Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Rand Paul’s Cuba Moment

Rand Paul’s Cuba Moment

The revolution will take place online, apparently.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) had some strong words for fellow senator Rand Paul (R-KY) over his libertarian take on the end of the Cuban trade embargo.

So strong, in fact, that Paul decided to take the fight to the internet.

During his Thursday night appearance on “The Kelly File,” Rubio had this to say about Paul and his anti-embargo cohorts:

“Like many people that have been opining, he has no idea what he’s talking about,” Rubio said Thursday night on Fox News’s “The Kelly File.”

Earlier on Thursday, Paul had voiced support for Obama’s surprise move on Wednesday to open an embassy in Cuba as well as ease economic and travel restrictions.
“The 50-year embargo just hasn’t worked,” Paul said. “If the goal is regime change, it sure doesn’t seem to be working, and probably it punishes the people more than the regime because the regime can blame the embargo for hardship.”

“Look, Venezuela’s economy looks like Cuba’s economy now,” Rubio said. “You can’t even buy toilet paper in Caracas. And there’s no embargo on Venezuela. What Venezuela has in common with Cuba, is they both have adopted radical socialist governmental policies.

“And I would expect that people would understand that if they just took a moment to analyze that, they would realize that the embargo is not what’s hurting the Cuban people,” Rubio added. “It’s the lack of freedom and the lack of competent leaders.”

Not to be outdone by a fellow prospective presidential contender, Paul took to Facebook for what many are now calling an ill-advised rant:

paul-on-rubio

The trolling continued on Twitter:

(Isn’t there a built-in moat between the US and Cuba? Anyway…)

It was part snark, part sincerity, and almost no one can agree as to whether or not it resulted in a net gain for Paul outside of his own circle of solidified libertarian voters.

Paul is pushing this concept of “isolationism” as it relates to the Cuban embargo, but while the sentiment is understood, the underlying philosophy and application just isn’t resonating with GOP primary voters.

As Noah Rothman at Hot Air points out:

Paul represents a libertarian wing of the GOP which provides the party with a critical infusion of youth and vitality. On the domestic front, libertarian policy prescriptions are often inspired and would if adopted produce the long-sought conservative goal of reduced governmental interference into American lives. Paul’s approach to foreign policy matters are, however, not nearly as well-founded as are his domestic reforms.

If Paul’s intention in this burst of tweets was to both reveal his ignorance of the history of normalizing relationships with communist countries and to almost perfectly echo the most liberal president in modern American history, mission accomplished. His judgment has, however, been exposed by this episode as rather questionable.

Part of Paul’s problem is that Rubio has spent quite a bit of time over the past year establishing himself as a key player in foreign policymaking. Being the son of Cuban immigrants has given him additional credibility on the issue, and it’s for this reason that Paul perhaps should have thought twice before making Cuba this week’s hill to die on.

h/t The Shark Tank

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

evidently Rand Paul is too young (and cant read history) to know how this situation with Cuba came to be. He should talk first hand with the companies and people whose property was Nationalized. Do we want to normalize trade with a government who owns everything? How does that help people?

    jayjerome66 in reply to sdharms. | December 20, 2014 at 12:04 pm

    Talk about reading history – like our next door neighbor Canada’s history with Cuba. There are in total 85 Canadian companies and subsidiaries operating in Cuba, including brewer Labatt Breweries. They have an Embassy there, and have since 1945. England has an embassy in Havana, and conducts bilateral trade and other economic interests with Cuba. Australia has formally recognized Cuba since 1989, and maintains ‘friendly’ relations with them.

    Those English speaking nations know how to talk diplomacy.
    Rand Paul is right on this one, the critics are behind the curve, as usual

      SmokeVanThorn in reply to jayjerome66. | December 20, 2014 at 3:06 pm

      OK, history expert – Paul’s theory is that “normalizing” relations will lead to “liberalization” in Cuba. Tell us how that smart diplomacy by Canada, England and Australia has fostered economic and political liberty.

      Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | December 20, 2014 at 4:15 pm

      You poor boob!

      You just provided the entire case against the “gee, if we only traded with Cu-ber, they’d be all happy an’ stuff, and they’d be capitalists” bromide.

      They DO trade with the free world.

      They STILL are grindingly poor.

