Obama in Cuba

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

So, why don't you think St. Ronnie's "Constructive Engagement" should be applied to or will work in Cuba?

Show me evidence that the same issues are in play in Cuba as they were in 1980's South Africa. They're not.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Neither Raul nor Fidel is long for this world. Don't you think it's a good idea for us to have toe sort of relationship with Cuba which could positively influence the transition? Or do you think that isolating Cuba, which has failed miserably over the last 57 years, will suddenly and magically begin to work?

Why do we need to have a relationship with Castro's toe? Or is that just that you have a foot fetish?

Isolation of Cuba has never made much sense to me. But given their history, free and unfettered relations, including unrestricted trade, doesn't make much sense either. Given Castro's history, any western foreign investments in Cuba would be at some level of risk.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Show me evidence that the same issues are in play in Cuba as they were in 1980's South Africa. They're not.



Why do we need to have a relationship with Castro's toe? Or is that just that you have a foot fetish?

Isolation of Cuba has never made much sense to me. But given their history, free and unfettered relations, including unrestricted trade, doesn't make much sense either. Given Castro's history, any western foreign investments in Cuba would be at some level of risk.

Some of the same issues are indeed at play but others are unique and largely the product of the US/Cuban status quo. The fact of the matter is that our policy of isolation has been a complete and utter failure. It's time to try something different but "Conservatives" never see that. After all, when tax cuts for the rich blow up the economy and the economy, they see the solution as even bigger tax cuts for the 1%.

And, when all you have left is pointing out typos, it's obvious that you can't formulate a real response.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Wouldn't the fact that the individual is running for prez make the production of proof more essential? Or would you prefer that the Dan Rather standard of proof be applied in all cases? Or does this lower standard only apply when we're taking about the Republican candidate?

If not, then show me evidence of this "literal" truth.

We already did, but you ignored the substance and protested that a great breach of ethics was happening. Basically, you'll reject any lay person 'diagnosing' Trump because they aren't a doctor, and you'll reject any professional doing it because they aren't supposed to do it. Got everything angle covered, eh?

But Trump is what he is, whatever you say or think.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

A "confirmation" of narcissism? Again with the hyperbole, this time attempting to masquerade as "science"? You must be really desperate.

I'd be willing to wager that the folks rendering their opinions in this article are life-long Dems. Regardless, I thought making a diagnosis without a personal examination, taking medical history, etc, was a breach of ethics in medicine. Such ethical breaches don't seem to bother these folks too much, I guess.

Like Bill Frist's diagnosis of Terry Schiavo from 1,000 miles away?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Show me evidence that the same issues are in play in Cuba as they were in 1980's South Africa. They're not.

Why do we need to have a relationship with Castro's toe? Or is that just that you have a foot fetish?

Isolation of Cuba has never made much sense to me. But given their history, free and unfettered relations, including unrestricted trade, doesn't make much sense either. Given Castro's history, any western foreign investments in Cuba would be at some level of risk.

If the investors wish to take that risk, who is the government to stop them?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Some of the same issues are indeed at play but others are unique and largely the product of the US/Cuban status quo. The fact of the matter is that our policy of isolation has been a complete and utter failure. It's time to try something different but "Conservatives" never see that. After all, when tax cuts for the rich blow up the economy and the economy, they see the solution as even bigger tax cuts for the 1%.

And, when all you have left is pointing out typos, it's obvious that you can't formulate a real response.

To say that "Conservatives never see that" misses the point, and is disingenuous. Most folks, conservatives or not, would rather not have the embargo in place. To dump it outright might be politically risky - still a lot of Hispanic voters don't much like the Castros. Also, many would rather see some progress on human rights issues in Cuba before kicking the embargo to the curb.

Also, for the man who virtually originated correcting spelling and grammar on this forum, your last sentence is truly self incriminating.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

To say that "Conservatives never see that" misses the point, and is disingenuous. Most folks, conservatives or not, would rather not have the embargo in place. To dump it outright might be politically risky - still a lot of Hispanic voters don't much like the Castros. Also, many would rather see some progress on human rights issues in Cuba before kicking the embargo to the curb.

Also, for the man who virtually originated correcting spelling and grammar on this forum, your last sentence is truly self incriminating.

"Might be politically risky"? What about a little risk/benefit analysis, Mr. CPA? And don't forget the risks associated with the embargo, extending even to the possible assassination of a sitting US president (because that president tried to kill Castro).

First, we're not talking about "dumping it outright". The plan is to gradually and incrementally roll back the sanctions and gradually and incrementally increase trade ties.

It may be true that most Cuban-American voters aren't too thrilled with the Castro brothers but probably not. The anti-Castro sentiments tend to be restricted to the older generation who fled Cuba. The younger generation, the native-born children of the refugees don't really give much of a shit and, like most Hispanic voters, they tend to vote Democratic these days.

Finally, the bolded gets us right back to where we started. This is the exact argument used by those who were against Reagan's Constructive Engagement with South Africa. If St. Ronnie does it, it's good but, if the Muslim Kenyan Communist darkie does it, it's a disaster. Congratulations for stepping on your dick again and thanks for making my point for me.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Finally, the bolded gets us right back to where we started. This is the exact argument used by those who were against Reagan's Constructive Engagement with South Africa. If St. Ronnie does it, it's good but, if the Muslim Kenyan Communist darkie does it, it's a disaster. Congratulations for stepping on your dick again and thanks for making my point for me.

You really must be a sad, troubled little man. I see you just can't get past your focus on skin color. Not sure why you're so obsessed with how much melanin someone might have in their dermal tissue, but one of these days you'll need to get past that.

Trouble is that the guy who was in charge - and likely still pulling most of the strings - in Cuba has not appeared to be much interested in "constructive engagement" with the US. Maybe 'cuz he's got a long memory of St JFK's botched Bay of Pigs raid. Cuba would have very little at this point to gain in that process.

Foreign relations, in case you've not noticed, tends to be a two way street.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

If the investors wish to take that risk, who is the government to stop them?

What, are you now suggesting that we need to ignore Article 1 of the US Constriction? You're such an anarchist, Finn.....

[bobabode]

Have a Mojito, Mike. No one except for some fossilized cold warriors and tour operators care about Cuba,