American Communist Med Students graduate

[Buckeye_Nut]

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN2422759620070725?feedType=RSS

Aaaaaaah yes....

Im sure their democrat parents are very proud.

What better honor, than being a Castro prodigy?

 

[Johnd]

jfyi Buckeye_Nut:

Love him or hate him, Castro has indisputably done very well by his constituents in education and healthcare...both of which your post ironically addresses. He overtook a rogue regime and although the country is impoverished (due in no small part to the 45 year U.S. boycott), all citizens receive a free education and good free/inexpensive healthcare...something the U.S. sorely lacks. Not to mention those cigars. jfyi

 

[stratman]

jfyi Buckeye_Nut:

Love him or hate him, Castro has indisputably done very well by his constituents in education and healthcare...both of which your post ironically addresses. He overtook a rogue regime and although the country is impoverished (due in no small part to the 45 year U.S. boycott), all citizens receive a free education and good free/inexpensive healthcare...something the U.S. sorely lacks. Not to mention those cigars. jfyi

Gee John you should meet my parents new next door neighbors (they're staying with an aunt and uncle) they've been here from Cuba only three months, they can tell you how well Castro has really DONE TO his "costituents", they can tell you about the great healthcare system and free education system. Unless communist brainwashing and Fidel worship is what you consider a worthwhile education for your kids? And medicine is free as long as you belong to the party (or whatever is left of that cold war dinosaur.) As for one crook overtaking another, well lets just say with the previous crook if you didn't get involved politically you could have your own business, prosper and determine your course in life, sounds almost like the middle class here in the good ol' US of A. With this crook your told what to do, what to think, you have 0 rights and you get your food either rationed or (as most Cubans do: the black market), as for the so called "evil" American boycott, it's no secret here, Fidel has shell corporations all over Europe and in Latin America he has access to all American and European amenities, he's not suffering and neither are his cronies. If America in her "wisdom" was to open up to Fidel do you think the "apparatus" set up over there would allow the common folk to enjoy any of its benefits? Your view of that little island is obviously skewed, Cuban citizens are forbidden to go near areas where tourists stay namely Varadero beach, turned into a fortress of hotels by the Europeans (mainly the Spanish) to enjoy the Caribbean. So much for equality of socialism. Equality for the party but not for the common man, sounds a bit hypocritical don't you think? As for Cuban cigars, well lets just say Cuba hasn't produced decent cigars in years, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic produce a better product ironically from Cuban seeds. If you really want to know about Cuba come down to Miami get to know some of the folks and your preformed, prepackaged, politically correct notion of your socialist paradise will be shaken more than a bit. By the way, when Castro gets sick he has a private doctor flown in from Spain.....what about that great, free healthcare? If its good enough for the people why not him? Hypocrosity has no bounds.

 

[Johnd]

Well...Geez.

I didn't mean to start any flame wars. But it's precisely that kind of wide-minded thinking that fosters so much international care for America.

Just yesterday, Mrs. Clinton bashed Obama for attempting diplomacy with Cuba or Venezuala within the first year of presidential election (whoever that may be).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501959.html

Words such as: "hypocrisy", "crook", "skewed...view", etc. are not those of a diplomat. They serve only to breed intolerance, isolationalism and narrow-minedness...like getting most of one's information only from abc or cbs. I submit this nation's next leader desperately needs a true diplomat. Not the same old same old.

And, jfyi, I just recently had a Partagas Series D # 4 as well as a Romeo et Julieta Churchill and they were both flawless. I smoke up to three cigars a day, mostly Dominican, but whoever told you Cubans are no longer any good simply has their facts wrong. A true cigar smoker understands the inherent attrition rate of Cubans, +/- 10%...it simply goes with the territory.

Anyhow, enough of the posturing and flame wars. I say diplomacy is desperately needed. Peace.

 

[Sheep]

I thought Buckeye was limited to 1 stupid thread per month. He's had like 3 in the past week.

SheepStar

 

[stratman]

Well...Geez.

I didn't mean to start any flame wars. But it's precisely that kind of wide-minded thinking that fosters so much international care for America.

Just yesterday, Mrs. Clinton bashed Obama for attempting diplomacy with Cuba or Venezuala within the first year of presidential election (whoever that may be).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501959.html

Words such as: "hypocrisy", "crook", "skewed...view", etc. are not those of a diplomat. They serve only to breed intolerance, isolationalism and narrow-minedness...like getting most of one's information only from abc or cbs. I submit this nation's next leader desperately needs a true diplomat. Not the same old same old.

And, jfyi, I just recently had a Partagas Series D # 4 as well as a Romeo et Julieta Churchill and they were both flawless. I smoke up to three cigars a day, mostly Dominican, but whoever told you Cubans are no longer any good simply has their facts wrong. A true cigar smoker understands the inherent attrition rate of Cubans, +/- 10%...it simply goes with the territory.

Anyhow, enough of the posturing and flame wars. I say diplomacy is desperately needed. Peace.

I too believe in diplomacy, Hershey's chocolate bar in one hand an F-22 in the other. Diplomacy only works if both parties are willing to cooperate. Castro never had the intent. Please don't take this personally, in no way am I disparaging or mocking you. I just find it flabergasting after living in Miami all my life how clueless Americans are to the realities of this little island. Outside of Dade and Broward county Americans view of Cuba and it's people is skewed by the media's unwillingness to report the truth. My neighbors are Cuban and Nicaraguans, both families have been here for over twenty years. Hardworking, ethical whose only worry is that their children get a good education to better themselves, they have first generation kids that if asked what they are they'll tell you: American, not Cuban-American or Nicaraguan-American. Antithetical to what you hear from our citizens. When was the last time you heard someone say they're proud to be an American? I sure as hell am and I'm not ashamed to say it.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

..... I just find it flabergasting after living in Miami all my life how clueless Americans are to the realities of this little island. ......

The average American is ignorant of a foriegn country and that bothers you? The average American can't name all fifty states of their own country.

 

[Johnd]

When was the last time you heard someone say they're proud to be an American? I sure as hell am and I'm not ashamed to say it.

Allow me to put it this way. Of late, I am not sheepish about declaring my American heritage...within the boundaries of the U.S. But I know better and am well-travelled enough than to "proudly declare it" in many places outside of the US. And most Americans that have spent time outside of our isolated island realize this firsthand. And I am truly sorry to say that.

But I also have enough confidence in this nation, namely the people that comprise it, and our Constitution, to believe that enough people will voice their opinion and elect good future leaders (not only the President, but our senators and congressmen as well). I adamantly believe in our need of more diplomacy and tolerance...F-22's aside. Peace.

 

[Johnd]

Diplomacy only works if both parties are willing to cooperate. Castro never had the intent.

I would say diplomacy only works if:

1) one party is first proactive; and then,
2) that same party is willy to negotiate (namely, by settling for less than they were initially willing to settle for... a compromise).

One makes international friends through diplomacy. This country has largely lost the art of diplomacy, but we could regain it with relative ease. I do hope for as much.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

The average American is ignorant of a foriegn country and that bothers you? The average American can't name all fifty states of their own country.

I can. I learned to sing it in 5th grade and I still remember it. In alphabetical order to boot

 

[stratman]

I would say diplomacy only works if:

1) one party is first proactive; and then,
2) that same party is willy to negotiate (namely, by settling for less than they were initially willing to settle for... a compromise).

One makes international friends through diplomacy. This country has largely lost the art of diplomacy, but we could regain it with relative ease. I do hope for as much.

Yeah, this reminds me of Neville Chamberlain's approach, look what it got him.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

I thought Buckeye was limited to 1 stupid thread per month. He's had like 3 in the past week.

SheepStar

Hey sheep.....

When your family had large holiday meals, did the grown-ups sit at one table and discuss grown-up topics, and the children at a separate kiddie table? I think that if you're unable to contribute to the topic of the embarrassing American Commie-Castro grads, then maybe you should refrain from comment. I think the reason you're offended by my posts is because you're not prepared to be seated at my table

kiddie table------->is in the next room------------------->

When the time comes that you're finally able to respond to the subject being discussed, you're welcome to come back and sit with the growups at any time.


I guess you think you're special, and that the steam vent rules only apply to you??
STEAM VENT-description
"Talk just about anything you'd like here. Or, if you've got a beef about a manufacturer, or you just want to vent some audio steam... come on in. This is the only place you won't get in trouble for flame wars - all other places are off limits. Note: Any comments, criticisms or name calling of Audioholics should be done via PM or directed to circularfile@audioholics.com."

In stead of responding to my thread, maybe you should go get in line for a medical procedure to be performed by one of those fine Canadian government bureaucrat medial doctors If you hurry & get in line now...... you might actually need the procedure by the time your number is called. See.... I'm doing you a favor!

'flame off'

 

[Sheep]

Hey sheep.....

When your family had large holiday meals, did the grown-ups sit at one table and discuss grown-up topics, and the children at a separate kiddie table? I think that if you're unable to contribute to the topic of the embarrassing American Commie-Castro grads, then maybe you should refrain from comment. I think the reason you're offended by my posts is because you're not prepared to be seated at my table

kiddie table------->is in the next room------------------->

No no, it's not because of that. It's the fact that good threads, that actually deserve SOME form of recognition or attention get pushed off the page due to your uncontrollable urge to repost articles you read on the internet.

Hey Chump, they're already on the internet somewhere. If we wanted to read it, we could always go to the source.

SheepStar

 

[markw]

I couldn't name all fifty states when I was in the fifth grade.

I can. I learned to sing it in 5th grade and I still remember it. In alphabetical order to boot

Of course, the fact that there were only forty-eight states when I was in the fifth grade might have had some bearing in it.

Now, had you said seventh grade...

 

[Tomorrow]

I would say diplomacy only works if:

1) one party is first proactive; and then,
2) that same party is willy to negotiate (namely, by settling for less than they were initially willing to settle for... a compromise).

One makes international friends through diplomacy. This country has largely lost the art of diplomacy, but we could regain it with relative ease. I do hope for as much.

One of the greatest diplomats of my time (sorry, don't know if it was in your time) was John Fitzgerald Kennedy. You might think of him as the premier negotiator of the United States' recent political history. Would you like to know what he did to 'negotiate' with Cuba?! (Hint: It threatened to begin WWlll.)

 

[markw]

I'll give ya number one, but we gotta talk about number two

I would say diplomacy only works if:

1) one party is first proactive; and then,

OK, I'll buy that, but...

2) that same party is willy to negotiate (namely, by settling for less than they were initially willing to settle for... a compromise).

No, that's where you are wrong. Do you really understand the difference between "negotiate" and "compromise"? They are related but not one in the same.

Two parties "negotiate" to arrive at a suitable "compromise" in their respective demands.

BOTH parties have to be willing to "negotiate" and, in the spirit of "give and take", arrive at a "compromise" and both settle for less than what each one wants. While neither party gets 100% of what they wanted, at least both walk away feeling that they have arrived at a "fair compromise" and the other party was just as dissatisfied as they are.

Lawyers do this every day.

If only one party gives in, that's not a compromise. That's what can be described as "giving away the farm".

 

[Johnd]

One of the greatest diplomats of my time (sorry, don't know if it was in your time) was John Fitzgerald Kennedy. You might think of him as the premier negotiator of the United States' recent political history. Would you like to know what he did to 'negotiate' with Cuba?! (Hint: It threatened to begin WWlll.)

Bay of Pigs. I truly don't know if your point was that JFK was a lousy negotiator...at least in regards to that incident, or if diplomacy should be avoided altogether. I think the Bay of Pigs incident is far less about diplomacy and negotiation than outright fear of a dozens, and ultimately hundreds, lest I say thousand of nuclear warheads a mere 90 miles from U.S. soil. At least that is my understanding of the "incident" nearly run amuck. I would further submit that possibly it was a lack of our diplomacy that prevented the Soviets from bringing those warheads off their coast in the first place. Maybe not. Perhaps it was the Soviets' lack of diplomacy in failing to consider our angst at the mere proposition of of all those warheads so proximate to our shores. Hmmm.

Imho, the only way to end a skirmish, war or any controversy is either total domination or diplomacy...and one must choose.

But to all those warlords out there that proffer American diplomacy as "a Hershey bar in one hand, and an F-22 in the other", that is fine. You are entitled to your opinion...and to speak it. But if you must publicly deliver such definitions, if I were king for a day, you'd be at the front of the line on the next ride over to Iraq...or Pakistan...or Afghanistan...etc. And that is in no way meant to defame or minimize any of our troops or their efforts. God bless them all (and us as well). I just hope for a better Commander-in-Chief for their sake, and ours.

 

[Johnd]

OK, I'll buy that, but...

No, that's where you are wrong. Do you really understand the difference between "negotiate" and "compromise"? They are related but not one in the same.

Two parties "negotiate" to arrive at a suitable "compromise" in their respective demands.

BOTH parties have to be willing to "negotiate" and, in the spirit of "give and take", arrive at a "compromise" and both settle for less than what each one wants. While neither party gets 100% of what they wanted, at least both walk away feeling that they have arrived at a "fair compromise" and the other party was just as dissatisfied as they are.

Lawyers do this every day.

If only one party gives in, that's not a compromise. That's what can be described as "giving away the farm".

I agree with most of what you say...but consider this:

Most negotiations end up with some type of compromise, whether from one just one party or all parties.

One of the most favored sayings of judges and mediators alike is the mark of a good settlement (negotiation), is one where both parties feel dissatisfied...because they feel they give up more...or walked away with less than they rightfully should have. Thus, the very people in the business of negotiations feel that justice (at least rough justice) is served when both parties feel jilted. In their opinion, this is a good negotiation. But not all negotiations end up that way. Sometimes one party wants an unreasonable amount. Sometimes a party is willing to give more for a greater good, and can see a better result at the end of the tunnel if this immediate issue can be resolved.