      Why do you THINK that is…???

        jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | December 22, 2014 at 6:23 pm

        You really are an ill-informed bozo. The reason other nations haven’t rushed in to help the Cubans economically is the Helms-Burton Act, or haven’t you heard of it? The act extended the embargo to apply to foreign companies trading with Cuba, penalizing any that traded with Cuba, or their subsidiaries doing business in the US. Not only financial sanctions, the act allows banning company leadership entry into the US as well.

        The law was promoted for passage to bring about “a peaceful transition to a representative democracy and market economy in Cuba.” In case you haven’t noticed, it hasn’t accomplish that. A half a century of embargo, and nothing’s changed politically in Cuba.

        A signpost of stupidity is repeating the same dopy mistake over and over. The yammering embargo proponents are like dumbells who try and knock down a brick wall by banging their heads against it. After half a century of failure to even dent the wall, you’d think they’d figure it out: but all that futile head knocking scrambles the brains in those noggins. That’s what tends to happen to ideologues – they become idiot-logues.

        A shrinking minority of Americans remains in favor of continuing the embargo. That goes for the Cuban American community in South Florida, 52% are in favor of ending the embargo; 68% in favor of restoring diplomatic relations with Cuba. The percentages are way higher for younger Cuban Americans born here, and higher for newly arrived Cuban immigrants.

        http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2014/1221/Obama-gains-Republican-allies-and-younger-Cuban-Americans-on-Cuba-video

        You and Rubio and the rest of the Regressives are on the wrong side of this issue, Who wouldda guessed?

          “The reason other nations haven’t rushed in to help the Cubans economically is the Helms-Burton Act, or haven’t you heard of it?”

          BS, it hasn’t stopped other countries from trading with the commie regime in Cuba.

          Oh, by the way, why does Cuba, a once (pre castro) well off country have to rely on trade with us to get out of the economic dungeon? We can damn well trade with who we want. You, as is typical of all Marxists, always blame something other than the failed system that produces grinding poverty every single place it is tried. Not to mention the systematic murder of anyone that disagrees with the corrupt Marxist government. Last century saw the murder of 100 millon + by those governments.

      That sound you hear are the crickets chirping…

        SmokeVanThorn in reply to Barry. | December 21, 2014 at 9:35 pm

        I’m sure you’re as surprised as I am, Barry, that the clownshoe who accuses other of being ignorant of history doesn’t even try to defend his nonsensical claims.

Paul is not the Libertarian on this issue.

McCarthy notes that the law are written to provide aid when the Castro regime “…in return, [The Castro regime] stops terrorizing its citizens, respects basic human and civil rights, respects democratic freedoms, refrains from arming terrorists and insurrectionists, liberalizes its economy, establishes a free press, and lays the groundwork for free and fair elections…”

“…In other words, it has been American policy [The Law] for decades – the policy Obama says does not “work” – that the United States may and should provide significant aid as long as Cuba, in return, stops terrorizing its citizens, respects basic human and civil rights, respects democratic freedoms, refrains from arming terrorists and insurrectionists, liberalizes its economy, establishes a free press, and lays the groundwork for free and fair elections.

So, if that hasn’t “worked” to encourage Cuban reform, what is the president suggesting will “work”? Giving Cuba aid and legitimacy without requiring the regime to change? Why would we want to give an American taxpayer dime to, or help legitimize in any way, a regime that rejects these basic elements of a civilized society?…”

http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2014/12/18/what-part-of-keeping-cuba-isolated-has-not-worked/?singlepage=true

In addition. I can only think Obama’s default position is to lie. Yesterday he said that his options re the embargo are limited (I assume he is trying to lull his opponents into a false sense of security.) However, all he has to do is certify that the Castro regime has met the terms of the laws and he can OK trade.

As McCarthy says:
“…And has it occurred to the media and the president’s other apologists that American law and policy have not relentlessly mandated a blockade on and isolation of Cuba for all these years? All that had to happen to eliminate the restrictions, without any congressional action, was a halt to the persecution of the Cuban people by the Castro dictatorship.

The blockade is still in place because the Castro regime will not change and therefore Obama cannot make the required representations…”

http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2014/12/18/what-part-of-keeping-cuba-isolated-has-not-worked/?singlepage=true

No, Rand, we shouldn’t be propping up China or Cuba. Do you think the trilateral commission — HW Bush suck-up to China has “worked?” Ask my fellow Catholics who refuse to join the government church. Murder, imprisonment, torture.

