is to be wilfully ignorant.

I notice you dropped "despot". How do we know he is a legitimate leader if he won't hold legitimate elections? Or are you capable of reading every cuban citizens mind and now how they would vote?

dtb · 08-01-2005, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Now you are learning. Yes. Because if his economy was growing his people would be getting wealthier and would eventually have the means with which to change their own government.

And what if (hypothetically, of course), the people had the means, and didn't want to change their government?

dtb · 08-01-2005, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I notice you dropped "despot". How do we know he is a legitimate leader if he won't hold legitimate elections? Or are you capable of reading every cuban citizens mind and now how they would vote?

Are you?

(I like to mix up words -- I didn't intend to concede anything by using a different vocabulary word -- sorry if that threw you.)

notcasesensitive · 08-01-2005, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I notice you dropped "despot". How do we know he is a legitimate leader if he won't hold legitimate elections? Or are you capable of reading every cuban citizens mind and now how they would vote?

hank, could you please fix this up so it is legible to dtb? You know how Spanky has issues with those that try to fix his grammar and/or spelling. TIA!

baltassoc · 08-01-2005, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dtb
Are you really going to go there?

Why shouldn't he? There isn't much evidence to the contrary.

Shape Shifter · 08-01-2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You stated that the only grounds for military intervention were if there was a national security risk to the United States.

Cite, please.

Quote:

I said "If you believe the only reason for armed intervention if another country is if they pose a national security risk you are the one most "bereft of morality and brains" than anyone on this board."

Actually, I'm Dumbest, though I have some good competition lately.

Quote:

I said that Serbia did not pose a national security risk to the United States, so following your logic, boming Serbia made us a "rogue" nation.

As previously noted, the situations in Serbia and Cuba are hardly comparable. You're following your own straw man, not my logic.

Quote:

I said I thought we were justified in bombing Serbia because of the ethnic cleansing and would be justified in taking out Cuba because of Castro is illegitimate dictator who is ruining his economy. But I don't remember comparing Cuba to Serbia.

No. You failed to distinguish the situations. Do you not see a distinction between genocide and a garden variety Caribbean dictator?

Spanky · 08-01-2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dtb
Are you sure you've been to Cuba? Legally?

You make it sound like going to Cuba is a big deal. I know you would like to feel special in the fact that you got to go to Cuba, but I am afraid that many US citizens travel to Cuba now and have been going regularly for quite some time. I went to Cuba about ten years ago and went back just a few years back. It was annoying to have to go through Mexico and Canada but not an unsurmountable obstacle.

dtb · 08-01-2005, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You make it sound like going to Cuba is a big deal. I know you would like to feel special in the fact that you got to go to Cuba, but I am afraid that many US citizens travel to Cuba now and have been going regularly for quite some time. I went to Cuba about ten years ago and went back just a few years back. It was annoying to have to go through Mexico and Canada but not an unsurmountable obstacle.

Well, see -- it's illegal to go through Mexico and Canada. I went through Miami.

ltl/fb · 08-01-2005, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
Why shouldn't he? There isn't much evidence to the contrary.

I think Spanky thinks that all political prisoners held in Cuba (on Cuba?) are attributable to Castro. Which would have the dual effect of inflating Castro's numbers and bolstering the argument that the US doesn't hold political prisoners.

Win-win!

Not Bob · 08-01-2005, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Do non despots keep political prisoners?

Why don't you ask the Chicago Boys?

notcasesensitive · 08-01-2005, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dtb
Well, see -- it's illegal to go through Mexico and Canada. I went through Miami.

[psst. dtb. this line of discussion is only going to lead to Spanky trying to out-worldly you. quit before he starts in with his Japan and Paris stories. seriously, this is one worldly mountain man.]

dtb · 08-01-2005, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
[psst. dtb. this line of discussion is only going to lead to Spanky trying to out-worldly you. quit before he starts in with his Japan and Paris stories. seriously, this is one worldly mountain man.]

Do you think he thinks he's special because of it (and not in the way I think he's "special")?

08-01-2005, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You make it sound like going to Cuba is a big deal. I know you would like to feel special in the fact that you got to go to Cuba, but I am afraid that many US citizens travel to Cuba now and have been going regularly for quite some time. I went to Cuba about ten years ago and went back just a few years back. It was annoying to have to go through Mexico and Canada but not an unsurmountable obstacle.

PB Spanky is markedly condescending and unjustifiedly pedantic on this board. I don't find that to be a good argument strategy and certainly not a good social style.

dtb · 08-01-2005, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paigowprincess
PB Spanky is markedly condescending and unjustifiedly pedantic on this board. I don't find that to be a good argument strategy and certainly not a good social style.

I was going to mention that very thing, but figured it wasn't worth it -- thanks for the backup, p.

baltassoc · 08-01-2005, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think Spanky thinks that all political prisoners held in Cuba (on Cuba?) are attributable to Castro. Which would have the dual effect of inflating Castro's numbers and bolstering the argument that the US doesn't hold political prisoners.

Win-win!

Interesting twist. Even if they are not all attributable to Castro, however, it still doesn't raise a counter example.