The point of diplomacy is not who gets more or who gets less. The point of diplomacy is to resolve the issue in order to avoid further conflict. As I stated earlier, I believe we have lost the art of diplomacy in America, let alone the very concept. So many people miss this fact, especially in this day and age of overlitigation and resolve first by lawsuit.

 

[Tomorrow]

Bay of Pigs. I truly don't know if your point was that JFK was a lousy negotiator...at least in regards to that incident, or if diplomacy should be avoided altogether. I think the Bay of Pigs incident is far less about diplomacy and negotiation than outright fear of a dozens, and ultimately hundreds, lest I say thousand of nuclear warheads a mere 90 miles from U.S. soil. At least that is my understanding of the "incident" nearly run amuck. I would further submit that possibly it was a lack of our diplomacy that prevented the Soviets from bringing those warheads off their coast in the first place. Maybe not. Perhaps it was the Soviets' lack of diplomacy in failing to consider our angst at the mere proposition of of all those warheads so proximate to our shores. Hmmm.

Imho, the only way to end a skirmish, war or any controversy is either total domination or diplomacy...and one must choose.

You have an incorrect reading of my statement, of international politics, and of history.

JFK was elected because, among other great attributes, he was a tremendous diplomat and internationally respected negotiator. (By the way, his father, Joseph, was in the U.S. Diplomatic Service.) My point clearly is that diplomacy is not the 'end-all' or ultimate focus of international relationships...nor is your either/or answer of "total domination". Think about the Cold War as an example. It was military, economic, and diplomatic detente. No domination. No diplomacy. Detente. And it kept the world peace for 4 decades.

I was specifically referring to the blocade of Cuba by the United States Navy. One destroyed ship on either side could have, probably would have, started WWlll. Was that negotiation? Yes! Was it diplomatic? No. Was it total domination? Absolutely not.

John, I tend to agree with you that a change in leadership is due. But you need to take an enlightened look at world political history instead of a simplistic view of "diplomacy" or "total domination" as the black and white options for international relations. The necessity of situational, individual approaches to world issues doesn't lend itself to such generalities.

 

[markw]

Quit playing word games. What you described was "capitualtion", pure and simple.

I agree with most of what you say...but consider this:

Most negotiations end up with some type of compromise, whether from one just one party or all parties.

How many can you name where all compromises came from one side?

Now, we're not talking a back-alley mugger or a gropp of thugs ganging up on an old lady. We're talking a civilized negotiation.

One of the most favored sayings of judges and mediators alike is the mark of a good settlement (negotiation), is one where both parties feel dissatisfied...because they feel they give up more...or walked away with less than they rightfully should have. Thus, the very people in the business of negotiations feel that justice (at least rough justice) is served when both parties feel jilted. In their opinion, this is a good negotiation.

And, this is exactly what I said in my post.

But not all negotiations end up that way. Sometimes one party wants an unreasonable amount. Sometimes a party is willing to give more for a greater good, and can see a better result at the end of the tunnel if this immediate issue can be resolved.

The point of diplomacy is not who gets more or who gets less. The point of diplomacy is to resolve the issue in order to avoid further conflict.

So, the essence of your word games here are the words "more or less", is it?

Well, believe it or not, the winner gets "more" of what he wanted when he entered into the negotiations and the loser "less", although these more/less terms may apply to any of many different issues that are under discussion and a clear-cut overall winner or loser may be difficult to determine.

The only way to avoid conflict if for both parties to go into the negiotiation in "good faith" ( another word for your vocabulary) and to accept the deal that was agreed to. If neither can come to an accord, then precious diplomacy fails.

So, to sum it up, diplomacy IS negiotiations, although it may be dressed better and meet at fancy dinner parties.

As I stated earlier, I believe we have lost the art of diplomacy in America, let alone the very concept. So many people miss this fact, especially in this day and age of overlitigation and resolve first by lawsuit.

No, we've not lost the art of diplomacy. We've just about given away the farm already and yet people still want more. NAFTA, anyone? Outsourcing jobs, anyone?

That we are about giving with no return should not be seen as a lapse of diplomacy, but more of drawing a line in the sand.

And, as for your use of the term "litigation", are you trying to induce a discussion of tort reform? You're weaseling again and trying to change the subject. You do that when you wind up on the losing end of your own arguments.

Let's keep it to Cuba, shall we? The boys seem, to be doing a fine job on correcting you on your erroneous beliefs about Cuba all on their own.

I only jumped in here to disabuse you of your incorrect applications of the words "negotiation" and "compromise", with a dash of "capitulation" and "good faith" thrown in for good measure. Good words to know the meanings of when throwing them around in internet arguments.