NationStates Jolt Archive


Cuba more democratic than the US?

Pure Metal
28-03-2007, 01:05
an interesting article i just stumbledupon. thought provoking, if it does go totally against what i have been led to believe.... but i guess that's the point. it may be a bit inflammatory in its language, but its interesting nonetheless. thoughts?

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5609



Why Cuba is a democracy and the US is not
By Tim Anderson - posted Thursday, 15 March 2007

In an age of propaganda and pseudo-democracy, the strongest opponents of imperial power are subject to the most ferocious attacks. One result of this is that many of the firmly held opinions about democracy in Cuba and in the United States of America bear an inverse relationship to relevant knowledge. As the Canadian scientist William Osler said, “the greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism”.

The US has run a powerful and illegal economic blockade against Cuba for almost 50 years, after its investment privileges were withdrawn. It now runs propaganda suggesting that the Cuban people need US-styled “democracy”. Well let’s look at democracy in both countries, including civil rights and participatory democracy, as well as representative democracy.

In representative democracy, Cuba is clearly ahead. Cubans have open elections for their National Assembly (as well as their provincial and local assemblies); this assembly then elects the ministers, including a president of the Council of Ministers.
Advertisement

In the US, there is a directly elected Congress and a president indirectly elected through electoral colleges. This president of state then appoints ministers. Yet a majority of the elected US Congress cannot block many presidential “prerogatives”, including the waging of war.

So even when the majority of the population and the majority of the Congress oppose a war, the president can still wage it. In the US, then, the elected assembly does not really rule.

In Cuba, the Constitution (Art 12) repudiates wars of aggression and conquest, and all ministers are accountable to the elected National Assembly. The president of Cuba’s Council of Ministers (falsely called a “dictator” by the imperial US president) is not above the National Assembly and has no power to “veto” a law passed by his country’s National Assembly. In the US, the president can and does veto Congressional laws.

In the US, eligibility for election to office depends on subscription to one of two giant parties and substantial corporate sponsorship.

In Cuba, there are no electoral parties and there is no corporate sponsorship. The Cuban Communist Party is constitutionally recognised to promote socialist debate and policy, but has no electoral role. Citizens need not be CCP members to be elected, and many are not. National Assembly members (whether they belong to the CCP or not) do not represent any party, but rather their constituencies. The Cuban system bans foreign powers from funding electoral representatives or parties. The US Government, accustomed to foreign intervention, claims this law is “undemocratic”.

In the US, millions of people are excluded from voting, either because they have some criminal conviction or they belong to one or other group of second class citizens (for example, Puerto Ricans, who pay tax but have no representative in Congress).

In Cuba, very few are excluded from voting, and well over 90 per cent of the adult population (those over 16 years of age) actually do vote at each election. In the US, voter participation is often around 50 per cent.

While there are constitutional civil rights in both countries, these rights are stronger under the Cuban system. Cuban citizens have the constitutional right to employment, food, free education, free health care, housing (including family inheritance), political participation, freedom of expression, personal property and freedom of religion. The Cuban state is constitutionally bound to guarantee these rights.

US citizens have the right to freedom of speech, unlimited private property and the right to carry arms. They also have the right to participate in a “market” where their education, health and general well-being is often a gamble.

By the constitution, no-one in Cuba can be imprisoned without proper charges, a trial, and the right to a defence (Art 59). Cuba’s “political prisoners” are those who have been convicted of taking money to help overthrow the constitutional system.

By contrast, in the US, thousands of people are held without charge or trial, including several hundred in the illegally occupied section of Cuba, at Guantanamo Bay. The rate of imprisonment in the US, which has more than two million prisoners, is far higher than in Cuba (or indeed any other country). African-Americans are massively over-represented in US jails. Prisoners in the US lose many of their civil rights; prisoners in Cuba keep most of their civil rights.

Institutionalised racial discrimination persisted in the US well into the 1960s. Even today, the gap between formal and effective rights is very great in the US, because there are so few social guarantees.

Cuba, on the other hand, has made great efforts to overcome the denial of effective rights on racial grounds. The Cuban guarantees of universal and free education, health care and social security have proven powerful and effective tools against social marginalisation. Educational and health standards in Cuba are similar to, and in some respects better than, those of the US. This is despite the US having an average per capita income almost ten times higher than Cuba. The US has permanent wealth and poverty. Cuba shares its ups and downs.

In the US “freedom of speech” means that a handful of private corporations dominate the mass media.

In Cuba, the media (television, radio, magazines, newspapers) are all run by public bodies or community organisations. No private individual or investment group can capture or dominate public debate in Cuba. Nor is there mind numbing, commercial advertising.

In the US mass communications are dominated by consumerism and celebrity trivia; politics is about individuals seeking public office. In Cuba, mass communications are dominated by education and cultural programs; politics is about co-ordinated social responses to social problems.

Cuba does not use state power to intervene in the affairs of others or to push international propaganda, but rather sends doctors to more than 60 countries to assist communities which have no medical services. This internationalism, recognised by the World Health Organization, contrasts with US interventionism.

The US government maintains state-propaganda stations (for example, Voice of America, Radio Marti), funds opposition political groups (through the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department, USAID and the CIA) as well as funding pro-US academic centres and think tanks around the world.

Cuba’s human rights record is far better than that of the US. Amnesty International said the US in 2006 had “thousands of detainees … without charge or trial … deaths in custody, torture and ill-treatment … disappearances ... failure to hold officials at the highest levels accountable … [for] war crimes or crimes against humanity”. Within the US “sixty-one people died after being struck by police tasers … [and] 60 people were executed”. The Amnesty report did not address the thousands killed and maimed in the illegal occupation of Iraq.

By contrast, Amnesty’s criticism of Cuba in 2006 was mild. There were some “restrictions on freedom of expression, association and movement … nearly 70 prisoners of conscience … the government attempted to suppress private entrepreneurship. More than 30 prisoners remained on death row [but] no one was executed.”

Amnesty (whose US branch is responsible for reports on Cuba) did not note that the “seventy prisoners of conscience” had been charged and convicted of the specific offences of taking money from a foreign power to seek the overthrow of the Cuban constitutional system. Most were arrested in 2003, during a wave of hijackings, and many have since been released.

The US State Department - a fierce ideological opponent of Cuba - was forced to acknowledge in 2004 that Cuba had “no political killings ... or politically motivated disappearances", no religious repression, little discrimination, compulsory and free schooling, a universal health system, substantial artistic freedom, and no reports of torture. This contrasts strongly with the death squads and torture of dictatorial regimes trained and supported by the US throughout Latin America, for example in Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador and Colombia.

Cuban moves against homophobia and in support of gay rights have been more effective than those in the US. There is greater tolerance of sexual diversity in Cuba than in most Latin American countries and Churches which sustain such discrimination have less political influence in Cuba than in the US.

Cuba’s Centre for National Sex Education (CENESEX) since 1989 has pushed sexual tolerance, including acceptance of and support for trans-sexuals. Effective education campaigns and testing has meant that Cuba has the lowest HIV infection rate in the Caribbean region, lower than the US. Since 2001 every HIV positive Cuban has had free access to highly active anti retroviral treatment (HAART). The US has developed strong HIV-AIDS programs, as a result of pressure group lobbying, but access to health services is not guaranteed.

US backed, Cuban exile “pro-democracy” activists are mostly terrorists, as far as Cubans are concerned. For example in March 2007 the Madrid Municipal Government awarded Cuban exile Carlos Alberto Montaner the “Tolerance Prize” for his writings on Cuba. Yet Montaner is a European-resident fugitive from Cuban justice who has been on the CIA payroll for many years. He is wanted in Cuba for bombings carried out in Cuba, many years ago, and has close links to the Miami-based Cuban American National Foundation (CANF), which openly backs terrorist attacks on Cuba.

The Cuban Government has not moved against the celebrated “pro democracy” activist Osvaldo Payá, who was awarded the Andrei Sakharov Prize in 2002 for “Freedom of Thought” following his creation of the “Varela Project”, essentially a petition for small business rights. However Cuban television in December 2005 pointed out that Payá was receiving $1,000 a session for his classes on managing a US-backed “transition” in Cuba, held at the US Office of Interests in Havana. This is a clear breach of Cuban law, but Payá has not been arrested.

In 2005 Australian journalist Paul McGeough feted another CANF and Miami-backed “pro-democracy” activist, Raul Rivero. McGeough asserted that Rivero’s arrest in 2003 “revived memories of the worst Soviet human rights abuses” and claimed that “Rivero's crime was twofold - possession of a typewriter, and a will to dream”. McGeough did not point out that Rivero was convicted of receiving money from the US Office of Interests and the CANF, as part of quite explicit plans to overthrow the constitution and install a foreign-backed regime. Such activity is a crime in every country.

The most notorious US-backed “pro democracy activist” is Luis Posada Carriles, currently held in the US on immigration offences. The US refuses to extradite Posada to Venezuela, where he is wanted for the 1976 bombing of a Cuba passenger plane, which killed 73 civilians. Posada publicly confessed (in the US) to the bombings of Cuban tourist hotels in 1997, but was never charged. He was arrested and convicted over an assassination attempt on Fidel Castro in Panama in 2000, but was pardoned and released in 2004 by outgoing Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso, a US ally. The US government, in the middle of its self-proclaimed “war on terrorism”, refuses to consider Posada a terrorist. Such is the US support for democracy in Cuba.

The US government funds a number of “civil society”, “pro-democracy” and human rights groups, to support the US image of the world. For example, the France-based group Reporters without Borders, backed by the US National Endowment for Democracy, portrays Cuba as the single worst violator of “press freedom” in the Americas. However the International News Safety Institute notes that while no journalists were killed carrying out their work in Cuba over 1996-2006, 21 were killed in the USA, most of them murdered. (Let’s put to one side the 72 others killed in Colombia, 31 in Mexico, 27 in Brazil, 16 in Peru, 13 in Guatemala, and so on.)

On participatory democracy, the US has very poor credentials. Economic policy is regarded either as “technical”, to be managed by experts, or a province of the private corporations that dominate US social and political life. Consequently there are few debates or participatory initiatives on issues of major public concern, such as health care, access to education and military spending.

In Cuba, by contrast, there are substantial debates on public policy issues, through the elected assemblies and social organisations. For example, in Cuba’s economic crisis of the 1990s, 18 months were spent debating the introduction of major economic changes such as introducing regulated foreign investment, the development of mass tourism, adjustments to services and taxes, preservation of free health care and education.

In the US, “structural adjustment” was a formula developed by the private banks, adopted at home and enforced in debtor countries. This “technical” formula, comprising privatisation, high interest rates, cuts to social services, user pays regimes, privileges for private investors and exporters, is presented as a “fait accompli”. There is no public inclusion in a policy debate, so communities are forced to react defensively to this “technical” economic policy.

There is one final, important reason why the US cannot be a democracy. An imperial ambition drives it to dominate, invade and exploit the resources of other countries. US “defence forces” are almost exclusively deployed abroad and current US “national security” policy contemplates pre-emptive military strikes on more than sixty countries.

Like other imperial ventures, US ambitions are pursued on behalf of a small clique of private investors, at the expense of millions of poor and marginalised people within the US. Yet as the US writer Gore Vidal has pointed out, no imperial project can be mounted in a genuine democracy, or a genuine republic.

Cuba, on the other hand, has never invaded another country. It has only used its defence forces to defend its own people or to support others under attack, such as defending the Angolan and Namibian people from the apartheid South African army, in the 1980s.

Cuba has used its world class health sector to assist other countries. While the US sends thousands of troops to other countries, Cuba sends thousands of doctors. Further, more than 20,000 foreign students are studying medicine in Cuba, on fully-funded Cuban scholarships. This includes nearly 100 US students. This is one more reason why, if the word is to have any meaning, Cuba is a democracy and the US is not.


Tim Anderson is a lecturer at the School of Political Economy, Sydney University and is a member of the Committee of Management of AID/WATCH
Soheran
28-03-2007, 01:05
The turnout rates and victory margins are too high for the elections to not be frauds.
Cybach
28-03-2007, 01:06
BS. Cuba has a dictator the US doesn't. Which automatically give the US a higher position then Cuba on the democracy rating.
Druidville
28-03-2007, 01:09
Call me back when the Cuban people can vote a new President in office.
Non Aligned States
28-03-2007, 01:12
Yes, American politics have a lot of workarounds for the checks and balances meant to prevent dictatorships (like signing statements), but I'd have to say that Cuba isn't exactly democratic by any margin. Socialist communist is closer.
Warmbuttcheeks
28-03-2007, 01:13
Call me back when a US election isn't tampered with. *cough* Gore won in 2000 *cough*
The South Islands
28-03-2007, 01:13
This dude make TSI lol hard.
Neesika
28-03-2007, 01:13
Every single position, from neighbourhood rep up is decided in elections. And recall is an easy process in Cuba.

But no one wants to hear that. It screws with the dictatorship label.
Pure Metal
28-03-2007, 01:15
The turnout rates and victory margins are too high for the elections to not be frauds.
G.W. Bush is the only US president to disallow UN election inspectors into the the country in 2002. and his first term election wasn't a fraud??

i guess its a case of quid pro quo to some extent
BS. Cuba has a dictator the US doesn't. Which automatically give the US a higher position then Cuba on the democracy rating.

quite true, but i don't think that renders the rest of these points moot.
Soheran
28-03-2007, 01:17
G.W. Bush is the only US president to disallow UN election inspectors into the the country in 2002. and his first term election wasn't a fraud??

Yeah, because I'm a big defender of the US political system and George W. Bush. ;)

The US probably does beat Cuba at formal democracy, though. We have competitive elections whose results tend to change policy - if only within certain limited ranges.
Greill
28-03-2007, 01:20
Cuba is more democratic than the US? No wonder I'd avoid it.

Edit: It being Cuba, of course.
Relyc
28-03-2007, 01:33
It's more an editorial than an essay.
Johnny B Goode
28-03-2007, 01:37
an interesting article i just stumbledupon. thought provoking, if it does go totally against what i have been led to believe.... but i guess that's the point. it may be a bit inflammatory in its language, but its interesting nonetheless. thoughts?

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5609

Weird. But that article seems a little slanty to me.
Myrmidonisia
28-03-2007, 01:49
I guess you can justify what you want, but when I start seeing a net migration _to_ Cuba, then I might think that there is something to it.
Greyenivol Colony
28-03-2007, 01:54
That article is so stupid, it makes my ears bleed.
Pure Metal
28-03-2007, 01:54
I guess you can justify what you want, but when I start seeing a net migration _to_ Cuba, then I might think that there is something to it.
propoganda is a really effective tool against that. and the US is great at using it...

The US probably does beat Cuba at formal democracy, though. We have competitive elections whose results tend to change policy - if only within certain limited ranges.
yeah... i wouldn't go as far to agree with the premise of the article, but i have to say Cuba is more democratic than its made out to be, and i never understood the US electoral college system anyhoo.

plus, of course, as a socialist i have to say Cuba wins in the rights department, hands down.
Weird. But that article seems a little slanty to me.

yeah, it does
Myrmidonisia
28-03-2007, 01:55
propoganda is a really effective tool against that. and the US is great at using it...


What are you saying? There _is_ a net influx to Cuba?
The Gulf States
28-03-2007, 01:57
Interesting argument made. Neither country is great, but um... to point out good things about Cuba can't be bad. I mean, they have to be doing something right even though our country convinces otherwise.
Pure Metal
28-03-2007, 02:00
What are you saying? There _is_ a net influx to Cuba?

no, i'm saying that'll never happen given the massive propoganda machine the US govt. rolls out against socialism, Cuba, communism, and the like.

my comment about it being effective is pretty self-evident in the cold war case, but also look at the propoganda levelled against marijuana by the US govt.
most effective propoganda campaign ever.
Relyc
28-03-2007, 02:02
but also look at the propoganda levelled against marijuana by the US govt.
most effective propoganda campaign ever.

Really? I don't think its working. Im still in the age group that it's considered prime (teen-late 20's) and attitudes toward it have become far more relaxed and open.
Neesika
28-03-2007, 02:03
What are you saying? There _is_ a net influx to Cuba?

Unfortunately it's difficult to immigrate there.
Myrmidonisia
28-03-2007, 02:12
Unfortunately it's difficult to immigrate there.
Ah, I see. They want to keep all the good stuff for themselves. Perfectly understandable.
Pure Metal
28-03-2007, 02:12
Really? I don't think its working. Im still in the age group that it's considered prime (teen-late 20's) and attitudes toward it have become far more relaxed and open.

it did work - i was referring to the work of Harry J. Anslinger in the '50s and '60s in particular.
these days things have gotten more open, and thankfully there's research going into the drug (rather than the propoganda being founded on baseless lies... but then i guess that's what makes it "propoganda" rather than 'the truth' eh?)
Myrmidonisia
28-03-2007, 02:14
no, i'm saying that'll never happen given the massive propoganda machine the US govt. rolls out against socialism, Cuba, communism, and the like.

my comment about it being effective is pretty self-evident in the cold war case, but also look at the propoganda levelled against marijuana by the US govt.
most effective propoganda campaign ever.

The U.S. isn't the only country that could be a source of emigration to Cuba. Why, there are any number of islands nearby, as well as parts of South and Central America. Perhaps some of you from the other side of the world could even show up on Fidel's doorstep.
Neesika
28-03-2007, 02:23
The U.S. isn't the only country that could be a source of emigration to Cuba. Why, there are any number of islands nearby, as well as parts of South and Central America. Perhaps some of you from the other side of the world could even show up on Fidel's doorstep.
That's kind of the point of why immigration is tight.

The US isn't the only country trying to control who gets in.
AchillesLastStand
28-03-2007, 02:28
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba
AchillesLastStand
28-03-2007, 02:29
Oh, and on more thing. Why is the USA's embargo against Cuba "illegal."? I think the USA, just like any other country, has the right to choose who it trades with, no?
Sel Appa
28-03-2007, 03:29
I love you.

VIVA LA CUBA! VIVA LA REVOLUCION!
Seangoli
28-03-2007, 03:43
Oh, and on more thing. Why is the USA's embargo against Cuba "illegal."? I think the USA, just like any other country, has the right to choose who it trades with, no?

Meh, I just find it rather ironic that we're supposed to be for free trade and all, yet we make it so incredibly difficult to trade with other countries(sometimes illegal to do so).

But meh...
Velkya
28-03-2007, 03:52
Because Cuba is just a beacon of freedom, what with its private enterprise, free and open elections, and free speech.

Us poor, dumb, easily-swayed Americans must tremble in awe of the astoundingly free society that people build makeshift rafts to escape from.
Lame Bums
28-03-2007, 03:58
*Groans loudly*

http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/8531.jpg
Global Avthority
28-03-2007, 03:59
I guess you can justify what you want, but when I start seeing a net migration _to_ Cuba, then I might think that there is something to it.
People don't go to work in a country because it is more democratic, they go because there are more jobs. Why must you lie and distort so much?
IDF
28-03-2007, 04:24
People don't go to work in a country because it is more democratic, they go because there are more jobs. Why must you lie and distort so much?

And they flee a country (like Cuba) in small boats and risk death over open ocean because Cuba is a nice democratic paradise? :rolleyes:
Czardas
28-03-2007, 04:30
Weird. But that article seems a little slanty to me.
No, really?
Vetalia
28-03-2007, 04:31
I have a feeling this article is blocked in Cuba by its internet censors, even for the miniscule number of people allowed by the government to own computers with internet connections.

Yeah, it's more democratic. It's as democratic as the Berlin Wall was the "anti-fascist protective barrier".
The Potato Factory
28-03-2007, 04:53
There is no way in hell, IN HELL, that Castro's been consistently elected for the past... what, 50 years?

Fraudulent as hell.
Free Soviets
28-03-2007, 05:32
And they flee a country (like Cuba) in small boats and risk death over open ocean because Cuba is a nice democratic paradise? :rolleyes:

the improving democracy situation in mexico hasn't exactly been correlated to a decrease in immigration from there. me thinks the fact that usia has all the cargo matters slightly more than how many elections you get to vote in.
P nation
28-03-2007, 07:50
Are you nuts or some thing we all know that in communist states if you disagree you get jailed ,shot in the head , sent to stalag, or in up missing. :sniper: :upyours:
Seangoli
28-03-2007, 08:19
Are you nuts or some thing we all know that in communist states if you disagree you get jailed ,shot in the head , sent to stalag, or in up missing. :sniper: :upyours:

Does everyone know what time it is?

It's Nooblet bashing time!

*Sings*
Oh! They come and they go
To Nationstates General-o!

Some may shake their heads and sigh
I, however, love them I cannot lie

It's more painful than an eye with lime
It's everyone favorite... Nooblet... bashing... tiiiiiiiime!

*Cheers*

Hello everybody! Welcome to another rousing addition of Nooblet bashing time, with your wonderful host, Seangoli! I know, I know, this technically *isn't* "another addition", as it is the "first" addition, but... well... due to the economy... and the war... and inflation... not to mention gravitational leaps... we are now in another addition rather than the first. So deal.

This right here, my friends, is a prime example of a Nooblet post. First, note his poor use of grammar, particularly in the run-on sentence that should end after the word "something", with a question mark thereafter. One would assume that this means that the poster is either:

1)An illegal alien(ZOMG1!!!!!1111!!1!One) here to take our money, jobs, and womenz.

2)A person making a rather sarcastic and amusing point, portraying a common "Super-American", showcasing how Americans are idiotic and cannot even use proper grammar and English.

3)A pubescent 15-year old whom uses MSN messenger as his only mode of conversation.

I don't know about you people, but I'm leaning on 2. The first one will get me sued, and the third is just far to obvious.

Now, let's move on. It is best to point out the rampant generalizations he has made... oh, the generalizations. This seems to construe a viewpoint that is sheltered to the point of never say the light of day, being force-fed what he is supposed to think by his family/friends/alien mind control device. However, another possibility is that once again, he is making a sarcastic remark about "Super-Americans" and how we are all brainwashed into thinking exactly what THEY want you to think(I'm looking at you, Betty Crocker). Or, perhaps, he is indeed a COMMUNIST spreading reverse propaganda! Doesn't make sense? Doesn't need to! It just works.

Finally, the gun-smilies. Oh, bastions of hope to all the nooblets of NSG. Overused to the point of the proverbial dead horse and beatings(Those who have never been beaten with a dead horse will never know). Obviously, this is another brilliant moment of sarcasm and hilarity by the specimen to portray how other Nooblets act.

Well, that's all the time we have folks! See you next time, if there is a next time(And I swear to god, if you turn to the Tellitubbies after this, I will force you to sit through 49 hours of Seinfield. Yes, I am that twisted.)

So, good by, good luck, and screw you. I'm out!


*Sings*
Oh! They come and they go
To Nationstates General-o!

Some may shake their heads and sigh
I, however, love them I cannot lie

It's more painful than an eye with lime
It's everyone favorite... Nooblet... bashing... tiiiiiiiime!

*Cheers*
Ariddia
28-03-2007, 08:40
Are you nuts or some thing we all know that in communist states if you disagree you get jailed ,shot in the head , sent to stalag, or in up missing.

Did you even read the article fully? What's the matter? Don't want fact to interfere with what propaganda has taught you?

Anyway... Very interesting article. Of course it's biased, and of course it's not the whole truth, but it does raise some valid points nonetheless. Cuba is far from being the hell it's portrayed to be in US propaganda. I've been to Cuba and talked to Cubans; I should know.
Risottia
28-03-2007, 08:51
an interesting article i just stumbledupon. thought provoking, if it does go totally against what i have been led to believe.... but i guess that's the point. it may be a bit inflammatory in its language, but its interesting nonetheless. thoughts?


Quite inflammatory... but, as everyone here knows, flames are needed sometimes.;)

In a synthesis.
I wouldn't call Cuba a fully accomplished democracy - mostly because there can't be the same person on the main power seat for 40 years in a democracy, but this is a thing many "western democracies" fail to accomplish also, just look at Italy, where Giulio Andreotti has led 7 cabinets and has dominated the political scene for about 30 years being minister or vice-minister when he wasn't cabinet chief - despite his alleged links with the sicilian mafia.

Then again, I don't think that the US set a good example of democracy - well, why am I calling the US a "democracy" when NOWHERE in the US fundamental laws the words "democracy" or "democratic" are used? The things that approaches most that concept is that sentence about "that government of the people by the people for the people" etc, but it isn't in the fundamental laws, is it?

Anyway, I think that it is a scandal that such a powerful, rich country like the US fails to:
1-make most citizens partecipate to elections (50% is way too low)
2-guarantee free healthcare and a good public education
3-weed out racial (and gender) discrimination
4-protect the workers via collective national labour contracts and acknowledgement of the role of labour unions
And this is leaving out foreign policy...

I could accept that from a third-world country; I cannot accept that from the richest country in the world.

While I think that there are things that need to be worked on a lot in Cuba, I really hope that the good things Fidel has achieved for his country won't be lost in the next years. I'd hate seeing Cuba become like Nicaragua.
Risottia
28-03-2007, 09:00
Meh, I just find it rather ironic that we're supposed to be for free trade and all, yet we make it so incredibly difficult to trade with other countries(sometimes illegal to do so).

But meh...

It could also be violating a lot of other ideas about free trade ... did you know that if a EU enterprise works with cuban companies, it is forbidden to work in the US?

And, since when is the US for free trade in IMPORTS? It has some of the highest trade barried (like import taxes) in the world...
Pure Metal
28-03-2007, 12:38
Does everyone know what time it is?

It's Nooblet bashing time!

*Sings*
Oh! They come and they go
To Nationstates General-o!

Some may shake their heads and sigh
I, however, love them I cannot lie

It's more painful than an eye with lime
It's everyone favorite... Nooblet... bashing... tiiiiiiiime!

*Cheers*

Hello everybody! Welcome to another rousing addition of Nooblet bashing time, with your wonderful host, Seangoli! I know, I know, this technically *isn't* "another addition", as it is the "first" addition, but... well... due to the economy... and the war... and inflation... not to mention gravitational leaps... we are now in another addition rather than the first. So deal.

This right here, my friends, is a prime example of a Nooblet post. First, note his poor use of grammar, particularly in the run-on sentence that should end after the word "something", with a question mark thereafter. One would assume that this means that the poster is either:

1)An illegal alien(ZOMG1!!!!!1111!!1!One) here to take our money, jobs, and womenz.

2)A person making a rather sarcastic and amusing point, portraying a common "Super-American", showcasing how Americans are idiotic and cannot even use proper grammar and English.

3)A pubescent 15-year old whom uses MSN messenger as his only mode of conversation.

I don't know about you people, but I'm leaning on 2. The first one will get me sued, and the third is just far to obvious.

Now, let's move on. It is best to point out the rampant generalizations he has made... oh, the generalizations. This seems to construe a viewpoint that is sheltered to the point of never say the light of day, being force-fed what he is supposed to think by his family/friends/alien mind control device. However, another possibility is that once again, he is making a sarcastic remark about "Super-Americans" and how we are all brainwashed into thinking exactly what THEY want you to think(I'm looking at you, Betty Crocker). Or, perhaps, he is indeed a COMMUNIST spreading reverse propaganda! Doesn't make sense? Doesn't need to! It just works.

Finally, the gun-smilies. Oh, bastions of hope to all the nooblets of NSG. Overused to the point of the proverbial dead horse and beatings(Those who have never been beaten with a dead horse will never know). Obviously, this is another brilliant moment of sarcasm and hilarity by the specimen to portray how other Nooblets act.

Well, that's all the time we have folks! See you next time, if there is a next time(And I swear to god, if you turn to the Tellitubbies after this, I will force you to sit through 49 hours of Seinfield. Yes, I am that twisted.)

So, good by, good luck, and screw you. I'm out!


*Sings*
Oh! They come and they go
To Nationstates General-o!

Some may shake their heads and sigh
I, however, love them I cannot lie

It's more painful than an eye with lime
It's everyone favorite... Nooblet... bashing... tiiiiiiiime!

*Cheers*
lol, i like you :P

Did you even read the article fully? What's the matter? Don't want fact to interfere with what propaganda has taught you?

Anyway... Very interesting article. Of course it's biased, and of course it's not the whole truth, but it does raise some valid points nonetheless. Cuba is far from being the hell it's portrayed to be in US propaganda. I've been to Cuba and talked to Cubans; I should know.
i looked up flights to cuba recently as it happens... too expensive for my budget :( (500 quid per person)

Quite inflammatory... but, as everyone here knows, flames are needed sometimes.;)

In a synthesis.
I wouldn't call Cuba a fully accomplished democracy - mostly because there can't be the same person on the main power seat for 40 years in a democracy, but this is a thing many "western democracies" fail to accomplish also, just look at Italy, where Giulio Andreotti has led 7 cabinets and has dominated the political scene for about 30 years being minister or vice-minister when he wasn't cabinet chief - despite his alleged links with the sicilian mafia.

Then again, I don't think that the US set a good example of democracy - well, why am I calling the US a "democracy" when NOWHERE in the US fundamental laws the words "democracy" or "democratic" are used? The things that approaches most that concept is that sentence about "that government of the people by the people for the people" etc, but it isn't in the fundamental laws, is it?

Anyway, I think that it is a scandal that such a powerful, rich country like the US fails to:
1-make most citizens partecipate to elections (50% is way too low)
2-guarantee free healthcare and a good public education
3-weed out racial (and gender) discrimination
4-protect the workers via collective national labour contracts and acknowledgement of the role of labour unions
And this is leaving out foreign policy...

I could accept that from a third-world country; I cannot accept that from the richest country in the world.

While I think that there are things that need to be worked on a lot in Cuba, I really hope that the good things Fidel has achieved for his country won't be lost in the next years. I'd hate seeing Cuba become like Nicaragua.

all good points
Myrmidonisia
28-03-2007, 13:14
That's kind of the point of why immigration is tight.

The US isn't the only country trying to control who gets in.

The neat thing about the United States is that we don't try to control who gets out.
Ollieland
28-03-2007, 13:30
And they flee a country (like Cuba) in small boats and risk death over open ocean because Cuba is a nice democratic paradise? :rolleyes:

No they flee cuba because of the so-called American dream of cash, cash and more cash :rolleyes:
New Burmesia
28-03-2007, 13:37
I refuse to believe that Cuba is a hell-hole just as much as I refuse to believe it is a democracy.
Myrmidonisia
28-03-2007, 13:41
No they flee cuba because of the so-called American dream of cash, cash and more cash :rolleyes:

If there was any economic liberty in Cuba, they'd have the same opportunity without risking life and limb. Cuba gets ranked (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm)156th in the world along those lines.
Non Aligned States
28-03-2007, 13:44
I guess you can justify what you want, but when I start seeing a net migration _to_ Cuba, then I might think that there is something to it.

That's more a result of better economic status and believed opportunity than any sort of political structure if I'm not mistaken.

And economic prosperity is not an indicator of political freedoms since economic prosperity is usually dictated by local policies towards trade, control of resources and the ability to influence the economies of trading partners. The US has done plenty of the latter, but that should not be a yardstick of how democratic it is. All it means is that its just got profitable business practices.
Non Aligned States
28-03-2007, 13:47
And they flee a country (like Cuba) in small boats and risk death over open ocean because Cuba is a nice democratic paradise? :rolleyes:

No, I'd say they do it for the same reasons that Mexicans risk being crammed into cargo containers with a good chance of being killed from exposure, asphyxiation, etc, etc, just to make it to America.

Because it pays better.

That's the bottom line for most illegal immigration. Money. Not political freedoms which most don't give a rats ass about.
Ollieland
28-03-2007, 13:58
If there was any economic liberty in Cuba, they'd have the same opportunity without risking life and limb. Cuba gets ranked (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm)156th in the world along those lines.

economic liberty =/= democracy
Pure Metal
28-03-2007, 13:59
If there was any economic liberty in Cuba, they'd have the same opportunity without risking life and limb. Cuba gets ranked (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm)156th in the world along those lines.

some people will always grate against a socialised, non-wealth-accumulative economic setup. i'd wager they're juming ship due to personal greed, something that is greatly more rewarded in the US than it is in almost any other country in the world.


edit:

economic liberty =/= democracy

QFT
Nationalian
28-03-2007, 14:00
Well, the US democracy is pretty shitty and I'm glad that I don't live in a country with a "democratic" system like in the US. But Cuba isn't much better. I'm aware of the imperialistic propaganda campaign spread around the world from the US about Cuba but it isn't hell nor heaven on earth as some people might want you to believe. It's unfortunate that nobody can have a serious debate about Cuba without claiming it to be really bad or really good.

But I'm sure as hell that Cuba has far better and humane foreign politics than the US(who has not really?). So overall, when looking at it from a global perspective, I would prefer Cuba over USA.
Eve Online
28-03-2007, 14:17
n Cuba, the Constitution (Art 12) repudiates wars of aggression and conquest

I guess this explains their mercenary role in Angola for years of war.
Aelosia
28-03-2007, 14:26
I don't know, I have been in Cuba, but I haven't been in the United States...
Call to power
28-03-2007, 14:46
searching around I found this on Cuba:

http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/

more importantly you can visit Cuba and get free stuff with the internationals! (http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/brigades.htm)

Though to be honest Cuba not only more or less bans computers but it particularly bans internet porn and so I won’t be moving to Cuba anytime soon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5024874.stm
Arthais101
28-03-2007, 14:55
This article immediatly loses all credibility and hint of objectivity when it referes to the american "illegal blockade" in place.

America has no blockade on cuba. A blockade is an attempt to prevent material from entering or leaving the country, typically through military force. We did blockade cuba during the cuban missle crisis. A blockade of cuba would probably be illegal as it would require entering cuban waters.

America has an embargo. ENTIRELY seperate thing. Massivly different. Refering to the embargo as a blockade is grossly inaccurate. While I dislike the embargo in place, it is perfectly legal, as a nation may restrict trade with anyone it wishes.

We may have our qualms about the embargo, but refering to it as a blockade is grossly inaccurate and demonstrates both a failure in understanding of the situation, and erases any hint of objectivity.
New Genoa
28-03-2007, 14:55
But I'm sure as hell that Cuba has far better and humane foreign politics than the US(who has not really?). So overall, when looking at it from a global perspective, I would prefer Cuba over USA.

Yeah their foreign politics are quite good. Especially when WWIII was nearly incited back in the 1960s due to a few missiles there...
Nationalian
28-03-2007, 15:10
Yeah their foreign politics are quite good. Especially when WWIII was nearly incited back in the 1960s due to a few missiles there...

Which of course was as much USA: s fault as SSSR: s. I can fully understand why Castro gave permission to SSSR to place the missiles there. Cuba was threatened by USA, it had already been invaded. But this was a battle between the SSSR and USA where Cuba was only a brick in the game. In the end, neither Kennedy nor Chrushtjev dared to do anything because they were afraid of a nuclear war. Anyway, that's history now but it's totally foolish to claim that it's only Cuba's fault that it happend when it was much more complicated than that.
Fartsniffage
28-03-2007, 16:00
This article immediatly loses all credibility and hint of objectivity when it referes to the american "illegal blockade" in place.

America has no blockade on cuba. A blockade is an attempt to prevent material from entering or leaving the country, typically through military force. We did blockade cuba during the cuban missle crisis. A blockade of cuba would probably be illegal as it would require entering cuban waters.

America has an embargo. ENTIRELY seperate thing. Massivly different. Refering to the embargo as a blockade is grossly inaccurate. While I dislike the embargo in place, it is perfectly legal, as a nation may restrict trade with anyone it wishes.

We may have our qualms about the embargo, but refering to it as a blockade is grossly inaccurate and demonstrates both a failure in understanding of the situation, and erases any hint of objectivity.

I always think that the term embargo can be applied in this circumstance as the US uses it's economic might to prevent other countries trading with Cuba and doesn't just refuse to trade with her itself.

It may be using economic rather than military means but the result is the same.
Johnny B Goode
28-03-2007, 20:03
No, really?

Jeez, Mr. Sarcasm. :rolleyes:
Neesika
28-03-2007, 20:06
and erases any hint of objectivity.

I highly doubt objectivity was the point. It's an editorial.
Global Avthority
28-03-2007, 22:33
If there was any economic liberty in Cuba, they'd have the same opportunity without risking life and limb. Cuba gets ranked (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm)156th in the world along those lines.
That list is meaningless. I would rather live in Belgium than Singapore, etc...

If Cuba was anywhere near the top of that list they would be failing in their self-proclaimed socialist objectives.
Kilobugya
29-03-2007, 13:31
Call me back when the Cuban people can vote a new President in office.

They can. Indirectly because the President is elected by the Assembly, and not directly, but they do the elect the Assembly which in turn elect the President ;)
Eve Online
29-03-2007, 13:37
This article immediatly loses all credibility and hint of objectivity when it referes to the american "illegal blockade" in place.

America has no blockade on cuba. A blockade is an attempt to prevent material from entering or leaving the country, typically through military force. We did blockade cuba during the cuban missle crisis. A blockade of cuba would probably be illegal as it would require entering cuban waters.

America has an embargo. ENTIRELY seperate thing. Massivly different. Refering to the embargo as a blockade is grossly inaccurate. While I dislike the embargo in place, it is perfectly legal, as a nation may restrict trade with anyone it wishes.

We may have our qualms about the embargo, but refering to it as a blockade is grossly inaccurate and demonstrates both a failure in understanding of the situation, and erases any hint of objectivity.


It might be noted that while the US has an embargo, plenty of countries do business with Cuba.

If Cuba has any economic problems, it's their own fault, not the fault of the US.
Kilobugya
29-03-2007, 13:55
The US probably does beat Cuba at formal democracy, though. We have competitive elections whose results tend to change policy - if only within certain limited ranges.

There are competitive elections in Cuba too, at the local level. Then, the elected one at the local level nominate candidates on the next level, and those candidates need to approved by a majority to be accepted. Sounds easy, but I doubt the current leader in most "democratic" countries would have been approved in "yes or no" vote. Most leaders (presidents or prime ministers) are chosen "by default" ("the other one is even worse") rather than because they are accepted.

Edit: as for elections changing policy in US... well, a very tiny bit, but so few...
Greater Valia
29-03-2007, 13:58
Well since the United States isn't a Democracy...
Kilobugya
29-03-2007, 13:59
I guess you can justify what you want, but when I start seeing a net migration _to_ Cuba, then I might think that there is something to it.

Cuba is a third-world country. It was from before the Revolution, and constant attacks of USA (blocus, terrorism, ...) doesn't help. People migrate from third-world countries to rich countries. That's true in all the world.

But before the Revolution, Cuba was the #1 source of immigration to the USA (compared to their population). Since the Revolution, it falled to #9, with countries much much far away like Ecuador, Columbia or Peru having _more_ immigrations (compared to their population) to USA than Cuba.

And the Cuban Adjustment Act, which is unique in the world, doesn't help either to lower such immigration.
Kilobugya
29-03-2007, 14:03
Oh, and on more thing. Why is the USA's embargo against Cuba "illegal."? I think the USA, just like any other country, has the right to choose who it trades with, no?

We already spoke about it on another thread, a few months ago. The USA does not only refuse to trade with Cuba. They try to forbid people to trade with Cuba, like with the port ban (if a ship docks in a cuban habour, it is forbidden to dock in USA for 6 months afterwards), or with the reexport interdiction (if you buy something from USA, you are not allowed to then sell it to Cuba, which is very different from USA not selling to Cuba). And THAT is illegal, and condemned by the UN general assembly every year.

The other illegal thing is embargo on medical drugs/food, which is forbidden by the Geneva Convention, which is, in theory, binding for the USA because they signed it.
Kilobugya
29-03-2007, 14:09
And they flee a country (like Cuba) in small boats and risk death over open ocean because Cuba is a nice democratic paradise? :rolleyes:

As I just said, much few people flee from Cuba than from Mexico, Peru, Columbia, Ecuador and many other Latin American countries.

For the small boat, the fault is the one of the USA. The gov of the USA signed an agrement with the gov of Cuba, in which they accepted to grant a given amount (I don't remember how much, I can find it if you need it) visas every year to Cuban citizen, but they only give like 1% of this number. Then, Cuban citizen have to enter USA illegally, which means using crap boats.

Cuba supporters asked to their opponents that they give the name of a SINGLE man who was granted a Visa by the USA and then fled on a crap boat because Castro prevented him to go by normal ways, and I never found any answer to this challenge.

Another interesting point is that Cuban immigrants to the USA are the ones, among all immigrants, who go the MOST often back to their home country to visit family/friends. Hardly what you do when you flee a dictatorship...

Well, that was true before 2004, when Bush passed a law forbidding Cuban immigrants to visit their family more than once every 3 years.

Edit: I found the number of visas, it's 20 000 per year.
Kilobugya
29-03-2007, 14:11
I have a feeling this article is blocked in Cuba by its internet censors, even for the miniscule number of people allowed by the government to own computers with internet connections.

The main problem for Cuba access to Internet is that all hardware made by USA corporations (which includes all Intel, AMD and IBM CPUs) cannot be saled legally in Cuba. The other one is that the USA refuse to let Cuba connect to the transatlantic cable running close to Florida, forcing Cuba to use slow and expensive satellite connections.
Vespertilia
29-03-2007, 14:15
Cuba was the #1 source of immigration to the USA (compared to their population). Since the Revolution, it falled to #9

It does not surprise me. My country, once upon ago, was also under Communist rule, and it could also be proud of such downfall of number of people emigrating.
Nevermind that getting a passport was an exceptional achievement one was proud of. However we were luckier than Cubans, as my country does not lie on an island and to flee from it one didn't have to build a raft.
Kilobugya
29-03-2007, 14:16
Are you nuts or some thing we all know that in communist states if you disagree you get jailed ,shot in the head , sent to stalag, or in up missing. :sniper: :upyours:

No one in Cuba was "shot in the head". The only time someone was sentenced to death in the XXIest century in Cuba was a group of terrorists who took hostage a family of tourrists and drove their boat in deep sea where they nearly died. Tourrism is the primary income of Cuba, and tourrists are "sacred" there, so they reacted very harshly to that. I don't approve death penalty, but it was a very exceptionnal case.

For being thrown in jail, well, you should know that thousands of people signed a petition asking changes in Cuban Constitution (because in Cuba, if enough people sign a petition, the changes are put to referendum), and that they never had any problem. The 170 people who are considered "political prisonners" by some human rights organisation were sentenced for being paid by the US gov to otherthrow the cuban system, which is illegal in most, if not all, country.

I don't know if their trials were fair or not, but at least they got some, unlike those who are hold in Guantanamo... And the point of the article was not to say that Cuba is perfect, but that it's less worse than USA, which I tend to agree with.
Kilobugya
29-03-2007, 14:25
This article immediatly loses all credibility and hint of objectivity when it referes to the american "illegal blockade" in place.

America has no blockade on cuba. A blockade is an attempt to prevent material from entering or leaving the country, typically through military force.

The key words in that are "attempt" and "typically". USA actually attempt to prevent material from entering and leaving the country, and this time, not through military force, but through economical pressure. But it's still a blockade, because they try to prevent OTHER countries from trading with Cuba, too.
Kilobugya
29-03-2007, 14:29
It might be noted that while the US has an embargo, plenty of countries do business with Cuba.

If Cuba has any economic problems, it's their own fault, not the fault of the US.

Sure, if they are forced to pay their milk 6x times more money, because it comes from New Zealand, all other countries refusing to sell (enough) milk to Cuba because of US blockade is their fault ?

If they can't buy hightech (medical or other) equipement because as soon as at least one chip in them is made in USA, they can't be selled back to Cuba is their fault ?
Aelosia
29-03-2007, 14:36
No one in Cuba was "shot in the head". The only time someone was sentenced to death in the XXIest century in Cuba was a group of terrorists who took hostage a family of tourrists and drove their boat in deep sea where they nearly died. Tourrism is the primary income of Cuba, and tourrists are "sacred" there, so they reacted very harshly to that. I don't approve death penalty, but it was a very exceptionnal case.

For being thrown in jail, well, you should know that thousands of people signed a petition asking changes in Cuban Constitution (because in Cuba, if enough people sign a petition, the changes are put to referendum), and that they never had any problem. The 170 people who are considered "political prisonners" by some human rights organisation were sentenced for being paid by the US gov to otherthrow the cuban system, which is illegal in most, if not all, country.

I don't know if their trials were fair or not, but at least they got some, unlike those who are hold in Guantanamo... And the point of the article was not to say that Cuba is perfect, but that it's less worse than USA, which I tend to agree with.

Sadly, nationals are not as sacred as tourists
Kilobugya
29-03-2007, 14:58
It does not surprise me. My country, once upon ago, was also under Communist rule, and it could also be proud of such downfall of number of people emigrating.
Nevermind that getting a passport was an exceptional achievement one was proud of. However we were luckier than Cubans, as my country does not lie on an island and to flee from it one didn't have to build a raft.

That could be an explication, but three major points contradict it:

- the governements of Cuba and USA agreed for giving 20 000 Cuban USA visa every year, but it is the uSA government which refuse to respect this agrement ;

- the cuban citizen who come to USA are, as I said before, the ones go most often to visit their relatives back in their country (at least before Bush greatly limited it) ;

- many many cuban (including many doctors, but not only) go outside of Cuba, with trip paid by the government, as "social workers", and very few (around 1%) refuse to come back to Cuba afterwards.
Aelosia
29-03-2007, 15:03
That could be an explication, but three major points contradict it:

- the governements of Cuba and USA agreed for giving 20 000 Cuban USA visa every year, but it is the uSA government which refuse to respect this agrement ;

- the cuban citizen who come to USA are, as I said before, the ones go most often to visit their relatives back in their country (at least before Bush greatly limited it) ;

- many many cuban (including many doctors, but not only) go outside of Cuba, with trip paid by the government, as "social workers", and very few (around 1%) refuse to come back to Cuba afterwards.

I find figures so opposed to my own experiences...

The three cubans that moved to my building, that came here as part of Chávez social programs with Cuba, all of them medics, refused to come back to Cuba, (even although the goverment first tried to force them to, but in the end let it rest to not raise a fuss about it).

I guess those three families are indeed part of that 1 per cent. I am so lucky, I always get close to the strangest minorities and exceptions, don't you think?
Kilobugya
29-03-2007, 15:23
The three cubans that moved to my building, that came here as part of Chávez social programs with Cuba, all of them medics, refused to come back to Cuba, (even although the goverment first tried to force them to, but in the end let it rest to not raise a fuss about it).

I guess those three families are indeed part of that 1 per cent. I am so lucky, I always get close to the strangest minorities and exceptions, don't you think?

Well, if you live in the USA, you will hardly meet the 99 other per cents ;)

With more than 30 000 doctors (and many other people) who came in Venezuela from Cuba to help the Venezuelians, 1% of them is already 300, so you met 1% of this 1% ;)
Southeastasia
29-03-2007, 15:24
I personally don't know who is worse: a velvet-gloved, iron-fisted tyrant of bankrupt radical political leftist ideology or an obstinate selfish crony capitalist who seems more satisifed with a corporate-styled managed plutocracy rather than a democracy, and using the executive functions of a constitutional republic to profit himself and his corporate buddies.
Pure Metal
29-03-2007, 16:06
i thought this was interesting (just looking up some facts/figures about Cuba for my own interest)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-education-spending-of-gdp

what is particularly sickening is that the UK is below the US :headbang:
Kilobugya
29-03-2007, 16:19
i thought this was interesting (just looking up some facts/figures about Cuba for my own interest)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-education-spending-of-gdp

what is particularly sickening is that the UK is below the US :headbang:

Interesting link... but does it count only public spending, or combined public/private spendings ?
Pure Metal
29-03-2007, 16:28
Interesting link... but does it count only public spending, or combined public/private spendings ?

well the definition is Government spending, so i assume its only public
Panicfools
29-03-2007, 17:59
What an awesome thread. After reading all of these posts I've came to one decision: no single pure form of government works. You need a mixture of several ideologies to create a fair and robust government.
Aelosia
29-03-2007, 18:04
What an awesome thread. After reading all of these posts I've came to one decision: no single pure form of government works. You need a mixture of several ideologies to create a fair and robust government.

Wow, you're new and I'm already in love with you. I couldn't write that better. Well, actually I could, but it would take me a lot of time and effort that you already saved me.

But, I'm sorry to tell you that people like you and me are totally out of the latest tendency, that is to pick a highly extremist ideology or posture and defend it to the death, (even worse here in Nationstates). Moderates and centrists are totally out of fashion.
Misesburg-Hayek
29-03-2007, 18:12
I would not care to live in a pure democracy. In a pure democracy the government is empowered to do anything half plus one of the voters ask of it. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

In a constitutional republic, mutton is off the menu: the sheep has an assault rifle. :)
Panicfools
29-03-2007, 18:44
Wow, you're new and I'm already in love with you. I couldn't write that better. Well, actually I could, but it would take me a lot of time and effort that you already saved me.

But, I'm sorry to tell you that people like you and me are totally out of the latest tendency, that is to pick a highly extremist ideology or posture and defend it to the death, (even worse here in Nationstates). Moderates and centrists are totally out of fashion.

It's very sad. I love being a centrist b/c all sides despise you. The right calls you a socialist and the left calls you a capitalist. All the while they are blind to the concept of compromise, and to the good of both sides.
Aelosia
29-03-2007, 18:54
It's very sad. I love being a centrist b/c all sides despise you. The right calls you a socialist and the left calls you a capitalist. All the while they are blind to the concept of compromise, and to the good of both sides.

If you plan to stay a while around here, brace yourself. Half the forums are going to call you a liberal socialist bastard, and the other half is going to call you a fascist neocon sucker. And noone is ever going to agree with your views.
Panicfools
29-03-2007, 18:56
At least you have my back.