As for Cuba, read this lady of Cuban descent. Cuba is a hell hole of terror, murder, and torture. The reason our policies haven’t worked is because others keep trading with Cuba. But worse, it’s because of wusses like Jack Kennedy and Hussein Obama who let thugs like the Castros come to power and maintain it.

Lighten up on RP the Younger. He’s just figuring out what the outer limits are to this foreign policy playground he’s in.

Guaranteed when he’s tired of stretching thin to please everyone, he’ll curl up underneath his father the apple tree.

Rubio’s claim that because Venezuelans are poor, Cubans would be no better off today if there had never been an embargo sounds like a logical fallacy question straight off the LSAT.

@davod: Wanting to remove coercive government trade restrictions isn’t a libertarian policy prescription? Hello?

@JerryB: Do you honestly believe that allowing U.S. citizens to trade freely with Cuban citizens is the same thing as the US government “propping up” Cuba?

It seems that the Conservative calculus on this issue is as follows: 1. Obama proposed something, therefore 2. All Republicans must oppose it.

The embargo has been in place for 50 years. Sold by bureaucrats as an effective way to weaken Castro’s dictatorial powers, by that measure it’s been a complete and total failure.

If Conservatives won’t get rid of a law that prevents private parties from trading with one another even though that law has achieved absolutely zero policy goals in 50 years, why do they claim to support limited government at all?

    Ragspierre in reply to Goose. | December 20, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    Wholly CRAP, what a lode of bullshit!

    Just as the MOST glaring example, you DON’T “freely trade” with a producer in Cuba. Their production is stripped from them by the slave state they groan under.

    What an idiot…!!!

      Wow, it sure didn’t take long to attract LI’s resident imbecile! As much as I enjoy watching you embarrass yourself, I wouldn’t feel right if I didn’t at least give you the first clue: Google “private property business Cuba.”

        Barry in reply to Goose. | December 21, 2014 at 12:09 am

        “Google “private property business Cuba.” ”

        OK, first page of results return the following items:

        “In 1966-68, the Castro government nationalized all remaining privately owned business entities in Cuba, down to the level of street vendors.”

        “Cuba’s economic freedom score is 28.7, making its economy one of the world’s least free.”

        “Since all Cuban land is owned or at least controlled by the Cuban government”

        Not sure what you think Mr. google proves, but I don’t think it is what you think.

    JerryB in reply to Goose. | December 20, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    You ignore two things, 1) that other nations’ trade with Cuba and previous Soviet handouts have undermined our embargo, and 2) the perspective of the murdered and currently imprisoned dissidents.

    The failure is with policies that tolerate murderous commie pigs like Castro. Have we improved China — freedom, I mean, not their military which now enjoys the benefit of our technology? Haven’t we seen, rather, that we are slipping toward their methods? Our NSA, IRS, etc.? Even corporate folks catch on, e.g., Google helping the Chicoms block Internet access — and maybe turning over info to the gov’t?

    Our foreign policy is a mess, yes. We shouldn’t be kissing China. We shouldn’t have allowed Castro to take Cuba, and murderers of his ilk to keep most of Central America enslaved. No, we find it more stimulating to march halfway around the world to take out Saddam Hussein.

    The real issue? Americans have forgotten what Communism is: you do what you’re told or get shot. While pansy pinko libs wouldn’t tolerate that here, they seem perfectly fine with allowing grubby commoners around the world enjoy such a government.

      Barry in reply to JerryB. | December 20, 2014 at 6:57 pm

      “While pansy pinko libs wouldn’t tolerate that here…”

      A small nitpick – they would tolerate it and encourage it here. They just cannot do it, yet.

        JerryB in reply to Barry. | December 20, 2014 at 9:56 pm

        Yeah, that’s right, as long as they’d be in charge. It’s when the gig is up that the lib “useful idiots” are the first ones lined up and shot. Then they’ll squeal, “Fidel, don’t you love me anymore?”

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to JerryB. | December 23, 2014 at 6:27 am

      It’s all kind of moot, since obola is basically gift-wrapping nukes for Iran.

      But yeah, Paul made an ass of himself. I hope Rubio doesn’t engage with him on this.

      Paul is going to be a real bastard to get rid of in the ’16 GOP prez primary.

    Exiliado in reply to Goose. | December 20, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    Ignorance is not a virtue. Stop parading yours around.

    Cuba’s economy is run by the state. Trade with Cuba means trading with the communist government, not with the citizens.

