Goddamn the bad luck (Castro falls)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There are very few people on this earth that I actually wish dead, and that old tyrant Fidel is very much on that list.

Right, because Cuba under Fulgencio Batista was just so much better, huh?

I will quote this for posterity to remind people of just what exactly BS said as the third reply in this thread (obviously, thus, not having started the discussion). Observe the wording and tenor of what he wrote and see him caught bald-faced in his lame ass attempt at changing what he meant.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

<snip worthless flamage>

I don't see any "purpose" in the OP. I don't see any question, or request for opinions, or anything. All I see is an open door to discuss Castro. So that's what I did. What did I hi-jack? A bunch of me-too crap where we all share the same death wish as Glocksman?

You did not open the door to discuss Castro. You posted a lame-ass question predicated on the ASSumption that YOU made that Glocksman was a Bastita supporter. Your own words, as posted immediately above, condemn you.

Are you fucking retarded?

No, but I know you are. Even if this was going to turn into some worthless me-tooing, it is the job of the moderators to lock the thread. It is not your job to go in and hijack it, which in fact is worse than what might have happened, another ASSumption on record for BS in this thread. It's nice to watch ASSumptions being used to cover for ASSumptions.

And even if I did hi-jack some mysterious discussion, trolling is hi-jacking on purpose. Notice the condition?

Yes, the condition that you have in fact already admitted in this thread that you hijacked it on purpose.

How does discussing Castro and showing it wasn't paradise under Batisto either mean I'm fucking apologising for anybody? "I understand Castro, and I think he is evil" isn't a contradiction, look the word "understand" up.

The point of this thread was to condemn Castro for crimes that anyone brainless dumbshit can know are evil. Your response? You run in saying, "well, life was really bad under Batista, too!" Which is at best an irrelevant red herring and much more likely groundless insinuation.

The equivalency argument where you think "understanding" == "apologising"? Maybe I should have used the word "grasp" instead of "understand", but it still doesn't change the fact you've been assuming things without first asking.

Read your own fucking posts in this thread, troll.

I didn't argue against the condemnation of Castro, I'm arguing against YOU and your pathetic strawman of where I wanted to go with my first post.

It isn't a strawman, as anyone reading your first post can see.

Why, because I asked for evidence on the number of refugees? On the number of people killed? Does me asking for evidence equate to me not believing? No. So once again you try making leaps in my argument, what a surprise.

That is NOT the evidence you asked for. I stated:

Incidently--you do realize that the people who supported the communist revolution thought they were voting in socialist proletarian-dictatorship, or "worker's democracy", not an absolute tyrant who would kill thousands, make tens of thousands flee, cause civil wars in other countries, etc?

You then said:

Really? Links?

Now, let's see what the topic of what you quoted is, again... Oh, that's right, it's that the people who supported Castro were deceived by propaganda. And I have just proven that is true, so either you are dissambling again or else you're just to stupid to understand what you yourself have written. Either way you need to go fuck off and die.

What posts did I move?

You moved the ground rules of the argument, you stupid fuck. This is really quite impressive--if that statement is taken at face value (and I see no reason why it should not be) it appears you think you're being accused of some bizarre post manipulation, which indicates you've probably never read the rules of this board and don't understand a single goddamned logic rule.

[BoredShirtless]

There are very few people on this earth that I actually wish dead, and that old tyrant Fidel is very much on that list.

Right, because Cuba under Fulgencio Batista was just so much better, huh?

I will quote this for posterity to remind people of just what exactly BS said as the third reply in this thread (obviously, thus, not having started the discussion). Observe the wording and tenor of what he wrote and see him caught bald-faced in his lame ass attempt at changing what he meant.

Just in case no one else sees what I meant:

1. I'm insinuating that Glocksman supports Batisto
2. Castro doesn't deserve to be condemned

It's amazing how many opinions you can gleen from one question, isn't it?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ahhh, the delicious sensation of schadenfreud as an enemy buries himself.

[Iceberg]

For what it's worth, Marina isn't stupid, she's deluded (see appropriate thread). There's a difference.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

For what it's worth, Marina isn't stupid, she's deluded (see appropriate thread). There's a difference.

You know, I was actually interested in seeing what you might have to say on this (It feels a bit like old times for me, really. We get rid of most of the stupid ones here before they can be truly had fun with). Sadly you had to go off and bring up an even larger irrelevancy than BS did. Though I suppose the Fates decreed that to complete the utter destruction of this thread, whatever point it might have had in the first place.

[Iceberg]

Marina, I already said my piece on Castro a while ago. I don't care about him. I really don't. I think he's our own little backyard tin-pot dictator, and in that way he somewhat amuses me, but I also think our policy toward Cuba is prolonging his rule.

[Darth Wong]

America hates Fidel Castro because he screwed over a lot of American corporations. Human rights are nothing but a smokescreen for this corporatist grudge, as many other countries have done a lot worse (China, anyone?) without being put under a permanent embargo.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

America hates Fidel Castro because he screwed over a lot of American corporations. Human rights are nothing but a smokescreen for this corporatist grudge, as many other countries have done a lot worse (China, anyone?) without being put under a permanent embargo.

That's part of it, and there's no doubt that the sugar industry absolutely and rather ruthlessly dominated Cuba; but there are a host of other factors dating back nearly two centuries in some cases in an odd sort of love-hate relationship. An interesting one to consider is how big the Mob was in US politics then--and the fact that they damn near ran Havana in the 50s. In some ways, Los Vegas exists as what it is today because Americans can no longer fly down to Havana for the same reasons as they did in the 50s. And, of course, that same proximity (combined with a very large, very vocal refugee community--created in turn by proximity as well) no doubt helps matters along. A stupid situation, but one that's unlikely to last much longer.

[BoredShirtless]

You did not open the door to discuss Castro. You posted a lame-ass question predicated on the ASSumption that YOU made that Glocksman was a Bastita supporter. Your own words, as posted immediately above, condemn you.

I was trying to start a discussion about Castro and Cuba before and after the revolution. I did not assume Glocksman was a Bastita supporter, nor I bet can a normal person get that from my post you quoted. You could get I was implying Castro is better then Bastita, but that's it.

Yes, the condition that you have in fact already admitted in this thread that you hijacked it on purpose.

Idiot, you said hi-jacking was trolling, I was fixing up your definition.

How does discussing Castro and showing it wasn't paradise under Batisto either mean I'm fucking apologising for anybody? "I understand Castro, and I think he is evil" isn't a contradiction, look the word "understand" up.

The point of this thread was to condemn Castro for crimes that anyone brainless dumbshit can know are evil.

Really? I thought the point of the thread was to let everyone know Castro busted his leg.

Your response? You run in saying, "well, life was really bad under Batista, too!" Which is at best an irrelevant red herring and much more likely groundless insinuation.

Or, an attempt to start a discussion.

The equivalency argument where you think "understanding" == "apologising"? Maybe I should have used the word "grasp" instead of "understand", but it still doesn't change the fact you've been assuming things without first asking.

Read your own fucking posts in this thread, troll.

I have, bitch.

I didn't argue against the condemnation of Castro, I'm arguing against YOU and your pathetic strawman of where I wanted to go with my first post.

It isn't a strawman, as anyone reading your first post can see.

Yes it is. You said I was implying Glocksman supports Bastita; that Castro doesn't deserve to be condemend. Everybody with the ability to read and not pluck assumptions out of thin air can see you're crediting those assmptions to me, without just cause.

Why, because I asked for evidence on the number of refugees? On the number of people killed? Does me asking for evidence equate to me not believing? No. So once again you try making leaps in my argument, what a surprise.

That is NOT the evidence you asked for. I stated:

Incidently--you do realize that the people who supported the communist revolution thought they were voting in socialist proletarian-dictatorship, or "worker's democracy", not an absolute tyrant who would kill thousands, make tens of thousands flee, cause civil wars in other countries, etc?

You then said:

Really? Links?

Now, let's see what the topic of what you quoted is, again... Oh, that's right, it's that the people who supported Castro were deceived by propaganda. And I have just proven that is true, so either you are dissambling again or else you're just to stupid to understand what you yourself have written. Either way you need to go fuck off and die.

Excuse me for not thanking you for providing sources; you've sort of pissed me off, and although normally I'd appreciate someone providing sources, your bullshit here has completely used that up.

You moved the ground rules of the argument, you stupid fuck. This is really quite impressive--if that statement is taken at face value (and I see no reason why it should not be) it appears you think you're being accused of some bizarre post manipulation, which indicates you've probably never read the rules of this board and don't understand a single goddamned logic rule.

I haven't been moving anything around dipshit, I've been trying to defend myself against your bullshit assumptions.

[BoredShirtless]

Ahhh, the delicious sensation of schadenfreud as an enemy buries himself.

Schadenfreude. You're welcome.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I was trying to start a discussion about Castro and Cuba before and after the revolution. I did not assume Glocksman was a Bastita supporter, nor I bet can a normal person get that from my post you quoted. You could get I was implying Castro is better then Bastita, but that's it.

Which of course leads us to wonder why Batista was brought up in the first place, something that your continued excuses remain unable to answer no matter how hard you try to cover your own tracks.


< snip semantic bullshit >

Really? I thought the point of the thread was to let everyone know Castro busted his leg.

That was the point of the article, not Glocksman's commentary to which you so churlishly replied.

Or, an attempt to start a discussion.

By threadjacking? That's, bluntly, really fucking stupid.


<snip more worthless bullshit>

Yes it is. You said I was implying Glocksman supports Bastita; that Castro doesn't deserve to be condemend. Everybody with the ability to read and not pluck assumptions out of thin air can see you're crediting those assmptions to me, without just cause.

And again, you forget that you were the one who brought Batista up, accusingly flinging his name at Glocksman from out the blue in a classic red herring. I acknowledge that it is odd for a red herring to be the first thing used in a debate, but then, the stupid can manage some truly incredible things, and going straight into the gutter is one of them.



< snip more useless bullshit >

I haven't been moving anything around dipshit, I've been trying to defend myself against your bullshit assumptions.

Which, of course, are supported by your own statements.

[BoredShirtless]

America hates Fidel Castro because he screwed over a lot of American corporations. Human rights are nothing but a smokescreen for this corporatist grudge, as many other countries have done a lot worse (China, anyone?) without being put under a permanent embargo.

That's part of it, and there's no doubt that the sugar industry absolutely and rather ruthlessly dominated Cuba; but there are a host of other factors dating back nearly two centuries in some cases in an odd sort of love-hate relationship. An interesting one to consider is how big the Mob was in US politics then--and the fact that they damn near ran Havana in the 50s. In some ways, Los Vegas exists as what it is today because Americans can no longer fly down to Havana for the same reasons as they did in the 50s. And, of course, that same proximity (combined with a very large, very vocal refugee community--created in turn by proximity as well) no doubt helps matters along. A stupid situation, but one that's unlikely to last much longer.

Wait a minute. Did you just reply to an attempted thread hi-jack? Aren't you as outraged as me that DW didn't condem Castro for his evilness?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Wait a minute. Did you just reply to an attempted thread hi-jack? Aren't you as outraged as me that DW didn't condem Castro for his evilness?

For some reason or another--ooh, could it be that Darth Wong himself happens to realize what is and isn't a threadjack!?--there was no mention of Batista in Mike's post.

[BoredShirtless]

I was trying to start a discussion about Castro and Cuba before and after the revolution. I did not assume Glocksman was a Bastita supporter, nor I bet can a normal person get that from my post you quoted. You could get I was implying Castro is better then Bastita, but that's it.

Which of course leads us to wonder why Batista was brought up in the first place, something that your continued excuses remain unable to answer no matter how hard you try to cover your own tracks.

What part of "before the revolution" don't you understand? Is it the "before" part? Here you go:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=before&r=67

That was the point of the article, not Glocksman's commentary to which you so churlishly replied.

Glocksman's "commentary" was a wish for Castro to die...and that's it. Nothing more. Because of the lack of any real direction, it was open to discussion as long as it's related to Castro and Cuba, so I took it. For fucks sakes...

Or, an attempt to start a discussion.

By threadjacking? That's, bluntly, really fucking stupid.

What hi-jack? No one was writing to each other until I got involved.

And again, you forget that you were the one who brought Batista up, accusingly flinging his name at Glocksman from out the blue in a classic red herring. I acknowledge that it is odd for a red herring to be the first thing used in a debate, but then, the stupid can manage some truly incredible things, and going straight into the gutter is one of them.

How can a question be a red herring, you waste of time?

[BoredShirtless]

Wait a minute. Did you just reply to an attempted thread hi-jack? Aren't you as outraged as me that DW didn't condem Castro for his evilness?

For some reason or another--ooh, could it be that Darth Wong himself happens to realize what is and isn't a threadjack!?--there was no mention of Batista in Mike's post.

You're falling apart, would you like a coffee break or something?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What part of "before the revolution" don't you understand? Is it the "before" part?

Which, again, has nothing to do with the question you posed to Glocksman, nothing whatsoever. In fact, that question had nothing to do with anything regarding Castro whatsoever, which has led to this entire little discussion.

Glocksman's "commentary" was a wish for Castro to die...and that's it. Nothing more. Because of the lack of any real direction, it was open to discussion as long as it's related to Castro and Cuba, so I took it. For fucks sakes...

And who are you to decide when a thread is, quote "open", unquote? Glocksman set the tone and you had two choices:

1. Agree with him.
2. Explain why peple should be happy at the possible death of Castro.

Instead you just flung Batista's name at him in the textbook definition of a red herring. The fact you did it as the first reply in your argument rather than waiting for a bit just makes it more amusing.

What hi-jack? No one was writing to each other until I got involved.

There were already posts and even if there hadn't been it doesn't excuse you from attacking the person who started the thread with a Red Herring. Furthermore, it is not your job to decide when threads are spam, and if you think a thread is spam you should just ignore it and move on into the next thread.

< snip useless flamage >

[The Duchess of Zeon]

1. Agree with him.
2. Explain why peple should be happy at the possible death of Castro.

Watch him jump at the two mistakes in "Explain why people should not be happy at the possible death of Castro". Watch me not give a damn about minor errors considering all the repetitive bashing of this mind-numbing stupidity I've had to engage in.

[BoredShirtless]

Yeah ok. Castro is evil and I hope the next time he trips, his neck breaks.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah ok. Castro is evil and I hope the next time he trips, his neck breaks.

Concession Accepted, Fucktard.

[BoredShirtless]

Yeah ok. Castro is evil and I hope the next time he trips, his neck breaks.

Concession Accepted, Fucktard.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you love me?

[Crown]

I'm sorry, but to argue that Batista has nothing to do with Castro is like arguing Phillip II of Macedon, has nothing to do with Alexander the Great (wrong analogy perhaps, if you prefer you can look at the Chinese government in power opposing Mao).

Just my 2 cents.

However the Duchess is right in saying that bringing up Batista in this thread is somewhat of a red herring, since all we are supposed to be doing is wishing for Castro's death and not dare expand upon the subject (or broaden it) any further than that. And yes I was being half sincere and half sarcastic there.

And Mike is right, the US obsession with Castro boils down to a lot more than 'human rights' abuses ...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

However the Duchess is right in saying that bringing up Batista in this thread is somewhat of a red herring, since all we are supposed to be doing is wishing for Castro's death and not dare expand upon the subject (or broaden it) any further than that. And yes I was being half sincere and half sarcastic there.

]


I wasn't arguing against the broadening of the subject--I was arguing against broadening the subject with a red herring, as can be seen by my complete willingness to discuss the issue with someone (IE, Mike) who brought up a highly valid observation. Troll-boy just raced in and shouted "Batista was really bad, too!" And hoped he could away with such a blatant red herring threadjack.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Did anyone see the video of him falling? Motherfucker got some serious air on that one. He seemed to trip off the top stair of a few, and he was like Superman--until he met the floor and slid into some chairs.

[Montcalm]

I have to say i'm an evil bastard,saw the video of Castro falling he march all tall and proud did not look down,missed the step *THWAP* on the floor

Does that answer your question DGG?