Who is admired by Fidel Castro?
#1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091113/ap_on_...olitical_junkie


HAVANA – Think you're obsessed with President Barack Obama and the many challenges he faces at home and abroad?

Well, you're not alone.

Fidel Castro appears to have a fascination with the American leader that would make Obama Girl jealous, writing obsessively not only about his politics, but of his youth and vigor.

And unlike with past American heads-of-state — he slammed President George W. Bush as a genocidal drunk — Castro seems to genuinely like the fresh face in Washington.

Since handing over the Cuban presidency to his brother in February 2008, the 83-year-old has continued to publish his thoughts in essays called "Reflections of Comrade Fidel," which are dutifully printed in state media and read repeatedly on government-controlled radio and television.

Hardly a week goes by without a mention of his nemesis to the north, the most recent on Thursday. In an opinion piece that took up an entire newspaper page, Castro waxed philosophic about everything from Obama's Asia trip to his prospects for re-election.

Last month, Castro pronounced it a good thing that the American president was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In September, he termed Obama's call-to-action on global warming courageous.

"It really is an obsession," said Ann Louis Bardach, a longtime Cuba observer and author of the recent book, "Without Fidel: A Death Foretold in Miami, Havana and Washington."

She noted that Castro confessed to being riveted by coverage of Obama's January inauguration, which he told visiting Argentine President Cristina Fernandez made him very happy.

Obama Girl, a.k.a. model Amber Lee Ettinger, sang of her crush on the presidential candidate in bit of political satire that went viral on the Internet.

"I think he has genuine appreciation for Obama," Bardach said. "He sees in him a charismatic politician and brilliant strategist, and he admires that. Obama is a guy who came from nowhere and wasn't part of the establishment, just like Castro."

Opining on the actions of U.S. leaders is nothing new for Castro, who came to power when Dwight D. Eisenhower was in the Oval Office and has been on the world stage long enough to see 10 other presidents in the same chair.

But in less than a year of near-constant commentary, Castro has called Obama intelligent, sincere, serene, courageous, honest and well-meaning. He praised his work ethic, pondered the historical nature of his barrier-shattering election and fretted that he might face assassination.

"I really hate to criticize Obama," Castro began apologetically in Thursday's column. "And I realize that that job in the United States is a giant headache."

Castro writes that he is impressed by the scope of Obama's agenda in Asia. The trip is scheduled to take the president to Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea for bilateral meetings with world leaders and to participate in two regional summits.

"Perhaps no other U.S. president would be capable of committing to such an intense schedule," said Castro, who was known in his youth for his extraordinary stamina — particularly when on the stump.

Still, the former Cuban leader can't help scolding Obama for continuing what he says is a U.S. tradition of strong-arm tactics and trickery. Castro criticizes him for maintaining the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay and for a pact with Colombia that allows American soldiers increased access to seven military bases in that country.

Some U.S. officials are skeptical of Castro's motives, noting the Cuban leader cannot be too critical of the first African-American president, who is wildly popular among Cuba's population. He also has had to formulate a fitting response to Obama's change in tone.

The American leader came to office promising to extend a hand of friendship to America's adversaries, but he has moved cautiously so far on Cuba. The administration has softened U.S. rhetoric toward the island and loosened some travel restrictions. But Obama has said he has no plans to lift Washington's 47-year trade embargo unless the single-party, communist state accepts some political, economic and social changes.

Cuba has indicated it has no plans to do anything of the sort, but that hasn't stopped the warm words.

By the end of Thursday's opinion piece, Castro seemed to have made up his mind: Obama is not perfect, but he's a lot better than the alternative.

Meaning to Castro that he won't last long atop the empire.

"Soon, the ultra-right of the United States will try to limit (Obama's) rule to four years," Castro warned, looking to 2012. "A Nixon, a Bush or somebody like Cheney will be the new president, and then the purpose of these unjustifiable military bases that threaten the peoples of South America will be very clear."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's funny. I always thought that the US and a tyrannical regime would not see eye to eye. After all, we stand for completely different things, right? We stand for freedom, they stand for screaming about how other countries are not free, while killing their own citizens. We stand for prosperity, they stand for prosperity for the high level government members *exclusively*. So on and so forth. Nice to know that an upstanding world citizen like Fidel, likes our dear president. Well, add him to the list of other worthies.

I know I sleep better at night knowing that our president is liked and admired by scumbags.
Reply
#2
You do know what "see eye to eye" means, right?

-Jester
Reply
#3
One man's tyranny is another man's health care, or energy rationing bill.
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

[Image: yVR5oE.png][Image: VKQ0KLG.png]

Reply
#4
Quote:One man's tyranny is another man's health care, or energy rationing bill.
One man's perspective is another man's stupefying lack of it.

-Jester
Reply
#5
Quote:One man's perspective is another man's stupefying lack of it.
When is the last time you were fined by the government for *not* buying something?
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

[Image: yVR5oE.png][Image: VKQ0KLG.png]

Reply
#6
Quote:When is the last time you were fined by the government for *not* buying something?
That idea is ridiculous, a proposal embraced by those in the pocket of health providers desperately seeking to maintain their rents. Has that idea made real headway? I thought it was just Baucus flailing desperately to defend his corporate paymasters.

Hopefully, even if it does get passed, it doesn't survive contact with the courts.

However, regardless of its merits or lack thereof, it is an idea reached in a democracy, voted on by a government elected by the people in a free and fair election. That's not tyranny. That's not even close to tyranny.

-Jester

Afterthought: Assuming they throw in large subsidies for low-income earners, the whole thing is really just a roundabout way of taxing. You must pay X dollars, you receive a service in return, and they throw you in jail if you don't pay. Seems like taking the very long way around, but if you think about it, it's not that different. Me, I'd have done single-payer from the beginning - it avoids an awful lot of extra bureaucracy.
Reply
#7
It really sucks that people like your president:(
Reply
#8
Quote:Afterthought: Assuming they throw in large subsidies for low-income earners, the whole thing is really just a roundabout way of taxing. You must pay X dollars, you receive a service in return, and they throw you in jail if you don't pay. Seems like taking the very long way around, but if you think about it, it's not that different. Me, I'd have done single-payer from the beginning - it avoids an awful lot of extra bureaucracy.
Your afterthoughts are better than your initial ones. The fine is in the bill. The awful truth is there for you or anyone to read. It will be against the law to not have health insurance. Meaning, no matter how rich you are, you cannot just pay out of pocket. It's not roundabout taxation, since taxes are a proportional levy against everyone equally (albeit according to a totally unfair progressive meter -- but, we've hashed that to death)... The point is that this is a targeted fine against an individual, which in order to be legal will need to correspond to some misdemeanor. But, if it does survive the Senate bill, then it will become a class action lawsuit as soon as they attempt to enforce it which will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court.

So again, since when has a free democracy forced by law its citizens to buy a product? I'm worried about liberty in America, and it's crap like this that keeps me awake at night.
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

[Image: yVR5oE.png][Image: VKQ0KLG.png]

Reply
#9
Quote:It really sucks that people like your president:(
<blockquote>"87 percent of investors surveyed in Europe and Asia say they approve of Obama, compared to just 49 percent in the U.S. Obama’s standing among American investors is even lower on economic matters: Only a quarter of respondents rate his policies favorably, compared with more than half in Europe and Asia. Climate change also ranked differently for investors in the U.S. than investors elsewhere. 61 percent in Asia said higher global temperatures and sea levels are a major problem and 56 percent in Europe agreed, while almost two-thirds in the U.S. say climate change is a minor danger or no real threat, according to survey results, which are available at www.bloomberg.com."</blockquote>

I'd be willing to make an even swap for your PM, Stephen Harper... Deal?
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

[Image: yVR5oE.png][Image: VKQ0KLG.png]

Reply
#10
Quote:The fine is in the bill. The awful truth is there for you or anyone to read. It will be against the law to not have health insurance. Meaning, no matter how rich you are, you cannot just pay out of pocket. It's not roundabout taxation, since taxes are a proportional levy against everyone equally (albeit according to a totally unfair progressive meter -- but, we've hashed that to death)...
It is roundabout taxation. A tax levied against everyone equally just for existing is a Poll Tax. Failure to pay a poll tax is just as illegal as any other kind. This wouldn't be any different from refusal to buy insurance - it's just a different form of tax. (I might add, a particularly stupid, regressive, pointless kind.)

Quote:The point is that this is a targeted fine against an individual, which in order to be legal will need to correspond to some misdemeanor. But, if it does survive the Senate bill, then it will become a class action lawsuit as soon as they attempt to enforce it which will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court.
I'm not seeing how a "targeted fine" against an individual for not buying mandatory insurance is any different from a "targeted fine" for refusal to pay a mandatory tax. It seems like the same principle

Quote:So again, since when has a free democracy forced by law its citizens to buy a product?
Since taxes. They take your money, they spend it on stuff, and the only way you can change it is by changing the government. Sounds like this, no? The small difference is that it's you doing the actual spending, not them.

I really don't like this proposition. It strikes me as a "worst of both worlds" solution that will further enrich insurance companies without generating much in the way of benefits. But its implementation is not conceptually very different from ordinary taxation.

-Jester

Afterthought: Unless more has changed than I understand, this provision doesn't mean that you can't pay out of pocket for medical services. It means you have to be carrying some minimum health care insurance. But if you're extremely rich, it can't possibly be tough to purchase a token health care plan. Cheaper than paying the fines, anyway. They might object to the principle, but it would be a very small cost for the extremely rich.
Reply
#11
Quote:I'd be willing to make an even swap for your PM, Stephen Harper... Deal?
Nobody would be happier with that proposition than Stephen Harper.

-Jester
Reply
#12
K: When is the last time you were fined by the government for *not* buying something?


J: That idea is ridiculous.

For once, you two agree on something.

In response to Ashock: were I President Obama, I'd be more interested in Obama Girl's fandom, on the basis of mammarial excellence. That said, he's a married man, so as a back up position, he might groove on the prospects of having Fidel as a groupie. The possible gifts of delightful Cuban cigars are potential up side here.

Obama still smokes does he not? If he has quit, he picked a bad year to quit smoking.

Free Cubans. That is sweetness and light.

Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
Reply
#13
Quote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091113/ap_on_...olitical_junkie
HAVANA – Think you're obsessed with President Barack Obama and the many challenges he faces at home and abroad?

Well, you're not alone.

Please stop this trolling. That is the 3rd topic you started and subsequently left alone.
True, it is probably funny to see us discuss the same topics over and over again, but it is against the forum rules.
Reply
#14
Quote:Please stop this trolling. That is the 3rd topic you started and subsequently left alone.
True, it is probably funny to see us discuss the same topics over and over again, but it is against the forum rules.
What, someone died and made you a moderator?

Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
Reply
#15
Factcheck.org has their analysis here.

Apparently jail time (for wilful non-payment of the resulting fine for not having insurance) is possible in the house version, but not the senate version. What comes out of the final reconciliation is up for grabs. Still, you'd either have to be incredibly stupid, or engaging in civil disobedience, to force the issue of jail time, when you could just pay the tax. It's not cheap (maximum: the cost of an average health insurance plan) but it's gotta be better than a much larger fine, or a year in the slammer for tax evasion.

-Jester
Reply
#16
Quote:Factcheck.org has their analysis here.

Apparently jail time (for wilful non-payment of the resulting fine for not having insurance) is possible in the house version, but not the senate version. What comes out of the final reconciliation is up for grabs. Still, you'd either have to be incredibly stupid, or engaging in civil disobedience, to force the issue of jail time, when you could just pay the tax. It's not cheap (maximum: the cost of an average health insurance plan) but it's gotta be better than a much larger fine, or a year in the slammer for tax evasion.
So you think the language is that there is a tax on the failure to buy health insurance.

Maybe we could just put a tax on the failure of people to earn an income as well.


”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

[Image: yVR5oE.png][Image: VKQ0KLG.png]

Reply
#17
Quote:So you think the language is that there is a tax on the failure to buy health insurance.
Yes.

Quote:That mandate requires people to have health insurance, unless they are below a certain income threshold ($9,350 for singles, $18,700 for couples in 2009). Those who don’t get coverage will be subject to a tax of 2.5 percent of their adjusted income beyond that threshold, up to the cost of the average national premium.
If I am understanding it correctly, that means something like this, assuming the baseline individual plan is 5,000 per year.

<$9,350 = $0
$15,000 = $141
$30,000 = $516
$50,000 = $1016
$100,000 = $2266
$200,000 = $4766
And beyond $220,000 or so, you might as well just buy the stupid plan.

That actually looks reasonably progressive. But the penalties are not stiff enough at the bottom end to really encourage the purchase of insurance - it seems likely they'll just end up as a large tax increase on the poor, who will remain uninsured, defeating the whole point. All the while managing to preserve a captive market for predatory HMOs, insurance companies, and big pharma. Faaantastic.

Quote:Maybe we could just put a tax on the failure of people to earn an income as well.
Ah, yes, the ever popular "regressive tax", that taxes people in *inverse* proportion to their income. At least you'd create an incentive to earn more!

-Jester
Reply
#18
Quote:Ah, yes, the ever popular "regressive tax", that taxes people in *inverse* proportion to their income. At least you'd create an incentive to earn more!
It seems that the solution to solving the lack of health insurance, was to put a tax on not having it. So, by the same logic, we can cure unemployment by taxing it as well. And, in fact, we can now end the war on poverty by just declaring poverty to be a misdemeanor and fining any one who is poor. We should have thought of this strategy back in 1933.
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

[Image: yVR5oE.png][Image: VKQ0KLG.png]

Reply
#19
Quote: I'd be more interested in Obama Girl's fandom, on the basis of mammarial excellence.

Honestly, that's the only thing that truly caught my attention during the presidential elections.;)Oops.
With great power comes the great need to blame other people.
Guild Wars 2: (ArchonWing.9480) 
Battle.net (ArchonWing.1480)
Reply
#20
Quote:It really sucks that people like your president:(


Depends on the people, no?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)