NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1588997.ece

"The Scandic Hotel chain's refusal to accept Cuban guests due to the policy of their new American owners has sparked furious reaction from a range of groups.

At the same time, the Anti-racist Center filed a complaint with the police against the hotel, the managing director for the Hilton hotels and the Scandic chain in Norway. This charge is based on a law prohibiting the denial of services on the grounds of a person's citizenship or other ethnic reasons."

And after all this Aftenposten still shows courtesy for the US in not calling their embargo for what it is, but refers to it as a "boycott". :rolleyes:

Why the hell does that embargo still exist? Cold War's over, move on.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1588997.ece

"The Scandic Hotel chain's refusal to accept Cuban guests due to the policy of their new American owners has sparked furious reaction from a range of groups.

At the same time, the Anti-racist Center filed a complaint with the police against the hotel, the managing director for the Hilton hotels and the Scandic chain in Norway. This charge is based on a law prohibiting the denial of services on the grounds of a person's citizenship or other ethnic reasons."

And after all this Aftenposten still shows courtesy for the US in not calling their embargo for what it is, but refers to it as a "boycott". :rolleyes:

I told JFK the embargo would turn into a problem, with even the Scandinavians getting upset about it, but would he listen? Noooooooo ... :rolleyes:

*shoots self for having been born American*

I told JFK the embargo would turn into a problem, with even the Swedes getting upset about it, but would he listen? Noooooooo ... :rolleyes:

Norway != Sweden, but yeah, pretty much everyone (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/30/world/main658417.shtml) (from 2004, but the resolution is passed annually, and was so in 2006 as well) is annoyed with the US over this.

Why the hell does that embargo still exist? Cold War's over, move on.

A mild bit of bitterness pertaining to Castro wanting the Soviet Nuclear Missiles to be shot off at the US, rather than be dismantled.

Oh, and his wholesale robbery of the property of American citizens also pissed the US Government off.

Yay Norway! Best country ever! (I'm British btw)

As for the embargo, yeh get over it. When Fidel dies maybe a new start?

As for the embargo, yeh get over it. When Fidel dies maybe a new start?

That's widely perceived to be the plan.

ooo this should be a fun clash of laws. will the new owners cave in to US pressure or nowegian pressure.

maybe they dont have the balls for international business after all

Why the hell does that embargo still exist? Cold War's over, move on.

We won't rest until we get the island we stole fair and square from the spanish back from the commie heathens!

;)

A mild bit of bitterness pertaining to Castro wanting the Soviet Nuclear Missiles to be shot off at the US, rather than be dismantled.
He's got no nukes now, and that happened a long time ago

Oh, and his wholesale robbery of the property of American citizens also pissed the US Government off.

Are any of those Americans still alive? Anyways, wasn't that property stolen from the Spainish in the first place? Part of Teddy's imperialism doctrine?

Why the hell does that embargo still exist? Cold War's over, move on.

It exists because Florida's Cuban population would punish whichever political party votes to remove the embargo.

That's widely perceived to be the plan.

And will probably screw over the Cubans en mass.

So meh. It'll be a bitter day for Cubans.

What, are they doing it 'in principle?' Key-rist that's just stupid.

Norway != Sweden, but yeah, pretty much everyone (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/30/world/main658417.shtml) (from 2004, but the resolution is passed annually, and was so in 2006 as well) is annoyed with the US over this.

I did edit it to be "Scandinavians" but not fast enough ... There's actually a number of folks in the US who think it's a pretty stupid idea, too. The embrago is kept alive, on life support, by generous donations from the Cuban exiles who came here after Castro took power and who hate him and everything he stands for with a single-minded ferocity that makes the way the Republicans hated the Clintons look like a 1960s love-in. I suspect that when the Old Man dies and Raul retires, the embargo will go away.

He's got no nukes now, and that happened a long time ago
It's a continuing punishment for pissing us off.

States have long memories.





Are any of those Americans still alive? Anyways, wasn't that property stolen from the Spainish in the first place? Part of Teddy's imperialism doctrine?

Some are, and if they had not had their property taken, the odds are they would have given it to their children.

That's widely perceived to be the plan.

I've already heard murmers that his brother is 'worse' and that it won't mean the end of embargos, etc.

It's fucking stupid.

A mild bit of bitterness pertaining to Castro wanting the Soviet Nuclear Missiles to be shot off at the US, rather than be dismantled.

Oh, and his wholesale robbery of the property of American citizens also pissed the US Government off.

Meh, few people acknowledge that the US started the Missile Crisis.

Wha????

Yep, we were the first ones to place Nukes in countries on the borders of the Soviet Union, which pissed them off, so they put nukes in Cuba.

But pish-posh, facts are annoying to deal with.

The embargo should have ended long ago. There is virtually no reason for us to have it, it is only making the situation in Cuba quite a bit more unpleasent for the Cubans, and with Ethanol becoming more popular, we could use a bit more sugar to deal with higher demand.

He's got no nukes now, and that happened a long time ago

Are any of those Americans still alive? Anyways, wasn't that property stolen from the Spainish in the first place? Part of Teddy's imperialism doctrine?

Any nukes involved were firmly in the hands of their Russian owners, not Fidel's. No way Khrushchev was going to let Castro get near the launch button.

As for American property, well, it was only 40-some years ago, and rich people can afford expensive medical care. I think it's more the Cuban exiles, as I said above, though.

The embrago is kept alive, on life support, by generous donations from the Cuban exiles who came here after Castro took power and who hate him and everything he stands for with a single-minded ferocity that makes the way the Republicans hated the Clintons look like a 1960s love-in. I suspect that when the Old Man dies and Raul retires, the embargo will go away.

*looks at CIA*
"Are you thinkin what I'm thinkin?"
"Isolate. Simplify. Terminate."

473rd time's the charm.

Meh, few people acknowledge that the US started the Missile Crisis.

Wha????

Yep, we were the first ones to place Nukes in countries on the borders of the Soviet Union, which pissed them off, so they put nukes in Cuba.

But pish-posh, facts are annoying to deal with.

The embargo should have ended long ago. There is virtually no reason for us to have it, it is only making the situation in Cuba quite a bit more unpleasent for the Cubans, and with Ethanol becoming more popular, we could use a bit more sugar to deal with higher demand.

Of course, the counter argument is that we placed nukes in Western Europe and Turkey because Khruschev was publicly telling the world he was "turning out missiles like sausages", and that he could launch a pre-emptive first strike against the US with ICBMs. Our response was to give him the exact same threat, except that the US didn't have ICBM's in the quantities that Khruschev claimed the USSR had 'em. He was lying through his teeth, but the US didn't have the capabilities to tell that until the U2 overflights.

Beyond that, the Jupiter Missiles were most certainly not a first strike weapon as it was far to imprecise to have any impact on the Soviet nuclear deterrent, whereas the Soviet MRBMs and IRBMs in Cuba were sufficiently precise to obliterate most of the US Nuclear force before a possible response.

That's widely perceived to be the plan.

I'm not sure it's going to work. Is his son meant to be worse? But of course his son my not inherit the leadership, how do they do it there?

Of course, the counter argument is that we placed nukes in Western Europe and Turkey because Khruschev was publicly telling the world he was "turning out missiles like sausages", and that he could launch a pre-emptive first strike against the US with ICBMs. Our response was to give him the exact same threat, except that the US didn't have ICBM's in the quantities that Khruschev claimed the USSR had 'em. He was lying through his teeth, but the US didn't have the capabilities to tell that until the U2 overflights.

Beyond that, the Jupiter Missiles were most certainly not a first strike weapon as it was far to imprecise to have any impact on the Soviet nuclear deterrent, whereas the Soviet MRBMs and IRBMs in Cuba were sufficiently precise to obliterate most of the US Nuclear force before a possible response.

Ah, very true. However, we did take the first steps in the whole Nuclear Dick-Measuring contest, really. Krushy just was using centimeters, which made his seem larger than ours which used inches.

Why the hell does that embargo still exist? Cold War's over, move on.

The US prides itself on its ability to win pissing contests.

Ah, very true. However, we did take the first steps in the whole Nuclear Dick-Measuring contest, really. Krushy just was using centimeters, which made his seem larger than ours which used inches.

Essentially.

Essentially.

Indeed. However, when we finally converted their centimeters to inches, we found out we were more or less a horse in comparison.

:D

Indeed. However, when we finally converted their centimeters to inches, we found out we were more or less a horse in comparison.

:D

A draft horse, I might add. :D

I find this metaphor immensely amusing, for some juvenile reason. :D

Sometimes American foreign policies never make sense but its their loss, Cubans willing to spend money abroad are being turned away because their country is a communist, so much for capitalism :p. Turning people away that want to embrace capitalism. America also doesn't allow its oil companies to get a hold into the oil business in Libya because of the embargo set against Qadaffi, so other non-American businesses are far ahead of their American counterparts in countries America puts an embargo on. I heard Americans can't smoke Cuban cigars, is that true? Every country (may they be pro or anti America) that I visit, I see people smoke Cuban cigars.

It exists because Florida's Cuban population would punish whichever political party votes to remove the embargo.

So we just wait for global warming to wipe out Florida. Problem solved! ;)

As for the embargo, yeh get over it. When Fidel dies maybe a new start?

Doubtful.

Raul is probably worse.

A draft horse, I might add. :D

I find this metaphor immensely amusing, for some juvenile reason. :D

Clydesdale perhaps?

And yes, this is quite amusing.

So we just wait for global warming to wipe out Florida. Problem solved! ;)

And Cuba! If Cuba doesn't exist, ergo no more need for an embargo.

We shall win in the long run!

:p

Doubtful.

Raul is probably worse.

Yeh I made this point up the page.

Why the hell does that embargo still exist? Cold War's over, move on.But some big companies hope to get back their property that was confiscated when US puppet Batista was ousted.

Nationalisation and agrarian reform policies in Latin America tend to follow a complicated pattern.

The original owner has to pay taxes on whatever he or she owns. However, if they claim it as being less than it is worth, then they pay less taxes. Many large land owners and large corporations do this to save money. Bribes make this easier.

The problem comes when they are nationalised. The government pays the landowner or corporatist whatever is on the books, which is a fraction of its real worth, due to what I mentioned above.

Honesty is its own reward.

The vote in favor of the Cuba-sponsored resolution was 179-4. The four opposing votes came from the United States, Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands.
All states in the pay of America.

You'd think that a few American allies, maybe UK, Turkey, or Germany would support them on this. But no, even to them the embargo is clearly wrong.

A mild bit of bitterness pertaining to Castro wanting the Soviet Nuclear Missiles to be shot off at the US, rather than be dismantled.

Oh, and his wholesale robbery of the property of American citizens also pissed the US Government off.
Forgive.

It exists because Florida's Cuban population would punish whichever political party votes to remove the embargo.
How much power can they possibly have in a nation of 300 million people?

How much power can they possibly have in a nation of 300 million people?

did GWB win an election because he won Florida?....had he lost Florida it would have been President Gore would it not?

How much power can they possibly have in a nation of 300 million people?

You forget that the US doesn't have a proportional electoral system. Cubans can "swing" Florida to the other side (Democrat/Republican - whatever) and thus deliver all the state's electoral college votes.

Stupid system, yes, but it's the system they have.

Sillyness.

And I smell a lawsuit a-comin'

You forget that the US doesn't have a proportional electioral system. Cubans can "swing" Florida to the other side (Democrat/Republican - whatever) and thus deliver all the state's electoral college votes.

Stupid system, yes, but it's the system they have.

and until candidates all agree to drop the stupid anti-Cuba sanctions Florida will continue to control the issue.....I don't see any Presidential candidate having the balls to do that...

Why the hell does that embargo still exist? Cold War's over, move on.

You see there is this large whiny group of refugees in south Florida who pitch hissy fits whenever we do anything good with Cuba, because they all left from hating Castro. Of course they don't seem to care that the ones left behind Suffer because of this, but I guess they think it's their fault for not making a crappy boat and sailing to America.

But some big companies hope to get back their property that was confiscated when US puppet Batista was ousted.
They can give that up, that'll never happen.

The US prides itself on its ability to win pissing contests.

And this pissing contest is one we Americans will lose. Because Castro has outlived 5 US presidents and he is still in power. The only ones who have suffered and continue to suffer are the Cuban people. If the US wanted to defeat Castro, the only reasonable way would be to lift the embargo and open up the island from the outside.

As for the Hilton decision in Norway: BOYCOTT HILTON.

wow... i don't know what to say other than i am absolutely horrified:(

The irony is that it was the US that drove Castro into Khrushchev's hands.

And Cuba! If Cuba doesn't exist, ergo no more need for an embargo.

We shall win in the long run!

:p

Actually, Cuba has a much higher average altitude than Florida, so Cuba would win out when the waters rise.

The Floridian Cubans would be scattered throughout America, and thus lose their collective clout, meanwhile, the increased distance between Cuba and the USA (not to mention the harsh sailing conditions caused by the breaking of the Gulf Stream) will mean less Cuban immigrants.

Also, Guantanamo Bay will lie under the new sea level, so there's another problem that Global Warming will solve!

Don't care. Every Cuban I know hates Castro, and our embargo has tons of support by the people that Castro oppressed. I could care less. If Castro wants his people to be treated nice by the Americans, he should have thought about that before trying to destroy us with the Soviets.:rolleyes:

Are any of those Americans still alive? Anyways, wasn't that property stolen from the Spainish in the first place? Part of Teddy's imperialism doctrine?Well, since it occured only fifty years ago I do think it is quite possible since they would be the ones wronged considering it was trust fund money for them.

Well the cubans in question just got a different hotel, so this caused little trouble for them really :)

Sillyness. The embargo too.

Sillyness.

That's not the word I would have used for Norwegian anti-discrimination laws.

Don't care.

That's how we know we're right.

Well the cubans in question just got a different hotel, so this caused little trouble for them really :)

Sillyness. The embargo too.

regardless if they got a room or not it can't go unchallenged......a precident has been set, next time it could be Muslims, a Somali, or someone from Belgium being denied a room....(actually I could understand someone from Belgium being excluded;) )

That's not the word I would have used for Norwegian anti-discrimination laws.

Oh no, those laws aren't silly; the behavior of the american corporation is. When even the managing director seems uncomfortable:
Geir Lundkvist, managing director for Hilton and Scandic in Norway, regrets the situation.
...you know that this is something that's being forced upon them by the americans from the top down.

Personally, I hope the Hilton-group and Scandic gets a serious smack for their sillyness, thanks to the Norwegian anti-discrimination laws. They seem to need it :)

(actually I could understand someone from Belgium being excluded;) )

Hein, ta geule!

That's how we know we're right.
Actually, you dont know shit....as there are like 3 Cubans in all of Sweden. Down here, Cubans make up the majority in many neighbors, and they all came fleeing oppression and seeking a better life than the one they had in that shithole you were defending. So you know what, if they say keep the embargo going because they cannot tolerate supporting (or us supporting) the country that oppressed them, I say who am I to argue. Cubas fault for being a backwards communist oppressive regime.

But clearly you know nothing and you just beleive that its the evil Americans acting terribly against little old communist Cuba, because we are on a right wing crusade against left wing infidels. Though I admit, its exactly what I'd except from someone from politically correct, left wing, anti-American, terrorist supporting Scandiland. Your pussy welfare state herdygerdyland has brainwashed you, and I'm only glad that Denmark is trying to break out of that.

http://www.integrity-logodata.com/danish_flag.jpg

Actually, you dont know shit....

You've always known how to bring irony to the table.

as there are like 3 Cubans in all of Sweden. Down here, Cubans make up the majority in many neighbors, and they all came fleeing oppression and seeking a better life than the one they had in that shithole you were defending. So you know what, if they say keep the embargo going because they cannot tolerate supporting (or us supporting) the country that oppressed them, I say who am I to argue. Cubas fault for being a backwards communist oppressive regime.

But clearly you know nothing and you just beleive that its the evil Americans acting terribly against little old communist Cuba, because we are on a right wing crusade against left wing infidels. Though I admit, its exactly what I'd except from someone from politically correct, left wing, anti-American, terrorist supporting Scandiland. Your pussy welfare state herdygerdyland has brainwashed you, and I'm only glad that Denmark is trying to break out of that.
http://www.integrity-logodata.com/danish_flag.jpg

Awful display, and the non-flaggy bits are sub-par, as well. I give that flamebait two demerits, and pass on biting.

The embargo aside, the management is clearly incompetent/moronic. This can only cost the chain money in terms of fines, lawsuits and bad publicity, and therefore is not adding shareholder value. :mad:

(If you are stupid enough to be a shareholder in hilton hotels that is).

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1588997.ece

"The Scandic Hotel chain's refusal to accept Cuban guests due to the policy of their new American owners has sparked furious reaction from a range of groups.

At the same time, the Anti-racist Center filed a complaint with the police against the hotel, the managing director for the Hilton hotels and the Scandic chain in Norway. This charge is based on a law prohibiting the denial of services on the grounds of a person's citizenship or other ethnic reasons."

And after all this Aftenposten still shows courtesy for the US in not calling their embargo for what it is, but refers to it as a "boycott". :rolleyes:

I work for an USAmercian company. Basically, their laws dictate that no American company anywhere in the world is allowed to do business with a country that is being boycotted or embargoes by the USA. The company can be fined for violations in the USA, if not in the host country.

Actually, you dont know shit....as there are like 3 Cubans in all of Sweden. Down here, Cubans make up the majority in many neighbors, and they all came fleeing oppression and seeking a better life than the one they had in that shithole you were defending. So you know what, if they say keep the embargo going because they cannot tolerate supporting (or us supporting) the country that oppressed them, I say who am I to argue. Cubas fault for being a backwards communist oppressive regime.

But clearly you know nothing and you just beleive that its the evil Americans acting terribly against little old communist Cuba, because we are on a right wing crusade against left wing infidels. Though I admit, its exactly what I'd except from someone from politically correct, left wing, anti-American, terrorist supporting Scandiland. Your pussy welfare state herdygerdyland has brainwashed you, and I'm only glad that Denmark is trying to break out of that.



totally unlike that beacon of freedom and bastion of Democracy, eternal friend of corporate USA, China......the continual hypocrisy of right wing america is astounding....

I work for an USAmercian company. Basically, their laws dictate that no American company anywhere in the world is allowed to do business with a country that is being boycotted or embargoes by the USA. The company can be fined for violations in the USA, if not in the host country.

I think they're about to find that US law has no standing outside the US, so following US law while in Norway will mean zilch to mitigate offences of the latter's laws.

totally unlike that beacon of freedom and bastion of Democracy, eternal friend of corporate USA, China......the continual hypocrisy of right wing america is astounding....
Heh, you obviously dont know me. If you're looking for me to defend our relationship with China, you're looking in the wrong place. ;)

Anyway, thats still not a valid arguement, really.

It reminds me of

"Hitler killed 6 million Jews"

"But look what Stalin did!"

:rolleyes:


Its divertion of the topic at hand.

That's how we know we're right.
Funny, you quote a source from a country whose officials (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1586100.ece) recently treated a gaming alliance (Nordreich, linked to Cybernations.net), as if it were a real Nazi threat (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1587626.ece), on the ground that it used its anthem. Good way to put to use its tax-expropriated funds. :rolleyes: That said, this is a private institution. Whom it associates with is its business. Period.

Yet, when you and the rest of your Swedish compatriots embargoed South Africa for its political system, that was perfectly fine. Cuba, a fellow oppressor of human rights, is regarded with impunity. Hypocrites.

Funny, you quote a source from a country whose officials (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1586100.ece) recently treated a gaming alliance (Nordreich, linked to Cybernations.net), as if it were a real Nazi threat (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1587626.ece), on the ground that it used its anthem. Good way to put to use its tax-expropriated funds. :rolleyes: This is a private institution. Whom it associates with is its business. Period.

I'm afraid your libertarian "periods" have very small persuasive power upon those who know to laugh at the likes of Rand. Discrimination is excused by private ownership in no way.

Yet, when you and the rest of your Swedish compatriots embargoed South Africa for its political system, that was perfectly fine. Hypocrites.

Ah, leave it to a white South African to bemoan the loss of apartheid, and to ignore the money funnelled directly to the ANC.

I think they're about to find that US law has no standing outside the US, so following US law while in Norway will mean zilch to mitigate offences of the latter's laws.

Well, as a US-based company, they'll face trouble at home if they break that law. Big trouble.
I guess they'll either try and find a way of adhering to that law even in Norway, or maybe just pull out of the country altogether if that's not possible.

I'm afraid your libertarian "periods" have very small persuasive power upon those who know to laugh at the likes of Rand. Discrimination is excused by private ownership in no way.
Those who have rejected Reason cannot be conquered by it. It is we who laugh at you and your sick ilk.

Ah, leave it to a white South African to bemoan the loss of apartheid, and to ignore the money funnelled directly to the ANC.
Actually, I didn't bemoan anything of the sort and have nothing but contempt for the apartheid. I am simply surprised at the double standard. Americans do not want their money going to Castro...

I think they're about to find that US law has no standing outside the US, so following US law while in Norway will mean zilch to mitigate offences of the latter's laws.
If they don't understand the letter of the law, maybe they'll understand the loss of money :)

That said, this is a private institution. Whom it associates with is its business. Period.
The Norwegian Penal Code paragraph 349a begs to differ:
"Punishment by fine or imprisonment not to exceed 6 months will be brought against anyone who as proprietor or representative of similar authority, because of an individual’s creed, race, skin color, or national or ethnic origins, denies said individual goods or services which are otherwise made readily available to other individuals." [unofficial translation]
Source (http://www.smed.no/yourrights.asp)

Well, as a US-based company, they'll face trouble at home if they break that law. Big trouble.
I guess they'll either try and find a way of adhering to that law even in Norway, or maybe just pull out of the country altogether if that's not possible.

I think they'll find it hard to withdraw "Scandic Hotels" from Scandinavia, so they might just be forced to sell it off. No big deal, as US ownership is a liability.

The Norwegian Penal Code paragraph 349a begs to differ:

Source (http://www.smed.no/yourrights.asp)
I really don't care what it says. The government has no right to dictate whom its citizens associate with.

The Norwegian Penal Code paragraph 349a begs to differ:

Source (http://www.smed.no/yourrights.asp)

You see, Europa Maxima thinks his "private companies are above or exempt from the law" nonsense is what should be, not what is. Fortunately.

I really don't care what it says. The government has no right to dictate whom its citizens associate with.

Like you have the right to dictate to the Norwegian people what its government can and cannot dictate.

You see, Europa Maxima thinks his "private companies are above or exempt from the law" nonsense is what should be, not what is. Fortunately.
No, I believe individuals have the right to associate - or disassociate - with others at their whim. Another group of individuals, dressed up as "government", has no right to force them to associate with others. Now that the veils of deception have been removed it becomes clear what principle is being enforced - rule by force.

Your attempt at obfuscation fails.

In the US you can't deal with Cubans, in Norway you have to. Hey, maybe that globalization thing is unworkable due to the different laws in different nations. Let's scrap it.

Those who have rejected Reason cannot be conquered by it. It is we who laugh at you and your sick ilk.

"Sick" - there's a merit badge from your lot if ever one saw it.

Actually, I didn't bemoan anything of the sort and have nothing but contempt for the apartheid. I am simply surprised at the double standard. Americans do not want their money going to Castro...

And I am surprised you can stomach equating the two. Well, then again you're the "non-sick" one, after all...

Like you have the right to dictate to the Norwegian people what its government can and cannot dictate.
I can disapprove of it and consider it sick and immoral. Just like you may disapprove of the US and judge it by your standards.

That's how we know we're right.

Or irrelevant.

And I am surprised you can stomach equating the two. Well, then again you're the "non-sick" one, after all...
Too bad it takes being a "Randroid" or an "Austrian sheep" to perceive things with clarity... :rolleyes:

Both violated rights of citizens. Both are tyrannical in nature. I fail to see the difference. Simply because the one chose to use colour as the qualifier of its victims does not make it worse than the one which does so indiscriminantly.

No, I believe individuals have the right to associate - or disassociate - with others at their whim. Another group of individuals, dressed up as "government", has no right to force them to associate with others. Now that the veils of deception have been removed it becomes clear what principle is being enforced - rule by force.

Oh, boohoo. My heart bleeds for racists whose nonsense is no longer tolerated. Exsanguinates buckets, but still points out the powerlessness of your "libertarian" persuasiveness.

Your attempt at obfuscation fails.

And your attempt at bringing back apartheid and segregation in the name of "private ownership" is not obfuscated in the least.

I can disapprove of it and consider it sick and immoral. Just like you may disapprove of the US and judge it by your standards.

And the Norwegian government, clever fellows like they are, can just ignore that seeing as they're not gonna buy the whole silliness of "private! thus special 'cause I say so!".

Oh, boohoo. My heart bleeds for racist whose nonsense is no longer tolerated. Exsanguinates buckets, but still points out the powerlessness of your "libertarian" persuasiveness.
Actually, to me it demonstrates your inability to comprehend the principle of consistency. If Norwegians tolerate their government issuing edicts as to how they may live their lives, all the worse for them I might say. They should merely not complain if it takes it upon itself to further regulate how citizens conduct themselves, for instance in their sex lives. Again, we shouldn't let private ownership cloud our judgement...

And your attempt at bringing back apartheid and segregation in the name of "private ownership" is not obfuscated in the least.
Strawman. Not that I expected anything but this.

And the Norwegian government, clever fellows like they are, can just ignore that seeing as they're not gonna buy the whole silliness of "private! thus special 'cause I say so!".
Nevermind its silliness for being unable to realise what is a private exchange between individuals... No loss.

Too bad it takes being a "Randroid" or an "Austrian sheep" to perceive things with clarity... :rolleyes:

So that's what the new "libertarian" meme is. Just you repeat it until it makes sense, like you do with the rest of the memes. Too bad for you it doesn't work quite that well on other people.

Both violated rights of citizens. Both are tyrannical in nature. I fail to see the difference. Simply because the one chose to use colour as the qualifier of its victims does not make it worse than the one which does so indiscriminantly.

Of course you don't see the difference.

So that's what the new "libertarian" meme is. Just you repeat it until it makes sense, like you do with the rest of the memes. Too bad for you it doesn't work quite that well on other people.
Your "refutations" of it amount to nothing more than an argumentum ad populum. Sorry if that is not entirely convincing.

Of course you don't see the difference.
Then point it out.

I hope Norway's govenment understands that the American People in respect to the American Laws and that they were simply obeying the Law and it had nothing to do with racial discrimination. I'm sure if a Peurto Rican, Spainard, Mexican, or whatnot went to the hotel they would have been given a room. This has nothing to do with racial discrimination it has everything to do with American Owners of a hotel obeying the Cuban Embargo under American Law.

Actually, to me it demonstrates your inability to comprehend the principle of consistency. If Norwegians tolerate their government issuing edicts as to how they may live their lives, all the worse for them I might say. They should merely not complain if it takes it upon itself to further regulate how citizens conduct themselves, for instance in their sex lives. Again, we shouldn't let private ownership cloud our judgement...

Nor should we let diametrically opposed irrelevancies deceive us.

Strawman. Not that I expected anything but this.

Come now, you think after all this time with your little gang of Nord-whatshisname and TAI the racism only shone through from them? Oh, you were not nearly as good at disguising it as you apparently thought you were.

Nevermind its silliness for being unable to realise what is a private exchange between individuals... No loss.

Precisely. No loss.

I hope Norway's govenment understands that the American People in respect to the American Laws and that they were simply obeying the Law and it had nothing to do with racial discrimination. I'm sure if a Peurto Rican, Spainard, Mexican, or whatnot went to the hotel they would have been given a room. This has nothing to do with racial discrimination it has everything to do with American Owners of a hotel obeying the Cuban Embargo under American Law.

They weren't doing business in the US. They were doing business in Norway, where you will find that US law has no relevance or standing.

Nor should we let diametrically opposed irrelevancies deceive us.
The principle behind the scenario I mentioned is identical and of the utmost relevance. The doctrine of precedence does not apply only to law.

Come now, you think after all this time with your little gang of Nord-whatshisname and TAI the racism only shone through from them? Oh, you were not nearly as good at disguising it as you apparently thought you were.

Defence of attacks on them does not constitute a defence of their actual ideology.

Those who have rejected Reason cannot be conquered by it.

Perhaps because said "Reason" is unreasonable.

Your "refutations" of it amount to nothing more than an argumentum ad populum. Sorry if that is not entirely convincing.

Refutations? Even with the quotation marks you give it too much credit, since I would never give your lame statements of "this is how it is because I say so! period!" the credit they'd need to have to be worthy of refuting.

Then point it out.

No. Since I'm not interested in more "libertarian" ruminations, as I've seen you regurgitate them so many times before, I shall end this. Bores me already, won't do so longer.

Perhaps because said "Reason" is unreasonable.
And the argumentum ad populum he used is what exactly? He is entitled to his opinion of course, and so are you.

Refutations? Even with the quotation marks you give it too much credit, since I would never give your lame statements of "this is how it is because I say so! period!" the credit they'd need to have to be worthy of refuting.
No argument? Good. :)

No. Since I'm not interested in more "libertarian" ruminations, as I've seen you regurgitate them so many times before, I shall end this. Bores me already, won't do so longer.
You can't you say? Fine. You bore me. We're done here, drone.

And the argumentum ad populum he used is what exactly?

Not so unreasonable, actually, by the logic of libertarianism (right-wing or left-wing.)

One oft-repeated point of libertarians is that, generally, people themselves are the best judges of what actually serves their welfare. It follows that if people repeatedly reject right-wing libertarian principles, that is a strong indication that they do not serve the public good.

Of course, many right-wing libertarians are more concerned with their conceptions of "liberty" than with the public good, but for what it's worth....

Not so unreasonable, actually, by the logic of libertarianism (right-wing or left-wing.)

One oft-repeated point of libertarians is that, generally, people themselves are the best judges of what actually serves their welfare. It follows that if people repeatedly reject right-wing libertarian principles, that is a strong indication that they do not serve the public good.
Or the good of specific individuals defined as the "public". However, if the only argument someone has against an intellectual, be it Hoppe, Proudhon, Rand, Mises or Marx, is "people laugh at their theories", I am not going to put in much effort in debating with them thereafter. You know as well as I do that neither my nor your ideologies will ever be likely to have mass appeal.

I hope Norway's govenment understands that the American People in respect to the American Laws and that they were simply obeying the Law and it had nothing to do with racial discrimination. I'm sure if a Peurto Rican, Spainard, Mexican, or whatnot went to the hotel they would have been given a room. This has nothing to do with racial discrimination it has everything to do with American Owners of a hotel obeying the Cuban Embargo under American Law.

No. Norwegian laws in Norway overrides US law in the US when the corporation does business in Norway. If anything, one could hope that the US government understood that.

As it stands now, a hefty fine is in order.

I think most of you defending the "cubans" do nto really give a hill of beans about the said "cubans" what you find is your trying to be cool and "politically correct" by attacking anything american.....does not matter if you really no or care anything what the cuban gov't is like or if they treat their people decent.....if you could you would lay every problem in the world against the american door....."it must be the americans fault there is a drought in nowhereville"....they hate those people....heck I say we really get down on the americans...I here they have been boycotting and opressing the legal penguin gov't in Antartica for their own evil purposes......

I can say I have some scandanavian heritage in my background....I am proud of it same as the rest of my heritage.....but I can say I am ashamed at all the finger pointing and jumping through the hoop that politacal correctness has done not only to scandinavia but the whole world.... if the cubans can dictate how you do this the same as the arabs dictated how "wrong " you were for your political cartoons then what is next? Just what freedoms do you have left if you can let your whole lives and what you think or do be dictated to you? Thisa statement is not directed at any one gov't or person but at all...... the above mentioned cartoons were called offensive and demanded removed because "our religion is sacred and has been insulted" but in the same part of the world were you support for being offended and we should respect their beleifs and treat them better.....you can be discrimnated against for not being part of that religion....and yet you will not cry out against that because it is their way. Just like it is ok for these same cubans to discriminate against their own people for not sharing the same political beleif and worshipping at the feet of FIdel Castro...even to the point of denying a person their very life for not agreeing....but how dare anyone deny them something.......oh you are evil for not giving them a room....or not selling them camera or not letting them smoke a cigar in your face because you are discriminating against them.


does this go both ways or are you just guilty of trying to be politcally correct and just hating anything US right now because the US is no longer cool as they were when they died for your rights?

Man, what the fuck are you smoking?

They broke Norwegian law, I will personally consider the Norwegian government pussies if they don't at least heavily fine them.

Man, what the fuck are you smoking?

They broke Norwegian law, I will personally consider the Norwegian government pussies if they don't at least heavily fine them.
They're too busy with fictional gaming groups. :p

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1586100.ece
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1587626.ece

As for the embargo, yeh get over it. When Fidel dies maybe a new start?
I just hope he lasts long enough until GWB is out of office.
Call me petty, but I don't like the idea of anything happening outside his control that would give him good political mileage.

As for the embargo, yeh get over it. When Fidel dies maybe a new start?

Not before the American corporations strip any items of value off Cuba first I bet.

It's a continuing punishment for pissing us off.

States have long memories.


Only when it's convenient.

www.bartcop.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg

Woohoo big whoopin deal! It's not like the Cubans aren't used to being turned away from Hotels. Did any of you know that Cubans aren't allowed to stay in Cuban hotels even if they can pay for it? Why aren't you all outraged about that?

Linky Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_tourist_apartheid_in_Cuba

I hope Norway's govenment understands that the American People in respect to the American Laws and that they were simply obeying the Law and it had nothing to do with racial discrimination. I'm sure if a Peurto Rican, Spainard, Mexican, or whatnot went to the hotel they would have been given a room. This has nothing to do with racial discrimination it has everything to do with American Owners of a hotel obeying the Cuban Embargo under American Law.

i hope they dont. i hope the american hotel owners get a very big fine. i hope they are HUGE contributors to the current administration and that they now go to the president to lobby against this stupid embargo.

if there is one thing everyone in washington listens to, its money.

Only when it's convenient.

www.bartcop.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg

Relevance?

Saddam pissed off the US, and the US government, the institutional bureaucracy, continued to loathe him afterwards. We played friendly with him when he and Iran were bashing each other to bits (much as we also played friendly with Iran at the exact same time). We thought we could keep him on a leash, but we were wrong and he burned us by invading Kuwait.

If anything, his tiny little Kuwait infraction shows my argument that states do hold institutional grudges over long periods of time, over even the tiniest little things.

his tiny little Kuwait infraction shows my argument

Not particularly.

Not particularly.

My argument was that states have long memories of hurt. How does it have a negative impact on that?

My argument was that states have long memories of hurt. How does it have a negative impact on that?

Because Baghdad had Bush Sr.'s tacit approval going in.

If Castro wants his people to be treated nice by the Americans, he should have thought about that before trying to destroy us with the Soviets.:rolleyes:

You fail at history.

Maybe the US should have thought about being nice to Castro first instead of driving him to the Soviets.

Remember. Castro first came to the US to try to work with the administration. Eisenhower's VP, I forget his name, being an asshole, decided that since their favorite puppet Batista got taken down, Castro was an out and out commie, never mind the fact that he had first tried to work with the US.

In this case, the US is nothing but a spoiled, petulant child. But that's hardly anything new from its behavior throughout history.

They weren't doing business in the US. They were doing business in Norway, where you will find that US law has no relevance or standing.Absolutely. I assume Norwegians have to obey US laws when doing business in the US. Seems rather fair that they expect us to obey Norwegian laws when doing business in Norway.

Because Baghdad had Bush Sr.'s tacit approval going in.

You've clearly got your history screwed up Dobbsy, ol' chap, as the only "tacit approval" that Hussein had came in the form of a poorly phrased statement from the Ambassador, April Glaspie:

"But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

The late Mr. Hussein paid attention to the first bit, totally ignoring her admonition to work through diplomatic channels.

This is a blunder akin to the speech from January 1950 in which Dean Acheson declared Korea "outside of our defense perimeter". Stalin and Kim Il-Sung came to the conclusion that we didn't give a damn about Korea, and felt it was a go-ahead for their forces. Wrong.

Poor communication is what's at fault Dobbs. You are ill informed on the matter.

You fail at history.

Maybe the US should have thought about being nice to Castro first instead of driving him to the Soviets.

Remember. Castro first came to the US to try to work with the administration. Eisenhower's VP, I forget his name, being an asshole, decided that since their favorite puppet Batista got taken down, Castro was an out and out commie, never mind the fact that he had first tried to work with the US.

In this case, the US is nothing but a spoiled, petulant child. But that's hardly anything new from its behavior throughout history.

Or perhap you might like to brush up on history.

Castro was being driven increasingly leftward by his brother Raoul and Che Guevera, both ardent supporters of the Soviet Union. That Nixon was a twat to Castro had more to do with Castro's leftward shift than with the US being a "spoiled, petulant child".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro#Years_in_power

If anything, Mr. Castro took steps toward the USSR very early on, and not towards the US.

The solution is obvious. We should ethnically cleanse the world of Norwegians.

The solution is obvious. We should ethnically cleanse the world of Norwegians.

And Spanish-Italian Hogfarmers. *nods*

Or perhap you might like to brush up on history.


Your link goes to show that Castro visited the US first and was snubbed before going to the USSR. Do read your links before you bite down on your foot hmmm?

Castro's visit to the US: April 1959
Castro's first communication to the USSR: July 1959

As for the companies that lost their properties, tough luck. They deliberately undervalued their property to cheat the government of owed taxes and when they were offered recompense at that value, they balked. They want fair recompense, maybe they shouldn't have been scum sucking bastards first.


That Nixon was a twat to Castro had more to do with Castro's leftward shift than with the US being a "spoiled, petulant child".

The spoiled petulant child bit was after the US got its fingers burned when they thought that after snubbing Castro, they could make Cuba do it's bidding. This continued embargo is proof of that.


If anything, Mr. Castro took steps toward the USSR very early on, and not towards the US.

Words of wisdom. READ YOUR SOURCES FIRST!

How much power can they possibly have in a nation of 300 million people?

Ah, well, you see, US foreign policy is dominated by angry special interest groups who - after being kicked out of their own countries - come here and continue their shitkicking by other means.

Why do you think the US won't ratify its new extradition treaty with the UK? (Hint: it has something to do with potatoes).

As a native born Cuban now American citizen,
on the so-called embargo - boycott whatever
you want to call it, despite some remaining sanctions
the governmet of Cuba buys hundreds of millions of Dollars $ worth of agricultural goods from the USA each year on a cash as you buy basis, and can buy medicines if they choose to do so.

What the Cuban government lacks are American tourists, and American loans and credits, while the Cuban government owes Billions of Dollars $ worth to
other governments and businesses.

There are no independent non goveernment controled Unions in Cuba like there are in Norway, and there are political prisoners in Cuba for starting or suggesting that there be independent non government controlled Unions in Cuba.

If these Norwegian Union persons were average Cuban citizens protesting any Cuban government policy or laws, they would be met with government organized mobs, and or would be in prison or exile.

I can go on and on the list is long.

If these Norwegian Union persons were average Cuban citizens protesting any Cuban government policy or laws, they would be met with government organized mobs, and or would be in prison or exile.

I can go on and on the list is long.
And this has what to do with a US company violating Norwegian laws while operating a hotel in Norway?

And this has what to do with a US company violating Norwegian laws while operating a hotel in Norway?

Nothing other than the usual rant about how evil Cuba is, nevermind the relevance, I expect.

Nothing other than the usual rant about how evil Cuba is, nevermind the relevance, I expect.
I kinda thought so, but I was hoping there might be SOMETHING to link the two concepts.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1588997.ece

"The Scandic Hotel chain's refusal to accept Cuban guests due to the policy of their new American owners has sparked furious reaction from a range of groups.

At the same time, the Anti-racist Center filed a complaint with the police against the hotel, the managing director for the Hilton hotels and the Scandic chain in Norway. This charge is based on a law prohibiting the denial of services on the grounds of a person's citizenship or other ethnic reasons."

And after all this Aftenposten still shows courtesy for the US in not calling their embargo for what it is, but refers to it as a "boycott". :rolleyes:

Dam Capitalist pigs, denying our right to abuse room service! :p

Sigh, I can't believe this still happens years after the Cold War ended and Cuba's nukes were removed. I mean, they've since finally forgiven Vietnam (a war they LOST) but still have yet to forgive after a war that never happened. Hell, look at Russia. Over 3000 nukes. President who is slowly turning it back to Communism. But no trade embargo?

What the Cuban government lacks are American tourists, and American loans and credits, while the Cuban government owes Billions of Dollars $ worth to
other governments and businesses.

Wait, so your saying you don't like your government because they owe a lot of money because of the US trade embargo. So instead of sticking to your nation, you then become a citizen of the country which is crippling yours and condemn it? From what I see, most of these anti-Fidel people are just those who are upset because of the Socialism, and that just seems selfish to me. "Oh no, they're sharing my money with poor people who don't have any qualifications to work! Boycott boycott boycott!"

Why can't everyone just get along? :p

Had to be said.

Anyway, that hotel should be made to follow Norwegian laws since it is in Norway!

Its they typical US goverment 'holier than thou' approach. They do it to the UK, with the stupid extradition laws.

And to be frank, they failed at Cuba. The amount of times they have tried to kill Castro is uncountable. And that made the cuban population want to keep him in power (or he fixed the elections and kills off any non supporters).

I have a strange feelings its the latter.

Perhaps we should all move to mars, and live with the biker mice. They will protect our children from the evil commies!

And to be frank, they failed at Cuba. The amount of times they have tried to kill Castro is uncountable. And that made the cuban population want to keep him in power (or he fixed the elections and kills off any non supporters).

I have a strange feelings its the latter.

I doubt it. If anything, the invasions and embargo of Cuba have just rallied more support for Casto. That and the fact he made so many diplomatic links with other Latin American countries and in the Third World.

From what I see, most of these anti-Fidel people are just those who are upset because of the Socialism, and that just seems selfish to me.

Between you and me, I suspect that he wasn't old enough to form his own opinion on Cuba when he left and was indoctrinated by his parents/peers.

In this case, the US is nothing but a spoiled, petulant child. But that's hardly anything new from its behavior throughout history.
As far as I am concerned, almost all countries have spoiled, petulant children for leaders (Hitler, Stalin, and now Bush, they all fitted the profile, amongst numerous others) ; they're just dressed up in suits. Few exceptions exist.

Andaluciae, may I ask, why are you defending the US' interventionist foreign policy? True, US citizens may boycott whomever they please, but given that you're a libertarian I fail to see why one would even defend the US government's behaviour so far. Or are you merely revealing the rationale behind it?

Andaluciae, may I ask, why are you defending the US' interventionist foreign policy? True, US citizens may boycott whomever they please, but given that you're a libertarian I fail to see why one would even defend the US government's behaviour so far. Or are you merely revealing the rationale behind it?
It's that whole "Shoot the nukes" incident from way back in the early sixties, as far as I'm concerned the only appropriate response would be to continue to cut Cuba off from dealing with the US economically until he's dead.

I don't particularly care about the original reason for the embargo, that the Castro government seized lands from United States citizens, rather what the embargo has now come to be continued by.

As far as I am concerned, almost all countries have spoiled, petulant children for leaders (Hitler, Stalin, and now Bush, they all fitted the profile, amongst numerous others) ; they're just dressed up in suits.

True, but you'll hardly find defenders for Hitler, Stalin and other non-American petulant children.

True, but you'll hardly find defenders for Hitler, Stalin and other non-American petulant children.
Wanna bet? I think the politician is universally one of the most unpopular species of animal anyway. Stalin and Hitler were tout le rage in their heyday, but when they failed miserably no one ever came to look at them in the same way. Same with Bush. He started out popular (he won by a greater majority than Hitler did anyway), and degenerated into the laughing stock of the world. That is the lifecycle of the grey man in the suit. :) To first be lauded, to then proceed to fucking things up and then being reviled for it (perhaps some fans might remain, depending on the extent of the fuck up).

Or actually doing things well, and usually going unnoticed (Merkel seems to be going this way). :D

It's that whole "Shoot the nukes" incident from way back in the early sixties, as far as I'm concerned the only appropriate response would be to continue to cut Cuba off from dealing with the US economically until he's dead.

There wouldn't have been a "Shoot the nukes" incident if Nixon hadn't been such a fuck with Castro in the first place.

Castro's hardly blameless, but if somebody's got to hang, you hang all the perps, not just your favorite bad boy.

Wanna bet? I think the politician is universally one of the most unpopular species of animal anyway. Stalin and Hitler were tout le rage in their heyday, but when they failed miserably no one ever came to look at them in the same way. Same with Bush. He started out popular (he won by a greater majority than Hitler did anyway), and degenerated into the laughing stock of the world. That is the lifecycle of the grey man in the suit. :) To first be lauded, to then proceed to fucking things up and then being reviled for it.

Or actually doing things well, and usually going unnoticed. :D

The difference is that you can still find Bush defenders on NSG even now and on even amongst some politicians of clout. I doubt the same can be said of Hitler or Stalin.

The only way I think a nation matures would be if it undergoes a completely ruinous invasion that utterly devastates its people and leaves scars for generations every so often. They'd be less likely to do stupid things then.

There wouldn't have been a "Shoot the nukes" incident if Nixon hadn't been such a fuck with Castro in the first place.

Castro's hardly blameless, but if somebody's got to hang, you hang all the perps, not just your favorite bad boy.
I am not too familiar with the whole situation, but usually for the US government to attract criticism it has pissed off someone. Even when it doesn't do something it tends to piss people off though. :)

The difference is that you can still find Bush defenders on NSG even now and on even amongst some politicians of clout. I doubt the same can be said of Hitler or Stalin.
Bush was hardly the beast either of those two were, so it's logical. It's a matter of degree.

The only way I think a nation matures would be if it undergoes a completely ruinous invasion that utterly devastates its people and leaves scars for generations every so often. They'd be less likely to do stupid things then.
Perhaps so. Given Europe's history, I am not sure if this is the case though.

Bush was hardly the beast either of those two were, so it's logical. It's a matter of degree.


Maybe, but if Bush somehow managed to get America not only invaded, but occupied, he'd have a grand total of 0 supporters after that. Nothing's more unpopular than defeat.


Perhaps so. Given Europe's history, I am not sure if this is the case though.


Too much time passed between the last bout of fruitcake caused destruction. And if you mean the transition between WWI and WWII, the scars from the first one weren't devastating enough amongst the civilian population that they could be goaded into starting the second one.

Imagine if someone starting blabbing about manifest destiny and the new 4th Reich in Germany some 10 years after it was defeated.

Maybe, but if Bush somehow managed to get America not only invaded, but occupied, he'd have a grand total of 0 supporters after that. Nothing's more unpopular than defeat.
To be certain. :)



Imagine if someone starting blabbing about manifest destiny and the new 4th Reich in Germany some 10 years after it was defeated.
Indeed - what I meant was that the effects are in the end short-term. This is a somewhat pessimistic view of mankind, but I think every now and then some madman will come into existence, convincing people to ignore History, and do his bidding. Time will tell.

I doubt it. If anything, the invasions and embargo of Cuba have just rallied more support for Casto. That and the fact he made so many diplomatic links with other Latin American countries and in the Third World.

Your probably right. I have to admit, Cuba is probably the closest to actual communism. Still not perfect. At all.

Indeed - what I meant was that the effects are in the end short-term. This is a somewhat pessimistic view of mankind, but I think every now and then some madman will come into existence, convincing people to ignore History, and do his bidding. Time will tell.

Why do you think I said every so often? People in general need a big stick to whack them every now and then to keep them on the straight and narrow.

The US prides itself on its ability to win pissing contests.

"What, they've got bigger dicks? BOMB THEM!" - George Carlin

"What, they've got bigger dicks? BOMB THEM!" - George Carlin
Let us just hope for the sake of all of us that the East Asians never come to such a mentality. ;)

Why the hell does that embargo still exist? Cold War's over, move on.

Cuba's still communist, move along...

As for the Hilton decision in Norway: BOYCOTT HILTON.
Paris is enough reason for that!

But clearly you know nothing and you just beleive that its the evil Americans acting terribly against little old communist Cuba, because we are on a right wing crusade against left wing infidels. Though I admit, its exactly what I'd except from someone from politically correct, left wing, anti-American, terrorist supporting Scandiland. Your pussy welfare state herdygerdyland has brainwashed you
This sounds like it could only be parody. Are you sure you're not a liberal in disguise?

and I'm only glad that Denmark is trying to break out of that.

No, they're not.

No, I believe individuals have the right to associate - or disassociate - with others at their whim. Another group of individuals, dressed up as "government", has no right to force them to associate with others. Now that the veils of deception have been removed it becomes clear what principle is being enforced - rule by force.
The dressing you speak of exists for a pretty good reason - it was put there by voters to ensure their right not to be discriminated against.

Actually, to me it demonstrates your inability to comprehend the principle of consistency. If Norwegians tolerate their government issuing edicts as to how they may live their lives, all the worse for them I might say.
They voted for it, they know that it is in their own interests.

They should merely not complain if it takes it upon itself to further regulate how citizens conduct themselves, for instance in their sex lives.
That's entirely different. Not all government actions are the same. In this case the law is designed to uphold the harm principle. In "regulating sex lives" the government attacks the harm principle.

Strawman. Not that I expected anything but this.
You don't see it, do you? It may look harmless if discrimination cases are rare, but if everyone was doing this, the result would be effectively the same as apartheid, even if it wasn't official government policy. For a case in point, look at Northern Ireland before 1970. Unfettered discrimination against Catholics was so widespread that they lived as second class citizens. So much for freedom.

I hope Norway's govenment understands that the American People in respect to the American Laws and that they were simply obeying the Law and it had nothing to do with racial discrimination.
It wasn't racial, it was nationality, and the US law doesn't mean anything outside the US.

And the argumentum ad populum he used is what exactly?
So now you think democracy is bad?

Ah, well, you see, US foreign policy is dominated by angry special interest groups who - after being kicked out of their own countries - come here and continue their shitkicking by other means.

Why do you think the US won't ratify its new extradition treaty with the UK? (Hint: it has something to do with potatoes).
The 'RA?

Let us just hope for the sake of all of us that the East Asians never come to such a mentality. ;)

Now that's just mean. :D


Cuba's still communist, move along...

Because it is up to the Washington regime to decide on what form of government a sovereign foreign country should have.

Oh, wait...

The dressing you speak of exists for a pretty good reason - it was put there by voters to ensure their right not to be discriminated against.
Let's see what this discrimination consists in - a refusal to associate with the person in question. By refusing to associate with a guy who wants to date me, I am discriminating against him too. Am I violating his "right" not to be discriminated against? Should I be forced by govenrment to associate with him? To further spin your argument around, I could say an employee not wanting to work for an employer is also violating the employer's "right" not to be discriminated against - should the government force him to work for the employer?

They voted for it, they know that it is in their own interests.

Hey, if they want it that's fine by me.

That's entirely different. Not all government actions are the same. In this case the law is designed to uphold the harm principle. In "regulating sex lives" the government attacks the harm principle.
You're treating individuals involved in government as though they are not individuals, but superhuman. It's a double standard. If you give them the power to initiate force, sure, it's theirs to use. However, if a government can simply use force by virtue of it being government, without you delegating it such a right, then it is inherently superior to you (as is Hobbe's Leviathan - absolute tyranny). I reject that.

You don't see it, do you? It may look harmless if discrimination cases are rare, but if everyone was doing this, the result would be effectively the same as apartheid, even if it wasn't official government policy. For a case in point, look at Northern Ireland before 1970. Unfettered discrimination against Catholics was so widespread that they lived as second class citizens. So much for freedom.

No, what I see is a group of individuals telling another group of individuals they are forced to associate with other individuals. This is mob rule. If you cannot see this, then I see no point in continuing the discussion.

So now you think democracy is bad?
Non-sequitur. I mentioned he is not addressing my actual argument - he is just saying "people laugh at it," which is considered to be a fallacy. It is akin to saying homosexuality is wrong because most people say it is. How is this a real argument? To clarify, it is not to say these people don't have the right to their opinion (assuming the majority does hold such an opinion). It is to say that this is not sufficient grounds to convince me.

Cuba's still communist, move along...

So is China, try again.

So is China, try again.
If anything, China is far worse a violator of human rights than Cuba (whether it is Communist is another matter entirely). This is indeed hypocrisy on part of the USA. I do not agree with it, but c'est la vie.

Now that's just mean. :D
It's a legitimate concern. :p

So is China, try again.

You have a very good point, actually :)

True hypocrits are americans.

They do trade with china, they trade with laos, they trade with vietnam, they used to send food aid to north korea before they did their nuclear tests. (I dont know do they send aid after that?) But they won't trade with cuba.

Cuba has not done anything against US for a long time. It is true that they are communists, so is china.

With same rules they should not trade with china, but it is against US interests. They are the true hypocrits. It is good to see that we Scandinavians hold our beliefs about treating others with respect and trading even that cuban goverment is not representing anything what we are.

I hope that US will get the fact that with embargo-stuff they do more bad than good. It makes Castro more popular, it makes people of cuba suffer and suffering makes castro more popular, because he has something to blame of: The Americans

They could just help average cuban with trading, increasing cuban wealth and giving food aid. That would be better way to get them to much loved "capitalism".

And for people who say that cuba is not democratic....

America is not a real democracy because everyone can't vote. It is a limited democracy with really biased politics. Money talks, big companies and their revenues talk. Not democracy at all. And there is only 2 parties. It cannot represent everything what people want.

In Finland, where I live, we have lot's of good things what american can only dream of. Of course we have lot's of problems what americans dont have. Too big taxes is worst problem. BUT we have total freedom to vote what party we want.

We have 3 big parties and like 5-10 smaller. We even have a communist party, if we would like to vote that.

That is real democracy, every citizen to have freedom to vote what they see is best.

It's a legitimate concern. :p

No it's not. It's nothing more than simple paranoia. Nothing to see there. There is no conspiracy. Nothing at all...

nearly all zips are manufactured in China....

nearly all zips are manufactured in China....
Now there's an argument for autarky if I ever heard one. ;)

Let's see what this discrimination consists in - a refusal to associate with the person in question.
...for a particular reason. It's the reason for refusal that is unacceptable.

However, if a government can imply use force by virtue of it being government, without you delegating it such a right, then it is inherently superior to you (as is Hobbe's Leviathan - absolute tyranny). I reject that.
That is tyranny. Democracy is not tyranny, because the government has been delegated the right to use force by the people.

No, what I see is a group of individuals telling another group of individuals they are forced to associate with other individuals. This is mob rule. If you cannot see this, then I see no point in continuing the discussion.
So you think that the equality legislation that came into force following the Catholic civil rights movement was "mob rule" that "forced association"? I don't think so, it just ended the times when a Protestant employer could refuse to employ someone for being Catholic (which was very common at the time).

Non-sequitur. I mentioned he is not addressing my actual argument - he is just saying "people laugh at it," which is considered to be a fallacy.
Fair enough.

...for a particular reason. It's the reason for refusal that is unacceptable.
I may not like a guy because he is black (aside from the fact that I do not find them attractive, let us assume that this is due to irrational racism - and keep in mind, what constitutes an "unacceptable" reason for refusal is open to interpretation). This is an unacceptable refusal. Now what?

That is tyranny. Democracy is not tyranny, because the government has been delegated the right to use force by the people.
In a genuine democracy this would be so. Democracies operating on the basis of a Social Contract (practicalities aside) assume that the ruled assent, whether or not they actually do so (much like a man who rapes a woman says she acquiesced, simply because she didn't say no). Now this is not so severe by virtue of the fact that most democracies allow one to leave them. However, given that this institution has been delegated the right to use force (by assumed acceptance), it could in fact legitimately use force against citizens who decide to leave it. To wit, this is not an attack so much on democracy as it is on the idea of "democracies" based on the cornerstone of implicit consent.

So you think that the equality legislation that came into force following the Catholic civil rights movement was "mob rule" that "forced association"? I don't think so, it just ended the times when a Protestant employer could refuse to employ someone for being Catholic (which was very common at the time).
Apply that reasoning to me not wanting to date a Catholic guy, and you'll see where I stand on it.