    There are very limited trades allowed to private citizens, and only with previous approval/licensing by the government. For example, Cubans can apply for a license operate a small goat cart to entertain children.

      The Cuban economy is partly run by the state and partly run by private interests. But even if its dictators tried to exert total control, some people–due to human nature as well as communism’s inherent incompatibility with reality–will find a way around it. This is why black markets are a defining characteristic of centrally-controlled economies.

      The notion that trade with Cuba is necessarily trade with Castro is collectivist nonsense and plainly false.

        Ragspierre in reply to Goose. | December 21, 2014 at 12:54 am

        “The notion that trade with Cuba is necessarily trade with Castro is collectivist nonsense and plainly false.”

        Well, as stupid, unsupported didactic statements go, THAT is a winner.

        It’s also, again…some more…another time…a LIE.

        IF you traded with Cuba, you do so in DOLLARS. You are allowed to convert DOLLARS to a special currency they allow to foreigners.

        Ordinary Cubans are NOT allowed to posses DOLLARS. They can only trade in PESOS, unique to Cuba and worthless anywhere else.

        Ergo, IF a Cuban receives your DOLLARS they ALL go to “Castro” (the government). If they keep any, they are subject to…at best…confiscation. They CANNOT LEGALLY be used as currency for any exchange in Cuba.

        When they exchange DOLLARS for PESOS, they can only do so at a rate set by…wait for it…”Castro”.

        So, IF you are doing business in Cuba, YOU ARE doing business with “Castro”, and on his terms.

        And what’s this “collectivist nonsense” bullshit?

          jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | December 23, 2014 at 12:29 pm

          “Well, as stupid, unsupported didactic statements go”

          Talk about the pot calling the kettle black…
          And what part of the concept ‘black market’ don’t you get, dunderhead?

    Barry in reply to Goose. | December 20, 2014 at 7:11 pm

    “It seems that the Conservative calculus on this issue is as follows: 1. Obama proposed something, therefore 2. All Republicans must oppose it.”

    Damn good reason. I’m pretty certain by now that ANYTHING the pResident proposes is going to be bad for the USA and good for its enemies.

    “The embargo has been in place for 50 years. Sold by bureaucrats as an effective way to weaken Castro’s dictatorial powers, by that measure it’s been a complete and total failure.”

    By what measure? His dictatorial powers are weaker than they would be sans embargo. That they have not resulted in freedom for the Cuban people doesn’t mean they’ve had no desirable effect.

    “If Conservatives won’t get rid of a law that prevents private parties from trading with one another even though that law has achieved absolutely zero policy goals in 50 years, why do they claim to support limited government at all?”

    Are you fucking dense? Do you think the US government policy towards Cuba has been determined solely by conservatives?

    The problem with Cuba is not a trade embargo by the USA. The problem with Cuba is the dictatorial communist regime oppressing the people. The same problem exists in China, North Korea, we could go on. As far as I’m concerned I would do know business with any communist oppressor of people.

      Goose in reply to Barry. | December 20, 2014 at 11:51 pm

      “Are you fucking dense? Do you think the US government policy towards Cuba has been determined solely by conservatives?”

      This is a non-sequitur. The political ideology of those who imposed and sustained the embargo is irrelevant to the question of whether we should now repeal it.

      “The problem with Cuba is not a trade embargo by the USA.”

      I agree that the trade embargo hasn’t been a problem for Castro, if that’s what you mean.

      “As far as I’m concerned I would do know business with any communist oppressor of people.”

      And yet you support granting your government complete power to decide which citizens of which nations its people can do business with? Makes sense.

        Barry in reply to Goose. | December 21, 2014 at 12:20 am

        “This is a non-sequitur. The political ideology of those who imposed and sustained the embargo is irrelevant to the question of whether we should now repeal it.”

        Of course it follows. Conservatives were not the only (or leading) proponents of the embargo of Cuba. They are certainly not the only proponents of keeping it. I suggest you go back for a refresher course in logic.

        “I agree that the trade embargo hasn’t been a problem for Castro, if that’s what you mean.”

        Then why are you concerned with ending it? I’m quite certain your interest isn’t for the good of the USA. The Cuban people have a problem. They are oppressed, tortured, murdered, and jailed. Granted the embargo hasn’t changed that fact.

        “And yet you support granting your government complete power to decide which citizens of which nations its people can do business with? Makes sense.”

        Are you suggesting the government should have no power to regulate trade? I have no idea what your response means since I suggested not doing business with communist oppressors.

        Are you wearing your Che T-shirt?

        Ragspierre in reply to Goose. | December 21, 2014 at 12:40 am

        “I agree that the trade embargo hasn’t been a problem for Castro, if that’s what you mean.”

        Well, NOTHING has been a “problem” for Castro. He and his elite eat, drink, smoke and live well. I’m sure he has vast wealth somewhere.

        Except where it HAS been a problem for Castro, as in helping contain his murderous ass to his little hell-on-earth. As in signaling to and reminding all the world that he is a pariah and his government a stench in the nose of humanity.

        “And yet you support granting your government complete power to decide which citizens of which nations its people can do business with? Makes sense.”

        Well, as lies go, yeh. You could do business with Cuba, and I think you really should. Not with its citizens, of course, unless you mean a member of the elite. Because its citizens can’t DO business, and they’d be in deep shit if you were found to be in too close communication with them.

        You really are too stupid to live. And you really SHOULD make it a point to gather up all you have and invest in Cuba. Do it this week, and keep in touch. Please. We’ll be looking for your reports.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Barry. | December 23, 2014 at 6:32 am

      That’s right.

      I would add that what this really is is obola giving Castro a bail-out.

      jayjerome66 in reply to Barry. | December 23, 2014 at 12:40 pm

      “That they (the embargo restrictions) have not resulted in freedom for the Cuban people doesn’t mean they’ve had no desirable effect.

      Name one desirable effect. The ones mostly punished by the embargo are the Cuban people, who directly continue to suffer from them. You need to take your head out of your butt and face that truth. Doubt it? Ask the most recent Cuban immigrants to Florida, who are strongly AGAINST the embargo, because it continues to hurt friends and relatives they left behind there.

      Stupid is as stupid does, as they say; and it’s obvious which side of stupid those who continue to support the embargo are on.

        “Name one desirable effect.”

        Containment. Cuba has not been free to export their cruel brand of fascism to other countries quite so easily.

Paul used “isolationist” like it’s a bad thing (which, in fact he does NOT).

But Cuba needed isolating, and that was an important part of the embargo.

You are wise to isolate a malignant, aggressively expansive, and deadly thing until it can be killed or it dies.

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 20, 2014 at 10:17 am

    Paul used “isolationist” like he believes it’s a bad thing (which, in fact he does NOT).

    Now, why don’t whoever left that negative feedback step up and state why? I mean, assuming you even know.

    jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | December 23, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    “But Cuba needed isolating..”

    That worked real good, didn’t it dum-dum?
    Almost every nation on the planet has an embassy or consulate in Cuba, and every nation in the Americans (except the US) has an embassy on Cuban soil.

      Geez, if we just build and staff an embassy in cuba everyone will happy and rainbowed unicorns will fill the streets. Sniff..

      Meanwhile, the reality is every single person in cuba will still struggle to feed their selves, the political prisoners will still be tortured and jailed for life, and you will still believe Marxism is the true path to wealth and peace.

      The cuban government will continue to try and export Marxist fascism to the rest of SA.

      Your ignorance is highlighted here.

Can someone please explain to me how the fact that Marco Rubio’s parents are from Cuba gives him ‘extra credibility’ on anything, least of all ‘establishing himself as a key player in foreign policymaking?

Does the fact that Obama’s father was from Kenya give him ‘extra credibility’ in foreign policy, too?

Although Obama’s foreign policy has been abysmal, there is absolutely nothing unreasonable about establishing diplomatic relations with the Castro regime. The childish idea that severing ties with an established state simply because we find it ideologically unpalatable (or, indeed, that it is an oppressive hellhole) is one of the stupid ideas to work its way into American foreign policy thanks to the Wilson Administration.

As a reminder:

* We currently have diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, an oppressive communist regime.

* We currently have diplomatic relations with the Republic of Zimbabwe, led by a racist, corrupt authoritarian president.

* We had diplomatic relations in the 1980s with the Republic of Nicaragua, at the same time we were funding anti-communist rebels fighting to overthrow that government.

* We had diplomatic relations with the collaborationist Vichy regime in France, at the same time that General Patton’s Western Task Force was overpowering Vichy soldiers in Casablanca by force of arms.

Establishing an embassy is not to give a particular endorsement to the regime, nor is it a signal that the Castroite regime is the one that controls Cuba, and at this time is the one that will need to be addressed in matters relating to that nation.

