Castro was right!

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

I don't see the logic in your thinking. You say people will change, but not enough to make us good people. I don't think we can say or not if eventually we will change into the helpful and enlightened people that communism depends on... especially after a few nukes wipe out most the earths population...

Anyway I don't worry about when or if human nature will change. I'm going to live another 60-70 years. I don't think it'll change enough in that time to do anything, so I'm going to look out for my personal freedom for the next few decades.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 27 2002,07:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't see the logic in your thinking.  You say people will change, but not enough to make us good people.  I don't think we can say or not if eventually we will change into the helpful and enlightened people that communism depends on... especially after a few nukes wipe out most the earths population...

Anyway I don't worry about when or if human nature will change.  I'm going to live another 60-70 years.  I don't think it'll change enough in that time to do anything, so I'm going to look out for my personal freedom for the next few decades. <span id='postcolor'>

You are missing my point.

We can strive to change...but deep down we are essentially what we are. What makes a person or group of people more than just animals is how they strive to BE different. But in the end you cant erase human nature

Just like you might convince a wolf not to eat a sheep when it's not hungry..if it goes without food long enough, it's a bad idea to have made the wolf the sheepdog

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Communism is a great idea but dosnt work, Capatalism only works for the rich, Democracy just becomes a bunch or politicians squebling, Imperilism enslaves all but the royal family, and Anarchy kind of screws its self in the fact that 1. we overthrow the goverment 2. abolish laws 3. Then, to protect ourselves from outsiders, we form gangs, then these gangs battle for territory 4. Gangs control certain parts of the land and basicly form havve their own goverment, so they are going back to the system they dispised. Goverments ARE SCREWED! Thye just dont work. Greed and power has corrupted the human race.

[BoonieRat 0]

The trouble with government is its provided to control the masses for the benifit of the few. till this changes mankind will get nowhere.

I think there needs to be government on a smaller scale. states or republics with their own autonomy, but meshed into the whole. man is a communual creature, but divide, rule and concuer have divide us into an Island of each person. there is no 'community spirit'. that lets the way open for people to feed off each other(capitalism~another word for Cannbalism). which in the long run can only be detrimental...

...and we wonder why the world is in such a shit state?...

[second_draw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ July 27 2002,04:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Communism is a horrible form of Goverment, and is something the U.S. should have nothing to with. <span id='postcolor'>

Of course, I mean it makes perfect sense to have an embargo on Cuba, baaad communists....we shouldn't do any business with them! *cough* Free trade with China *cough*<span id='postcolor'>

I think it's just easier for the US to pick on the little communist kids/countries (eg. cuba). I think the US is trying out how to pick on or beat up china but china isn't some little titch to pick on and won't stand for it and will give back a US quite a mouthful. Schoolyard beating... a facinating subject

[Paratrooper 0]

Wanting to keep most of what you earn isn't greed, it's what is yours. Communistic collectivism amounts to theft.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

The U.S. could beat China, but both sides would take mass casulties. If the ciuntry in which I lived become communist I would flee, not being able to speak againts goverment, or being able to have a religon would be very bad.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ July 27 2002,19:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The U.S. could beat China, but both sides would take mass casulties. If the ciuntry in which I lived become communist I would flee, not being able to speak againts goverment, or being able to have a religon would be very bad.<span id='postcolor'>

A nuclear exchange would not result in 'Victory' for either side.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

YOur rigth, but we could get them alot quicker than they could get us.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ July 27 2002,19:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">YOur rigth, but we could get them alot quicker than they could get us.<span id='postcolor'>

What good would that do? All real nuclear nations would be pretty much equal in a major war.

[Lazarus_Long 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wanting to keep most of what you earn isn't greed, it's what is yours. Communistic collectivism amounts to theft.<span id='postcolor'>

Wow, I actually agree with Paratrooper on something.  

This is the whole problem with socialism, weather it is democratic or totalitarian.  The only people who benefit from communism, are dictators, and lazy people. There is no "utopia" involved in pure marxist communism either.  What's the point of being a hard worker if your reward is the same as the alcoholic bum who sits at home all day watching sports?

And for those of you who are snickering over how hypocritical the USA is by dealing with China and not with Cuba do not seem to remember that we were once at war with Cuba's current leader.  Our vendetta agaist cuba is not directed against communism, it's with Fidel Castro himself. Castro's track record of human rights are terrifying.  Lifting the trade emargo agianst cuba would only support his corrupt regime.  We have nothing against cubans at all.  In fact there are more cubans here in the U.S. than in Cuba itself.

Back in '94, I was fishing out Cuban refugees off the coast of Florida while serving in the US Navy.  I got to see first hand the fruits of Castro's government.  I have absolutely no sympathies for that man.  Any country who trades with cuba and is thus supporting Castro can kiss my a**.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wow, I actually agree with Paratrooper on something. <span id='postcolor'> Hurray! Does it hurt?

[Longinius 1]

"What's the point of being a hard worker if your reward is the same as the alcoholic bum who sits at home all day watching sports?"

The utopian concept its all based upon is that there are no alcoholic bums. From that basis, it works, and its good. But we all know it will never ever work that way. Most humans look for the easy way out, and for some, the easiest way is being a parasite. There will always be people like that, unless we start shooting them off of course.

Communism, as such, is a good idea. I wouldn't mind living in such a system provided it worked. But it doesn't work. Why? Because when you bring millions of humans together anything will get fucked up, and a system based on humanity, kindness and brotherhood is even more likely to get screwed.

That is why I prefer a capitalist society, where me and my friends (who chose to work) can form our own group, our own little collective body, and work our problems out. My friend who is a mechanic fixes my car, in tur I fix his computer. Another friend helps us with taxes, a third sneaks us into the local club. Thats capitalistic communism for you, exchange of services between equals and it works darn good. Well, I get my car fixed and I get to go ahead of the line when going to the club anyway

[Paratrooper 0]

We already support needier people throught taxes. We don't need to 'level down', but 'level standards up'.

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 27 2002,05:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that Bush kind of lost his right to say anything about the Cuban form of government since he was losing the 2000 election until he persuaded the supreme court to stop the recounts on grounds that recounts are unconstitutional. Not to say that even without the recounts a majority of the US voters voted for Gore. So much for democracy <span id='postcolor'>

[sarcasm]Yeah... Bush was losing when the recounts were stopped.[/sarcasm] The last time I checked he was up by about 500 votes in Florida, and that was after several recounts. Gore just wanted them to keep recounting until he could twist the results enough to claim victory.

Gore didn't have a majority either. A majority would be more than 50% of the votes. Gore did have about 500,000 more votes than Bush, however. But we don't go on a popular vote system. The states elect the president, not the people. This is done to keep states with huge populations (i.e. California, all of New England) from having too much say in the presidential election. if you'll look at a county-by-county map you'll see a whole hell of a lot more red than blue. The US is not a democracy; democracy is a "mob rule" type situation. We are a republic, which makes all states equal.

Furthermore, a lot of people didn't vote because they knew they knew that Bush had no chance in solidly liberal states. Take California, for example. The state is divided about 60/40 for democrats and republicans. The millions of republicans in the state didn't vote because it was pretty much worthless. The situation is the same in a lot of states in New England too. Had everyone who cared about the election voted, it would have been much closer. Bush probably would have had more votes than Gote.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US is not a democracy<span id='postcolor'> Beautifully put.

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 27 2002,20:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ July 27 2002,19:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">YOur rigth, but we could get them alot quicker than they could get us.<span id='postcolor'>

What good would that do? All real nuclear nations would be pretty much equal in a major war.<span id='postcolor'>

China doesn't have anywhere near the nuclear capabilities of America. They've got 20 ICBM's, and 24 SLBM's (submarine launched ballistic missiles). They have only one sub from which to launch nukes, and it is obsolete. In a war, our submarines would put that one sub out of business pretty quickly because China's navy is nowhere near as advanced as ours. We could probably take out all of the ICBM's too, using smart bombs from B2 or F-117 stealth bombers. Or, we could use a special ops team to take them out.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Gore didn't have a majority either.  A majority would be more than 50% of the votes.  Gore did have about 500,000 more votes than Bush, however.  But we don't go on a popular vote system.  The states elect the president, not the people.  This is done to keep states with huge populations (i.e. California, all of New England) from having too much say in the presidential election.  if you'll look at a county-by-county map you'll see a whole hell of a lot more red than blue.  The US is not a democracy; democracy is a "mob rule" type situation.  We are a republic, which makes all states equal.

Furthermore, a lot of people didn't vote because they knew they knew that Bush had no chance in solidly liberal states.  Take California, for example.  The state is divided about 60/40 for democrats and republicans.  The millions of republicans in the state didn't vote because it was pretty much worthless.  The situation is the same in a lot of states in New England too.  Had everyone who cared about the election voted, it would have been much closer.  Bush probably would have had more votes than Gote.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL!!  

Firstly:

Gore had more than 50% of the votes cast.  It's why the whole 'electoral college' thing is being called into question.

Secondly:

Everyone who cared about the election DID vote.  If people care about the election and dont vote, then they are morons. Woops..perhaps they would have voted republican then .  There is no excuse for apathy...if you care vote.  If you dont care enough to vote, no matter what you think the outcome, then you have no right to whine about the results.  Trying to say that 'if more people had voted, I am sure they would have voted Bush' is totally flawed logic.

Thirdly:

you say 'This is done to keep states with huge populations (i.e. California, all of New England) from having too much say in the presidential election' in one paragraph, then 'The millions of republicans in the state didn't vote because it was pretty much worthless.'

Which sounds like you believe in the EC system in states where it works in your favour, but not in states where it doesnt. You cant have your cake and eat it too, m'man!

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lazarus_Long @ July 27 2002,20:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And for those of you who are snickering over how hypocritical the USA is by dealing with China and not with Cuba do not seem to remember that we were once at war with Cuba's current leader. <span id='postcolor'>

What war? Oh you mean the Bay of Pigs? The "war" where the CIA flew B-26's with Cuban markings so they could claim that the Cuban military was uprising against Castro? The "war" where the CIA used Cuban exiles as the troops, so they could deny involvement, and then didn't deliver all the assistance they promised? Ah, that "war"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Castro's track record of human rights are terrifying. <span id='postcolor'>

Really? Could you tell me what the Cuban equivalent of the Cultural Revolution was? What about Cuba's Tianamen Square?

Most political dissidents in Cuba get 2-5 years in jail. In China you could be killed by the police for practicing Christianity.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Our vendetta agaist cuba is not directed against communism, it's with Fidel Castro himself. <span id='postcolor'>

Who started that vendetta? The US. Castro overthrew Batista, an enormously unpopular dictator who happened to be a US puppet, and when he tried to build ties with the US, they wouldn't recognize his government. The only way he could build an army to defend the revolution was to ally with the USSR.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">  Lifting the trade emargo agianst cuba would only support his corrupt regime. <span id='postcolor'>

The embargo was meant to dislodge Castro very quickly when it was implemented in the 60's. It has failed miserably, all it does is make life hard for ordinary Cubans.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Back in '94, I was fishing out Cuban refugees off the coast of Florida while serving in the US Navy.  I got to see first hand the fruits of Castro's government.<span id='postcolor'>

Really? I lived there 9 years. I guess you could say I saw the fruits of Castro's government too. And I have also seen the fruits of the US embargo.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Any country who trades with cuba and is thus supporting Castro can kiss my a**.

<span id='postcolor'>

Spoken like a true Yanqui, the kind Castro's propaganda portrays. Castro should go, his vision for Cuba is not coming true, and he is ruthless in holding on to power, thus hurting ordinary Cubans. The US embargo however does the same thing. Opening ties would just free up exchange of ideas, and eventually bring about democracy. Didn't Glasnost and Perestroika work??

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ July 28 2002,00:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">China doesn't have anywhere near the nuclear capabilities of America.  They've got 20 ICBM's, and 24 SLBM's (submarine launched ballistic missiles).  They have only one sub from which to launch nukes, and it is obsolete.  In a war, our submarines would put that one sub out of business pretty quickly because China's navy is nowhere near as advanced as ours.  We could probably take out all of the ICBM's too, using smart bombs from B2 or F-117 stealth bombers.  Or, we could use a special ops team to take them out.<span id='postcolor'>

You have been reading too much Tom Clancy for your own good

Yes, China has about 100x fewer ICBM then the US, and yes as far as we know they only have 20 currently (they will deploy the next generation of missiles next year - about 30 missiles initially). However 20 ICBMs are more then enough to disable America and its retaliatory capabilities if they shoot first.

As for the subs, your intel is incorrect. They have one nuclear powerd ballistic submarine, Xio class, but they have over 30 conventional ballistic submarines - Golf class. With the cutdowns on the SOSUS chains they could easily make it to a position where they could launch their missiles on USA. The Golf class may be old, but it is still very silent and blody hard to detect. Currently only the US Ohio class subs are harder to trace.

Of course, it all boils down to the point that just as the Americans, the Chinese are not suicidal. I don't think we can expect any form of showdown, so to say

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ July 28 2002,00:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US is not a democracy; democracy is a "mob rule" type situation.  We are a republic, which makes all states equal.<span id='postcolor'>

You should get your terminology straight. USA is a democracy and a republic. Democracy refers to how the goverment is chosen. Republic refers to the form of the goverment.

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 28 2002,00:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Gore had more than 50% of the votes cast.  It's why the whole 'electoral college' thing is being called into question.

Secondly:

Everyone who cared about the election DID vote.  If people care about the election and dont vote, then they are morons. Woops..perhaps they would have voted republican then .  There is no excuse for apathy...if you care vote.  If you dont care enough to vote, no matter what you think the outcome, then you have no right to whine about the results.  Trying to say that 'if more people had voted, I am sure they would have voted Bush' is totally flawed logic.

Thirdly:

you say 'This is done to keep states with huge populations (i.e. California, all of New England) from having too much say in the presidential election' in one paragraph, then 'The millions of republicans in the state didn't vote because it was pretty much worthless.'

Which sounds like you believe in the EC system in states where it works in your favour, but not in states where it doesnt.  You cant have your cake and eat it too, m'man!<span id='postcolor'>

Look here. It shows that Gore had about 48.4% of the popular vote.

I support the EC system wholeheartedly. If places like New York, California, and the like want Gore then that's fine, they can cast their electoral votes in his favor. They are solidly liberal, so it wouldn't matter if Republicans had voted. You say that EC doesn't work in California, but it does. California is a democrat state, and it's votes went to the democratic candidate. What I don't want is the states with huge populations dictating to small states who their president is. If all of our states are equal, then why should the bigger ones have all the say in the presidential race? If we only went by the popular vote, then smaller states would have absolutely no say in who becomes president. Is that fair?

You're trying to make it sound like the EC is a system designed to only put Republicans in office, which it is definitely not.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ July 28 2002,00:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 27 2002,20:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ July 27 2002,19:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">YOur rigth, but we could get them alot quicker than they could get us.<span id='postcolor'>

What good would that do? All real nuclear nations would be pretty much equal in a major war.<span id='postcolor'>

China doesn't have anywhere near the nuclear capabilities of America.  They've got 20 ICBM's, and 24 SLBM's (submarine launched ballistic missiles).  They have only one sub from which to launch nukes, and it is obsolete.  In a war, our submarines would put that one sub out of business pretty quickly because China's navy is nowhere near as advanced as ours.  We could probably take out all of the ICBM's too, using smart bombs from B2 or F-117 stealth bombers.  Or, we could use a special ops team to take them out.<span id='postcolor'>

I can't imagine how a country could 'win' a modern nuclear exchange. The USA would be decimated as surely as China.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ July 28 2002,01:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 28 2002,00:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Gore had more than 50% of the votes cast.  It's why the whole 'electoral college' thing is being called into question.

Secondly:

Everyone who cared about the election DID vote.  If people care about the election and dont vote, then they are morons. Woops..perhaps they would have voted republican then .  There is no excuse for apathy...if you care vote.  If you dont care enough to vote, no matter what you think the outcome, then you have no right to whine about the results.  Trying to say that 'if more people had voted, I am sure they would have voted Bush' is totally flawed logic.

Thirdly:

you say 'This is done to keep states with huge populations (i.e. California, all of New England) from having too much say in the presidential election' in one paragraph, then 'The millions of republicans in the state didn't vote because it was pretty much worthless.'

Which sounds like you believe in the EC system in states where it works in your favour, but not in states where it doesnt.  You cant have your cake and eat it too, m'man!<span id='postcolor'>

Look here.  It shows that Gore had about 48.4% of the popular vote.

I support the EC system wholeheartedly.  If places like New York, California, and the like want Gore then that's fine, they can cast their electoral votes in his favor.  They are solidly liberal, so it wouldn't matter if Republicans had voted.  You say that EC doesn't work in California, but it does.  California is a democrat state, and it's votes went to the democratic candidate.  What I don't want is the states with huge populations dictating to small states who their president is.  If all of our states are equal, then why should the bigger ones have all the say in the presidential race?  If we only went by the popular vote, then smaller states would have absolutely no say in who becomes president.  Is that fair?

You're trying to make it sound like the EC is a system designed to only put Republicans in office, which it is definitely not.<span id='postcolor'>

The presidency is a federal post. You already have a two chamber system (congress + senate) to equilize the power between the states.

The fact remains that the majority of the American people voted for Gore (50,996,582) and yet Bush with less number of votes (50,456,062) got the presidency.

[Warin 0]

3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ July 28 2002,013)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're trying to make it sound like the EC is a system designed to only put Republicans in office, which it is definitely not.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, I was trying to point out that you seemed to disparage the system in Democratic states, but lauded it for the states Republicans win.

As has been pointed out, you have an elected congress and senate, with representation based on population.  And so why would it be bad to have your president decided by truly democratic means?