[Mnesymone]

You're right - they would have called him John Paul. Admirers of Pope John (an older pope, not John Paul II) called him John, not His Holiness. They admired him, not out of Catholicism, but because while the prelate of greece during world war II his congregation grew massively - because he admitted all the Jews of Greece into the Church and protected him from the holocaust. So people call him John, and admire him in that name.
The greatest honorific and the worst insult anyone may be rightfully granted is their own name - and when a man like Kim Jong-Il demands that all his subjects call him 'Our Dear Leader' taking such a title simply demeans the name.

[civilian_number_two]

If you don't believe he deserves the title than you probably would view it as being a bit stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Castro had created a time travel device and gone forward in time to determine the future troubles we might encounter, returned with valuable, easy-to-follow cautionary advice that led the world into a new Golden Age, if Castro had ended hunger, freed the slaves, brought about a peaceful coexistence between the working poor and the filthy rich, had he solved the riddle of interstellar travel, made peace with warlike alien powers, introduced me to the love of my life and actually, personally, removed a brain tumor from my head with his own hands, I would not call him "His Excellency." It's fucking weird to use an honorific that is meant to precede a name, instead of the name itself. Even folks what were to say "His Holiness," would say "His Holiness the Pope." Insisting on using this lame construct instead of the name itself is tiring and stupid, whether he deserves it or not.

PS: He doesn't deserve it. He's a man, not some earthbound God.

[J m HofMarN]

Tiring and stupid to you, which I'm sure is precisely why you don't use it. But I really dont see what's so tiring about it. When you really examine it, His Excellency us five syllables, whereas President Castro is just as many, so really it's no more cumbersome.

There's nothing wrong with giving people titles of respect if they've earned them, and unlike the argument as to , and I disagree with you when you claim he dosn't deserve them. The argument that His Excellency dosn't deserve to be refered to with respectful terms falls flat, since it hinges on personal sensibilities and views. There's no real factual or legal basis to determine that sort of status.

[Renegade]

You could just say Castro and everyone would know who you mean....

[Renegade]

Renegade - #1: Ok, so it's acceptable to take humiliating pictures of people if they're bad and use them for propaganda. So I'm sure you're a big fan of Abu Ghraib too.

As for why Palestinian freedom fighters are justified, they're fighting to free their nation from illegal and genocidal foreign occupation, and they're using the only means available to them. If you want the freedom fighters to stop using "terrorism" than send them a few F14s and guided missiles so they can target the people who really need to pay.

2: I didn't discount every study as propaganda. But most of those you cited were either US government estimates or US government puppet organizations such as Cuban exiles or the OAS. That's like letting Nazi Germany give you all your facts about Jews. I'm sure that some people died in the Cuban revolution, just like some died in every revolution. But the American government making outrageous claims about His Excellency killing a hundred thousand people is just nonsense.

3: America is not under attack the way Cuba is. America is being randomly attacked by a group of men desperate to change our foreign policy so we'll stop killing people. Cuba is being systematicly terrorized, isolated, accused, threatened, and even attacked by the imperialists. As soon as some other government starts spending millions to overthrow the US government, as soon as they assassinate several of our leaders, and as soon as another government tries to invade us once or twice,  then you'll have a half way decent analogy. The other difference is that Cuba has only been free of foreign rule ofr fifty years. That means there are plenty of people there who can remember when Cuba was ruled by the US. Somehow I think if they wanted to go back to that they'd have done something by now, but instead the people have been generally supportive of His Excellency. Perhaps, despite what blasphemy it sounds like, people don't like imperialism.

4: The US government dosnt discriminate against gays? Yeah, I suppose banning gay marriage everywhere they can isnt a form of discrimination at all. Your continued attack against his Excellency has turned up at worst that he holds a few people prisoner for conspiring with the imperialists, that people were killed during his revolution, and that he did have a problem with gays at one point in time. Of all these only the third one is really anything bad at all, and as we already established this was a mistake and was corrected, but I'm sure it makes you feel better about what the US is doing against Cuba to know that Cuba's government isn't entirely perfect.

5: I said Castro was perfect? I may have said he's a model ruler, but not perfect.  If the government listened to the people we'd be out of Iraq or never even have gone there. The media controls the people, the corporations control the media and the government. Its very rare for government policy to change. Rather they just make new policies. That's just one small sign of corruption. Vietnam ended largely because hte government couldn't win the war, not because of the people's opinion. However I claim it as a victory for the people, because a victory for the Vietnamese freedom fighters was a victory for the American people as well.

As for civil rights, just exactly what changed? Tell me that? After Martin Luther King died blacks were still being gunned down by government pigs, and the government still treats them like criminals, and there are still disproportionately few African Americans in government. Black people are still on death row for crimes they didn't commit, the suppression of the black panther movement happened AFTER civil rights, so what exactly changed? All I see is that black folks have the ability to participate in the same sham elections as the rest of us, and that dosn't seem like much. The basic racism fundamental to the American system remained.

Patrick- People like George Bush are the system. They ruled Cuba ever since conquering it from Spain. I see nothing wrong with His Excellency not playing by their rules.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) God again with an irrelevent point. I'm not talking about abu graib im talking about Saddam, stay on topic. It's just so fuckin hellarious that you think that one picture is 1) grounds for violations against humanity by the US 2) and ur assertion that it was so "cruel". And my point with ur hypocricy was, in one side you say Palestine is justified in terrorism because Israel is WORSE but on the other hand, you think its not justifiied to violate ANY of Saddams rights despite the fact that he was a violater of countless geneva convention rights.

2) Most of the claims were studied done by researchers .. unrelated to the US Govt... and most of the amounts dead were counted post Castro taking over, not the process.

3) The point was, you are fine with a govt exerting a lot of power in order to prevent any subversion of that govt. So I guess if Americans and the American govt PERCIEVE a threat, its also ok for the govt to exert more power, vis-a-vis the patriot act for example.

4) We don't descriminate against in the sense that there behavior is illegal/considerd degenerate by the govt. The whole idea of marriage is a seperate idea or atleast can be considered so. I may think polygamy shouldn't be legal, but that doesn't mean i descriminate against a polygamist. As for Cuba, its hardly just "minor offenses" against gays and I don't see anything that shows its not still going on....so no idea what you mean by "being corrected". And nice way of just eliminating blame for a guy, oh ya anyone who was resisting Castro was an imperialist supporter. Has it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe some people didn't wanna be ruled under a communist system and hence opposed it? Did it maybe occur to you that people he labeled as "degenerate capitalists" perhaps just wanted to live a life under capatilism where they actually control their property as opposed to simply being "american imperialists". Your so ridiculous in how you just toss out people's lives because they were against Castro.

5) Yes you have, you've basically claimed in an earlier post somewhere that Castro has done nothing wrong against human rights and the such which has been disproved by simply the anti gay things alone. And calling someone his excellency implies you think he's pretty much flawless too.

So nothing changed after civil rights huh? I guess your right, America in 1945 is the same as America in 2005...oh wait...

[J m HofMarN]

Mnesymone- Castro didn't ask anyone to call him by that title, he's not a lunatic like Kim. People have given Castro titles, most notably Padre and His Excellency.

Renegade -

1.1:

Abu Graib, Guantanamo, Bagram, Saddam's photos, the crushing of the BPP movement, the crushing of communist unrest and unions, the attacks on blacks and native Americans, the crushing of Shay's rebellion and the original decision to allow only white rich males to vote. This is part of a clear and defined pattern of genocide and disrespect for the laws of human decency by the US government and it has never stopped. It's absurd to claim that Saddam is a greater evil or that he deserved to be publicly humiliated. Yes, if he is guilty he deserves to hang for what he did. But he does not deserve to be photographed naked. You have to draw a line.

1.2: Palestinian freedom fighters are not just justified because Israel is worse, but because Israel is occupying them and comitting genocide. Saddam is a bad guy, and he deserves to be punished, but not by people worse than he is. If Al Capone decided to shoot a purse theif it wouldn't be called justice, it would be called a crime. Criminals should be tried by international criminal courts, not US puppet governments.

2: All but one of the claims was from a person in a US government college or another US government institution. There was only one claim from an international organization. If Castro killed a hundred thousand people as one of your liars said the UN would have acted.

3: Perceive? The US government gives millions of dollars to Cuban terrorists. They've tried to murder Castro numerous times, often with mafia involvement and once without the knowledge of our own president. Today there is a monster in this country who blew up a Cuban air liner with US money and he walks free. But I suppose that's just how His Excellency perceives it. A capitalist flower like yourself probably just thinks it's normal non imperialist actions, right?

The US got hit once, with 4000 people dying, after we went out of our way to provoke it. That was a one time attack that has never been repeated or even attempted again. Perceiving that as a serious threat to our nation's stability is what I call fear mongering. The US government is making our people more afraid of terrorists who will never appear than the Cuban government is making their people fear a real threat.

His Excellency dosn't constantly ask his people to look out for Americans posing as homeless people. His Excellency dosn't constantly caution his citizens to look out for Americans trying to slip him pills (as they have before) His Excellency dosn't try to make his people afraid of the US, he just wants to live in peace with us and keep his nation's sovereignty. The US on the other hand has spread a massive fear campaign, heightened racial tension against Arabs, and led an open ended genocidal war against an entire people.

4: So if I make a constitutional ammendment that says Iranians can't marry, you wouldn't feel discriminated against? What if I said Iranians can't have sex (as several states have, such as South Carolina) You'd think it was just fine?

You yourself admitted that His Excellency closed these camps, not just to gays but to all those within them. You don't call that a correction? So the people who wanted to continue under Battista's system weren't degenerate? Maybe not, but they certainly were traitors. And there is free enterprise in Cuba now, mostly small businesses.

5: So His Excellency's one mistake justifies his overthnrow and replacement with an imperialist slave? And hey, if you'd look at the prevalent world attitude at that time it was pretty normal for gays to be discrimated against. The US was still doing it as well, and I highly doubt that a lot of gays were rounded up, I mean it's not like they wear big golden penises stitched to their coats. The great thing about His Excellency is that he changed his mind. Can you imagine Andrew Jackson doing that and freeing the Indians he'd imprisoned?

6: No. Now we're in an open ended and highly deadly war against Terrorism where we use horrificly destructive weapons on civilian targets. In 45 we were in an open ended and highly deadly war against Fascism where we used horrificly deestructive weapons on civilian targets. Now we're oppressing Muslims and being ruled solely by two parties, whereas before we were oppressing Japanese and being ruled solely by two parties.

Yup, a lot has changed.

The only trick that the US pulls is to change their scapegoats and enemies occasionally to keep ignorant fools with no sense of history off guard, and when we're at war with one enemy we've ALWAYS been at war with that enemy, so the sins of the past do not matter to people like you.

Edit: Please play nice, children.
-Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator

This post has been edited by Slade: 27 August 2005 - 10:17 PM

[J m HofMarN]

I hereby declare myself the winner. I dedicate this victory over those who argue in favor of imperialism to His Excellency.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Now, now, one can't declare themselves a winner. I declare you a winner.

[Mnesymone]

Otal can declare you a winner - I shall declare you a necromancer.

[J m HofMarN]

Sweet deal! A winner and a necromancer in the same thread!

[Slade]

I'll give you a pewter chalice filled with Brunswick stew.

Edit: But Renegade still has 24 hours to denounce your victory before you can officially be declared victor.

This post has been edited by Slade: 12 September 2005 - 10:54 PM

[Renegade]

No you don't win, just havne't been paying attention to these forums in awhile

[Slade]

That was more like 384 hours, but I'll let it go.

[Renegade]

Mnesymone- Castro didn't ask anyone to call him by that title, he's not a lunatic like Kim. People have given Castro titles, most notably Padre and His Excellency.

To lazy to argue this point, ur too bloody stubborn to admit the retardation of calling a guy "his excellency". From now on I'm just gonna refer to myself as "Best person ever though" cause I think it's really cool.

Abu Graib, Guantanamo, Bagram, Saddam's photos, the crushing of the BPP movement, the crushing of communist unrest and unions, the attacks on blacks and native Americans, the crushing of Shay's rebellion and the original decision to allow only white rich males to vote. This is part of a clear and defined pattern of genocide and disrespect for the laws of human decency by the US government and it has never stopped. It's absurd to claim that Saddam is a greater evil or that he deserved to be publicly humiliated. Yes, if he is guilty he deserves to hang for what he did. But he does not deserve to be photographed naked. You have to draw a line.

I love how all I said or I remember saying was saying why those photos of Saddam wasn't a violation by the US govt of human rights laws/geneva convention, and now were talking about Shay's rebellion.. Btw ill put my money on Saddam rather having to be photoed in his underwear than being hanged but thats a hunch.

1.2: Palestinian freedom fighters are not just justified because Israel is worse, but because Israel is occupying them and comitting genocide. Saddam is a bad guy, and he deserves to be punished, but not by people worse than he is.

Oh really? The new govt leaders are WORSE than Saddam for Iraq? Interrrrrrrrrrrresting. I'll put my money on Iraq being a better country in standard of living and general place in the world in 10 years over Saddam ruling for the next 10 years or one of his insane sons.

2: All but one of the claims was from a person in a US government college or another US government institution. There was only one claim from an international organization. If Castro killed a hundred thousand people as one of your liars said the UN would have acted.

Too lazy to do more research on Castro, primarily because even if the UN did say he's killed people unfairly even if its 3 people, you'd still say it was a US conspiracy to root him out. It's impossible to argue against someone who worships that person like a god ie. you. It's like arguing against a religious person against their faith, its just not possible.

His Excellency dosn't constantly ask his people to look out for Americans posing as homeless people. His Excellency dosn't constantly caution his citizens to look out for Americans trying to slip him pills (as they have before).

That's cause he's a dictator and doesn't NEED to ask his people to act on people he suspects ... use your common sense. Castro doesn't NEED to win over public opinion cause public opinion doesn't CHANGE the govt there.

4: So if I make a constitutional ammendment that says Iranians can't marry, you wouldn't feel discriminated against? What if I said Iranians can't have sex (as several states have, such as South Carolina) You'd think it was just fine?

You yourself admitted that His Excellency closed these camps, not just to gays but to all those within them. You don't call that a correction? So the people who wanted to continue under Battista's system weren't degenerate? Maybe not, but they certainly were traitors. And there is free enterprise in Cuba now, mostly small businesses.

Umm no... marriage has been defined by history and society as between a man and a woman. It's just a societal fact. Thus its not hard to see why people consider gay marriages unreasonable to be sanctioned by the govt or atleast put as equal to normal marriages. More importantly though, whether you agree or not with gay marriage, people in America that are gay still can live their lives normally where as in Cuba you are CONSIDERED A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN.

And yes he closed the camps (which btw doesn't mean what he did was right in the first place but i digress since you think hes a god), but thats irrelevent to his belief still that being gay is a "capatalistic born disease" and still discriminates against them in the public arena. And they were traitors? WTF????? Just because a person creates a business and trades with foreign countries to earn a living he's a traitor? Has it ever occured to you that MAYBE just MAYBE some people in Cuba actually BELIEVED it was right to be allied with their neighbors or atleast more logical? No I bet that doesn't occur to you because you think every capatalist means they supported Battista by default as opposed to simply opposing Castro and communism.

By,

BEST PERSON EVVVVVVVVVVVVER

This post has been edited by Renegade: 01 October 2005 - 12:07 AM

[Renegade]

5: So His Excellency's one mistake justifies his overthnrow and replacement with an imperialist slave? And hey, if you'd look at the prevalent world attitude at that time it was pretty normal for gays to be discrimated against. The US was still doing it as well, and I highly doubt that a lot of gays were rounded up, I mean it's not like they wear big golden penises stitched to their coats. The great thing about His Excellency is that he changed his mind. Can you imagine Andrew Jackson doing that and freeing the Indians he'd imprisoned?

No I never said his mistakes justify his overthrow. My whole expose on Castro had nothing to do with my opinion of him being a leader as opposed to someone else, it was simply to prove hes an asshat like everyone else and that he doesn't deserve the title of "excellency" that you have given him. He changed his minds about CLOSING THE CAMPS but he didn't close his mind on the idea of homosexuals. And the difference is Andrew Jackson had two terms and was out, Castro's been there for 40 years and isn't leaving anytime soon... hence the problem with a dictator.

6: No. Now we're in an open ended and highly deadly war against Terrorism where we use horrificly destructive weapons on civilian targets. In 45 we were in an open ended and highly deadly war against Fascism where we used horrificly deestructive weapons on civilian targets. Now we're oppressing Muslims and being ruled solely by two parties, whereas before we were oppressing Japanese and being ruled solely by two parties.

Oppressing Japan? Not even gonna bother with this one. Open a history book that isn't written by Michael Moore, a socialist publisher, or something given out by Castro. Or atleast just learn what logic is and realize that in a war civilians do die and you try to prevent the loss of your own soldiers. I'm fine with you questioning our usage of TWO atomic bombs, but to say we were fighting that war to "oppress" japan is like me saying we attacked Germany because we wanted to "supress" Germany. And we are ruled by two parties because thats the most convenient way to run our govt, and the citizens of this country have chosen it to be as such. Nothing is stoppin a 3rd party candidate and we've had 3rd party candidates run just fine. Take a course on American Govt or something, i'm sure even a high school level one will explain to you why a two party system has gradually evolved in this country from the very beginning.


by,

BESTEST PERSON EVER IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD

This post has been edited by Renegade: 01 October 2005 - 12:08 AM