Bush V Castro

  • News
  • Thread starter flotsam
  • Start date
  • #1
29
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

It is reality that one if these men dedicated their lives to better society. Dictator or the elected. Who won? Who gave us something positive to remember? Who resides in a capital with the least child mortality? Washington or Havana
The answer is that George and Washington has the worst record. Who has won and who will win?
Cuba, with all its failings is better than a unelected idiot who does not care of the children!
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
29
0
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
14
flotsam said:
with all its failings is better than a unelected idiot who does not care of the children!
Well I wouldn't say Castro doesn't care about the children...
 
  • #4
29
0
Pengwuino said:
Well I wouldn't say Castro doesn't care about the children...
I know you were not. I was talking of Bush
 
  • #5
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
14
flotsam said:
I know you were not. I was talking of Bush
Cuban propoganda at its finest. Open your eyes next time.
 
  • #6
29
0
Pengwuino said:
Cuban propoganda at its finest. Open your eyes next time.
open your eyes. Castro for all his failings has dealt in priorities. Long live priority.
 
  • #7
502
0
flotsam said:
Castro for all his failings has dealt in priorities.
You mean murder and manslaughter? Because then I would agree 'coz it is one of his priorities. Castro is a dirty dictator who has killed Cuba. Bush is bad but inspite of all his failings, to say Castro is better than Bush is just idiotic.
 
  • #8
30
0
Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez have done more for their people than Bush ever did. Cuba, Venezuela and other places in the Americas were all victims of European colonialism and imperialism.
 
  • #9
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
16
Yet, for some reason, loads of Cubans try to get to the US each year...on boats, rafts, dinghies, tethered automobile tires and really anything that will float... knowing fully well that they'll probably drown before they get very far, or more likely, get caught by the Cuban coastguard and have to spend the rest of their lives in jail.

Ungrateful wretches, eh ?
 
  • #10
356
2
You're both making the false assumption that one of them has to be better than the other. Castro and Bush are both proponents of a corrupt institution imposed on the will of the people. They're both statists, it doesn't matter which one is "better", it only matters that they're both evil bastards.
 
  • #11
174
0
Gokul43201 said:
Yet, for some reason, loads of Cubans try to get to the US each year...on boats, rafts, dinghies, tethered automobile tires and really anything that will float... knowing fully well that they'll probably drown before they get very far, or more likely, get caught by the Cuban coastguard and have to spend the rest of their lives in jail.

Ungrateful wretches, eh ?
the ones caught spend far less time in jail 6 months to 3 years max
and now the USA send most back as not TRUE political but econonmic
refugees
nobody ever went to jail for life for rafting out
BTW I live in Miami Fl

and as most of centrial and south america is doing the same
[ by less extream tranport]
just how does this make Cuba a special case?

we need border control BADDLY the time for open borders is OVER

btw2 costs of this mess are many
inc the main support of cuba
is now coming from miami in payments from our cubans
to their people back on the island
draining much cash from our city
add in the 100,00's of others doing the same to every country south of us
and the amounts leaving our local econ is staggering
makeing Miami the poorest major city in the USA
 
  • #12
30
0
Gokul43201 said:
Yet, for some reason, loads of Cubans try to get to the US each year...on boats, rafts, dinghies, tethered automobile tires and really anything that will float... knowing fully well that they'll probably drown before they get very far, or more likely, get caught by the Cuban coastguard and have to spend the rest of their lives in jail.

Ungrateful wretches, eh ?
But Cuba was much worse before Fidel Castro. It was a racist apartheid. Now their socialist economy is starting to improve.
 
  • #13
Skyhunter
Smurf said:
You're both making the false assumption that one of them has to be better than the other. Castro and Bush are both proponents of a corrupt institution imposed on the will of the people. They're both statists, it doesn't matter which one is "better", it only matters that they're both evil bastards.
Well said.

They are also both victims/products of failed systems.
 
  • #14
356
2
Having said that, I think that we (people with political opinions) can learn valuable lessons from both of them, and we shouldn't completely ignore the one we dislike the most.
 
  • #15
30
0
There will never be absolute fairness i think. It's because freedom and equality are often in conflict with one another.
 
  • #16
Skyhunter
X-43D said:
There will never be absolute fairness i think. It's because freedom and equality are often in conflict with one another.
I agree.

So what is important is to judge what is working and what is not.

It is not fair or just to infringe on freedom, nor is it fair or just to deny equality.

Therefore what must be done is to encourage those with the most freedom to work for greater equality. Governments sould use incentive instead of forced redistribution.

Castro used force to impose his vision on Cuba.

Bush has no real vision so he is implementing that of the strong and influential people he associates with, people who happen to be very self interested.
 
  • #17
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
16
Skyhunter said:
So what is important is to judge what is working and what is not.
It is not fair or just to infringe on freedom, nor is it fair or just to deny equality.
Equality of what ? Status or opportunity ?
 
  • #18
356
2
Gokul43201 said:
Equality of what ? Status or opportunity ?
is there a difference?
 
  • #19
356
2
X-43D said:
There will never be absolute fairness i think. It's because freedom and equality are often in conflict with one another.
utter nonsense. freedom and equality are synonymous. there is no conflict, there never was.
 
  • #20
221
0
freedom and equality are synonymous.
eh? So if everyone is free, then everyone will be equal?
This is in contridiction with Evolution.. The strongest, fittest and most well adapted survive..

So in a nongovermental raw animal situation like for example in the perhistoric man situation would you say everyone was equal although they were totally free from any outside influences that we today have? I would say nope
 
  • #21
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Smurf said:
utter nonsense. freedom and equality are synonymous. there is no conflict, there never was.
Surely it must occur to you every now and then that it would be kosher to back up, with some form of argument, these bald assertions of yours, no? Freedom and equality are definitely not synonyms, so it would be interesting to hear how they can be synomymous.
 
  • #22
Castro is a better leader than Bush. The critics claim that Castro limits freedom, uses propaganda, and uses violence. Bush does all of those things, so, in order to determine which leader is truly better, we must examine what causes the champion. Bush, in my opinion, represents fascism and imperialism, and Fidel is a leader of a semi-socialist state. I certainly prefer Castro.
 
  • #23
356
2
loseyourname said:
Surely it must occur to you every now and then that it would be kosher to back up, with some form of argument, these bald assertions of yours, no? Freedom and equality are definitely not synonyms, so it would be interesting to hear how they can be synomymous.
I don't know. I think it stands to reason that if people are unequal, someone will be less free. I think it's you who has the burden of proof to show that they're different or opposed to eachother.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
russ_watters
Mentor
19,227
5,238
Smurf said:
I don't know. I think it stands to reason that if people are unequal, someone will be less free.
Perhaps you two are talking about two different things. Freedom is a legal issue. Equality can be a legal issue or not depending on what type of equality you are talking about. Certainly if people are treated differently under the law then certainly one would be less free - that was the basis for shooting-down "separate-but-equal" in the '60s. But just plain being unequal, ie someone making more/less money, having more/less education, etc. does not imply lack of freedom.

Sometimes I think liberals lump those two together to say that there should be forced equality in every way, sorta like what communism would advocate, but it should be clear that such a thing is very much anti-freedom because it requires putative legislation to actively limit the freedom of people who are too successful.
 
  • #25
russ_watters
Mentor
19,227
5,238
Smurf said:
is there a difference? [between status and opportunity]
Status is outcome and opportunity is starting conditions. Perhaps you don't agree that only equality of opportunity should be guaranteed, but surely you've heard that idea before? It's an important part of the basis of modern western political theory! People say "level playing field", not "tie score in the game".
 

Related Threads for: Bush V Castro

  • Last Post
9
Replies
222
Views
26K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Top