    Ragspierre in reply to jkp. | December 20, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    “Can someone please explain to me how the fact that Marco Rubio’s parents are from Cuba gives him ‘extra credibility’ on anything…”

    No. I doubt it. It’s one of those “if you have to ask” kinda deals…

      jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | December 21, 2014 at 12:01 am

      More like one of those ‘if you don’t get it it’s because you’re dense’ kind of things. If someone from childhood is brought up in a house where they’re indoctrinated with a politicized angry view by their parents it tends to skew their objectivity. Trusting Rubio to make rational objective decisions about Cuba is like trusting Michael Brown’s stepfather to come to a reasonable conclusion after reading all the Officer Wilson grand jury testimony. Or trusting your irrational opinions on anything Obama does. Even if occasionally as in this instance he gets it right, you’ll find some bilious reason to knock it. You’re like a bobble head doll, always predictably shaking its head the same way no matter what the question.

        Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | December 21, 2014 at 12:13 am

        Oh, IIIIIIII see now…

        If someone hates Collectivism like poison, they aren’t “objective” by your standards.

        No, indeed. Why nooooooobody could “objectively” look at its effects in killing ten of millions, destroying the lives of entire generations of people, making lying a science, and creating a legacy of lies that persists to this day. Noooooobody could “objectively” come to the conclusion that it is the single worst blight on human-kind in the history of the world

        No, no. THAT would be “anger” and “emotion”.

        Ergo, we should all defer to someone like you, and recuse ourselves when any issue touching matters you are “objective” about. Because we are not confirmed in our opinions by observation and good sense. WE are “bobble-heads” who simply knee-jerk.

        Thanks, ace, for clarifying who YOU are.

    retire05 in reply to jkp. | December 20, 2014 at 4:07 pm

    “Can someone please explain to me how the fact that Marco Rubio’s parents are from Cuba gives him ‘extra credibility’ on anything, least of all ‘establishing himself as a key player in foreign policymaking?”

    Oh, I don’t know. Maybe growing up with parents who fled the horror that is Cuba under the Castro boot would give someone better insight than someone who grew up with a man who would not go to war under any circumstances and is a true isolationist?

    “Establishing an embassy is not to give a particular endorsement to the regime, nor is it a signal that the Castroite regime is the one that controls Cuba, and at this time is the one that will need to be addressed in matters relating to that nation.”

    Establishing an embassy is most definitely an endorsement of any government by giving it legitimacy. That is what Obama is doing; recognizing the Castro government as legitimate when it is nothing more than just another dictatorship that has persecuted its people for over half a century.

    It is people like you that don’t eve understand that the average Cuban doesn’t even have access to ordinary soap. And while it is fairly easy to make soap, it is illegal to do so in Cuba as it would be considered a business and all business is basically owned by the Castro brothers. Making simple soap will land you in a Cuban jail, sans trial.

    But then, this Administration never met a tin pot dictator it didn’t like. Remember Morsi? The Administration’s hand picked dictator for Egypt?

    Obama has zero foreign policy acumen. Every thing he touches turns to pure manure. Cube will not be the exception.

      Indeed, so the fact that one has bitter axes to grind due to past family involvement in a bitter fight in the ‘old country’ means that this person is someone who will make good decisions about American national interests? Is that what you’re saying?

      For the record: I am quite aware of the shithole that Cuba has become, and have no love for the red fascists in Havana. I am also quite aware of quite a few other shitholes around the world where the U.S. has long maintained a diplomatic presence. In my judgement, simply establishing an embassy will overturn a policy that, at this point, is based on emotion and not an objective assessment of American interests.

      The comments I’ve seen in this thread have, so far, only reinforced that conviction.

Paul does not seem to notice how fallacious his statements are because he is just acting like a typical internet troll.

With this behavior he not only makes a fool of himself; he shames and embarrasses the office he represents, his party and his country.

    jayjerome66 in reply to Exiliado. | December 22, 2014 at 6:33 pm

    around 65% of Americans agree with Rand on Cuba. And it will probably reach 70% by next year. Are those Americans shaming the country too? Could it be you’re shaming American by supporting an embargo that almost all our allies think is misguided? Actually they think it’s stupid.

Drudge headline: “CASTRO: CUBA STAYS COMMUNIST”

I’m shocked. Barry? Hello Barry?

    jayjerome66 in reply to JerryB. | December 22, 2014 at 6:36 pm

    I’m shocked to learn China has ALSO decided to remain communist! And the Socialist Republic of Vietnam too!

    We need to shut down our embassies in both countries, and embargo them now!

    Er… maybe after Christmas in case we have to return any of our gifts to China…

IMHO, all you need to know, and all you need to argue, is that Cuba’s government will keep 92% of the salary paid to Cuban workers by foreign firms.

    jayjerome66 in reply to JBourque. | December 21, 2014 at 12:16 am

    8% is better than 0%. Jobs from foreign investments put food on the table for thousands of Cuban workers, and keep them from starving. You think Canada and England and Australia – democracies – should stop doing business with Cuba and cut off those jobs their investments create because Cuba is a Communist country? What about the nearly million Canadian tourists who vacation in Cuba each year, you suggesting the money they spend there for rooms and food and gifts -and tips- is detrimental to the Cuban workers who earn a percentage of it?

      Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | December 21, 2014 at 12:28 am

      Slaves are not useful when you allow them to stave.

      Dealing with a slave owner certainly imparts an economic benefit to the slaves, too. So, you could make exactly the same lame argument you do here for dealing with a slave owner.

      Cuba has been free to deal with all the world for many years. Yet the people are under grinding poverty, and they generally enjoy nothing for what they produce.

      Cubans could buy consumer goods from all over the world. Why don’t they?

      Why, again, has capital not flooded into Cuba to fill the void American interests left? Why would it do so now?

      Ask yourself some simple, dumb questions before you make yourself a worse hiss and by-word here.

        jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | December 21, 2014 at 1:00 am

        You saying the government of Cuba is unfair to it’s citizens? No kidding? Well, that changes my opinion of the whole recognition thing. Let’s not establish any relations with them, diplomatic or otherwise, or maintain them with any other nation that mistreats or bullies their people.

        Let’s start by closing our embassy in Bolivia. Although it’s a representative democratic republic, we know it’s as repressive in many ways as the Cuban dictatorship. And Bolivia is as poor a nation as Cuba: 60% of the population live in poverty, and 38% in extreme poverty. Talk about defacto slave labor! So let’s embargo them too, until they improve economic conditions there, and the repressive government in power is replaced by one more conducive to our standards. Let’s organize a protest to get Bolivia dropped from diplomatic recognition ASAP. I’ll get the signs painted: NO PROSPERITY – NO DIPLOMACY!

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | December 21, 2014 at 1:49 am

          “You saying the government of Cuba is unfair to it’s citizens?”

          No. But you are lying about what I did say.

          “Talk about defacto slave labor!”

          Poverty isn’t “slave labor”. And you are too stupid to bother with any further.

          jayjerome66 in reply to jayjerome66. | December 22, 2014 at 6:41 pm

          Ragspierre: Having memory problems? Concentration difficulties? Comprehension issues?

          You’re the one who brought up the topic of slaves, above: “Slaves are not useful when you allow them to stave…”

          Your words… remember now?

      “8% is better than 0%”

      Otherwise known as slavery. You should try it.

      Why is it that Cuba went from being a nation that was fairly well off before the communist revolution to one of the poorest places on the planet?

    jayjerome66 in reply to JBourque. | December 23, 2014 at 1:23 pm

    That 92% doesn’t sound too good. Until you start putting it in perspective. It includes a national health care program, that in some ways is better then Obama-care (more doctors per population, free medicine, no co-pays), free education at all levels, subsidized housing and utilities and food programs. If they get it down to 90% it’s probably equivalent to what most Americans pay here for the same services in taxes and out of pocket expenses.

      You’re actually Michael moreon aren’t you/ Come on, fess up.

      Cuban national health care.

      Free education.

      Free medicine.

      Subsidized housing

      Subsidized utilities

      Subsidized food

      Sounds so good to a Marxist, but I don’t understand something. There seems to be quite a few people risking their lives in the water between Cuba and Florida to leave one country for another. Do you know which way they are going?

      You clueless Marxist, free means none, as in those goods and services just basically don’t exist unless you are in the top 0.1% of the party.

      Look, I’m giving away free 1 million dollar bills, as soon as I get some.

Because the Castro Brothers screwed it up, driving out most of the middle class and business class. And because the US did its best to starve it after that, economically and financially, and because the Soviet Union dissolved, removing Cuba’s main source of oil and gas, and its main customer for exports and imports (an 80% drop).

Here, educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Period#Overview

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend