• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama shakes hands with Cuba's Castro in 'gesture of hope'

Mason66 said:
Wasn't it Hillary that said she didn't like broccoli? I seem to remember broccoli futures crashed right after that.
Click to expand...

She might have, but it was Bush I and the video clip Rocket88 posted that I remember.

Oh, here's the story about the truckload of broccoli. It seems it was two truckloads, but it didn't go to waste:

WASHINGTON — The nation's most famous broccoli shipment was welcomed at the White House Monday by Barbara Bush, her faithful dog, Millie, and scores of White House reporters, who milled around the dark green stalks looking for news.

As Mrs. Bush surveyed the scene and tried, without success, to keep a straight face, George Dunlop, president of the Washington-based United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Assn., waxed metaphorical.
Broccoli is "a green beam of light" emanating from one of President Bush's famous thousand points of light, he said as he presented the First Lady with a beribboned vegetable bouquet. An additional 10 tons of the California-grown vegetable, which arrived in two truckloads, is being donated to a capital-area food bank.
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
and the right wing wants government to dictate morals as well. Only the libertarians are truly pro liberty and individual choice.
Click to expand...

There is often a conflict between government, individual liberty and morality. How we define each term according to the given situation is a question philosophers have been asking themselves for centuries. It seems there is no quick fix.
 
Grant said:
There is often a conflict between government, individual liberty and morality. How we define each term according to the given situation is a question philosophers have been asking themselves for centuries. It seems there is no quick fix.
Click to expand...

Of course there is. It is written quite simply in the Declaration of Independence "... it is for the preservation of these rights that governments are instituted among men..."
 
Dittohead not! said:
A statement like that from the POTUS can influence people to not eat the stuff and thus depress the market and cost growers money. It's not like the president has as much power as, say for example, Oprah, but people do tend to take what he says seriously even when what he says is not meant that way.
Click to expand...

Give me a break.
 
Redress said:
No, I identified what you where trying to do and stopped it. Since you cannot argue issues, what you do is try and assign a label to people, then argue against an extreme position of that label. It would be the equivalent of me saying that since you are against abortion rights(assuming you are, this is just an example), then therefor you are "pro-life". Some pro-life people bomb abortion clinics. Therefore you are a terrorist. It is a stupid argument. Your premise fails further since a statist is simply one who believes in some level of central state control. This includes liberals, conservatives and most libertarians, not to mention greens, socialists and virtually every other group. More than likely, you are a statist.
Click to expand...

Its not an extreme position. FACT-liberals are for more govt control (typically under the guise of it being to help). Trying to drag up an obscure and unrelated definition of the word doesent help you make your point. :roll:

To the underlined passage above-no no no, thats not a statist- you need to go back and read the definition again, because it seems to be slipping right past.

Do you support the ACA?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Of course there is. It is written quite simply in the Declaration of Independence "... it is for the preservation of these rights that governments are instituted among men..."
Click to expand...

And is it still that way? Who has more rights now, the government or the individual?
 
US Conservative said:
Its not an extreme position. FACT-liberals are for more govt control (typically under the guise of it being to help). Trying to drag up an obscure and unrelated definition of the word doesent help you make your point. :roll:

To the underlined passage above-no no no, thats not a statist- you need to go back and read the definition again, because it seems to be slipping right past.

Do you support the ACA?
Click to expand...

Actually, the part you underlined is exactly what a statist is, a belief in some level of power in a central government. In can range from military and courts only, all the way to totalitarianism. You are trying to take something complex, make it simple, and then misaply it to smear people you can't actually form a coherent argument against. Stop trying to label people and actually try and argue about issues.
 
Redress said:
Actually, the part you underlined is exactly what a statist is, a belief in some level of power in a central government. In can range from military and courts only, all the way to totalitarianism. You are trying to take something complex, make it simple, and then misaply it to smear people you can't actually form a coherent argument against. Stop trying to label people and actually try and argue about issues.
Click to expand...

No no no, there you go again. Someone who believes in "some" level of power in a central govt is not a statist. Someone who believes in increasing and advocating for MORE control in a central govt IS a statist.

Its amazing how you pretend to not grasp the difference that (even one word, or how its phrased) matters. Like I said, liberals like to hide behind words and you are demonstrating this beautifully.
 
US Conservative said:
No no no, there you go again. Someone who believes in "some" level of power in a central govt is not a statist. Someone who believes in increasing and advocating for MORE control in a central govt IS a statist.

Its amazing how you pretend to not grasp the difference that (even one word, or how its phrased) matters. Like I said, liberals like to hide behind words and you are demonstrating this beautifully.
Click to expand...

No, it is you who fails to grasp a simple concept. You even linked to an in depth article that explained it.

I am not hiding behind words, I am simply showing you misusing a word to create straw men arguments. Start arguing concepts, then you won't have to hide behind playing for definitions and trying to argue against my lean instead of what I am saying.
 
Grant said:
And is it still that way? Who has more rights now, the government or the individual?
Click to expand...

That is still the purpose of government. The trouble is, government has a tendency to do other things as well, and we, the people have been allowing it to get away with this increase in power.
 
US Conservative said:
No no no, there you go again. Someone who believes in "some" level of power in a central govt is not a statist. Someone who believes in increasing and advocating for MORE control in a central govt IS a statist.

Its amazing how you pretend to not grasp the difference that (even one word, or how its phrased) matters. Like I said, liberals like to hide behind words and you are demonstrating this beautifully.
Click to expand...

No, Redress is right. Statism is essentially the belief that the state is necessary to any sort of degree. There is different scales or degrees of statism, but even a minarchist is a statist.
 
US Conservative said:
Statism is not the opposite of anarchism. :roll:
Click to expand...

No, that is exactly what it is. Anyone that calls for a state must argue for his or her cause as to why the state is necessary. Just as an anarchist must start with as to why the state is not necessary and how it is better without it.
 
Henrin said:
No, that is exactly what it is. Anyone that calls for a state must argue for his or her cause as to why the state is necessary. Just as an anarchist must start with as to why the state is not necessary and how it is better without it.
Click to expand...

You guys are amazing. I have now stated several times what definition I was using-the primary definition from ANY source I have looked at.
And you all seem to hope that deep down, I was actually referring to some obscure secondary meaning. How much more clear can I be. :roll:
 
Well here's a novelty idea, remember these:

Sipping_Bird.jpg


Make one that looks like Obama, he can bow all day long!
 
Dittohead not! said:
That is still the purpose of government. The trouble is, government has a tendency to do other things as well, and we, the people have been allowing it to get away with this increase in power.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. But the people cannot say no to the goodies politicians offer in order to get elected. These eventually are called 'rights'. The American people, rightly in my view, once distrusted government and tried to invent ways to minimize its power. Now newer generations are putting their lives in the hands of bureaucrats and big government, hoping that the freedoms they've relinquished will be compensated by greater security.

I should have checked with Ben's quotes before I even began!
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...
 
sawyerloggingon said:
First of all what is this "gesture of hope" BS? I didn't know whether to put this in media bias or here. I have no problem with him giving the guy a formal handshake in a situation like this but he seems like he is really infatuated with the guy and it looks to me like he is bowing again. Why is he so warm and subservient to this commie thug.



View attachment 67157963


Yahoo!
Click to expand...

I thought Cuba was getting respect for the part they played during the South African Border War? You think Obama wants to be a Commie or perhaps he like them? What exactly is your point?
 
BlackAsCoal said:
The right hates everything .. where's the news?

Hopefully, Obama will get something right and open the door to Cuba.
Click to expand...

And that they were surprisngly quiet when Alexander Solzhenitsyns visit to the white house was cancelled during Kissinger s rapprochement with China.
 
Grant said:
Cuba has little to trade and if they did they could trade with Europe or any other place in the area. Any opening with Cuba will only involve sending millions of dollars in aid to support the lavish lifestyles of the Castros and their cronies.
Click to expand...

:roll::roll:
 
Kreton said:
That wasnt a simple handshake now was it?
Click to expand...

Is it ever a simple handshake? :roll:

"Improving, or attempting to improve, relations with any country is always a good thing. Especially when it is done with something as simple as a handshake." You said this, not me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom