Goddamn the bad luck (Castro falls)

[Glocksman]

So all one million refugees were exploiter capitalists or Batista cronies?

[BoredShirtless]

Where did you get 1 million from?

[Glocksman]

As far as life before Castro goes, the State Department has an excellent report on the subject

An enduring myth is that 1950's Cuba was a socially and economically backward country whose development was jump-started by the Castro government. In fact, according to readily available historical data, Cuba was a relatively advanced country in 1958, certainly by Latin American standards and, in some areas, by world standards. The data show that Cuba has at best maintained what were already high levels of development in health and education, but at an extraordinary cost to the overall welfare of the Cuban people. These include access to "basics" such as adequate levels of food and electricity, but also access to consumer goods, the availability of which have increased significantly in other Latin American countries in recent decades.

In this study, the most recent data available has been used. Castro does not allow regular surveys on certain Cuban topics that would ultimately reflect the continuing steady decline of the Cuban economy. Therefore, the data provided is not as current as that which would be used in ideal circumstances.

It is true that Cuba's infant mortality rate is the second best in Latin America today, but it was the best in Latin America -- and the 13th lowest in the world -- in pre-Castro Cuba. Cuba also has improved the literacy of its people, but Cuba had an excellent educational system and impressive literacy rates in the 1950's.

On the other hand, many economic and social indicators have declined since the 1959 revolution. Pre-Castro Cuba ranked third in Latin America in per capita food consumption but ranked last out of the 11 countries analyzed in terms of percent of increase since 1957. Overall, Cuban per capita food consumption from 1954-1997 has decreased by 11.47 percent [1]. Per capita consumption of cereals, tubers, and meat are today all below 1950's levels[2]. The number of automobiles in Cuba has fallen since the 1950's[3] -- the only country in Latin America for which this is the case. The number of telephone lines in Cuba also has been virtually frozen at 1950's levels[4]. Cuba once ranked first in Latin America and fifth in the world in television sets per capita. In 1996 it barely ranked ninth[5] in Latin America and is well back in the ranks globally.

Cuba's rate of development of electrical power since the 1950's also ranks behind every other country in Latin America including Haiti[6]. Cuba’s rice production has finally seen a minor increase above the 1950s levels. By virtually any measure of macroeconomic stability, Cuba was progressing at a far greater rate in 1958 than it is today. Finally, the Castro government shut down what was a remarkably vibrant media sector in the 1950's, when the relatively small country had 58 daily newspapers of differing political hues and ranked eighth in the world in number of radio stations.

Note that unlike the Spartacus story, this has actual footnotes as to sources and methodology used.

BTW, Spartacus' omission of the fact that I.F. Stone was a KGB tool has made me skeptical of anything they post that I can't confirm independently.

The million figure comes from census data, and it's incorrect. The true figure is 750,000 or so and increasing as the US admits 20k per year in the visa lottery. I forgot to subtract US-born Cubans from the total of over a million in the US alone.

[BoredShirtless]

As far as life before Castro goes, the State Department has an excellent report on the subject

An enduring myth is that 1950's Cuba was a socially and economically backward country whose development was jump-started by the Castro government. In fact, according to readily available historical data, Cuba was a relatively advanced country in 1958, certainly by Latin American standards and, in some areas, by world standards. The data show that Cuba has at best maintained what were already high levels of development in health and education, but at an extraordinary cost to the overall welfare of the Cuban people. These include access to "basics" such as adequate levels of food and electricity, but also access to consumer goods, the availability of which have increased significantly in other Latin American countries in recent decades.

In this study, the most recent data available has been used. Castro does not allow regular surveys on certain Cuban topics that would ultimately reflect the continuing steady decline of the Cuban economy. Therefore, the data provided is not as current as that which would be used in ideal circumstances.

It is true that Cuba's infant mortality rate is the second best in Latin America today, but it was the best in Latin America -- and the 13th lowest in the world -- in pre-Castro Cuba. Cuba also has improved the literacy of its people, but Cuba had an excellent educational system and impressive literacy rates in the 1950's.

On the other hand, many economic and social indicators have declined since the 1959 revolution. Pre-Castro Cuba ranked third in Latin America in per capita food consumption but ranked last out of the 11 countries analyzed in terms of percent of increase since 1957. Overall, Cuban per capita food consumption from 1954-1997 has decreased by 11.47 percent [1]. Per capita consumption of cereals, tubers, and meat are today all below 1950's levels[2]. The number of automobiles in Cuba has fallen since the 1950's[3] -- the only country in Latin America for which this is the case. The number of telephone lines in Cuba also has been virtually frozen at 1950's levels[4]. Cuba once ranked first in Latin America and fifth in the world in television sets per capita. In 1996 it barely ranked ninth[5] in Latin America and is well back in the ranks globally.

Cuba's rate of development of electrical power since the 1950's also ranks behind every other country in Latin America including Haiti[6]. Cuba’s rice production has finally seen a minor increase above the 1950s levels. By virtually any measure of macroeconomic stability, Cuba was progressing at a far greater rate in 1958 than it is today. Finally, the Castro government shut down what was a remarkably vibrant media sector in the 1950's, when the relatively small country had 58 daily newspapers of differing political hues and ranked eighth in the world in number of radio stations.

Note that unlike the Spartacus story, this has actual footnotes as to sources and methodology used.

BTW, Spartacus' omission of the fact that I.F. Stone was a KGB tool has made me skeptical of anything they post that I can't confirm independently.

The million figure comes from census data, and it's incorrect. The true figure is 750,000 or so and increasing as the US admits 20k per year in the visa lottery. I forgot to subtract US-born Cubans from the total of over a million in the US alone.

But where is your source? And you said refugees. Those are immigrant stats. Refugee stats for the last couple of years, which doesn't really mean much but anyway:
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/06refugee.htm

Glocksman, do you really expect me to swallow a summary from the US State Department? From the only country who has tried assassinating Castro? Multiple times? At one attempt even hiring the fucking Mafia? The fact is, the United States was one of the biggest losers in the revolution, and has been holding a grudge ever since.

I also love the way your State Department report tried comparing Cuba before and after the revolution without discussing the ramifications of all the sabotage and the embargo's your country placed ever since it lost its own little island Club Med.

Cuba under Batista was very similar to Iran under the Shah. Neither periods before or after the revolutions have been "good" actually, but the one thing both Iran and Cuba have in common is that the revolutions were born because the rich Americans were exploiting the people.

[Glocksman]

Sorry, but the Cuban Adjustment Act defines the great majority of them as refugees.

It's interesting that the attack on the CAA blames the collapse of the Socialist Bloc™ and the harsh economic conditions that existed after 1990 for the migration.

Truth is that there were already 650,000 migrants in the US by September 1977 and a further 125,000+ left on the Mariel boatlift. The great majority of emigrants had already left the island before the collapse of the USSR.

As far as the state department's report goes, your attack on their impartiality doesn't discredit the data presented in the report.

Prove the data incorrect by referring to impartial sources (and no,Granma isn't an impartial source ) and I'll concede the points.

[Glocksman]

Forgot to post:

Source for immigrant data

Including those who were born here, the total number
of Cubans in the United States as of 1990 was approximately 1,042,433, 73 percent of which were immigrants.

The 1990 census data gives us, for the first time, the opportunity to look at the social and demographic characteristics of the distinct waves of the Cuban exodus.

Data from the 1990 census show that of the 757,187 Cubans in the United States who immigrated after the revolution, 25 percent arrived during the first wave, 1960-1964.

[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

[Rogue 9]

Something else to consider.

Where did the 1 million Cuban refugees from Batista go?

Oh, that's right. T
here weren't one million Cubans who fled from Batista.
The million Cubans fled from Castro. My mistake.

Of course they fled. When Castro reditributed all their land and wealth, do you think they were going to stick around and live with the slaves they once hired?

So all the refugees fleeing Cuba for the United States even to this day are of the former upper class? I call bullshit.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Don't be an idiot. It was a bloody news article abput Fidel breaking his leg. Glocksman attaching his own opinion via the death wish for Castro is clearly meant to stir discussion, so I obliged. Until that point, anything related to Castro was more or less relevant as the discussion had yet to be defined.

Which isn't the fucking point, idiot. The point is that you brought up a totally unrelated issue to Castro's evil deeds, which were what Glocksman was condemning, and tried to tie the two issues together. That breaks about half a dozen debating rules offhand.

Nobody was talking about wishing Castro dead either until Glocksman brought it up. Again, it was a simple news article which was always going to spawn some sort of dicussion after Glockasmans one liner.

See above. The issue is Castro's atrocities, which have absolutely nothing to do with Batista's.

Because I want to know why Glocksman wants him dead.

And that has.. Err, what, to do with Batista, again? Oh, that's right, nothing.

Where did I imply that? Oh yeah, I didn't.

Yes you did. You brought up Batista in relation to Castro and demanded that Glocksman justify his hatred of Castro simply because Castro replaced another bad man (Batista). In doing so you implied--or perhaps even insinuated--that Castro was better than Batista. I am not arguing that--I am saying that it's irrelevant. One does not have to be good for the other to be evil, okay?

<snip worthless trollage>

Really? Links?

Sorry for assuming that you're capable of recognizing that nobody says "I am going to conquer this nation, shoot thousands of people, lock up tens of thousands more, and create a million refugees!" when they're trying to gain political power. I guess I thought you had five brain cells, and it turns out you only have one.

Learn to read, you verbose and boring bitch.

Go fuck yourself with a rusty screwdriver.

[Terminator]

i'm gonna miss it when castro is gone

who else is gonna send us all thier convicts when we piss them off, that was a classic move

[BoredShirtless]

Don't be an idiot. It was a bloody news article abput Fidel breaking his leg. Glocksman attaching his own opinion via the death wish for Castro is clearly meant to stir discussion, so I obliged. Until that point, anything related to Castro was more or less relevant as the discussion had yet to be defined.

Which isn't the fucking point, idiot. The point is that you brought up a totally unrelated issue to Castro's evil deeds, which were what Glocksman was condemning, and tried to tie the two issues together. That breaks about half a dozen debating rules offhand.

Batista is related because Castro [and his "evilness"] was largely defined by life under him. So what has Castro's past got to do with his "evil deeds"? It has a lot to do with it, if we want a more complete picture of Castro. To understand him better. Isn't that what you want? A discussion where we can trace the paths, from the tips to the roots, of his "evil deeds"? Or would you like a more mundane discussion, were we all nod our heads and agree that Castro is evil and should have broke his neck and that is that, me-too me-too, thread locked?

Nobody was talking about wishing Castro dead either until Glocksman brought it up. Again, it was a simple news article which was always going to spawn some sort of dicussion after Glockasmans one liner.

See above. The issue is Castro's atrocities, which have absolutely nothing to do with Batista's.

See above.

Because I want to know why Glocksman wants him dead.

And that has.. Err, what, to do with Batista, again? Oh, that's right, nothing.

See above.

Where did I imply that? Oh yeah, I didn't.

Yes you did. You brought up Batista in relation to Castro and demanded that Glocksman justify his hatred of Castro simply because Castro replaced another bad man (Batista). In doing so you implied--or perhaps even insinuated--that Castro was better than Batista. I am not arguing that--I am saying that it's irrelevant. One does not have to be good for the other to be evil, okay?

Batista isn't Castro's "Get out of Jail Free" card, but he is relevant and like I wrote above important in order to more fully understand how and WHY Castro operates.

Really? Links?

Sorry for assuming that you're capable of recognizing that nobody says "I am going to conquer this nation, shoot thousands of people, lock up tens of thousands more, and create a million refugees!" when they're trying to gain political power.

Translation: I've got nothing to bring, so I'm just gonna repeat more of the same warped history and opinions my sore loser of a government likes to spew.

I guess I thought you had five brain cells, and it turns out you only have one.

So you admit you were wrong about my brain. Now why don't you take the next logical step and admit you're wrong about everything else?

[MKSheppard]

Onceagain, Bored Shitless proves that all the smart germans were killed on the Ostfront in WW2

[BoredShirtless]

Glocksman, didn't my rejection of your State Government report clue you in to the fact I won't accept ANY findings or stats about Cuba from the United States? Why the fuck should I? Your government has a proven track record of LYING THROUGH ITS ASS!

[BoredShirtless]

Another worthless contribution by a guy who drinks his own fucking urine.

[White Cat]

Glocksman, didn't my rejection of your State Government report clue you in to the fact I won't accept ANY findings or stats about Cuba from the United States? Why the fuck should I? Your government has a proven track record of LYING THROUGH ITS ASS!

Your government has a proven track record of massive genocide.

</tit-for-tat red herring>

[BoredShirtless]

Glocksman, didn't my rejection of your State Government report clue you in to the fact I won't accept ANY findings or stats about Cuba from the United States? Why the fuck should I? Your government has a proven track record of LYING THROUGH ITS ASS!

Your government has a proven track record of massive genocide.

</tit-for-tat red herring>

How is it a fucking red herring if I point out that the United States government is a proven liar when it comes to using "evidence" against countries it doesn't like? Do I even have to say the magic word?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Batista is related because Castro [and his "evilness"] was largely defined by life under him. So what has Castro's past got to do with his "evil deeds"? It has a lot to do with it, if we want a more complete picture of Castro. To understand him better. Isn't that what you want? A discussion where we can trace the paths, from the tips to the roots, of his "evil deeds"? Or would you like a more mundane discussion, were we all nod our heads and agree that Castro is evil and should have broke his neck and that is that, me-too me-too, thread locked?

And this proves why you are an idiot. You are arguing with "understand" Castro's past, as if that somehow mitigates what he has done. Well, guess what, you stupid pig-fucker, it doesn't. This thread is NOT about "understanding" Castro like the world is a collection of fucking pre-school classes. It is about the objective condemnation of his violation of recognized human rights. Maybe you live in some special world where it becomes OK to become a dictator and kill thousands of people just because you lived under a dictator who did the same thing, but for most people that isn't the fucking case, and it isn't because it's recognized that a human rights violation is a human rights violation, it does not fucking matter who the fuck did it or why. I do not care if he was beaten and sodomized as a child by an uncle and saw his parents murdered before his eyes or whatever, that still does not make the extrajudicial murder of thousands of people, the extrajudicial arrest of tens of thousands, and the expulsion of a million somehow "OK". Those are things which are bad no matter how did them, capiche?

See above.

Someone should call your parents and tell them that you escaped from the preschool short-bus.

See above.

None of which makes one fucking difference in the fact that Castro's crimes are worthy of condemnation.

Has anyone heard back from that preschool yet?

Batista isn't Castro's "Get out of Jail Free" card, but he is relevant and like I wrote above important in order to more fully understand how and WHY Castro operates.

And again, that is irrelevant to a condemnation of Castro's crimes. Have you left your head in the microwave before or something?

Translation: I've got nothing to bring, so I'm just gonna repeat more of the same warped history and opinions my sore loser of a government likes to spew.

Fuckin' wrong, palm-fucker. This is not from the U.S. Government. Let us see some quotes, here (underlining added):

No weapon, no force is capable of defeating a people who have decided to fight for their rights.

we are fighting for a democratic Cuba and an end to the dictatorship."/quote]

In international affairs, the establishment of close solidarity with the democratic nations of the American continents.

And from the text:

On 3 January 1959, Cuban revolutionary commander Fidel Castro began his "long march on the central highway from Santiago to Havana."47 The march was a move to gain the popular support of the people as the column crossed the island. Mounted on a captured tank, Castro addressed Cubans at various stops along the way. People clamored for this "liberator." Castro used these opportunities to spell out what Cuba's future should look like, and he promised to "punish those who have been responsible for so many years of suffering."48

He described soldiers whose uniforms became butchers' aprons. He painted the Batista regime as the worst of all the oppressors of Cuba—a regime that purposely preyed on the Santiagueros, a peaceful, liberty-loving people.

Fuck off and die, pig-fucker. Someone so brainless that they believe that people would stage a revolution to install a murdering, bloodthirsty tyrant who SAID he was a murdering, blood-thirsty tyrant in advance does not deserve to breath.

So you admit you were wrong about my brain. Now why don't you take the next logical step and admit you're wrong about everything else?

Maybe you should take a break from self-sodomy with that rusty screwdriver to drive it into your brain pan instead.

[BoredShirtless]

And this proves why you are an idiot. You are arguing with "understand" Castro's past, as if that somehow mitigates what he has done.

Trying to "understand" his evil doesn't mean I'm trying to excuse it. Who's the idiot now, jackass?

Well, guess what, you stupid pig-fucker, it doesn't. This thread is NOT about "understanding" Castro like the world is a collection of fucking pre-school classes. It is about the objective condemnation of his violation of recognized human rights.

Wrong bitch. That's what you would have liked this thread to have been about. This thread started out as a story on his fucking leg and Glocksman wishing he would die. I came along and asked why in a way which would hopefully start a discussion about how Castro became the man he is and life before and after the revolution as discussing just Castro's evil deeds is boring IMO. Again, I had the right to direct the thread in that direction because there wasn't any discussion yet.

Maybe you live in some special world where it becomes OK to become a dictator and kill thousands of people just because you lived under a dictator who did the same thing, but for most people that isn't the fucking case, and it isn't because it's recognized that a human rights violation is a human rights violation, it does not fucking matter who the fuck did it or why.

I never said it was "OK" for him to kill people, you lying bitch.

I do not care if he was beaten and sodomized as a child by an uncle and saw his parents murdered before his eyes or whatever, that still does not make the extrajudicial murder of thousands of people, the extrajudicial arrest of tens of thousands, and the expulsion of a million somehow "OK". Those are things which are bad no matter how did them, capiche?

No, could you repeat that distortion again? No just kidding, shut the fuck up.

None of which makes one fucking difference in the fact that Castro's crimes are worthy of condemnation.

Has anyone heard back from that preschool yet?

Where did I excuse him? That's right, I didn't.

Fuckin' wrong, palm-fucker. This is not from the U.S. Government. Let us see some quotes, here (underlining added):

No weapon, no force is capable of defeating a people who have decided to fight for their rights.

we are fighting for a democratic Cuba and an end to the dictatorship."

In international affairs, the establishment of close solidarity with the democratic nations of the American continents.

And from the text:

On 3 January 1959, Cuban revolutionary commander Fidel Castro began his "long march on the central highway from Santiago to Havana."47 The march was a move to gain the popular support of the people as the column crossed the island. Mounted on a captured tank, Castro addressed Cubans at various stops along the way. People clamored for this "liberator." Castro used these opportunities to spell out what Cuba's future should look like, and he promised to "punish those who have been responsible for so many years of suffering."48

He described soldiers whose uniforms became butchers' aprons. He painted the Batista regime as the worst of all the oppressors of Cuba—a regime that purposely preyed on the Santiagueros, a peaceful, liberty-loving people.

Fuck off and die, pig-fucker. Someone so brainless that they believe that people would stage a revolution to install a murdering, bloodthirsty tyrant who SAID he was a murdering, blood-thirsty tyrant in advance does not deserve to breath.

So Castro is a liar? Who would have thought, thanks for sharing.

Maybe you should take a break from self-sodomy with that rusty screwdriver to drive it into your brain pan instead.

I'd probably die if I did that. Is that what you really want?

[White Cat]

How is it a fucking red herring if I point out that the United States government is a proven liar when it comes to using "evidence" against countries it doesn't like? Do I even have to say the magic word?

I was referring to your original "So what? Batista was just as bad!" post at the beginning of the thread.

It's basically identical to responding to an anti-Bush post with "So what? Clinton lied, too!", something which is specifically forbidden by this forum's policy.

[BoredShirtless]

It's basically identical to responding to an anti-Bush post with "So what? Clinton lied, too!", something which is specifically forbidden by this forum's policy.

"Basically identical"? My first post tried to start a discussion; it wasn't a comeback to a logical argument showing for example Bush is a lying fuck.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Trying to "understand" his evil doesn't mean I'm trying to excuse it. Who's the idiot now, jackass?

You are, because "understanding" evil is not what is being discussed in this thread and is irrelevant to what is being discussed in this thread. Thus, your argument is nothing more than a massive red herring.

Wrong bitch. That's what you would have liked this thread to have been about. This thread started out as a story on his fucking leg and Glocksman wishing he would die. I came along and asked why in a way which would hopefully start a discussion about how Castro became the man he is and life before and after the revolution as discussing just Castro's evil deeds is boring IMO. Again, I had the right to direct the thread in that direction because there wasn't any discussion yet.

No you didn't, you pig headed troll-fucker. The purpose of this thread was rather straightforward and simple--Castro had injured himself, and Glocksman was expressing his pleasure at the prospect of a mass murderer falling over dead (which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, since it doesn't involve killing anyone, just someone who thoroughly needs to die falling over dead). The idiocy you are expressing here is incredible. IF YOU THINK A THREAD IS BORING, DO NOT POST IN IT, YOU STUPID TROLL. It is not your place to hijack a thread--which you have just admitted to--simply because you find the subject boring. That is called TROLLING, and since you admitted to it, you are a troll. The fact that you did so by introducing a massive red herring just proves you are not just a troll, but a really stupid pig-headed one. I can't believe that someone revoked your VI, because if anyone deserved the title you do.

I never said it was "OK" for him to kill people, you lying bitch.

"Putting things in context" or "understanding circumstances" is just the worthless bullshit that apologists throw up when trying to defend an action. In doing so you are behaving exactly like a Neo-Nazi. Their typical justification revolves around screaming really loudly that there was a conspiracy of wealthy Jewish bankers seeking to destroy the Aryan race or some other shit, thus justifying gassing six million people because they happened to share the same ethnicity with this "vast Jewish banker conspiracy". You're doing the exact same thing by saying "well, Baptista was really bad and Castro was hurt by his regime and we need to know this so we can understand why Castro murders people who were born after he took power," or in otherwords total unrelated bullshit. Why don't you join the Nazi party?

No, could you repeat that distortion again? No just kidding, shut the fuck up.

It's in your best interests for me to shut up, since it's the only way you're not going to be slapped with a VI again if you don't concede this stupid little equivalency bullshit argument. All I am doing is holding everyone to the same standard. If you feel the need to equivocate like a whiney little bastard and violate forum policy in doing so, it isn't my problem.

Where did I excuse him? That's right, I didn't.

You denial is not going to change the fact of your repeated efforts to argue against a justified condemnation of Fidel Castro by "putting things in context", which in this case simply means that you are bringing up totally unrelated events to what was being discussed in a classic red herring "tactic".

So Castro is a liar? Who would have thought, thanks for sharing.

Curiously, you seemed to have serious difficulty in understanding the concept that the people of Cuba were not planning on giving a blank cheque to Castro to murder, imprison, and expell their relatives when they helped bring him to power. You demanded evidence, and you got it, at which point you have now unsuprisingly played a stupid little game of changing the goalposts, which just makes your entire "argument" all the more ridiculous.

I'd probably die if I did that. Is that what you really want?

*laughing* That's a really stupid question to ask a veteran here.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

"Basically identical"? My first post tried to start a discussion; it wasn't a comeback to a logical argument showing for example Bush is a lying fuck.

Your first post was a snide comment which is obvious to anyone with a functional brain existed for the sole purpose of accusing Glocksman of supporting one dictator simply because he opposed another. It is a classic example of what the forum policy is intended to forbid.

[BoredShirtless]

Trying to "understand" his evil doesn't mean I'm trying to excuse it. Who's the idiot now, jackass?

You are, because "understanding" evil is not what is being discussed in this thread and is irrelevant to what is being discussed in this thread. Thus, your argument is nothing more than a massive red herring.

You are very stupid, so I will try again using fewer words: I was here first, and started the discussion.

Wrong bitch. That's what you would have liked this thread to have been about. This thread started out as a story on his fucking leg and Glocksman wishing he would die. I came along and asked why in a way which would hopefully start a discussion about how Castro became the man he is and life before and after the revolution as discussing just Castro's evil deeds is boring IMO. Again, I had the right to direct the thread in that direction because there wasn't any discussion yet.

No you didn't, you pig headed troll-fucker. The purpose of this thread was rather straightforward and simple--Castro had injured himself, and Glocksman was expressing his pleasure at the prospect of a mass murderer falling over dead (which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, since it doesn't involve killing anyone, just someone who thoroughly needs to die falling over dead). The idiocy you are expressing here is incredible. IF YOU THINK A THREAD IS BORING, DO NOT POST IN IT, YOU STUPID TROLL. It is not your place to hijack a thread--which you have just admitted to--simply because you find the subject boring.

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?

BS: Yeah, he should have died.
Zeon: Yeah, he's a bastard.
Whoever: Yeah, evil.

Are you fucking retarded?

That is called TROLLING, and since you admitted to it, you are a troll. The fact that you did so by introducing a massive red herring just proves you are not just a troll, but a really stupid pig-headed one. I can't believe that someone revoked your VI, because if anyone deserved the title you do.

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

I never said it was "OK" for him to kill people, you lying bitch.

"Putting things in context" or "understanding circumstances" is just the worthless bullshit that apologists throw up when trying to defend an action. In doing so you are behaving exactly like a Neo-Nazi. Their typical justification revolves around screaming really loudly that there was a conspiracy of wealthy Jewish bankers seeking to destroy the Aryan race or some other shit, thus justifying gassing six million people because they happened to share the same ethnicity with this "vast Jewish banker conspiracy". You're doing the exact same thing by saying "well, Baptista was really bad and Castro was hurt by his regime and we need to know this so we can understand why Castro murders people who were born after he took power," or in otherwords total unrelated bullshit. Why don't you join the Nazi party?

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.

No, could you repeat that distortion again? No just kidding, shut the fuck up.

It's in your best interests for me to shut up, since it's the only way you're not going to be slapped with a VI again if you don't concede this stupid little equivalency bullshit argument. All I am doing is holding everyone to the same standard. If you feel the need to equivocate like a whiney little bastard and violate forum policy in doing so, it isn't my problem.

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.

Where did I excuse him? That's right, I didn't.

You denial is not going to change the fact of your repeated efforts to argue against a justified condemnation of Fidel Castro by "putting things in context", which in this case simply means that you are bringing up totally unrelated events to what was being discussed in a classic red herring "tactic".

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.

So Castro is a liar? Who would have thought, thanks for sharing.

Curiously, you seemed to have serious difficulty in understanding the concept that the people of Cuba were not planning on giving a blank cheque to Castro to murder, imprison, and expell their relatives when they helped bring him to power.

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.

You demanded evidence, and you got it, at which point you have now unsuprisingly played a stupid little game of changing the goalposts, which just makes your entire "argument" all the more ridiculous.

What posts did I move?

[BoredShirtless]

"Basically identical"? My first post tried to start a discussion; it wasn't a comeback to a logical argument showing for example Bush is a lying fuck.

Your first post was a snide comment which is obvious to anyone with a functional brain existed for the sole purpose of accusing Glocksman of supporting one dictator simply because he opposed another. It is a classic example of what the forum policy is intended to forbid.

I didn't accuse Glocksman of supporting Batisto! Go on, ask him if I've ever discussed Batisto with him before.

Unlike you, you arrogant bitch, I don't assume peoples positions. If I don't know there take on an issue, I'll type "Why?" or maybe a post which is designed to start a discussion.

[BoredShirtless]

I didn't accuse Glocksman of supporting Batisto!

Ah, you're saying my first POST was accusing him of supporting Batisto...that's seriously retarded, and everybody without your arrogance will see that.