NationStates Jolt Archive

I have always wanted to do this thread with Fidel for President and George W Bush for President of the USA.

Post your why you would vote or not vote for each.

Fidel Castro: Communist nutjob who was prevented from starting a nuclear free for all during the Cold War by the Soviet Union, which didn't want to face total annihilation. Also more likely to die first than Bush. Was about as good a communist as Stalin, minus the Gulag. Possibly the only reason for the US embargo.

George Bush: voted less likely to start an all-out nuclear war. Also saner and slightly more competent. Would not have won if ran against a COMPETENT Democrat, ie. was not mistaken for a robot and was not known for having more waffles than IHOP[international house of pancakes]. Voted less likely to hate capitalists and possibly TRUE "reds"[commies]. Also, less creepy.

I'd vote for George "I'm finishing daddy's job in Iraq" Bush than Fidel "nutjob" Castro.

I would vote for George W Bush and not Fidel Castro because he would find away to become a dictator for life where my rights and yours to disagree with him politically on any policy would not be allowed or respected.

Please vote and post and treat both polls as a serious poll, and have fun with this one, LOL.

I can't. Castro sounds too close to Castrate and I always vote with my groin.

I have always wanted to do this thread with only one US Presidential candidate and a choice of other,
And now you have two. :)

And now you have two. :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by La Habana Cuba
I have always wanted to do this thread with only one US Presidential candidate and a choice of other,

And now you have two.

LOL, I get your point.

Colodia, please vote.

Gracias Colodia, LOL

Bush is good.

Fidel Castro. He didn't invade other countries, his political repression is not as bad as Bush (the worst place of Cuba is Guantanamo, not Fidel's prisons), he doesn't use torture, he grants to his citizen healthcare, food, housing. And when there is a hurricane in Cuba, it doesn't end up in New Orleans drama. And Castro is not threatening to use nuclear weapons. And Castro never did a coup or coup attempt in another country. And he doesn't impose blocus on anyone.

Sure, Castro is far from perfect. I don't accept the political repression nor the control of media. But it's not as bad as Bush, by far, and at least he does do some good things too. While Bush doesn't. And even on the media part, it's not easier to criticize Monsato inside USA media than to criticize Castro in Cuba's media. The journalists who tried to denounce the consequences of Monsato's bovine grown hormones on health got fired, and there documentary never aired on any TV. That's censorship, too. So, definitely, I chose Castro over Bush.

Hurricane Ivan- Castro personally goes to the front to help stack sandbags. Millions are evacuated from area about to be hit by hurricane- almost nobody is killed. Entire military is mobilised. Following disaster, Castro offers to send aid to devastated areas in USA.

Hurrican Katrina- Bush covers his ears and screams "I can't hear you!" when told about incoming enormous cyclone. No evacuation. Thousands die in New Orleans. Military tied up in overseas war to secure oil interests for extremely rich. Following disaster, Bush threatens war with Cuba for fun.


............

Also, Cuban healthcare is better, Cuba doesn't have atomic weapons, Cuba has never invaded a small country for the rich, the vast majority of Cubans are actually genuinely happy people, Cuban education is free and in Cuba, you aren't in danger of being killed/spat upon/vilified or attacked for being Muslim, black or gay.


I think I would just have to vote for Fidel.

Woohoo, only European voting for Bush!!!

Bush is always acting in the wests best interests.

Hurricane Fidel

HURRICANE CASTRO

Hurricane Castro has been lashing Cuba with winds of hate and destruction for 47 years. The damages
caused by this killer hurricane are incalculable. Tens of thousands of deaths, hundreds of billions of
dollars in damages, 2,000,000 refugees, pain and suffering for millions of people. Those are the
tragic results of this hurricane.
But always, after the storm the calm will come and I am sure that the Cuban people will be able to
rebuild their beautiful island and live in peace once this killer hurricane is gone forever.

Bush is always acting in the wests best interests.

Yes, if you're interested in seeing the USA run into the ground along with its mates.

Castro seems to be extremely capable and caring. And La Habana Cuba - The US government's done more damage than that to the middle east in two years, whilst "fighting terror". Castro's had wars on his land, which were actually caused by the USA. What wars has he caused you?

Also a power vacuum after he dies (inevitably) will lead to much, much more death and tragedy, I think.

Yes, if you're interested in seeing the USA run into the ground along with its mates.

Castro seems to be extremely capable and caring. And La Habana Cuba - The US government's done more damage than that to the middle east in two years, whilst "fighting terror". Castro's had wars on his land, which were actually caused by the USA. What wars has he caused you?

Also a power vacuum after he dies (inevitably) will lead to much, much more death and tragedy, I think.

My freedom of choice as a Cuban Citizen, exile in the evil USA, I emigrated legally, I have balseros in the family, I have former political prisoner family members in the family because they did not agree with the economic, political and social views of Fidel, dictator for life, I can go on and on but that is good enough for now.

I thought there were supposed to be differences between the candidates.

My freedom of choice as a Cuban Citizen, exile in the evil USA, I emigrated legally, I have balseros in the family, I have former political prisoner family members in the family because they did not agree with the economic, political and social views of Fidel, dictator for life, I can go on and on but that is good enough for now.

If you think he's so evil, you should have stayed and fought.

I thought there were supposed to be differences between the candidates.

President Bush will leave the office when the term expires,
President Fidel will rule over you for life, no choice.

So will they be prez for only four years, or for life?

In the first case, it will definitely be Fidel. He's not that bad, and the US could use a bit of a lefty from time to time. Plus, he might be down-to-earth enough to let things calm down a bit after those turbulent years since 9/11.

For life, the question is tougher. I don't like presidents for life anyways, and neither are particularly appealing choices. But again, Castro has less of a record of aggressive, violent foreign policy than Bush which for me as a non-US citizen matters most.

Castro it is.

President Bush will leave the office when the term expires,
President Fidel will rule over you for life, no choice.
That's a crap choice. You can't modify the rules like that, what sort of poll would that be?

That's a crap choice. You can't modify the rules like that, what sort of poll would that be?

Neu Leonstein you are a smart person, who said anything about choice or rules.

Ok have it your way, us presidential term 4 years as is.

What I am saying is President Bush will step down, leave office after the term expires, President Fidel will find away to become a dictator for life like he is now.

Would you like to live under Fidel dictator for life, no choice? Please vote?

Fidel Castro. He didn't invade other countries, his political repression is not as bad as Bush (the worst place of Cuba is Guantanamo, not Fidel's prisons), he doesn't use torture, he grants to his citizen healthcare, food, housing. And when there is a hurricane in Cuba, it doesn't end up in New Orleans drama. And Castro is not threatening to use nuclear weapons. And Castro never did a coup or coup attempt in another country. And he doesn't impose blocus on anyone.

Sure, Castro is far from perfect. I don't accept the political repression nor the control of media. But it's not as bad as Bush, by far, and at least he does do some good things too. While Bush doesn't. And even on the media part, it's not easier to criticize Monsato inside USA media than to criticize Castro in Cuba's media. The journalists who tried to denounce the consequences of Monsato's bovine grown hormones on health got fired, and there documentary never aired on any TV. That's censorship, too. So, definitely, I chose Castro over Bush.

Hurricane Ivan- Castro personally goes to the front to help stack sandbags. Millions are evacuated from area about to be hit by hurricane- almost nobody is killed. Entire military is mobilised. Following disaster, Castro offers to send aid to devastated areas in USA.

Hurrican Katrina- Bush covers his ears and screams "I can't hear you!" when told about incoming enormous cyclone. No evacuation. Thousands die in New Orleans. Military tied up in overseas war to secure oil interests for extremely rich. Following disaster, Bush threatens war with Cuba for fun.


............

Also, Cuban healthcare is better, Cuba doesn't have atomic weapons, Cuba has never invaded a small country for the rich, the vast majority of Cubans are actually genuinely happy people, Cuban education is free and in Cuba, you aren't in danger of being killed/spat upon/vilified or attacked for being Muslim, black or gay.


I think I would just have to vote for Fidel.

What they said :D

If you think he's so evil, you should have stayed and fought.

Yes that is my shame, now lets give credit where credit is due, the bay of pigs exiles at least they tried, President Kenedy promised air support and because he had second thoughts and doubts about the invasion plans did not deliver the air support.

Cuba the forgotten war, where over 10,000 anti Castro Cubans died in the Escambray mountains of Cuba against Fidel's forces and soviet union forces from 1960 to 1965.

Las Damas de Blanco, the Ladies in white who protest against the Cuban government and have been harrassed by organized government mobs.

The other political dissidents.

My own family members former political prisoners.

A family member of mine, a former Cuban political prisoner, helped found a house for former Cuban political prisoners in Venezuela to help them settle in Venezuela or emigrate to the USA, it has helped thousands of Cubans former political prisoners and non political prisoners.

I have been trying to find out what has happend to that house, if it has been closed or not by Hugo Chavez.

I spent thousands of $ Dollars trying to get US and other nation visas for some family members of mine, I had an office in Miami which I paid thousands of $ Dollars to help me with the paper work and such, the office was run by a man with an Argentine or Spaniard accent, as I grew more suspicious and started asking certain questions, the man grew more suspicious and disapeard office and all with all my money and those of hundreds of other Cuban Americans.

I redoubled my efforts after my family member in Cuba sent me a letter saying please help me and my family, my two young sons get out of this hell hole, that is the way he put it in his letter, now keep in mind that I also lived in that hell hole.

Through the contact of this family member with the house, I was able to get US and Venezuelan visas for those other family members, not free, but I got the visas, out of gratitude I donated $ 1,000 Dollars to the house, I then went to Venezuela to greet and help settle my family members, I have never regretted the cost $, and have never made them pay back the money $.

Cuba the forgotten war, where over 10,000 anti Castro Cubans died in the Escambray mountains of Cuba against Fidel's forces and soviet union forces.

You mean, Bastista supporters, who tried to put back in power the US-backed dictator ?

You mean, Bastista supporters, who tried to put back in power the US-backed dictator ?

I guess you would favor Fidel the dictator, not the democratic president you seem to think he is.

Tens of thousands of deaths,

Sure, that's why he has the life expencty and child death rate far above the average of South America, and even above some of the rich western countries ?

Castro does some "bad" things, but he definitely prevented much more deaths than what he caused.

Also remember that it's Cuba who the highest amount of doctors curing people in other countries, more than USA or any western country, more than WHO itself !

While Bush did kill a lot of people in his two wars, and is responsible of the Katarina disaster.

I guess you would favor Fidel the dictator, not the democratic president you seem to think he is.
Let's be straight though - Batista wasn't the democratic type. He was also very deeply involved with criminals from the US and other places.

And he wasn't the sort of guy who cared much about "the masses" (tm). Castro really did some good things, and compared to neighbouring countries (especially Haiti, which gives a good indication of what happens if no one ends up winning a revolution/civil war) life for the average citizen is a lot better in Cuba.

You can complain about the democratic deficite, and that is your right and certainly also the right thing to do.

But give credit where credit is due as well, because otherwise the rest of your message must invariably suffer.

Neu Leonstein, in the mid 1950 sI think it was cant remember the year, there were at least 10,000 people
from other nations with visas to emigrate to Cuba, compare that to over 2,000,000 cuban immigrants under Fidel.

Castro has done a hell of a lot more for Cuba than Batista, the corrupt dictator who was supported by the USA!

Neu Leonstein, in the mid 1950 sI think it was cant remember the year, there were at least 10,000 people
from other nations with visas to emigrate to Cuba, compare that to over 2,000,000 cuban immigrants under Fidel.
Apart from you not mentioning a link for where that came from...obviously there are two factors at work here.

1) Under Batista, Cuba was a holiday place and a huge money laundering operation. The Mafia did much of its business through Batista's government.
Obviously there will be people who move there, just as there would have been people to move the other way.

2) Today (and this was confirmed by another NS Generalite who travelled to Cuba not long ago), many Cubans want to get to the US because they think they can do better there, not because they think it's so horrible in Cuba. Simply the numbers alone isn't enough, especially if you're talking about a situation like immigration to the "land of opportunity".

Yes that is my shame

If so, why aren't you blowing up buildings of the commie-scum instead of wasting time on internet forums?


Anyway, if we're electing either GW or Castro for the regular US 4 year term, I'd take Castro. At least he has a brain.

I wonder why most of the Europeans like Castro, maybe its 'cos we're smart.:cool:

Fidel may have put people in jail because of their political views, but Bush has put Muslims in orange boiler suits and forced them to confess to things under torture, I voted for Castro because I have left wing ideals.

I wonder why most of the Europeans like Castro, maybe its 'cos we're smart.:cool:
Don't count on it.

Maybe it's because you don't know how life under Bush or Castro is like.

Declaring a war and tapping some phone lines isn't that bad compared to eliminating any semblance of political freedom, murdering up to 20,000 dissidents, destroying your country's economy (I'm not talking about deficits here), and outlawing even the most basic of civil rights far religious groups and homosexuals.
I'll stick with Bush. Castro may provide education and healthcare to cubans, but seeing as how the life expectancy and literacy rate in Cuba is slightly lower than the US, while average income is almost 15 times lower, I don't see the advantage.

I feel you may have misunderestimated the European mind.

Maybe it's because you don't know how life under Bush or Castro is like.

Declaring a war and tapping some phone lines isn't that bad compared to eliminating any semblance of political freedom, murdering up to 20,000 dissidents, destroying your country's economy (I'm not talking about deficits here), and outlawing even the most basic of civil rights far religious groups and homosexuals.
I'll stick with Bush. Castro may provide education and healthcare to cubans, but seeing as how the life expectancy and literacy rate in Cuba is slightly lower than the US, while average income is almost 15 times lower, I don't see the advantage.

Cuba might have a lower average wage but America has the biggest wage gap. In Cuba most people have around the same standard of life, in America there are many people who are horribly poor and there are a few who have huge fortunes.

I'll stick with Bush. Castro may provide education and healthcare to cubans, but seeing as how the life expectancy and literacy rate in Cuba is slightly lower than the US, while average income is almost 15 times lower, I don't see the advantage.
Although to be fair, some of that might just be due to the US being the richest country on earth, and Cuba not being quite so wealthy.

At any rate, I'd be very interested in some stats regarding real wages in both countries, ie wages discounted by purchasing power.

look at it this way:

Fidel Castro is old. He will die soon. If he is president in America, then he will either die of natural causes, or somebody will shoot him.

Don't even get me started on Bush.

look at it this way:

Fidel Castro is old. He will die soon. If he is president in America, then he will either die of natural causes, or somebody will shoot him.

Don't even get me started on Bush.

Bush will die if we shot him. America tried to assasinate Castro for ages, they haven't managed it yet.

I can almost guarantee you that the poorest Americans are richer than the poorest Cubans. The standard for poverty here is several times higher than the average cuban income (I'm using the CIA world factbook for rough statistics, by the way.)

And I realize that quality of life is skewed a lot by the wealth of America to begin with, but keep in mind that the Cuban economy has been guided by Castro for decades, and it has gotten worse if anything over the course of his reign. So the crippled economy we see today is what any of Castro's economic policies would tend to lead to, even if he had a 4 year term. All the more reason I wouldn't pick him over Bush.

While Bush did kill a lot of people in his two wars, and is responsible of the Katarina disaster.

Bush created the hurricane? Whoa.

Seriously. We know Bush responded poorly. But it's at least partially those people's faults for being there. We knew a few days in advance that it was approaching, it didn't come out from nowhere. Why didn't the people leave? I heard stupid shit about them being "too poor to leave." It's a FUCKING HURRICANE. FUCKING RUN.

I can almost guarantee you that the poorest Americans are richer than the poorest Cubans.
In absolute terms, yes. But comparing to the richest people in the country (or even the middle class), the divide is probably bigger in the States, and that divide is what matters, because that determines what your money is ultimately worth.

The standard for poverty here is several times higher than the average cuban income (I'm using the CIA world factbook for rough statistics, by the way.)
Again, that's obvious, simply for the fact that a dollar in the US would buy you a lot less than a dollar in Cuba.
I'm more interested in what a day's average wages will buy you in either country.

...but keep in mind that the Cuban economy has been guided by Castro for decades, and it has gotten worse if anything over the course of his reign.
Has it?

I can almost guarantee you that the poorest Americans are richer than the poorest Cubans. The standard for poverty here is several times higher than the average cuban income (I'm using the CIA world factbook for rough statistics, by the way.)

And I realize that quality of life is skewed a lot by the wealth of America to begin with, but keep in mind that the Cuban economy has been guided by Castro for decades, and it has gotten worse if anything over the course of his reign. So the crippled economy we see today is what any of Castro's economic policies would tend to lead to, even if he had a 4 year term. All the more reason I wouldn't pick him over Bush.

The reason America's economy is better is partly that it is made up of huge corporations which have no respect for the environment or the law and only care about profit. That is why you are your economy is "better" than Cuba's.

The reason America's economy is better is partly that it is made up of huge corporations...
I'm pretty sure that in the US, the majority of the economy is made up of small and medium-sized businesses, just like in any other Western country.

...which have no respect for the environment or the law...
That's a valid criticism in some cases.

...and only care about profit.
What's wrong with that? What is a business supposed to care about? Why does someone start a business in the first place?
First you have to have money, and after you have it, you can think about what to do with it.

Business should not be about profit, it should be about improving people's lives and you are wrong, the majority of a the american economy is giant multi-national corporations. Small business has been dying out slowly.

Business should not be about profit, it should be about improving people's lives

HAHAHA no. If that's what business should be about, fuck business, let's all go communist.

:p Finally you see what i have been getting at.

Business should not be about profit, it should be about improving people's lives...
And how do you improve people's lives without money, if I might ask?

...and you are wrong, the majority of a the american economy is giant multi-national corporations. Small business has been dying out slowly.
Show me stats. Go ahead.

In absolute terms, yes. But comparing to the richest people in the country (or even the middle class), the divide is probably bigger in the States, and that divide is what matters, because that determines what your money is ultimately worth.

Real wealth can be deduced pretty easily. While the rich-poor gap in the states is huge, the gap between the middle class and poor is probably close to average (20k per year for a family of 4 is considered poor, while 43k per year is average wage.) Since middle-class americans can afford a lot more material goods than cubans, and the poor aren't too far behind, the poor in america can probably afford more things than poor cubans. Free healthcare is one thing cubans don't have to pay for, of course, but if you're poor enough here you can qualify for medicaid.


Business for profit does make people's lives better: the life of he owner, the lives of the people the business employs, and the lives of those who demand goods that the business provides. If you want to help people at the expense of your own interest, then what you're looking for is a charity.

Yay! Let us choose between horse shit and dog shit! Whoopee!

Real wealth can be deduced pretty easily.
Obviously. But I'd need numbers for it.

Since you're new, I'll tell you now - I am actually studying economics in my third year now at uni, so I know a bit about the basics.

What we need is some figures, rather than assertions. :)

But chances are that the average Cuban worker makes less than the average US worker in real terms, so much is true.

Business for profit does make people's lives better: the life of he owner, the lives of the people the business employs, and the lives of those who demand goods that the business provides.
And of course those who own, work for or buy from the people and businesses who demand those goods. And then those who own, work for or buy from those businesses as well.

It's all very interlinked, and everyone trying to make a profit is what drives it.

If you want to help people at the expense of your own interest, then what you're looking for is a charity.
Yes, although that moves us into some unruly waters which are probably best left for another thread.

I figure a little communism might help the US to come back to being a little more human-like and compassionate towards their fellow human beings. But Castro would still have to play by the rules, where he can't become dictator for life.

I figure a little communism might help the US to come back to being a little more human-like and compassionate towards their fellow human beings. But Castro would still have to play by the rules, where he can't become dictator for life.

Name one communist nation where there wasn't a dictator for life.


"Yeah, we like have one guy who makes bread and one guy who looks out for other people's safety."

"You mean like a baker and a cop?"

"No can't you imagine a place where people can live together and like provide services for each other in exchange for their services?"

"Yeah, it's called a town."

Bush sucks quite hard, but I can't see Fidel Castro suitable for any sort of political position. I'd hate to see Bush get even one more chance to have any form of power, due to his complete incompetence, but I mean, it's pest or cholera.

And how do you improve people's lives without money, if I might ask?


Show me stats. Go ahead.
One: i never said that they should not have money, i commented on how they should use it.
Two: Here are your stats
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/full_list/
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/performers/companies/profits/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/performers/companies/by_employees/index.html

I can almost guarantee you that the poorest Americans are richer than the poorest Cubans.

In Cuba, no one is lacking food. In Cuba, no one is kicked out of his house because he can't pay. In Cuba, no one is refused in an hospital because he doesn't have money. In Cuba, no kid doesn't go to university because he has no money. All those are the sad reality in USA. One USA citizen on 4 is lacking medical coverage. No single cuban is.

And I realize that quality of life is skewed a lot by the wealth of America to begin with, but keep in mind that the Cuban economy has been guided by Castro for decades, and it has gotten worse if anything over the course of his reign. So the crippled economy we see today is what any of Castro's economic policies would tend to lead to, even if he had a 4 year term. All the more reason I wouldn't pick him over Bush.

Sure, you compare the economy of a small island which is the target of an embargo since decennias and the one of a vast country, who control the currency of international trade, who has puppet countries in many places of the world, and who doesn't hesitate to invade other countries to take their natural ressources.

Bush created the hurricane? Whoa.

No, but he is responsible for the disaster. Since years (2002 IIRC), the scientists were warning him that the dam was in poor condition and would not whistand a strong hurricane. Bush answers ? To _lower_ the funding of the upkeep of the dam ! Better spend your money to invade a country than to fix dams protecting the population sure.

Then, when the hurricane approched, Bush did not evacuate the area. Then after, where was the military, who should have helped the survivers and rescued what could be ? In Irak, fighting for Halliburton and Exxon profits !

In Cuba, such an hurricane would have had only very few, if any, victims. And all citizen would have had a new house in the next few days. And things would have been rebuilt quickly, if they ever were destroyed. Because Castro cares about cuban, not about oil money.

I'm pretty sure that in the US, the majority of the economy is made up of small and medium-sized businesses, just like in any other Western country.

That's not true. Reckless capitalism, like in USA, makes it very hard for small player to survive (or just to be created), and gives enormous power to the big ones.

In USA, 11.8% of workers are in companies of 10 workers or less, it's 33.5% in Europe.
In USA, 47.5% of workers are in companies of more than 500 workers, while in Europe it's only 33.7% of workers in companies of more than 250 workers.

Those figures are a few years old (2000 or so), but the trend is still the same today.

What's wrong with that? What is a business supposed to care about? Why does someone start a business in the first place?

That's just utterly wrong, and it's one of the major flaw of capitalism. Companies should exist to make life better for people, to answer to a need. Money should be a _way_ for things to happen, not a _goal_ at all.

Name one communist nation where there wasn't a dictator for life.

First there were no "communist nation", ever.

Then, governement like Paris' Commune, Allende, Chavez, ... are/were much more democratic than your USA, while pursuiving more or less "communist" goals.

Name one communist nation where there wasn't a dictator for life.


Paris Commune. Only failed because it had the snot beaten out of it.

Name one communist nation where there wasn't a dictator for life.

It has been said millions of times, but a communist "nation" under Marxian theory is a contradiction in terms. (I suppose you could theoretically have a truly non-heirarchical communist society unified under a national banner, but most communists believe in a worldwide revolution centred around class rather than nationality).

There were however several communist and libertarian socialist movements that might have turned out differently (i'll leave that to your interpretation) squished in varying ways, usually violently - stemming back into the 19th century. The Paris commune is an example, as is the Spanish Civil War. The Bolsheviks were pretty good at crushing them, too - read up on the Kronshtadt uprising.

Also, Cuban healthcare is better, Cuba doesn't have atomic weapons, Cuba has never invaded a small country for the rich, the vast majority of Cubans are actually genuinely happy people, Cuban education is free and in Cuba, you aren't in danger of being killed/spat upon/vilified or attacked for being Muslim, black or gay.

I think I would just have to vote for Fidel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba
Right, right, its Wikipedia, yes, but if thats not enough check the links at the bottom of the page.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/cuba/document.do?id=ar&yr=2005
http://www.galha.org/glh/213/cuba.html
http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/1033/

Yeah, Cuba has a sparkly clean human rights record and you certainly arent persecuted for being gay. Not at all, nossir.
Frankly, if I was gay, I would rather live in the US and deal with funny looks and the occasional being spit on compared to police raids and huge fines plus possible jail time.

Lets see, Dictator for life or Religious Right

Atleast I keep my freedoms under the Religious Right, the choice was obvious.

Fidel Castro. He didn't invade other countries, his political repression is not as bad as Bush (the worst place of Cuba is Guantanamo, not Fidel's prisons), he doesn't use torture, he grants to his citizen healthcare, food, housing. And when there is a hurricane in Cuba, it doesn't end up in New Orleans drama. And Castro is not threatening to use nuclear weapons. And Castro never did a coup or coup attempt in another country. And he doesn't impose blocus on anyone.

Sure, Castro is far from perfect. I don't accept the political repression nor the control of media. But it's not as bad as Bush, by far, and at least he does do some good things too. While Bush doesn't. And even on the media part, it's not easier to criticize Monsato inside USA media than to criticize Castro in Cuba's media. The journalists who tried to denounce the consequences of Monsato's bovine grown hormones on health got fired, and there documentary never aired on any TV. That's censorship, too. So, definitely, I chose Castro over Bush.

let me guess, you're one of the students protesting business owners' right to fire you, aren't you?

I can't stand communists in the morning...

a) He FREED two countries, unless you think that the Taliban and Saddam were despotic heads of democratic regimes.

b) Castro's political repression is TOTAL. That's the only way communism can survive -- if ideas are controlled. Look at the USSR and China. What a joke. If I made this post in Cuba, i'd be behind bars by the end of today, or dead (same in China or North Korea or probably half of Africa).

c) Castro continues to impose COMMUNISM on Cubans. They don't have economic freedom, freedom of speech, countless other freedoms.

Here's what President Bush has done that's been good:

1) Lowering taxes on everyone. This has allowed us to pump more into the economy... more into businesses, which has meant an increase in jobs. With lower taxes comes a natural increase in entrepreneurialism.

2) Going into Afghanistan and Iraq, ultimately leading to two fledgling democracies. Unless you don't value liberty (free vote so that people may ELECT their officials...), this is a no-brainer. They might suffer, but they'll suffer as free men and women, which is far better than suffering under tyranny.

3) While we're in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're also killing terrorists elsewhere. This president has not fired a pop gun at terrorism, as i suspect Gore would have. (Thank goodness the US Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court's and Gore's bid to legislate from the bench). We've killed countless thousands of terrorists.

Lets see, Dictator for life or Religious Right

Atleast I keep my freedoms under the Religious Right, the choice was obvious.

...unless you're gay, and a non-Christian that is.

Peachy.


Yay! Let us choose between horse shit and dog shit! Whoopee!

Seconded.

...unless you're gay, and a non-Christian that is.

Peachy.


Name a single right gay people have lost under Bush... that they had under previous presidents.

And while you're at it, tell me how President Bush has curbed your right to worship as you see fit.

Didn't think so...

Name a single right gay people have lost under Bush... that they had under previous presidents.
Nice dodge. ;)


And while you're at it, tell me how President Bush has curbed your right to worship as you see fit.

Show me where I said President Bush?

If such a state existed that was run by the Christian Right (Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson & co), you really think honestly, living as a Muslim or an atheist would be all sweetness and fluffy bunnies?

Please. :rolleyes:

Actually I am a Secular Humanist, definately not Christian. That was about the only thing I could find on Bush off the top of my head. Funny thing is I know some gay people who voted for him in the last election due to protecting freedoms as well, even though it was not going to immediately help them.

Nice dodge. ;)



Show me where I said President Bush?

If such a state existed that was run by the Christian Right (Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson & co), you really think honestly, living as a Muslim or an atheist would be all sweetness and fluffy bunnies?

Please. :rolleyes:

fair enough... i don't think it would turn into a modern-day inquisition though. There might be plenty of pro-Christian propaganda coming from that hypothetical Oval Office, but probably the FBI wouldn't go hunting for Muslims/atheists.

Neither listen to reason, but at least Bush listens to something (The problem is that it is mostly Rumsfield). Bush is willing to submit to the regulations of democracy.

They are both bad, but at least yu have a chance of changing Bush for someone else after 4 years, whereas with castro you have to wait for him to die (of natural causes or not).

So I vote for Bush, and I am in Latin America.

last thing i want to mention before taking my narrow-minded/white/Christian/gun-toting/greed-promoting Republican arse out of here (hehe):

A lot of Europeans seem to think that Castro would be a better president than President Bush. I wonder if any have considered the economic impact of that:

Castro works as a dictator. IF he wanted to raise taxes on everyone by 50%, well he would attempt to do it. And true to his Communist roots, he very likely would like to pull a Chavez and declare all privately held property and assets for the state. This would effectively cripple the US economy. And if the US economy were crippled, think of the economic impact on the world.

"No, sweetheart (talking to a 6-year-old girl), you may not keep your teddy bear. You must relinquish it to the State. Your daddy bought it for you, which required money, and nobody can have money anymore. Money is evil! So hand over the bear."

last thing i want to mention before taking my narrow-minded/white/Christian/gun-toting/greed-promoting Republican arse out of here (hehe):

A lot of Europeans seem to think that Castro would be a better president than President Bush. I wonder if any have considered the economic impact of that:

Castro works as a dictator. IF he wanted to raise taxes on everyone by 50%, well he would attempt to do it. And true to his Communist roots, he very likely would like to pull a Chavez and declare all privately held property and assets for the state. This would effectively cripple the US economy. And if the US economy were crippled, think of the economic impact on the world.

"No, sweetheart (talking to a 6-year-old girl), you may not keep your teddy bear. You must relinquish it to the State. Your daddy bought it for you, which required money, and nobody can have money anymore. Money is evil! So hand over the bear."

That is quite possibly the most stupid statement i have ever heard. The only change that state control would make is that the companies within the economy would stop breaking the law. True that would reduce their profit but other things would improve.
Also there is a reason taxes should be higher, with higher taxes their are better vacilities for EVERYONE not just the people who can buy it.
Free healthcare, free education and free pensions could all be achieved with 50% tax but selfish people like you will just say, "what do i care about the poor as long as i can afford it, i don't care".

let me guess, you're one of the students protesting business owners' right to fire you, aren't you?

No, I'm a CS engineer. But I was with the 3 MILLIONS of french citizen, students and workers and retired and unemployed who marched against this infamous bill, yes. And I'm proud of it. The french people once again showed that it does not accept to surrender its rights, we saved the rights that our grand parents won with their blood.

Well, saddly, we let a bunch of them go... but at least we resist against the neoliberal reforms, and we succeed at it !

I can't stand communists in the morning...

That's nice, I can't stand capitalists in the afternoon ;)

a) He FREED two countries, unless you think that the Taliban and Saddam were despotic heads of democratic regimes.

He didn't free anything. He invaded two countries. Ask to Iraqi or Afghan, how they feel about US "democracy". Afghanistan is still an islamic state, you can still be sentenced to death because of your religion there. And Iraqi is a complete chaos, with unnumbered dead, and still counting. And they lost the few freedoms they had under Saddam (like the right for women to not wear the veil), and didn't won any... except the freedom to end up in Guatanamo Bay, or to be killed by either terrorists or US army because of bad luck.

b) Castro's political repression is TOTAL.

Castro, unlike Bush, doesn't kill nor torture political opponents.

That's the only way communism can survive -- if ideas are controlled.

Nice oxymoron. Communism, by its definition, cannot exist as long as there is control ;)

Look at the USSR and China. What a joke. If I made this post in Cuba, i'd be behind bars by the end of today, or dead (same in China or North Korea or probably half of Africa).

Actually, you can criticize Castro in Cuba. What you can't do is start a newspaper or a political party. That's not acceptable, sure. But try to air on the US TV a show about the consequences on health of Monsato's BGH, or anything similar. The last ones who tried were fired, and their show never was diffused. And it's the same as soon as you try to critize the real power of USA: transnational corporations.

c) Castro continues to impose COMMUNISM on Cubans. They don't have economic freedom, freedom of speech, countless other freedoms.

Communism cannot be imposed, and has nothing to do with "no freedom of speach". For economical freedom, it's once again an oxymoron. Freedom stops where freedom of others stop, and in economy, everything step over the freedom of others, by definition.

But Bush, and the USA in general, continue to impose CAPITALISM on the WHOLE world, using the dirtest trick possible (invasion, coup, murder, militias, ...) as soon as any country tries DEMOCRATICALLY to go away from capitalism.

1) Lowering taxes on everyone. This has allowed us to pump more into the economy... more into businesses, which has meant an increase in jobs. With lower taxes comes a natural increase in entrepreneurialism.

That was absolutely disastrous, it increased poverty in USA, widden the social gap, and deeply incresed the national debt, making the whole world economy in threat of collapse. It's China and Japan who, nowadays, support the USA external debt, and allow the world economy to not collapse. For how long ?

2) Going into Afghanistan and Iraq, ultimately leading to two fledgling democracies.

Democracies ?!

Unless you don't value liberty (free vote so that people may ELECT their officials...), this is a no-brainer. They might suffer, but they'll suffer as free men and women, which is far better than suffering under tyranny.

Elect officials with no power, because the US Army is controlling all important stuff ?

3) While we're in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're also killing terrorists elsewhere. This president has not fired a pop gun at terrorism, as i suspect Gore would have. (Thank goodness the US Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court's and Gore's bid to legislate from the bench). We've killed countless thousands of terrorists.

You've killed countless thousands of people who, for most of them, had nothing to do with terrorism. By doing that, you pushed countless tens of thousands into the hand of terrorists. World terrorism was never as strong as now, THANKS to USA.

But that's logical: Bush needs terrorism to win elections, because of his disastrous economical and social results. So he CREATES terrorists by invading countries and murdering people all around the world.

Oh, btw, the number of _civilians_ killed _directly_ by the US Army in the war is above 30 000. Tens times September 11. USA is the first terror state of the world. And you should add to that the countless indirect deaths, including the death by lack of water, lack of food, lack of enegry, lack of medical falicities, ...

While US oil companies are exploiting Iraqi oil reserves, Iraqi are still suffering for oil shortages and power blackouts. Thank you, president Bush.

Voted for GWB after a long time thinking and a quick trip to the bathroom to throw up. Fidel would eliminate democratic elections and be dictator for life, which shouldn't be too long but........ GWB SHOULD BE out in a couple of years(hopefully sooner).

That is quite possibly the most stupid statement i have ever heard. The only change that state control would make is that the companies within the economy would stop breaking the law. True that would reduce their profit but other things would improve.
Also there is a reason taxes should be higher, with higher taxes their are better vacilities for EVERYONE not just the people who can buy it.
Free healthcare, free education and free pensions could all be achieved with 50% tax but selfish people like you will just say, "what do i care about the poor as long as i can afford it, i don't care".

While that is the theory, the practice is often something else. Or have you never heard of state corruption in dictatorial societies.

That is always the argument of capitalists; socialism is corrupt. Well corruption is no fault of communism, it happens in all modes of government, and is part of human nature.

That is always the argument of capitalists; socialism is corrupt. Well corruption is no fault of communism, it happens in all modes of government, and is part of human nature.

I do not really agree on the last part. First, corruption can be greatly limited by participative/direct democracy (which IS part of "communism"). Then, "human nature" does not exist, it's more a consequence of society than anything else. And a communist society would lead to less selfish human beings, and therefore to less corruption. But that would take time, and doesn't work well in the centralised authoritarian form of "socialism".

Voted for GWB after a long time thinking and a quick trip to the bathroom to throw up. Fidel would eliminate democratic elections and be dictator for life, which shouldn't be too long but........ GWB SHOULD BE out in a couple of years(hopefully sooner).

Yay, then our taxes can go up! GREAT!

(hehe)

Castro - He has the balls to execute journalists, and I'm sick of Fox News.

LOL, 78 posts, 68 votes so far.

39 Fidelistas --- 57.35 Percent of the votes
29 Bushes ----- 42.65 Percent of the votes
Fidelistas win by 14.70 Percent

Actually not bad for Bush, and they say his popularity is only in the 30 s , LOL.

Among Americans

06 Fidelistas --- 26.09 Percent of the votes
17 Bushes ----- 73.91 Percent of the votes
Bushes win by - 47.82 a landslide, LOL

Is it Bushes, Bushies or Bushy or Shrubs ?

Look at all the Fidelistas coming out of the woodwork?

More observations later.

President La Habana Cuba for life has to go for now, send the government organized mobs against a group of political dissidents in my democratic nation.

These incompetent, greedy corrupt government officials are costing me a $ fortune.

I love Public Polls, Math, Accounting, Bookkeeping, Statistics, Systems, History, Geography, Politics, I am a Copy Holic.

[QUOTE=Kilobugya]In Cuba, no one is lacking food. In Cuba, no one is kicked out of his house because he can't pay. In Cuba, no one is refused in an hospital because he doesn't have money. In Cuba, no kid doesn't go to university because he has no money. All those are the sad reality in USA. One USA citizen on 4 is lacking medical coverage. No single cuban is.



If is so good, why is so bad? Why Cubans escaping from this ,paradise, to this ,f..ked, USA. Cubans voting on G.W. Bush in boats!!!!
By the way - in DDR /German Democratic Republic/ when /ca 15y ago/
similar ,paradise, colapsed and boarders were opened, in few days, there were no one to ,switch off the light,.
I am not so mad to wish You president like Castro, and homeland like Cuba.

If is so good, why is so bad? Why Cubans escaping from this ,paradise, to this ,f..ked, USA. Cubans voting on G.W. Busch in boats!!!!

First of all, I never said Cuba was a paradise, it's far from it, but that Castro was less worse than Bush.

You've to remember that Cuba and USA are not even remotely comparable. One is a small island, suffering from an embargo since decennia, while the other is a huge country, controlling the international trade currency, with veto right in all international organisation (including the financial ones, like IMF, World Bank, ...), and with a bunch of puppet states to plunder. If you compare Cuba to Mexico, far more people are trying to flee from Mexico than from Cuba. And Mexico's president, Vincente Fox, is a close ally of Bush, and follows in Mexico a policy very close to the one of Bush.

Then, you've to look at how many cubans really try to flee. Only a few really do. Many, many cuban go to foreign countries as "foreign helpers" (cuban doctors are the most famous, but there are also many other cuban working in foreign countries for relief purpose). Only very few of them do not come back to Cuba afterwards.

Then, you've to remember also that many cuban ignores the reality of capitalist countries. Sure, there is propaganda. But they know it is propaganda. I read some interesting articles about how propaganda works much better in apparent democracies with apparently free media (but who, in fact, are almost all controlled by big corporations having the same interests, like in USA) than in countries in which all the media are openly controlled. Just because when it's too visible, like in Cuba, people know it's propaganda and stop believing in them. So, many cuban do not believe that it's true than in USA, people can sleep in the street. What they see from USA is big cars, lovely computers, ...

By the way - in DDR /German Democratic Republic/ when /ca 15y ago/ similar ,paradise, colapsed and boarders were opened, in few days, there were no one to ,switch off the light,.

Speaking of DDR, my parents went to DDR a few times before the fall of the wall, and they noticed that a very significant number of times. When they spoke there about some facts on France (and France is, by far, much more social than USA), they just didn't believe it. They couldn't believe than in our rich countries people were kicked out of their houses, could not go to university because of money, or would not be able to get cured because they are poor. The answer was often "you know, I'm for the socialist system, you don't need to exagerate on the situation in capitalist countries".

I went to DDR once, when I was a young boy (around 8 or 9), for holidays (my family and me travelled to most of Europe, from Iceland to Greece, and we went in DDR once). I just sick during the trip. So we went to the doctor. My parents wanted to pay him; they knew that healthcare was free in DDR, but they thought it was only for citizen of DDR, not for tourists. What I remember the most from this trip is that: the reaction of the doctor. He was shocked, and deeply insulted. He answered something like: "There is no way I will take your money for your kid !" He just couldn't believe that in our countries, when your kid is sick, you've to pay. And that if you don't, your kid isn't cured. For them, it was propaganda, it was too enormous to be true.

You should also notice than just 15 years after the fall of the wall, the left wing is very strong in East Germany, the CDU (which is still much more to the left than Bush, probably comparable to Clinton, if not even more to the left) is the third party there, far behind the SPD (social-democrats, center-left) and the PDS-Linkspartei (socialists, very to the left). The PDS-Linkspartei is the first party in many places, there. And that, despite all what the Stasi did in DDR (which was worse than what Castro does) and the lack of freedoms they had.

I am not so mad to wish You president like Castro, and homeland like Cuba.

Thankfully, I'm not living under Bush's rule. France is far from perfect either, but it's much, much less worse than USA. And Chirac, as bad as he is, is much less worse than Bush.

But anyway, I never said that DDR or Cuba are my models. They are far, far from being perfect. What I struggle for, in the short/medium term, is democratic socialism. Not a Cuba-like model. But between Castro and Bush, between no democracy but no misery and a very, very limited democracy but lots of misery, between a "dictator" who doesn't use torture but sends doctors to the world and a "democratic president" who use torture and invade countries, I prefer Castro, by far.

Fidel

This isn't a choice between horse shit and dog shit.

It's a choice between being asphyxiated by either hydrogen or helium. Either way you're going to die a painful death. But at least one gets to make you should funny.

LOL, 78 posts, 68 votes so far.

39 Fidelistas --- 57.35 Percent of the votes
29 Bushes ----- 42.65 Percent of the votes
Fidelistas win by 14.70 Percent

Among Americans

06 Fidelistas --- 26.09 Percent of the votes
17 Bushes ----- 73.91 Percent of the votes
Bushes win by - 47.82 a landslide, LOL

Updated scores:

51 Fidelistas -- 60% of the votes
34 Bushes ---- 40% of the votes
Landslide victory of Fidelistas, with 20%

Among American (without Canda):
11 Fidelistas -- 34.38% of the votes
21 Bushes ---- 65.62% of the votes
Victory of Bushes by 31%.

Not bad, even in USA, more than one third voted for Castro, I would have expected less.

Well, sure, NS is not representative of the general population... it's middle class, high protion of people involved in politics, young, and english speaking. But well, still interesting :)

Slightly off-topic here, but has anyone noticed that The UN abassadorship voted for Fidel Castro?

You have to admit that Castro would be both fun and interesting.

Slightly off-topic here, but has anyone noticed that The UN abassadorship voted for Fidel Castro?

Suprised? He likes totalitarianism a lot.

Bush by a longshot. He may be a bastard, but he's a little less evil than Castro.

I'd just like to point out the fact that Castro wouldn't be able to take office (even if he won), as he is not a natural US citizen. That's the same reason that the Governator can't run (I wouldn't vote for him anyway).

Therefore, Bush wins by default.

One: i never said that they should not have money, i commented on how they should use it.
You only make money if you care about your profit. At least a little bit.

Two: Here are your stats...
Yes, I see. A number of large corporations.

Does that make them the majority of the the US economy (something like 13 trillion dollars)?

I'm not saying it's not possible (it would be a bit of a surprise to me, seeing as to how everyone in the economics and business disciplines always goes on about the medium-sized businesses as the real driver of economic growth).
But I'm saying that you'll have to present a good case.

That's not true. Reckless capitalism, like in USA, makes it very hard for small player to survive (or just to be created), and gives enormous power to the big ones.
Well, one could make a case that just like the USSR wasn't real communism, the US is not real capitalism.
But yes, it is true that small firms which can't get the economies of scale will have trouble.
All the more reason for entrepreneurs to think of something really new when they start a business.

In USA, 11.8% of workers are in companies of 10 workers or less, it's 33.5% in Europe.
In USA, 47.5% of workers are in companies of more than 500 workers, while in Europe it's only 33.7% of workers in companies of more than 250 workers.
What exactly are "workers" in this case? All employees? Or just manufacturing, or just services or what?

That's just utterly wrong, and it's one of the major flaw of capitalism. Companies should exist to make life better for people, to answer to a need.
You've never thought about starting a company, have you?

I can tell you that I have, and I very well might in my lifetime. And when I do, I do that for myself. To earn money, to be more independent and to do what I love to do.
That is what motivates me.

I simply don't want to work for other people's "needs" (Who tells me what those needs are, by the way? Them?). If they need something from me, we can engage each other as equals, they as customers which I need to exist, and me as business, which they need to buy the stuff they need or want.

Money should be a _way_ for things to happen, not a _goal_ at all.
It is.
Money is a way to do the things you want to do. Nobody tries to get rich for money's sake, but for the sake of the things you want to do with that money.

I for example want to buy a Lamborghini. And a Porsche. And about twenty other expensive cars.
And I never ever want to live through the same thing my family has and still is going through (namely being poor).

That is my goal. And I will work to achieve that goal. If others want to help me, fine. If others don't want to help me, then that's okay too.

But just don't make it any harder for me than it already is.

Castro because the majority of Cubans live in the U.S so its only fair that they have there leader

Also I think Castro has a secret love for modern Jazz

A foreigner and a Communist for president? Just think of how would it feel if this happened in your own country. The citizen's response would comprise mainly assault rifle bullets.

A foreigner and a Communist for president? Just think of how would it feel if this happened in your own country. The citizen's response would comprise mainly assault rifle bullets.
And then they'd get free health care to treat their bullet wounds. It's a Win-Win!

I'd just like to point out the fact that Castro wouldn't be able to take office (even if he won), as he is not a natural US citizen. That's the same reason that the Governator can't run (I wouldn't vote for him anyway).

Therefore, Bush wins by default.

Go with the flow, have fun with the thread in a serious way.

Fidel becomes President of the USA, and changes the nations Motto, from In God We Trust, to In Fidel We Trust, LOL.

What do you all think?

61.61% polled would vote for Castro, and so would I.

61.61% polled would vote for Castro, and so would I.

And they would all live happy ever after under Fidel for the rest of their life, LOL.

Fidel becomes President of the USA, and changes the nations Motto, from In God We Trust, to In Fidel We Trust, LOL.

What do you all think?
What has God in the motto done for this country? Just created a basis for the Christian extremists to try and turn this country into a Christian theocracy. Down with Bush, up with Fidel, viva la revolution.

I think the puppet from Cuba thing is getting tiresome.

What has God in the motto done for this country? Just created a basis for the Christian extremists to try and turn this country into a Christian theocracy. Down with Bush, up with Fidel, viva la revolution.

I think the puppet from Cuba thing is getting tiresome.

That is why Fidel has just been declared the unofficially elected NS President of the USA by a landslide.

62 Fidelistas ------ 61.39 Percent of the votes
39 Bushes -------- 38.61 Percent of the votes
Fidelistas win by - 22.78 Percent

As all the vote returns arent in yet.

I was just going to revive my other thread,
Fidel for President of the USA,
that has not done to well, lets see if we can get
those votes up this time oround.

The choices are Fidel or Other, you can vote other
and post your others, or you can vote Fidel.

I am very happy that this thread got such a large response no matter what the results, that is your right in a free nation.

Notice that I gave Americans, Canadians, Europeans, Australians, and Others thier own place in the poll, I would have included one for the New Zealanders if I had 12 options, since most of us are from these nations, I choose Australians because it has a higher population, no offense ment to the New Zealanders.

I just thought of something, does this mean that Fidel has just been elected NS President of the USA, and we are already getting 39 refugee Balseros, on anything that floats, rafts, inner-tubes, floating cars, trucks and taxis, across 90 miles of shark infested waters to Cuba, LOL ?

I just thought of something, does this mean that Fidel has just been elected NS President of the USA, and we are already getting 39 refugee Balseros, on anything that floats, inner-tubes, floating cars, trucks and taxis, across 90 miles of shark infested waters to Cuba, LOL ?

If Fidel Castro became the president of the US, I think he wouldn't last too long before he had a 7.62mm hole in his head.

Well, one could make a case that just like the USSR wasn't real communism, the US is not real capitalism.

USA is much closer to real capitalism than USSR was to communism, and anyway, the main flaws of USA are flaws inherent to capitalism (and flaws that are much more in USA than in less capitalist, more social countries like in western europe).

But yes, it is true that small firms which can't get the economies of scale will have trouble. All the more reason for entrepreneurs to think of something really new when they start a business.

Economy of scale, ability to survive a temporary crisis, ability to use dirty tricks (like advertising), ... For the "something really new", it won't help much, because of all the way big companies will have to pressure you/fight you/buy you/...


What exactly are "workers" in this case? All employees? Or just manufacturing, or just services or what?

Yes, employees, anyone with a working contract for a company, in every field.

You've never thought about starting a company, have you?

I thought a bit about it, the thought of opening a cooperative with ethical rules please me, but I know I don't stand a chance. I'm too nice, generous, honest to survive in the capitalist jungle.

I can tell you that I have, and I very well might in my lifetime. And when I do, I do that for myself. To earn money, to be more independent and to do what I love to do. That is what motivates me.

This is really selfish, egoistic behavior, and such behavior is the root of all the suffering on the planet. It's exactly the behavior that is encouraged, called for and rewarded by capitalism, and exactly the one that society should discourage, encouring, rewarding and calling for generous, altruistic people, who want to work together.

If they need something from me, we can engage each other as equals, they as customers which I need to exist, and me as business, which they need to buy the stuff they need or want.

There is absolutely no equality between a customer and a business.


Money is a way to do the things you want to do. Nobody tries to get rich for money's sake, but for the sake of the things you want to do with that money.

No, money is the _goal_ of companies, and making it to make profits is the _goal_ of the people managing the company. That's very, very wrong, and that's leading us to disaster.

And I never ever want to live through the same thing my family has and still is going through (namely being poor).

We can abolish poverty for _everyone_. We have the technical knowledge and the infrastructure to do it. We just need to change the structures of the society for that. To abolish capitalism.

That is my goal. And I will work to achieve that goal. If others want to help me, fine. If others don't want to help me, then that's okay too.

But just don't make it any harder for me than it already is.

The only for you and all the ones like you to achieve this goal, of eliminating poverty, is to abolish capitalism. As long as the structure of the society will be based on selfishness, greed, "me or you", there WILL be poor, misery, suffering. By supporting capitalism, you make it harder for yourself and for all other human being to be free of poverty.

For the "something really new", it won't help much, because of all the way big companies will have to pressure you/fight you/buy you/...
Think about it...how can they pressure anyone, if not through a government that is on their side?
And "buy you" - well, that's up to me, isn't it?

This is really selfish, egoistic behavior, and such behavior is the root of all the suffering on the planet. It's exactly the behavior that is encouraged, called for and rewarded by capitalism, and exactly the one that society should discourage, encouring, rewarding and calling for generous, altruistic people, who want to work together.
And what do you propose to do with people like me? Who are motivated by trying to achive something themselves, for themselves, for as long as they can remember, long before I ever even heard what Capitalism is?

There is absolutely no equality between a customer and a business.
How so?

No, money is the _goal_ of companies, and making it to make profits is the _goal_ of the people managing the company. That's very, very wrong, and that's leading us to disaster.
Why is that wrong?
There were a great few pages in "Atlas Shrugged" I read a while back, were one of the characters explains to another what money is. It's something that appeals to me, even if I don't think all of it is true.

Please, keep an open mind and have a read.
http://www.atlasshrugged.tv/speech.htm

We can abolish poverty for _everyone_. We have the technical knowledge and the infrastructure to do it. We just need to change the structures of the society for that. To abolish capitalism.
So...if I was to finish uni, and I started working, and I did my job well, and I manage a team well, and I make a career, and I rise up the ladder...and I want to use my new million-dollar wage to buy my Lamborghini - are you telling me that I can't do that? Because someone else can't afford a Lamborghini?

I don't want my Lamborghini at someone else's expense!

As long as the structure of the society will be based on selfishness, greed, "me or you", there WILL be poor, misery, suffering.
But there is a "you", and there is a "me". We're not the same. We're different, seperate people.
That's simply the reality we have to deal with. I can't make decisions for you, because I don't know everything about you that you do. And you don't know all about me that I do.

By supporting capitalism, you make it harder for yourself and for all other human being to be free of poverty.
So I should choose to support people who will take someone else's Lamborghini by threat of force and give it to me? Even though I haven't earned it yet?

======================================================

*Looks at post*......:eek:

I'm speechless. What is becoming of me? I sound like bloody Melkor Unchained!

La Habana Cuba, NS Elections Council updated results observations. Based on a total of 106 NS Citizens voting so far.

Bushes ------------- - Fidelistas ----------------- diffrences
Americans 25 58.14 - 18 41.86 Percent of the votes 16.28
Canadians 01 09.09 - 10 90.91 Percent of the votes 81.82
Europeans 08 20.00 - 32 80.00 Percent of the votes 60.00
Australians03 42.86 - 04 57.14 Percent of the votes 14.28
Others ----02 40.00 - 03 60.00 Percent of the votes 20.00

Over all Bushes 39 36.79 --- Fidelistas 67 63.21 ---- 26.42

Americans 43 40.57
Canadians 11 10.38
Europeans 40 37.73
Australians07 06.60
Others --- 05 04.72
Totals -106- 100.00

I love Math, Accounting, Bookkeeping, Statistics, Systems,
History, Geography, Politics, and I am a Copy Holic.

La Habana Cuba, NS Elections Council President.

Gracias

Stop segregating the polls!

The NS Elections Council is correcting the Result Tables, good post Swilatia, stop segregating the Polls, on the other hand all regions possible got represented and its interesting to see the regional diffrences.

Result Tables corrected, refer to post 104.

La Habana Cuba, NS Elections Council President.

Gracias

Think about it...how can they pressure anyone, if not through a government that is on their side?
And "buy you" - well, that's up to me, isn't it?

The exact ways to pressure depends on how savage your capitalism is, and how much regulated it is. But a strong company can very easily organize the doom of a small competitor, even if he has a better product, we see examples of that very often. Dumping, advertise/diffaming campaigns, exclusivity deals with resellers or furnishers, recruiting your top staff, aggressive speculation on stocks, ..., ...

And what do you propose to do with people like me? Who are motivated by trying to achive something themselves, for themselves, for as long as they can remember, long before I ever even heard what Capitalism is?

You don't need to know what "Capitalism" is to be influenced by it, as you write "prose" without knowing the word. Capitalism is what influence you since birth. Now, what I want to do with people like you is simple: prevent you from harming others, by breaking the economical and political mechanism people such as you use to dominate others, create poverty, misery and suffering. No need to throw you in jail or to kill you or anything like that (and I would not accept it), we just need to make you harmless by changing the economical system.

There is absolutely no equality between a customer and a business.
How so?


You've to be completly blind to pretend there can be equality in such an asymetric situation. Which one is favored depends of the situation, but it's very, very rare when a commercial deal is between "equals". In most situations, the seller is in a strong position: he is usually bigger (a company towards a single person, ...), he can very easily know more about what he sells than the buyer can now (asymetry of information, one of the reasons for which capitalism is such a failure, and something neoliberal economists just refuse to even think about), he's most of the time less dependant than the buyer of the outcome (if he has some cash flow, as do most companies, a small delay in the transaction won't harm him as much as the same delay will hurt the buyer, in many situations), and so on. But on some other situations, the situation is reversed, a small peasant (seller) is in a weak position when negociating with a distribution network (buyer, on this end), and a worker is usually in a weak position when negociating a working contract.


No, money is the _goal_ of companies, and making it to make profits is the _goal_ of the people managing the company. That's very, very wrong, and that's leading us to disaster.

Why is that wrong?

Because it means that the most powerful entities of the world (yes, nowadays many corporations are stronger than most states) have as their only and sole purpose to MAKE MONEY AT ANY COST. Any cost for workers, for customers, for other human beings, for the environement, for anything. Instead of working to fullfill needs, instead of working to solve problems, the most powerful entities of the world are doing their best to MAKE MONEY.

When something that should always have staid as a mean, as a tool, becomes the ultimate goal of the powerful entities, we are rushing to disaster, because this tool overcomes all that should be important (fullfilling needs, improving the life of human beings, protecting the planet, ...)

So...if I was to finish uni, and I started working, and I did my job well, and I manage a team well, and I make a career, and I rise up the ladder...and I want to use my new million-dollar wage to buy my Lamborghini - are you telling me that I can't do that? Because someone else can't afford a Lamborghini?

Yes. Because the ones making your Lamborghini worked as hard as you did, if not more, but will never be able to buy one. Because since you want buy more than what you can produce in your life, you're, in facts, STEALING others' work. Just because you happened to be luckier, or more reckless, or less honest, or more remoreless than them.

I don't want my Lamborghini at someone else's expense!

Of course you do. There is no other way to get one.

But there is a "you", and there is a "me". We're not the same. We're different, seperate people.

That's simply the reality we have to deal with. I can't make decisions for you, because I don't know everything about you that you do. And you don't know all about me that I do.

And ? I don't see your point.

So I should choose to support people who will take someone else's Lamborghini by threat of force and give it to me? Even though I haven't earned it yet?

You cannot earn it. You can only steal it. You can only have it at the price of making other starve to death. You can only have it at the price of being reckless, of working AGAINST your fellow human beings. Therefore, the only ways to have it is to perform immoral acts that makes you unable to claim you deserve it.

No one ever deserves luxury at the price of others misery and suffering.

The exact ways to pressure depends on how savage your capitalism is, and how much regulated it is. But a strong company can very easily organize the doom of a small competitor, even if he has a better product, we see examples of that very often. Dumping, advertise/diffaming campaigns, exclusivity deals with resellers or furnishers, recruiting your top staff, aggressive speculation on stocks, ..., ...
So what happened to the horse & carriage industry? The telegraph industry?

And in a system where inventing something does not offer a chance to make yourself richer, to get the reward for the work you have spent on that invention, why would anyone bother inventing anything?
Should humanity be stuck forever at one point in technological development, just to wait for every last human to catch up?

You don't need to know what "Capitalism" is to be influenced by it, as you write "prose" without knowing the word. Capitalism is what influence you since birth.
What about the Kibbutzim? They were Socialists, even in your sense of the word.
Yet not only did their communities become dependent on money transfers from the government, but the children of the original inhabitants simply didn't want to live in an environment like that, and they started leaving. Nobody influenced them, no Capitalist propaganda brainwashed them. They simply felt the natural human need for feeling unique, for using one's own brains to achieve something and shape one's own life.

Now, what I want to do with people like you is simple: prevent you from harming others, by breaking the economical and political mechanism people such as you use to dominate others, create poverty, misery and suffering. No need to throw you in jail or to kill you or anything like that (and I would not accept it), we just need to make you harmless by changing the economical system.
In other words, you want to put me in chains. You want to condemn me to a life of doing the least I possibly could, because doing more will earn me nothing but your contempt?

You've to be completly blind to pretend there can be equality in such an asymetric situation. Which one is favored depends of the situation, but it's very, very rare when a commercial deal is between "equals".
Now, I've had a lot of lectures about the things you mention, and yes, they do exist.
But everyone ultimately agrees to make any given deal. No one is forcing anyone.
Unless there is a monopoly, even if there is a dire need for one of the parties the other could exploit - there is always the option to go to a competitor.

With internet-based business that is even easier, because the time begins where there are no more physical or time constraints to doing business. XYZ company from La Paz doesn't offer me a price I would accept? Ask ABC Company from Xi'an!

Because it means that the most powerful entities of the world (yes, nowadays many corporations are stronger than most states) have as their only and sole purpose to MAKE MONEY AT ANY COST. Any cost for workers, for customers, for other human beings, for the environement, for anything. Instead of working to fullfill needs, instead of working to solve problems, the most powerful entities of the world are doing their best to MAKE MONEY.
I notice that you haven't responded to my link. But it is sorta central to my side of the story - how can it be a bad thing to make money, when what money represents is doing one's best and exchanging it with someone else's best?

When something that should always have staid as a mean, as a tool, becomes the ultimate goal of the powerful entities, we are rushing to disaster, because this tool overcomes all that should be important (fullfilling needs, improving the life of human beings, protecting the planet, ...)
I notice that having more money does fulfil people's needs, that having money does improve people's lives.
I also acknowledge that environmental concerns are important, and I don't think that the market itself takes that into account. But a government can pass the necessary laws to make sure that everyone adheres to a certain framework.

Yes. Because the ones making your Lamborghini worked as hard as you did, if not more, but will never be able to buy one.
Tell me, who made the Lamborghini? The one's who first had the idea for a car like it, who started a business, who designed and engineered it, who wrote down the plans, bought the tools and set up the factory...or those who simply follow that plan, who are just one cog in a design by someone else?

Because since you want buy more than what you can produce in your life, you're, in facts, STEALING others' work. Just because you happened to be luckier, or more reckless, or less honest, or more remoreless than them.
I produce as much as I get paid. That is how wages are determined, at least for professionals and skilled workers. My employer will not pay me more than I am worth to him or her, and I will not work for less than my time and energy is worth to me.
If I earn a million dollars a year, that is because I produce goods, services and ideas worth that or more for my employer.

Of course you do. There is no other way to get one.
Tell me...if everyone I ever make business with does so by their free will, if I never force, nor coerce anyone, if everyone I deal with does so because they believe that after the deal they will be better of than before - at who's expense am I creating my wealth?

And ? I don't see your point.
You are telling me what I should and should not do, how I should or should not live and work, you are dictating from the outside to two independent parties the terms of their coexistence - you are making my decisions.
Why do you think you can make my decisions better than I can?

You cannot earn it. You can only steal it. You can only have it at the price of making other starve to death. You can only have it at the price of being reckless, of working AGAINST your fellow human beings. Therefore, the only ways to have it is to perform immoral acts that makes you unable to claim you deserve it.
When I buy my Lamborghini, I give money to the Lamborghini dealership which created and sold part of the whole product. That dealership gives the money to its management, and its employees. Some of that money also goes to the factory that built the Lamborghini car. Some of that money goes to the people who built the physical car.
All these people go out and buy things - food, a house, more education, a TV...who knows? Who am I to tell them what to buy?
Those who sell food, houses, education or TVs will take that money and distribute it among those who helped create their product as well.
And so on and so forth.

Who's starving?

No one ever deserves luxury at the price of others misery and suffering.
And (and this might be the crux of the issue, and issue that I myself have yet to work out) - does anyone ever deserve misery and suffering?

La Habana Cuba, NS Elections Council President updated Results observations. Based on 109 NS Citizens voting.

It looks like the thread has preatty much run its course, even though technically its an open time poll as most of my public polls are.

Public election polls in this case are acceptable because this is the NS world after all not the real world were the vote should be private.

I am very happy that my thread had such a good response,
remember that no matter who you vote for and what the results may be, voting is your right in a free nation, with all its faults and virtues.

Of diffrent political partys, offering diffrent economic and social points of views.

No matter how corrupt a party or indivisual member may be, there is always an election process to change it around in free political nations.

If I had had 12 options I would have included a place for the New Zealanders, as most of us come from these nations, I choose Australia because it has a higher population, I know its not fair in that sense, but no offense ment to the New Zealanders.

All regions possible were represented and is interesting to see the regional diffrences in any such polls.

Total voters, percentages and diffrences by.
Fidelistas ------------ Bushes
Americans 18 40.00 - 27 60.00 by 20.00
Canadians 10 90.91 - 01 09.09 by 81.82
Europeans 33 80.49 - 08 19.51 by 60.98
Australians04 57.14 - 03 42.86 by 14.20
Others ----03 60.00 - 02 40.00 by 20.00

Over all Fidelistas 68 62.39 Bushes 41 37.61 by 24.78

Americans-- 45 41.28
canadians-- -11 10.09
Europeans---41 37.62
Australians--07 06.42
Others-------05 04.59
Totals 109 NS Citizen Voters.

Remember the poll is technically an open time poll.

You may now discuss the diffrences and similarities in the results by regions, who is more apart to whom and who is closer to whom and such.

And any other views and comments you may have.

I have enjoyed my RP as NS Elections Council President,
I would like to make it official, LOL and I am not LOL about it, more as in serious.

I love working with Math, Accounting, Bookkeeping, Statistics, Systems, Love History, Geography, Economics, Politics.

I am not an RP er, but I do like short RP type storys, and
an acting RP like this one.

La Habana Cuba, NS Elections Council President

Gracias

I voted for Fidel with one clear thing in mind:

No matter what complaints you may have about his politics or tactics, Fidel would experience an enormous amount of scrutiny as a US president, and have to do a great deal of negotiating with Congress at length to do anything.

As far as only Americans preferring Bush over Fidel in bulk, we may readily explain this several ways...

bush can be entertaining from a distance

[QUOTE=TJHairball]I voted for Fidel with one clear thing in mind:

No matter what complaints you may have about his politics or tactics, Fidel would experience an enormous amount of scrutiny as a US president, and have to do a great deal of negotiating with Congress at length to do anything.

As far as only Americans preferring Bush over Fidel in bulk, we may readily explain this several ways...[/QUOTE

I was now going to post my comments as a private NS Citizen with the right to vote, not NS Elections Council President, my job as NS elections President was to report the results in an honest way.

Now my comments.

The only thing that I can say to those Fidelista voters is, that would be the last free election you all would be able to vote in, as Fidel's nature is a dictatorship one, unllike anyting you may see in President Bush.

If Fidel could find away he would rule over you all for the rest of your life, a dictator for life, just look at him in Cuba,
47 years and counting and intransigent about democratic elelection changes like we have in our nations of origin or exile like myself.

All I can say is you all would live happy ever after with Fidel in power for the rest of your lifes.

I hope I have made some sense here.

Remember Adolph Hitler and other real dictators rose to power in mostly free elections no matter how much corruption there may have been.

Fidel does have his crimes of power during over 47 years and counting.

President Bush as much as he may want to be a dictator
will step down, leave office when the term expires, no matter if he stole the elections or not.

I dont think he did, but that is my view, and thats another issue for another thread.

No, I am not comparing Fidel to Hitler, or Mussolini, just in that sense of power, please keep it on Fidel and Bush as such and other comments.

I dont mean to sound harch.

This post is posted on my Fidel for President thread as well
as it fits there too.

The point I am trying to make is Fidel's nature of a dictatorship personality.

All I can say to the Fidellista voters is, that would be the last free elections you all would be able to vote in for the rest of your lifes, if fidel could find away to stay in power, he would.

you would live happy under Fidel for life, like it or not.

Yes, unlike anything you may see in Bush as a dictator.

Bush will be gone in a few years, he will step down, leave office when the term expires, if Fidel dosent die by then, he will still be dictator for life, that is a point I am trying to make, Fidel's undermocratic nature.

Yust look at the recent Italian elections, and the 2006 political climate in the USA, were the Republicans may loose control of the house of Representatives and maybe even the senate and compare that to Fidel and Cuba's one party state were our diffrent economic, political and social views would not be allowed to be represented in the Cuban National Assembly or any other level of government.

In Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the EU, coalitions of Socialist, Christian Democrats, Social, Socialist Democrats, Greens, Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans govern.

Somewhere in there my views and your views are represented and respected, that is the diffrence.

Now compare that to Cuba, one leader, one party state.

Just look at his intransigent nature in Cuba on political democratic reforms like we have in our nations of origin
or adopted nation in my case.

Over 47 years and counting as dictator for life.

I hope I have proven at least that much.

The point I am trying to make is very simple, If you and I were Cuban Citizens under Fidel, we would not have the right to disagree with any government policy or any means to try to do anything about it, we would not even be sharing our diffrent views on it on a site like Nationstates because Fidel would not allow it, because that is Fidel's nature.

This post is posted on my Fidel for President thread as well
as it fits there too.

The point I am trying to make is Fidel's nature of a dictatorship personality.

All I can say to the Fidellista voters is, that would be the last free elections you all would be able to vote in for the rest of your lifes, if fidel could find away to stay in power, he would.


That slants the poll, which is stupid, because obviously anybody is going to take a dictator for 4 years over a dictator for more than that.

The only way to see who people honestly think is worse is to make it a comparison with equal time. Such as, who would you rather have as US president for 4 years? Or, who would you rather have as dictator for life?

It appears your entire point was to make a moronically biased poll.

That slants the poll, which is stupid, because obviously anybody is going to take a dictator for 4 years over a dictator for more than that.

The only way to see who people honestly think is worse is to make it a comparison with equal time. Such as, who would you rather have as US president for 4 years? Or, who would you rather have as dictator for life?

It appears your entire point was to make a moronically biased poll.

No, I disagree, and you dont get the point.

Fidel Castro for President of the USA?
George W Bush for President of the USA?

I wanted to see who would vote for Fidel, and who
would vote for Bush.

It is up to you to, to determine if you like them or not.

Alot of persons on this site seemed to like Fidel before my thread.

It is up to you to decide their nature.

My other thread is Fidel for President of the USA.

do you like him or not? Its all up to you and what you think of Fidel.

You all know my views.

I let both threads die the last time, and someone let them out, LOL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tropical Sands
Perhaps this thread should have been called "Fidel for President of the Universe."


I was thinking for NS President of the world.

But NS President of the USA sounded better, more interesting.

I have to admit, I really lost my mind, I out did myself this time, this one is going to be hard to top, LOL.

Well update this post, later with a new post.

I have to go for now, more later.

The last official report.

Fidelistas ------------- Bushes --- Diffrences By
Americans 21 42.86 - 28 57.14 - 14.28
Canadians 11 84.62 - 02 15.38 - 69.24
Europeans 39 81.25 - 09 18.75 - 62.50
Australians04 57.14 - 03 42.86 - 14.28
-----Others03 60.00 - 02 40.00 - 20.00

Fidelistas 78 63.93 --- Bushes 44 36.07 --- 27.86

Americans 49 40.16
Canadians 13 10.66
Europeans 48 39.34
Australians07 05.74
-----Others05 04.10

122 NS Citizens

All regions possible have been represented in the polls,
as it is interesting to see the diffrences by regions.

Please remember that no matter what the results,
what matters is your right to vote in a free nation.

I have enjoyed this RP,
as your NS Elections Council President.

I love Math, Accounting, Bookkeeping, Statistics, Systems,
History, Geography, Economics, Politics, and I am a Copy Holic.

La Habana Cuba, NS Elections Council President.

Gracias

Last Official Report.

As a private NS Citizen with the right to vote,
all I can say to the Fidelista voters is,
you have just voted for,

Fidel the one that would take your right to vote and choose, the one that would not respect your right to disagree with any government policy, and would not give you the means to challenge, or change any government policy.

And would not allow a site like Nationstates to exist for you to share your economic, political and social points of views with others, if he could find away.

Because that is Fidel's nature.

In this nature, Bush dosent come anywhere near Fidel.

As I have posted this is the last Official Report,
and I will let this thread die,
this is an open time poll.

Gracias

La Habana Cuba

NS Elections Council President

As a private NS Citizen with the right to vote,
all I can say to the Fidelista voters is,
you have just voted for,

Fidel the one that would take your right to vote and choose, the one that would not respect your right to disagree with any government policy, and would not give you the means to challenge, change or disagree with any government policy.

And in USA, you can chose between two parties who have basically the same platform, one a tiny bit worse, with a system done in a way to completly lock out in chance for any other candidate to ever get power. What's the difference ? Both the electoral system (a two party first-behind-the-line system) and the campaign system (which requires any party to have support from big corporations, and therefore to serve corporate interests, to have any chance of being seen) completly locks out any real alternative.

Add to that the laws from McCarthy's era making it illegal to own communist propaganda (not repealed in some states), the political prisonners of Guatanamo Bay and other prisons, the long-term political prisonners like Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Pelletier or the Move guys (hey, remember, in your "democratic" USA, they dropped a BOMB on a peaceful organisation called "Move" !).

Then you have to remember all the times USA replaced (or tried to replace), by force, an elected president by a dictator, all around the world, and especially in south america (and for Bush himself, the coup attempt against Chavez).

So, no, you can't say Bush is a democratic president while Castro is not. USA, and especially under Bush, is far, far from a democracy, and supports dictatorship all around the world.

But at least, citizen of Cuba have food, healthcare, housing. While many citizen of USA do not even have that.

And would not allow a site like Nationstates to exist for you to share your economic, political and social points of views with others.

Because that is Fidel's nature.

In this nature, Bush dosent come anywhere near Fidel.

If you compare the situation of USA and Cuba, the amount of aggression USA suffered (yes, sept 11 is horrible, but compared to what USA does, it's nothing) with amount of aggression Cuba is suffering, the reaction of Castro is much, much more human than the one of Bush.

Bush is doing worse than Castro on many points (torture, invasion wars, ...), despite that is the leader of the strongest country of the world; while Castro is doing his limited repression despite that he is the leader of a tiny island, having as a neighbour an imperial power who is officially a foe, and who is supporting terror groups acting against Cuba.

Compare the reaction of Bush to September 11 (Guantanamo, torture, Patriot Act, two invasion wars, ...) to the reaction of Castro to 40 years of attempts to have him removed, and you'll see which reaction is more disproportionned.

It's easy to say Castro is evil, because yes, he's doing things which are not acceptable. But you can't say it's because it's his nature. He's acting as he is because he's the target of a constant aggression by the more powerful country of the planet. Look at Venezuela. Chavez is playing the democratic game. What was the reward for him ? Coup attempt, lock outs, sabotage, ... Cuba can't afford that. With the blocus, the lack of natural wealth, and the constant threat of USA invasion, Castro just can't afford something like the Venezuelian opposition is doing. Because the capitalists won't play the democratic game, they'll abuse from it.

That said, I do not think the end justifies the means, and I don't agree with Castro's choice. But I do respect it, much more than I respect Bush crushing freedom while he is the most powerful on the planet. And you definitely cannot say that's because of his nature.

The nature of Castro is much, much more dedicated to help his people than the nature of Bush, who only seeks the interest of his oil and weapon makers friends.

Kilobugya, in the USA the main political partys are the Democrats and the Republicans, one day maybe even a Libertarian.

Canada, Australia, and the EU nations, are generally governed or represented in parliments, by Socialists, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Communists, Greens, you name it,
compared to one political party state in Cuba,
and one leader for life, a dictator.

If you would rather live in Cuba under dictator Fidel for life
than in Canada, Australia, the EU nations or the USA, that is your right to do so.

Kilobugya, in the USA the main political partys are the Democrats and the Republicans,

Which are, both, right-wing parties, supporting big corporations and US imperialism. Yes, democrats are a bit less worse, but there is not much difference between the both of them. I don't see much difference between two parties who nearly the same platforms and ideas and only one party.

Canada, Australia, and the EU nations, are generally governed or represented in parliments, by Socialists, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Communists, Greens, you name it,

We were comparing USA (and especially Bush) with Cuba. We were not speaking of European countries, who do have, for some of them, a more real democracy.

If you would rather live in Cuba under dictator Fidel for life
than in Canada, Australia, the EU nations or the USA, that is your right to do so.

I would definitely prefer to live in Cuba than in USA. And I prefer the more democratic and social EU nations over both of them. But the thread was about Cuba and USA, not about Europe.

Kilobugya, if you prefer to live in Cuba under a dictator for life, than in the USA, your post speaks for itself.