this grandiose bullshit forgets that everyone associated with the republican party became a democrat once blacks were given rights and all racists left the dems and became gop.

you are describing the modern day dem party in your essay and your too much of a dolt to realize it

Billy will be the dolt when he votes for Billary next year.

Your ignorance of history is remarkable, Billy. While there was an influx of southern democrats into the GOP I defy you to find any significant number of Republicans who defected to the Democrats. The problem is that while some Democrats left the party that didn't change the inherent character of the party or the anti-liberty philosophy which it is built on. So there's still a contingent of Republicans who hold to their traditional values and have nowhere to go because the democratic party is even more alien to their beliefs than the current misguided incarnation of the GOP is.

Being upset about a little corruption and greed doesn't suddenly make statism and socialism acceptable.

Dave

Neither the democrats nor the republicans!

Tweedledee and Tweedledumb.

Just like Nalle to choose the dumb side of a completely worthless destructive twosome.

Dedicated to ideals...indeed!

Dedicated to filling their pockets with the taxpayers' money, he means.

I will personally raise Chuck Barris from his well-deserved obscurity to GONG Nalle.

This is the journalistic equivalent of Absolute Zero.

Trust MR to completely not get the article.

The point is that the GOP once WAS the party of idealism and positive values and it could be again, and it's time to return it to its roots.

Hell, I doubt she even read the article.

Dave

No party was ever anything but a pack of thieves and genocidal gladhanders.

Give me a break, Gomer.

Roots! I'll show you roots--oops, that's a lie: I had my hair colored only this afternoon!

When and how is that going to happen, Dave?

Moonraven. Since you've opted out of the US political process altogether why do you think you're entitled to an opinion here or that anyone would give a good goddamn what you say on the subject?

She knows we don't, Lumpy.

She's just enchanted with the appearance of her own bullshit...

When and how is that going to happen, Dave?

There are lots of people working to make it happen as we sit here, Lee. There are traditionalist moderate republicans and libertarian republicans just champing at the bit to tear down the corruptionists and restore the party. I think that if the coming election turns into a landslide for the Democrats you'll see the GOP go through a radical reassessment and reorganization. The religious nuts might even go back to the Democrats if they decide the republicans can no longer get them what they want.

Dave

It occurs to me that while the republicans do at least have the kind of positive history described here, there's nothing comparable in the history of the democrats. They have no past of lofty ideals to look to, just grasping for power, growing government and starting wars.

The point is that the GOP once WAS the party of idealism and positive values and it could be again, and it's time to return it to its roots.

Indeed it was. It was a liberal party.

Things sure have changed a lot since Lincoln's day, when the Republicans were the party which espoused the exciting, liberal ideals that made America so attractive to immigrants and refugees and the Democrats... well, the Democrats were a bunch of reactionary Southern fuddy-duddies who couldn't utter a sentence without including the words "neegrah" and "whuppin'".

So what happened? Did the Earth's magnetic poles flip?!?

Dr. D., the basic values of the GOP remain liberal values. Liberalism and conservatism are not incompatible despite the constant misuse of the terms.

As for things changing since the times of Lincoln, as I tried to make clear in this article things do change, but the party usually rights itself and returns to its core values.

I think it would help a lot as far as restoring the principles of the party if it were out of power. The abuses of Democrats in power are the most likely force to drive Republicans back to their core beliefs.

Unfortunately, I don't think the country will survive even 4 years of Democrats controlling congress and the presidency. The things they have planned are so disastrous that there may not be anything left for the Republicans to salvage.

Dave

Oh please.

The sky didn't fall during Clinton's tenure and America will still be here in 2012.

The influence of Congress is as a fart in the wind to the might of the market and the Federal Reserve.

Nalle, you old idealist:

You dream of a GOP that will never be again. Since the Dixiecrats joined the GOP, and Reagan invited in the nutcase Evangelicals, the GOP has changed in its core.

It is now the party of hate, of war, of greed, of lies, of hypocrites, of Bush, of Foley, of Trent Lott, of homophobia, of Macaca Allen, of K Street, of borrow-borrow spend-spend, of the super-rich, of the corrupt, of the dumbfucks.

A Republican wouldn't recognize liberty & justice if it bit him in the ass.

You're a libertarian, Dave. Stop defending the wingnut party the GOP has been since 1970. It's too late for them to change. It's still time for you, though.

The influence of Congress is as a fart in the wind to the might of the market and the Federal Reserve.

This Pelosi congress with a rubber stamp president added on would be all the disaster I described. Right now the strong market and economy are all we have going for us. We're overextended and very vulnerable. All it would take is the push of a massive increase in taxation to create a disaster, and the answer the democrats would offer us would be a command and control central planning nightmare from which we might never awake.

Dave

You dream of a GOP that will never be again. Since the Dixiecrats joined the GOP, and Reagan invited in the nutcase Evangelicals, the GOP has changed in its core.

You don't read the articles, do you? The point I think I made quite clearly is that the GOP has lost its way before and then found its way back to its true values. I see no reason why we couldn't have another Teddy Roosevelt or Barry Goldwater lead us back to where we ought to be. We're due and the country needs it.

The democrats were able to drive out the evangelicals and I don't see why the GOP can't do the same thing.

It is now the party of hate, of war, of greed, of lies, of hypocrites, of Bush, of Foley, of Trent Lott, of homophobia, of Macaca Allen, of K Street, of borrow-borrow spend-spend, of the super-rich, of the corrupt, of the dumbfucks.

No, Adam, it's a party which has a very small number of people who have these various problems and a majority of its membership who are good, upstanding people.

Are the democrats nothing but the party of welfare cheats, antisemites, communists, James Byrd in a whit ehood, Trafficant, Kanye West, 'Hymie Town', ACORN buying votes, Ted Kennedy with his pants around his knees in the living room and blowjobs in the oval office?

A Republican wouldn't recognize liberty & justice if it bit him in the ass.

And a democrat might recognize them but decide they're a threat to what they believe in.

You're a libertarian, Dave. Stop defending the wingnut party the GOP has been since 1970. It's too late for them to change. It's still time for you, though.

What you seem to miss is that I was with the Libertarians for almost 30 years and eventually realized that they lacked the sound foundation of a functional political party. Even in its current disarray the Republican Party stands more of a chance of successfully championing liberty than any of the alternatives.

Dave

Dave, as an erstwhile Republican a loong, loooooong time ago, I wish you were right. I wish both parties would clean up their act(s) & return to their core principles. Alas, I'm not h olding my breath for either one. As Adam said, (& I concur) the GOP is now the party of hate, Bush, the super-rich, Foley, etc. etc. However, they are BOTH the parties of greed, corruption, & lies - altho I do think the GOP wins hands down in having a clear header in all these ... virtues ... at least at this point in time; and for some reason, whenever there's been corruption & power-lust in high office (Nixon, Bush) it's been during GOP tenures. Republicans seem far more susceptible to trying to establish a permanent hold of government in defiance of the people & the constitution, than Dems have, at least historically. Certainly during THIS particular administration, the levels of corruption, arrogance, lies, and just plain lawlessness have reached new heights - or lows, depending on your POV.

IMO, both parties are far too enmeshed by, beholden to, & in the pay of the super-rich & corporations, to ever return to their ideals or core values. Another, less mercurial Ross Perot needs to rise & run from a 3rd party - if the current two will even allow such a thing, which I doubt. I believe I've mentioned before that there's a movement afoot sponsored by both Dems & GOP to limit viable candidates in any election to those approved by & or at least sponsored by one of them, either GOP or Dem-!

Dave:

Megadittos!
Breck girl! Drive-by! Democrat party! Rio Linda!

Dittos!

"Dingy" Harry,
Leslie

Dave,

We live in a great country. We have roots we can look to and be proud of.

Ultimately, Lincoln was not a liberal; he was a radical, a revolutionary. Karl Marx supported him. He was forced into being a revolutionary by circumstances under which he governed.

Teddy Roosevelt was not a revolutionary but a brilliant and bold, representative of the capitalist class when it could no longer contain itself within its national boundaries. It was he more than anyone else the one that ushered in the era of capitalist imperialism. Was that liberal or progressive? It might be argued it was progressive since capitalism had to get to that stage before it could be supplanted.

I liked all of those indented platforms, etc., that you presented. I was a Republican from 1952 and my first vote ever went to Goldwater.

I even believed all that shit until living in California under Gov. Regan in 1967. It was this 'idealist' on the right in power that started me on my path to understanding what was really going on.

Yes, we have to reestablish decency and values in government. It won't be the Republican or Democratic parties, or any knight on a white horse like Ross Perot that will do it. It's not an issue of personalities. It is the economic system, capitalism that is sick. It needs to be taken out back and shot.

Les

Dave speaks nobly and well. Yet, here at BC, at every issue when the Bush GOP has sinned Dave has leaped to their defense. Even at the expense of Liberty. So one wonders at his sincerity. Oh well, it's another opportunity for an orgasmic round of democrat-bashing.

trying to stay fair here...

the Article is indeed a nice bit of marketing ploy in many respects, trotting out high points but glossing over some of the shit stuck to the bottom of the wing tips

Teddy Roosevelt is one of my favorites, but he made his bones as an Independent "Bull Moose" candidate who pissed of many Republicans in the part machine at the time by taking their campaign money, and doing what he wanted afterwards.....not staying "bought"...the National Park service was an awesome contribution, and he would use that infamous "big stick" if he could see what has been done to his parks since 1980

since Nixon i think that the two political gangs fall into a simple dichotomy of "trickle down" versus "rising tide"...this is at the grass roots level...the elites have been all about the money and holding Power

and the last 7 years of bloated budgets, pre-emptive wars, torture, warrantless wiretaps and holding a citizen without charge or trial for over 3 years(Padilla) shows just what the GOP elected representatives do with single Party rule...

NOT push the Agenda of Liberty as the Article states the rank and file desire...but a unitary executive of King George and Darth Cheney with the Legislature rubber stamping everything and spending like drunken sailors in a cheap whorehouse with a bar

so, pardon me if i take it with a 10 pound grain of salt...it will take YEARS for the GOP to PROVE they have changed their ways and gone back to what the Party meant at the time of Goldwater...

you can thank the neocons and those that supported them (including the Articles author in many instances) for making it so any Thinking human just doesn't believe a word anymore from ANY GOP source

Excelsior?

Leslie, I don't speak whatever language you're babbling in.

Ultimately, Lincoln was not a liberal; he was a radical, a revolutionary. Karl Marx supported him. He was forced into being a revolutionary by circumstances under which he governed.

Lincoln remained a Liberal to the day he died, but was forced by circumstance to act differently. Note that I don't cite Lincoln anywhere in this article.

Teddy Roosevelt was not a revolutionary but a brilliant and bold, representative of the capitalist class when it could no longer contain itself within its national boundaries. It was he more than anyone else the one that ushered in the era of capitalist imperialism. Was that liberal or progressive? It might be argued it was progressive since capitalism had to get to that stage before it could be supplanted.

It can very easily be argued that Roosevelt's version of imperialism was enormously liberal. It was the idea of exporting freedom to other countries. When we made war in that era - for the most part not under his administration - we did so pledging in advance not to take or hold any territory or take any profit from our efforts, but to do so on behalf of setting free the oppressed victims of colonialism. That's damned liberal.

I liked all of those indented platforms, etc., that you presented. I was a Republican from 1952 and my first vote ever went to Goldwater.

I even believed all that shit until living in California under Gov. Regan in 1967. It was this 'idealist' on the right in power that started me on my path to understanding what was really going on.

Did you see me say anything good in this article about Reagan? He was not representative of a move in the right direction. He was a caretaker president in many ways and certainly ideologically neutral rather than positive. Plus under his weak leadership the party was left in the hands of those who were willing to gain power at any cost.

Yes, we have to reestablish decency and values in government. It won't be the Republican or Democratic parties, or any knight on a white horse like Ross Perot that will do it. It's not an issue of personalities. It is the economic system, capitalism that is sick. It needs to be taken out back and shot.

Reminds me of "we had to destroy the village in order to save it." Without capitalism there is no freedom, Les. Capitalism isn't sick, it is government which is sick. Capitalism is just being what it is and what it will always be - human nature. Any system which denies it is unnatural and inherently destructive. Government needs to be returned to its role of protecting the people and checking excess to address society's problems.

Dave speaks nobly and well. Yet, here at BC, at every issue when the Bush GOP has sinned Dave has leaped to their defense. Even at the expense of Liberty. So one wonders at his sincerity. Oh well, it's another opportunity for an orgasmic round of democrat-bashing.

Nut am I insincere here or when I defend Bush? You need to understand the concept of the lesser of two evils and to come to grips with the greater evil which the left represents. This article was intended to help. The GOP and even Bush still have the values of liberty somewhere at their core. All the left has at its core is a lust for power at the expense of the people.

Dave

"Without capitalism there is no freedom,"

"Eisenhower and Goldwater were there to set the party on what should have been an ideal course by the 1960s."

In 1952 Fulgencio Batista was running for President but was last in the polls. He resolved the situation in his favor by means other than democratic.

And what was the Eisenhower response to that government the WHOLE fuckin' time of his administration?

Without capitalism there is no freedom, my ass.

"don't settle for the lesser evil"

the caption reads "await death, Heretic" in ancient Cthuvian

Excelsior?

"Without capitalism..." sounds like something one of the robber baron capitalists or Dick Cheney would say to fob off the gullible, as an excuse for their piracy.

Les, capitalism doesn't create freedom by itself, but freedom includes the freedom to be a capitalist and to engage in commerce and to attempt to advance oneself economically. That's as much a fundamental freedom as the right to free association and the right to freecom of movement and the right to free speech. A system of government which takes away freedom in one area will eventually take it away in all areas.

Dave

"...capitalism doesn't create freedom by itself..."

I did in fact do just that. Capitalism could only succeed in displacing feudalism by freeing the serfs. Capitalism in the U.S. could only proceed by freeing the slaves.

Capitalism has not produced ANY freedoms since. All freedoms and rights that we have gained since reconstruction have been in opposition to EVERY capitalist government. This will continue as long as capitalism EXISTS. What evidence is there to the contrary?

Blaming the wretchedness of the capitalist system on who happens to sitting in the saddle only continues the wretchedness.

well Les, it IS imperfect...but until and unless someone comes up with something better...it's the Way to go

best i can think of are the Scandanavian countries and their hybrid economies

but NO other system we have seen in History so far even comes close to allowing the Individual freedoms we have lived under for quite soem time now

Excelsior?

Everyone wonders why the politicians do what they do, think it does not make any sense. This or that is always a mistake or just their own greed.

None of this is the essential truth.

It's the BEAST. There's NO controlling it.

Les - spoken like an admirer of the Communist Manifesto

and History shows us just how well that worked out

Excelsior?

"spoken like an admirer of the Communist Manifesto"

It was near the beginning of when the working class was starting to see its role in history. The Manifesto is a quite remarkable document considering when it was written.

You bringing it up just shows your frustration. We are facing a very serios situation and all you can bring up is 'Scandanavian countries'.

There are only two countries in this world that are sovereign, the U.S. and Cuba. ALL the others can be, and are, pushed around by one of those two.

How you define freedom?

pushed around...by Cuba?

i think anyone in Holland has much more Freedom than anyone outside of Castro's circle does in Cuba

how about you stick to defining and explaining your own positions, because time and again you show that you know less than shit about mine

not a tittle or a jot of "frustration" on my part

the Rights of the Individual is my definition of meaningful Freedom...one cannot make such "collective"....not for a country, not for a corporation, imo

Individual Rights > all other considerations

Excelsior?

I said pushed around by ONE of those two countries. I happens to be the U.S. that is doing the pushing.

"anyone in Holland has much more Freedom than anyone outside of Castro's circle does in Cuba"

Really? And what if this freedom includes democratically choosing anything that might piss off the U.S.?

Nobody in this world has ANY right to dissagree with the U.S. You can disagree as an individual, but if enough of you agree and elect a policy that is contrary to U.S. policy. So much for democracy.

If the people of Cuba choose, and they do, they do choose, it gets done regardless of what the beast to the north thinks.

Les - cite your source for that claim about US having the power to undo democratically elected changes in other countries...now the US has indeed done so at times (1953 Iran for example)

but does either US or Cuba exert such influence of Iran or China or Brussels?

and who the fuck does Cuba push around?

i think you need to substantiate those brad claims, because they run contrary to objective Facts as far as i am aware

Excelsior?

"Les - cite your source for that claim about US having the power to undo democratically elected changes in other countries..."

moonraven

Oh, geez -

It's a test for Gonzo.

Or anyone else. A "Oh, geez - " get's an F.

but NO other system we have seen in History so far even comes close to allowing the Individual freedoms we have lived under for quite soem time now

The problem is that Les and many like him value those individual freedoms and rights far less than they value things like peace, order, stability, 'the greater good' and 'social justice'. They don't understand that all the other good things flow from liberty and without liberty they can be taken away awfully easily.

As for rampant corporatism and abuse of capitalism, that's why we have government in the first place, to regulate the excesses of the system. If government isn't doing that job, then we need to change the government, the people in it and the principles on which it's run.

Dave

I think Les is suggesting that Moonraven works for the CIA to undermine democratically elected government in other countries.

Dave

It appears I have been cited out of context, but Les is of course right.

We have seen plenty of evidence of the US interventions in the political processes of other countries right here in this hemisphere:

Nicaragua--many times

Guatemala--1954 when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Arbenz--who threatened the interests of the United Fruit Company

Haiti--several times

Chile--the first 9/11--1973, when the CIA and Pinochet overthrew the democratically elected government of Allende because Kissinger said that he was not going to sit on his hands while the chilean people made bad electoral decisions aginst Anaconda Copper and Pepsico.

Panama--1989, when the US killed upwards of 3500 panamanians (a number very close to the number of folks killed on 9/11) in order to grab Noriega--who had reneged on his supposed promise to work with Oliver North

Venezuela--2002, when the US government financed the 47 hour coup against the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez to try to grab Venezuela's petroleum reserves (a failure that led to the invasion of Iraq).

Clavos and lumpy, so long as I carry a US passport I have the same manhandled rights as you do, and I will continue to use them however I see fit.

[Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor.]

Give 'em hell moonraven

Capitalism is just a bridge system from old systems, such as feudalism, fascism and communism, to some kind of future system, which has no name yet, because partisans are obsessed with slaying old foes. Replaying old battles between capitalism and communism will not lead us to what that future system should be.

Besides, capitalism and communism were never a valid dichotomy anyhow. They were not exclusive and exhaustive, and they both have the same endpoint: vicious state supported oppression.

It's not 1956 anymore.

"They don't understand that all the other good things flow from liberty and without liberty they can be taken away awfully easily."

Whatever you say, you seem to forget that we have absolutely no voice over policies in this country.

So the your ultimate right is the right to harmlessly grumble?

I wistfully await the withering away of the State...and in the meantime I hope to live out the rest of my days without killing anyone

gonzo - consider your #29 and tell me...who's 'we' white bread

as they say: 'freedom isn't free'...consider - who is picking up the tab for us - ?

Bliffle, your concept that capitalism is a transitional system only makes sense if there's something to transition to, and you don't have that answer.

And the fact is that capitalism is just a form of trade and free enterprise which are basic to the human condition. You can't make the impetus to engage in trade for profit go away. It reasserts itself no matter what you do.

Dave

Dave - so...it turns out that you are as egregious an idealist as I...and here I thought that you prided yourself on your constructive realism

Individuals in Cuba have more political freedom than those in the U.S.

The only veto power in Cuba is that of the population over the government.

I think we can now write off anything Les says as completely irrelevant. He [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] thinks political freedom is equal to being thrown in jail for dissent. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

Dave

"The GOP and even Bush still have the values of liberty somewhere at their core. All the left has at its core is a lust for power at the expense of the people."

yeah. and who has lusted after power at the expense of the people? the gop and bush. they haven't done one damn thing that seems to value liberty even as an abstract concept. what they have done is used "liberty" as a puppet to RESTRICT our freedoms and destroy other countries. it's sick.

i don't see where the left has done any of these things.

your concept of liberty must differ from mine.

[Edited]

Nalle also wrote:

And the fact is that capitalism is just a form of trade and free enterprise which are basic to the human condition. You can't make the impetus to engage in trade for profit go away. It reasserts itself no matter what you do.

Nalle's clearly committed to going back to the stone age--and barter animal bones for pieces of flint to make a fire....

Anything that's historical (devil worship, beating one's wife, slavery), according to Nalle MUST be kept in place because its longevity proves it to be better than anything else.

Dave, Get they ass over to UT and sign up for Logic 101. A whole new amazing world will open itself to you.

"I think we can now write off anything Les says as completely irrelevant."

You've said this more than once. In general, I bet I have more credibility around here than you do. I say things and I'm not afraaid to defend them.

You just raise things and duck responsibility for them.

And, I bet that am am a lot more respected than you.

Try addressing what has been said rather than making such stupid statements.

He's the sort of guy that we have an expression for here in Mexico--one who throws the rock and hides his hand.

Sometimes I make bold statements to sort the ssmall minds from those that are not afraid to think.

Back to my statement about the Cuban people having veto power over the government. I don't live there so I don't have a day by day insight into this but have seen evidense of such.

The most clear was in the 90's, somebody convinced the Assembly of People's Power, a representative body, that it would be aa good idea to institute a payroll tax.

The government did not tip-toe into to the assembly to get it passed while no one was looking. No, they said they had to go directly to the workers.

Hundreds of thousands of meetings were held over several months where this was discussed with MILLIONS of workers. The workers do respect their representatives but they discussed this and made it clear that they did not agree. They proposed other solutions for what the government felt were the reasons that a payroll tax was necessary.

The government modified the legislation to implement the EXPRESSED will of the MAJORITY.

Of course there is more freedom in Cuba than in the US.

And people who are sick are treated by competent doctors--for free.

And education is available for everyone--for free.

It's in the interest of the US government to keep you jokers believing the opposite--so that you don't demand YOUR RIGHTS and throw them out on their porkbarreling butts.

Discuss this story Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Thursday, July 26, 2007 by the Guardian/UK
Eight Americans Graduate in Boost for Cuban Health Care
by Rory Carroll
Eight American students have graduated from a Cuban medical school after six years of free tuition, giving a fresh boost to the reputation of the communist government's health care system.

The first class of US graduates from the Latin American School of Medicine, a Fidel Castro brainchild on Havana's outskirts, plan to return home and take board exams for licenses to work as doctors in US hospitals.

The Americans were among more than 2,100 students from about 25 countries who received diplomas this week in a high-profile ceremony at Havana's Karl Marx theatre. The six women and two men, all from US ethnic minority backgrounds, said they would use their skills to treat poor people, in keeping with the humanitarian ethos of the school.

"Health care is not seen as a business in Cuba," Kenya Bingham, a 29-year-old Californian, told the Associated Press. "When you are sick they are not going to try to charge you or turn you away if you don't have insurance. We have studied medicine with a humanitarian approach."

The school on a former naval base, opened by President Castro in 1999, offers scholarships to students from around the world and is intended to showcase the island's commitment to universal health care. To boast graduates from the US, an arch-foe which has imposed a decades-long economic embargo, was another public relations coup for a government already basking in the glow from Michael Moore's documentary Sicko. The film contrasts expensive profit-driven health care in the US with free treatment in Cuba.

The first class of US graduates, which started the course in 2001, has been followed by about 90 other Americans. A further 18 are due to enrol next month, making the Americans a small but high-profile minority among the more than 5,000-strong student body.

The communist authorities rely on the US Congressional Black Caucus and a non-profit group, Pastors for Peace, to select candidates. Washington's embargo bans most Americans from travelling to Cuba but an exemption has been made for the medical students.

The diploma is recognised by the World Health Organisation but it is not clear if the US graduates will be eligible to sit the two exams necessary to apply for residency at American hospitals. "Do I think there will be prejudices against us when we go back to the States and are looking for residences? Yes, it's inevitable," said Ms Bingham.

However she was hopeful, given that the first US graduate, Cedric Edwards, is now working at Montefiore hospital in New York's Bronx borough. Unlike this week's graduates Mr Edwards started medical studies in the US and later switched to Havana, graduating two years ago as the sole American.

If they make it the graduates will be part of just 6% of practising doctors from ethnic minority backgrounds, according to the US Association of American Medical Colleges.

Conditions at the Latin American School of Medicine are basic. Students share dormitories, eat beans and rice, and use ancient equipment.

Mr Castro, 80, did not attend Tuesday's graduation ceremony. His last public appearance was at last year's anniversary of the July 26 1953 attack on the Moncada military barracks which launched the revolution. Raul Castro, who is standing in as president while his brother convalesces from surgery, is expected to address today's anniversary celebrations.

moonraven #42,

I knew yould be a good source. You only pointed out a few examples that all should be ashamed for not knowing.

Les

"And people who are sick are treated by competent doctors--for free.

And education is available for everyone--for free."

Actually, they're NOT free.

For years, the Soviet Union paid for them. Now, El Chango Chávez does.

Fidel has to subsist on charity from others because, in nearly fifty years he's been unable to get his economy into the black.

Yet, when he seized it, it was the richest economy in the Caribbean, and one of the richest LatAm economies.

Right on Cedric. He graduated to return to the U.S. where his home was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. He lived in New Orleans. He had broght back all of his medical books back home before graduation. They were all destroyed.

I gave him a $100 check to help him get back on his feet. This of course was part of a broader appeal. It was still quite rough for him.

*when he seized it, it was the richest economy in the Caribbean, and one of the richest LatAm economies*

and this was a good thing - ?

it was obscene wealth side by side with abject poverty in a system where liberty was reserved to the rich... other than the fact that it is in your economic interest to be so - how can you be so blind to the dark side of your baby

The abject poverty is still there, troll, only now they can read and write and stand in line for medical help.

But they still are abjectly poor, except for, as always, the ruling class.

That's the dark side of the commie baby.

On Jan 1, 1959, the Cuban treasury was empty. In the last days of 1958 planes full of dollars, convertable currency and gold were flown out of the country.

If true, that was nothing more than an exchange for the millions and millions of dollars worth of seized property, Les.

[Edited]

Cuba's economy grew 12.5% in 2006--the highest growth in Latin America.

And I don't know about the rest of you skinheads, but I am DEEPLY offended by his racist use of the term EL CHANGO (the monkey) for Hugo Chavez.

He of course wanted to say NIGGER, but did not have the balls to do so.

Disgusting.

Clavos,

I don't have to go very far in Detroit to find more abject poverty and hopelessness than anywhere in Havana.

I'll bet you'll find the same in Miami or any other major city in the U.S.

Les

"Cuba's economy grew 12.5% in 2006--the highest growth in Latin America."

Growth rates are meaningless. If you have one dollar, and acquire 12.5 cents, you've had a 12.5% growth rate.

Plus, EL CHANGO Chavez gave EL MONO Fidel $2.5 Billion (with a "B") in 2006.

So much for "growth."

MR, let me give you a little test. Which would you rather have. 12.5% of $100 or 2% of $1000?

Dave

Right--everything is meaningless unless YOU say it is, redneck.

Chavez did not GIVE Fidel anything.

NEVER any evidence from Clavos--not in the almost one year I have visited this site. [Edited]

Dave! Dave!! Dave!!!

First Realist, then Adam, now Les. You're really on a roll with the insane thing, aren't you?

Need more? Let me help you out...

[inserts two drumsticks up nostrils, places underpants on head]

"Wibble..."

*The abject poverty is still there*

I am told (by old Cuban commies) that it's not abject as under Batista and his Investors...now it's more like drudgery

but you will be pleased that they also tell me that Castro has too many pairs of shoes - one of the more ostentatious displays of ruling class wealth

Haven't been to Detroit in more than 20 years, Les.

But I can tell you unequivocally that, while there is unquestionably poverty in Miami, it's FAR, FAR less than what is found in Habana (which I have seen as recently as 2004). And that's with per capita income in Miami being among the lowest in the USA among cities in this population range.

I've frequently mentioned how many Cubans seriously risk their lives to come here. Someone once said they thought that the Cubans, like the Mexicans, are coming for work. I don't buy that; I talk to them frequently (recent arrivals AND long time residents) and they're unanimous that they fled not only the poverty, but the oppression as well.

But, even if you accept that they're coming just for the work, then the situation is that they're coming to one of the poorest cities in the USA, at great risk of life and limb, just for the work?. Why?

The only possible explanation for that is that the poverty in Cuba is even WORSE.

Nalle--That is not the issue.

I thought you had enough brains to know that--but apparently not.

The point is NOT to compare the SIZE of the economies of Cuba and the US--Cuba is a small island, after all--with a population of slightly more than ELEVEN MILLION--a tiny fraction of that of the US, in fact.

The point was: THERE IS MORE FREEDOM IN CUBA THAN IN THE US, AND EDUCATION AND HEALTH CARE ARE FREE!

Got it now? Or shall we sign you up for Literacy class in additon to Logic 101?

What you guys are saying is that Cuba is shit because it isn't the US.

And you had to throw in a few racial slurs to try and make a point that is simply IRRELEVANT.

Pathetic, just pathetic.

You've said this more than once. In general, I bet I have more credibility around here than you do. I say things and I'm not afraaid to defend them.

Les, you say things which are utterly indefensible and then called on our least respected user to defend you. That doesn't earn you any credibility at all.

You just raise things and duck responsibility for them.

Really, give me an example?

And, I bet that am am a lot more respected than you.

Perhaps by Moonraven, but then that's like calling a decrease in the deficit at which your economy runs a 12.5% increase.

Try addressing what has been said rather than making such stupid statements.

Les, you said:

"Individuals in Cuba have more political freedom than those in the U.S."

In Cuba there are no free press, no free speech, no freedom of assembly, no free elections, no freedom of movement and no free enterprise. The political freedom consists of the choice of whether to vote for Castro and his stooges or face blacklisting for jobs, promotions and government handouts.

Do you think we're idiots or do you just say these things without thinking about them?

Dave

And MR, let me ask you another question at the risk of encouraging you.

Is getting more free stuff the same as being more free?

I do wonder why I have to use the same techniques with you that I had to use with students when I was teaching college equivalency courses in a rural high school.

Dave

Dave - moonraven is not our least respected...she is in fact right on much of the time

she just doesn't have your perspective

I am shocked to hear about the hair dye though

troll, being right doesn't make you respected. And what's all this about hair dye?

Dave

At least I HAVE hair to dye. That's more than most of the posters on this site have.

Nalle, you have told us about your PhDs and your 50 years teaching community college and a whole lot of other lies about your education.

I bet you did not even graduate from high school.

And I, for one, DO believe that you are an idiot--and a singularly shifty one at that.

Cantinflas had nothing on you in the obfuscation department.

You are just a propagandist for US government foreign policy.

And what's really pathetic about it--is that you do it for FREE--just like your unpaid "LABOR" on this site.

Clavos,

How can you tell the Cuban in the garment factory from the other Hispanics?

They're the ones with the good teeth. Of course this changes with time.

Try reading some of the right wing books written by Cubans that come here. Except for a very few, they found Hell here.

The two times I've been to Cuba, 1995 and 2000, the things that most Cuban's would ask me is 'what's it like in the U.S.?'. Of course that's a tough one. Things are nice here, if you got good job with health care, and maybe some money in the bank. Of course that only describes a MINORITY. The thing none of could believe is how much vacation we get, if we're lucky. 'If you only get two weeks, why are you spending it here?' I never could explain that one. So, of course, they didn't believe me.

You lie when you say you see the same poverty in Havana as you can find, without hardly trying, in Miami. It is just not true. How many dollars one has is not a reasonable measure.

Les

Not only that, but clavos has never been anywhere NEAR Cuba--unless you consider 90 miles away in the Florida swampland he bought near.

Dave,

It would be healthy for the nation if the Republicans woke up from their drool ridden slumber however the challenge will not be in finding good candidates with the core values of the party, it will be deprogramming the zombies who have no clue what real Republican values are.

There is an entire generation of people who think being Republican is synonymous to trash talking, low brow, spewing whatever lie suites you at the moment to make your point, NOT being read up or informed about ANYTHING in particular, shooting from the hip and focusing on who you don't like to define your ideology. Its the party of the simple minded now.

If you were to introduce, respectable, intelligent, solutions oriented people, they would be overlooked by this over stimulated lot. You've got to bring a jug blowing, thigh slapping hoedown or they just don't hear you.

The Republican party has used the nation like a kleenex tissue. They need to be scrapped because they don't really represent anything really, just simple minded jargon and empty phrases. Speaking about that, are you saying that the Republicans have a history of being FLIP FLOPPERS?

Good article.

Gonzo

"the Individual freedoms we have lived under for quite soem time now"


Meaning since the 70's?

Flip floppers? Not necessarily. I'd call it more like a cyclical process, because it's not generally the same peoplel changing positions. The cycles are too spread out for that.

The nature of the GOP seems to be to go through periods of ideological clairty followed by long slides into venality and opportunism followed by a recovery and renewal which lasts for a little while before the party starts to slide again.

Dave

...probably related to the absurd boom and bust of the business cycle

Even at the time of Goldwater's platform, the GOP was far from the 'pure' libertarian ideal Dave describes. Goldwater was rebelling against the Eastern 'country club' Republicans who had controlled much of the party [and would for 16 more years].

And in the real world that year, most of the states that Goldwater carried were in the deep South, because he opposed civil rights legislation, as did many Republicans, in league with conservative southern Democrats. It's very convenient to leave out inconvenient facts that don't match your dreamy-eyed theory.

Implying that FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ [the politicians who came to define the Democratic party in the mid-20th C] "opposed liberty" is a bit much. Compared to the real socialism of Europe, the American version was always conservative and very diluted. Social Security and Medicare may be 'failed experiments' but they are here to stay, and the civil rights legislation of the 60s was a landmark achievement.

Those four Dem presidents were not saints [neither were Goldwater, Reagan and Nixon], but they were major figures with major accomplishments [and some major failures, certainly].

But you set up a false dichotomy between the two parties, and your insistence that the basic principles of the Dems and the GOP have barely changed in 100 years is just ludicrous. There are so many exceptions: Nixon and Clinton, to name two, do not fit your rosy picture.

Les,

"You lie when you say you see the same poverty in Havana as you can find, without hardly trying, in Miami. It is just not true. How many dollars one has is not a reasonable measure."

Thanks for calling me a liar. Apparently, the old crone is wearing off on you. I hate to see that happen. I was honest enough to tell you up front that Miami has a low per capita income by US standards. In all the discussions you and I have had, when Have I EVER lied to you? We disagree, a lot; even most of the time, but you've never before accused me of lying; nor I, you.

And if how many dollars one has is not a reasonable measure, then how about living conditions? Habana is totally in disrepair, except for the tourist hotels and resorts. Ordinary Cubans live whole families to a room all over the city, often without water or electricity. Here, less than 20% of the population (and that's a GENEROUS figure, it's probably below 10%) lives in crowded conditions, none to very, very few without water or electricity.

How many Habaneros have a car? Here, even the people on welfare do.

Food. It's severely rationed all over Cuba. Available everywhere here; and if you can't afford to buy it, there are food stamps.

It's ludicrous to compare these two cities and say that Habana is not as poor as Miami; there's no other word for it: ludicrous.

I get my information, not only from personal observation (besides Habana, I have visited Holguín, Camaguey and Baracoa, as well), but also from the dozens and dozens of Cubans (of ALL economic levels: from construction laborers to bankers) I meet and talk with on a daily basis here in Miami.

I disagree with you vehemently, Les, but I don't think you're lying; just mistaken. I think if you went there as a declared Communist, as a guest of and escorted and guided by the Castro government, you were shown only what they wanted you to see. And perhaps, as a good Communist, a you're bit partisan for Comrade Fidel.

Geez, now trying to play the victim!

Clavos is almost as old as I am--and in FAR worse condition--but he continues to throw up AGEISM when he can't throw up racism...because I am whiter than he is.

If I am whiter than he is I suppose by his rules I ought to be calling him El Chango.

Luckily for him, I am not.

Call me anything you want, mr. I have zero respect for you, so what you choose to call me is meaningless and of no consequence to me.

I was directing my comments to Les because I DO respect him.

Right. He's a guy.

too much shit to even begin to try and sort things out

have Fun with futility kiddies, two sides of the same coin yammering at each other in fruitless talking past people

not for me, but thanks for the Funny/Tragedy

Excelsior?

I wasn't aware that someone had asked you to sort ANYTHING out.

ah..i hear the fluttering of dark wings...my earlier mistake was to accept it's naming of itself...

no feathered corvid here, but rather a blind flying mammal that also only comes out at night to smack into the bell in the tower

we call them ding bats

but i digress...

and have no desire to step into the morass, but rather have found more to add to the /ignore list

have fun, folks

Excelsior?

Sure spend a lot of time here "ignoring", don't you?

Clav,

I am truly sorry that I called you a liar. I won't do it again.

The both times I went to Cuba, I had credentials issued by the Cuban government. I was indeed escorted around. On both visits, the official part lasted only one week. In 1995, during the first week, I asked if I could stay an extra week. They said 'no problem but we have no accommodations for you'. I said ok and later found that I could stay at one of the resorts reserved for Cuban workers and their families. I was the only non Cuban there. Only a few spoke any English, and I no Spanish.

When they realized there was an American amongst them I heard lots of complaints about the situation in Cuba but also felt an honest sense of warmness. Not enough food, not adequate clothing, waiting in lines, crowded housing... and on and on. There were lots of Jokes about Castro and the government they wanted to me to hear. I explained that I was in Cuba at the invitation of the government and I was a Communist. They were not impressed or afraid to speak their mind. Some laughed and indicated that I must be quite naïve.

About their complaints about not enough food, all looked fit with no signs of any hunger and this was 1995, at about the bottom of their special period. I found that their clothing was at least as good as mine, and that includes the shoes. The living quarters were reasonably adequate for semitropical climes. It seemed like I was the only one with privilege of private quarters. Families had their own little structures but workers without families had to share. There were four bed and two bed units. I had a two bed unit.

The resort was on the north coast about half way between Havana and Matanzas. In addition to being at the resort, I took busses to Havana and Matanzas. I spent two days at each, unescorted. I befriended a young woman in Matanzas. She was quite friendly and I soon realized she was looking for a ticket to the States. She escorted me to a couple of farms in the Matanzas area by bus. They seemed rather crude technically but again no signs of any hunger or destitution. I was informed that the housing situation in the countryside was much better than in the cities. I was also told food was more plentiful. I had no way to verify either.

I never stayed overnight in either city even though I was invited to stay with my female friend. I went back to the resort by bus.

What I noted about Matanzas was that its population was very black. Havana was very 'white'. None of the complaints that I heard mentioned racism. Many women complained about machismo and that in addition to working a regular job she also had to do housework and take the major responsibility for the kids.

Both cities had a wealth of cultural facilities that were usually free.

I could see that the housing situation in Havana was not good. There was overcrowding. Two or three generations would share the same living quarters. Not that there wasn't any but where I walked I did not see any dilapidated housing. I made it a point to go to working class areas quite a way from central Havana. The three working class apartments I visited in Havana were nicer than many I have lived in.

If you want to point to Havana and say it is in shambles, you are mistaken, well at least if you compare it to MANY, MANY cities in the U.S. I found that most of the complaints I heard were grossly exaggerated. They somehow got the idea that everything is rosy in the U.S. They are often fed the same propaganda that we get in this country. Most of the TV programs I saw on their sets were sitcoms from the U.S. or news from CNN. The government does not do a good job countering it.

Les

and the difference is that one can stand in the middle of DC and shout imprecations about W and cronies, blog all over the world on the same topic, publish as you like on the subject...and be protected by Law

can't do that in Cuba without going to jail at best

as i stated before, the Communist Manifesto is on par with Mein Kampf for being anathema to my own world view or way of thinking

but i will defend to the End the Right of folks to believe and espouse such hateful drivel if they so desire and keep it within the bounds of the Law

Excelsior?

More to the point, WHO, precisely is responsible for the economic privations Cuba has suffered?

Not Fidel.

The US government, with its big stick embargo

It destroyed Nicaragua, too.

But to hear clavos, the US government has bent over backwards in Latin America and everything is all Fidel Castro's and Hugo Chavez's fault.

When I indicated that Chavez had replaced Eric Clapton as God, I was not shitting around.

[Edited]

gonzo the deluded wrote:

and the difference is that one can stand in the middle of DC and shout imprecations about W and cronies, blog all over the world on the same topic, publish as you like on the subject...and be protected by Law

What a crock!

What about the folks who are arrested there every week for doing precisely that!!!!????

Are you blind?

i hear the flutttering of wings again, but see no proof of the cawing

do note i said "bounds of the Law"..so no bonfires in the Lincoln memorial and such

now, i do agree that this Administration has tried to curb many instances of an Individual's Rights...

but still on the side of freedom of expression, as opposed to a totalitarian regime

again, objective reality intrudes into cawing delusions

Excelsior?

Gonzo,

"the Communist Manifesto is on par with Mein Kampf for being anathema to my own world view or way of thinking"

And I suppose you read them both?

No wonder your subjective thinking is such that the INTENSIONS of someone YOU agree with DETERMINE the reality of what something IS.

Les

"again, objective reality intrudes into cawing delusions"

Above bears repeating.

The embargo does NOT prevent Fidel from trading with anyone in the world EXCEPT the USA and American companies and their subsidiaries. And even so, we're selling him food.

But fucking up your economy and needing to subsist on handouts does.

[Edited]

yes Les..i have indeed read them both...and more

as for you, i have only what you have typed here on BC to go by...the Objective Record, as it were

i care not for your intentions or the inner working of your thinking, can only go by what you have typed

fair warning, disrespect equates to an invitation with me, your final line comes perilously close

your choice, of course

Excelsior?

Clavos,

"The embargo does NOT prevent Fidel from trading with anyone in the world EXCEPT the USA and American companies and their subsidiaries."

First of all, Fidel is not trading with anyone. Personalizing what Cuba is down to a single person is no smarter than calling Bush a fascist or a Democrat a communist.

The embargo goes much further than what you mention. If a Mexican ship calls on a Cuban port it is not allowed into any U.S. port for six months. Any bank that does financial transactions with Cuba it will not get any business from the U.S. Any country that buys nickel from Cuba cannot use it in any product that ends up in the U.S. market.

As far as getting handouts from anyone. That is just plain bullshit.

Les

US citizens have no legal right to challenge their state in any way that this self-same state defines as illegal and choses to suppress - which even can includes two people planning an act of non-violent civil disobedience

freedom of expression - ?

no problem if you follow the rules and self-edit

which is why I would advocate a national and world wide gorilla graffiti campaign were it legal

Gonzo,

I was referring to your typed statement that if an engineer has has an intent then nothing other than what that intent is can be considered part of the realm of reality.

Did you not type such? Do I have to cut and paste?

Les

you had better cut and paste and look at the exact wording of that quote again, rather than what you think you read..the intent has to do with the design and waste...NOT the subjective/objective

so quote precisely, and i'll explain it to you, word for word, if required...but there appears to be a mistake in communication

Excelsior?

Les. You seem like a nice enough guy, zo I can't figure out why u want to enslave people.

You mention cubans calling u 'naive' when u told them u were a communist. Did their opinion based on first hand experience of communism not register with u at all?

I also wonder if your viewpoint is distorted because you live in detroit, a relic of a past age of capitalism's failures which has not adapted and moved forward like most of the rest of the nation. These days its the exception rather than the rule.

You might need to get out more.

Lumpy,

I am a nice guy and I do not want to enslave people.

"You mention cubans calling u 'naive' when u told them u were a communist. Did their opinion based on first hand experience of communism not register with u at all?"

There are too many 'communists' in Cuba, or not enough, depending how you define 'communist'.

I was introduced to several 'communists' when on part of official guided tour. I got a chance to talk to a coulple of them. They had not a clue as to what communism is. That was just two but my guess is that is faily widespread.

A very respected Cuban general recently admitted that they know how to act but are quite weak on theory. He expressed there is much to learn.

I have only lived in Detroit since April 22 of this year. Many of mhy neighbors meet me in the hallway and ask if I'm new here. I say yes and mentioned the date. I'm out much more than I'm in. I travel quite a bit.

Les

Gonzo,

Quoting exactly from 'Culture', 'Religion and Atheism' reply #238.

"the "value judgment" is for the engineer only, he was designing a device to keep food cool for storage, anything outside of said function is waste, which a good engineer keeps to a minimum..."

I was only trying to say that in a pinch a frig is just as USEFULL for HEATING as a device DESIGNED as HEATER of the same dissipated wattage as the frig.

You insist that the heat from a frig can ONLY be considered a waste because the intent of the designer was to minimize the waste. You perfectly accept the heat from the heater is useful because INTENDED that the product produce HEAT. You deny that heat from frig can EVER be considered USEFUL.

When the two produce the same exact thermal results you deny the equivalence based on intent of the designer.

Now if that ain't subjectivism...

Les

way back Dave says - *As for rampant corporatism and abuse of capitalism, that's why we have government in the first place, to regulate the excesses of the system.*

precisely Mussolini's point

but this must be reconciled with the truism that the business of government is business

then - *If government isn't doing that job, then we need to change the government, the people in it and the principles on which it's run.*

why not encourage government to creep back under its rock...then classes could deal directly with each other and see what develops - ?

Gonzo, you're a cynic too.

Les...you now fall into the pit of /ignore

sorry, but you cannot just tuck shit into clear and precise words to fit your own purely subjective interpretation

nothing in the text you quote is subjective, and each word is used correctly, your interpretation of it appears to deviate from the statements made, and takes it along some kind of fantasy based discussion which has NO grounding in what was typed by me

enjoy your day, i wish you nothing but the Best, but discussion with you is beyond pointless, imo

/ignore

Excelsior?

"As far as getting handouts from anyone. That is just plain bullshit."

C'mon Les. It's no secret that the Soviets supported him for several decades, to the tune of a couple of billion Dollars a year, and now Chavez is doing the same thing, at the same level.

And, IMO, personalizing it to Fidel makes all the sense in the world. Until he handed the reins over to Raul recently, he was the FINAL "decider" in Cuba for forty + years.

He IS the government in Cuba. Everyone else is a minion doing his bidding. He's a dictator, and a brutal one at that.

"If a Mexican ship calls on a Cuban port it is not allowed into any U.S. port for six months."

Bullshit, Les.

I worked with Mexican transportation companies my entire career. All operated to Cuba (and still do), and had no problem operating to the US as well.

The only thing they can't do is operate from Cuba direct to the US, or vice versa.

Even so, I operated direct charter flights with Mexican flagged aircraft between Miami and the Cuban cities I mentioned above for years, with the permission and licenses from BOTH governments; that's how I wound up traveling there frequently.

You've been listening to too much SWP propaganda, Les.

Clav wrote: "Miami and the Cuban cities ... that's how I wound up traveling there frequently"

I reckon you might have been up to a bit of monkey business for Uncle Sam :)

What about the folks who are arrested there every week for doing precisely that!!!!????

MR, name ONE American arrested solely for publicly criticizing the administration or the president.

Dave

And in the real world that year, most of the states that Goldwater carried were in the deep South, because he opposed civil rights legislation, as did many Republicans, in league with conservative southern Democrats. It's very convenient to leave out inconvenient facts that don't match your dreamy-eyed theory.

Goldwater opposed the civil rights act solely because he felt that it was unconstitutional, not because he was a racist. I also have to point out that 79% of congressional Republicans voted for the civil rights act and only 63% of congressional Democrats voted for it. Sounds like the facts are on my side.

Dave

Dave challenged: MR, name ONE American arrested solely for publicly criticizing the administration or the president.

I hate to side with moonraven, but what about that guy who stopped Dick Cheney in a mall and told him what he thought of the administration's Iraq policy, and was promptly arrested by the Secret Service on a trumped-up assault charge?

There are several other cases like the Howards case which you mention, Dr. D. In none of them were the people arrested for stating their opinion or exercising free speech. And in none of the cases were they held for more than a few hours or charged with any significant crime.

In the Howards case he was stopped on suspicion of assault and was then uncooperative with the officers who arrested him on misdemeanor harassment charge. He was released in 3 hours and the judge dismissed the charges at the request of VP Cheney.

If the administration was trying to silence free speech would the VP ask for the charges to be dropped?

This case certainly doesn't seem to fit the criteria of suppressing free speech.

But I should have asked MR to name one person convicted of a crime solely for expressing an anti-administration opinion.

Lots of people get arrested for stuff, especially when the SS is trying to protect the president, and then the charges are dropped. This is certainly not unique to this administration.

Dave

DD writes: "I hate to side with moonraven, but what about that guy who stopped Dick Cheney in a mall and told him what he thought of the administration's Iraq policy, and was promptly arrested by the Secret Service on a trumped-up assault charge?"

One of my mates here, Holmsie, is an avowed disliker (not strong enough a word that, really) of John Howard, the Aussie PM. Howard decided to show his face at the local shops for a meet-and-greet in his own electorate, where he faces an uphill battle against the Labor candidate, a TV personality and serious journalist from the aussie ABC.

Howard is in a unique position: now looking to be one of the most disliked PMs in Australian history, at the coming federal election he actually faces losing his own seat in parliament while a PM (a first I believe), although to be fair, an electoral redistribution pushing part of his seat into a blue-collar area hasn't helped either.

That day, he spotted Holmsie from a distance (about the time Holmsie gleefully spotted him), and walked up and stuck out his hand. Big mistake. Holmsie said: "Piss off you bastard. You should be ashamed of yourself for what you've done to this country. Don't try and shake my bloody hand. I can't wait for you get punted, you mongrel."

Or words to that effect.

To which the PM muttered meekly in reply, "Oh, OK then if that's how you feel" (or words to that effect) and was shuffled off by his minders to cop even more abuse from the Saturday morning shoppers.

As my mate proudly reflects, only in Australia can you tell the Prime Minister he's a bastard to his face, tell him to piss off and give him a piece of your mind without being arrested.

At the time, I thought, no, there are other places ... like the US.

But maybe not, if DD's quote above is fair dinkum.

Stan..no worries, we can still say what we like, not smart to walk up to someone under SS protection and touch him...that gets ya a quick trip to the pokey and a background check that finds out how many times ya wanked off in 8th grade...

some Free Speech

enjoy...

Excelsior?

Yep, Classic stuff Gonzo. Good thing Rumsfeld has been punted.

Cheney was here a few months back, and they closed off the whole Sydney Harbour Bridge and harbour tunnel crossings for about 20 minutes ... on a busy Saturday morning while Cheney's SS escorted motorcade went from the city to the Prime Minister's residence on the other side of the harbour.

There were police and Army helicopters buzzing overhead, US SS agents everywhere, Australian Federal Police, counter-terrorist units in fast rigid boats, etc.

While I was stuck in the ensuing traffic jam, sitting on the bonnet of my car on the expressway looking down at the harbour and all the action, a guy got out of his truck and said in laconic Aussie style: "Have a go at all this bullshit, will ya. Fair dinkum, what a bunch of fu.ken wankers".

Later, some protestors held up signs near Cheny's hotel urging: "Cheney, take Howard hunting".

I almost killed a governor of Massachusetts once. I was in a hurry one time trying to get get to a Red-Line subway Station in Cambridge. It just happened to be elction time. I went bolting down the stairs of the Harvard Square Station. I made it to a landing, still at a good clip. And then this grinning guy steps right in front of me with his hand out, 'Hi, I'm Govornor Francis Sargent ...'. I almost tripped trying to avoid him and the rest of grinning party. I said 'Man, I'm in a hury, get the fuck out of my way.'

All the grins disappeared but there was no attempt to continue the blocking or arrest or any other abuse.

""Cheney, take Howard hunting"."

best....Quote...of...the....week!!

i still don't understand how he got away with that little hunting bit...i mean Lawyers were out of season, and this one was way too old and should have been thrown back...

i guess safety orange on a hunting "preserve" where they drive you out to the area where the birds are caged ain't safe enough...go figure

Excelsior?

I've got your 'free speech' right here

I would never call Barry Goldwater, whom I rather admire, a racist. But politics is not all dewy-eyed idealism...it's about getting votes in elections. Alabama, Mississippi and other Deep South states, in going for Goldwater in 1964, provided a preview of some of the coming changes in the GOP, some based on racism and religious fundamentalism, that continue today.

How about some truth in advertising. Let the conservatives declare themselves the party of torture, lying about torture, redefining torture and pre-emptive and unnecessary war! Why you conservatives thought there was a need for an Al Qaida base in Iraq I will never know. They weren't there before you fellas insisted on an unnecessary and illegal war there.

#119: Dave, all you asked was for MR to name a case where someone had been arrested for criticizing the administration.

I did that.

Knowing your MO, I more than half (actually, pretty much 95%) expected you to respond with a bunch of caveats, none of which had anything to do with your original challenge.

Of course Howards wasn't charged with criticizing the administration. That's not a crime. But do you seriously expect us to believe that if he'd gone up to Cheney and said, "Hello, Mr Vice President. How are you today?" things would have transpired in the same way? Face it: he was arrested because he told Cheney what he thought of him.

Note that I did not make any kind of value judgment on the incident (other than to say that the charge against Howards was trumped-up, which it clearly was).

I haven't read anywhere that Howards was uncooperative. Where did you see that? And even if he was, can you blame him? He was arrested for no good cause, in front of his young son, for what he saw as exercising his constitutional rights.

Yes, certainly the Secret Service agent, Reichle, was overzealous - I'll accept that he thought he was doing his duty. But this kind of thing seems to happen a lot with the Bush administration (Cindy Sheehan's arrest in Congress for wearing the wrong kind of T-shirt, for instance). Cheney asked for the case to be dropped because the publicity was embarrassing, not because he felt Reichle's actions were excessive.

#120, #123: I severely doubt that if Stan's mate or Les had pulled that kind of thing in today's climate of paranoia in America, they would have gotten away without having their collars felt by the Men With Bad Suits And No Facial Expressions.

Dave: Does the name Cindy Sheehan ring just a teeny weeny bell to you?

Try reading the news--or even watching it.

You're only reading your own fantasies.

troll- great clip

but some unAnswered questions arise from it, it appears to be simple civil disobedience, but we don't know where (besides Tacoma)..was it private property, or blocking a road?

i personally applaud the folks who stood up for what they believe in, especially since they took the Responsibility for what they were doing, were peaceful and appeared prepared and smart about the whole thing

it does appear on first view that the police were excessive...what reason for a tear gas dispersal?

without further details i can't say much about it, thanks for sharing the clip

Excelsior?

Knowing your MO, I more than half (actually, pretty much 95%) expected you to respond with a bunch of caveats, none of which had anything to do with your original challenge.

Well, except that they had everything to do with it.

Of course Howards wasn't charged with criticizing the administration. That's not a crime. But do you seriously expect us to believe that if he'd gone up to Cheney and said, "Hello, Mr Vice President. How are you today?" things would have transpired in the same way? Face it: he was arrested because he told Cheney what he thought of him.

The secret service regularly reacts with excessive caution in these situations, but once the person has been detained and questioned they do ultimately get off. And I think it's somewhat key that Howards touched Cheney.

I haven't read anywhere that Howards was uncooperative. Where did you see that?

The New York Times story on the arrest.

And even if he was, can you blame him? He was arrested for no good cause, in front of his young son, for what he saw as exercising his constitutional rights.

Nah, I don't blame him a bit. I'd have been pissed too.

Yes, certainly the Secret Service agent, Reichle, was overzealous - I'll accept that he thought he was doing his duty. But this kind of thing seems to happen a lot with the Bush administration

IMO there's a pattern of overreaction and under training in the SS which goes back well before the current administration.

(Cindy Sheehan's arrest in Congress for wearing the wrong kind of T-shirt, for instance).

It wasn't the wrong kind of t-shirt it was that she was wearing a t-shirt in the first place in violation of the dress code which has since, I believe, been eliminated. And as I recall she was offered an opportunity to change and then started a scuffle with the uniformed SS agent.

Cheney asked for the case to be dropped because the publicity was embarrassing, not because he felt Reichle's actions were excessive.

Indeed, it's absolutely impossible that Cheney could be a decent human being.

Dave

Projected growth in Internal Brute Product for 2007 in Latin American countries released today indicates CUBA, with the highest growth at 10%, followed by Panama at 8.5%.

The last place projected slot goes to MEXICO (where clavos says things are really booming even though he doesn't live here or know anything about the country--Mexican passport: false) at 3.2%

Given what's happened during the first half of the year here, I think 3.2% is a very optimistic figure--Mexico has not seen any growth since the last year of Zedillo's presidency--7 years ago.

Cheney was not a decent human being even as he popped out of his mother's uterus.

If there was ever a case for the validity of the Rosemary's Baby premise, it is HE.

There was no DRESS CODE, Nalle!

That's another one of your lies--a la Cantinflas.

Per Congressman Walberg of Michigan's office, there NEVER has been nor is there a dress code for visitors; only for pages & congressmaggots & their staff.

Nor was there one at the time of Sheehan's arrest; it was harrassment pure & simple. And I agree again w/MR: Cheney has given evidence from early on in his life that he's a psychopath as well as a liar, conniver, & manipulater of truly grotesque dimensions.

Way too many folks are agreeing with me on all of the threads.

I guess I will have to start bullshitting you guys [Edited]

You just like being contrary?

Haven't heard from the Fake mexican yet today, but I think this should cheer him up:

New Study Says Venezuelan Economy to Continue to Boom

Thursday, Jul 26, 2007

By: Venezuelanalysis.com





Washington, DC: A new paper from the Center for Economic and Policy Research looks at the Venezuelan economy during the last eight years and finds that it does not fit the mold of an "oil boom headed for a bust," as is commonly believed.

"There's no obvious end in sight for Venezuela's current economic expansion," said economist Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and co-author of the paper "The Venezuelan Economy in the Chávez Years."

The paper notes that Venezuela's economy was wracked by political instability for the first four years of President Hugo Chávez's tenure, but has grown steadily and rapidly over the last four years, after political stability returned to the country following the oil strike of December 2002 to February 2003.

Since the bottom of that downturn in the first quarter of 2003, Venezuela's real GDP has grown by 76 percent.

Moreover, the private sector is still a larger share of the economy than it was before President Chávez took office.

In real (inflation-adjusted) terms, social spending per person has increased by 170 percent during the period 1998-2006. But this does not include the state oil company PDVSA's social spending, which was 7.3 percent of GDP in 2006. With this included, social spending was at least 314 percent more in 2006 than in 1998 (in terms of real social spending per person). This has brought about significant gains for the poor in health care, subsidized food, and access to education, some of which are detailed in the paper.

The official poverty rate, which measures only cash income and does not include such advances as increased access to health car