What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
55 Comments
- Blinker1315, on 04/23/2009, -0/+17The main point is one of U.S. hypocrisy, going back to JFK's administration (when, obviously, Cuba, with a young Castro, was far more vital and backed by the Soviet Union) up till today. Not only should the embargo be lifted, but US commercial interests ought to be encouraged to do business in Cuba, not only providing jobs for starved Cubans, but perhaps more importantly, emboldening a younger generation that was born way after Castro took power. As for the hypocrisy (not to mention the Florida politics, which is about played out), it's not as if the US doesn't have relations with plenty of countries whose human rights violations are well known. Saudi Arabia, anyone? Vietnam? It's time to end this anachronism of cold war policy.
- amabaie, on 04/23/2009, -1/+17I agree. Whether one like a regime or not, no good comes with isolating people in that manner. There are oither ways to place economic pressure on countries than to ban travel.
- YamsterYams, on 04/23/2009, -1/+12This policy was from another lifetime, and makes no sense in the 21st century. The big question is whether President Obama has the political guts to buck tradition and do the right thing. I hope so.
- lagannt, on 04/23/2009, -0/+9Don't count on it. I got my fanny pack and sandals with white socks ready to go..
- BrownieMix, on 04/23/2009, -0/+7I never understood why there was so many restrictions on Cuba.
- inactive, on 04/23/2009, -3/+10Robert F. Kennedy's stand on civil rights:
"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."
--Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961
Kennedy later authorized wiretapping the phones and bugging the hotel rooms of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - oldhick, on 04/23/2009, -1/+8China???
- vsaint, on 04/23/2009, -0/+6He said Americans, not Germans.
- nirvanix, on 04/23/2009, -4/+9Americans, please don't ruin Cuba by going there. Please.
- SupremeLeaders, on 04/23/2009, -0/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doi_Moi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_reform_in_th ...
Has Cuba done any of this?. - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -2/+6If you listen to the secret tapes, MLK is a racist.
- Soyea, on 04/24/2009, -0/+4it started back in the 60's look it up back then the reasons as with all things cold war era very political
- tdog138, on 04/23/2009, -3/+7I might agree with you, but you use way too many abbreviations and slashes for me to actually understand what the hell you are saying.
- whatthefu, on 04/23/2009, -2/+6None of your argument justifies prohibiting Americans from traveling to another nation.
- inactive, on 04/24/2009, -1/+4Same reason there are so many restrictions on marijuana.
- inactive, on 04/23/2009, -1/+4Cubans brave the sea because it is the only way to get here! Not sure if you know but Cubans aren't allowed to leave the island unless under strict permission.
If America allows Americans to travel to Cuba shouldn't Raul let Cubans travel to America? - ayeroxor, on 04/24/2009, -0/+3I shouldn't be surprised that you're so deep in your own muck, you can't see your own tactics.
I'm referring to all you politinazis who use phrases such as "the right" and "the left" so you can make straw-man arguments and thereby disregard anyone you choose. "Oh, you disagree with me on X? Then you're a member of 'the left' and therefore we can never agree on anything so good day."
The only people who use phrases like "the right" and "the left" are too stupid to realize there are more than two kinds of people in the world. In case I have to point it out to you, you lost me at "despite what the Left claims." - inactive, on 04/23/2009, -10/+13I don't understand the hullabaloo over easing restrictions/embargoes: ALL the reasons given are already-dealt-with issues, despite what the Left claims. How quickly we forget that Cubans cont to give their lives in order to escape the Fidel Fiasco! Do we not understand that the Castro Bros have 1)run the island completely into the ground; 2)cont to take donated monies/goods/svcs f/their own, personal aggrandizement; 3)are unable/unwilling to allow the island nation to support itself? Agrarian reformers, indeed: Now THERE was some "hope" & "change"! These guys—& Che!—made Batista look like the Messiah.
If we're "so concerned about the Cubans," let's open up immigration and open some dialogue w/Raul concerning emigration issues. Note how the US Admins—past & present—cont down the path of almost no immigration fr/Cuba, while allowing untold hundreds of thousands to saunter across the US/Mex border. Now, let's see . . . Cuban refugees tend to be/vote conservative; Mex illegals tend to vote Left. Hmmm. - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -0/+3Wir Germans kommen in peace.
- johnn11238, on 04/24/2009, -2/+5America should not be forbidding Americans to go anywhere.
- dar01, on 04/24/2009, -0/+2The embargo is still in place for two reasons. 1.) the Bay of Pigs was one of the worst groin pulls in US History and it's still embarassing. And 2.) The various administrations (all of them) pander to the Cuban Exiles in abundance in Miami all of whom are politically hyperactive. The embargo has been in place for decades, and had no effect on the Cuban government's stands, and the rest of the world travels there any time they want. Drop the embargo, let the tourists flood the place, and fairly soon Cuba will just be one more Carribbean island of many with a tourist enclave, a Travel Channel special on spring break, and Hedonism 3.
- inactive, on 04/23/2009, -1/+3I don't get where people say this emboldens Cubans wanting freedom, isn't it a little insulting for tourists to be sipping pina coladas on the beaches of Cuba while there are shanty towns with tin roofs just miles back behind you? And the only Cubans allowed around these resorts are english-speaking servants, no one else allowed.
- cerejota, on 04/23/2009, -0/+2Borders and travel restrictions are an untenable anachronism. We spend billions in putting a barrier to freedom and commerce for very little benefit.
- ayeroxor, on 04/27/2009, -1/+3It's very simple, My Shingle-owning friend.
The 10th amendment says anything not restricted by the constitution is left to the states or the people. The fact that travel rights are not restricted by the constitution is tacit granting of such rights. But don't take my word for it. Justice Stewart held the notion before I did. Shall you argue us both?
Furthermore, in U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "[cross-border travel] is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." Also, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." Finally, many constitutional scholars believe that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Q.E.D. - JackSchittt, on 04/24/2009, -1/+3So let me get this right: When someone posts a poll saying that Obama has favorable approval ratings, you dismiss it as "unreliable".
And you counter his argument by posting a poll that MSNBC even admits is unscientific?
Polls are only legitimate if they coincide with your point of view? - ayeroxor, on 04/24/2009, -0/+2Sad you're getting buried for stating a constitutional fact. Some people don't deserve to live here, such as your buriers.
- cerejota, on 04/24/2009, -0/+2not true. For example, the mariel boat lift.
- ayeroxor, on 04/24/2009, -2/+4And it is completely unconstitutional for the Federal government to tell me as a free citizen to which countries I may travel.
- inactive, on 04/24/2009, -2/+4MLK was not a government official.
- ayeroxor, on 04/24/2009, -1/+3KJeff - you should stop labeling people merely for the purpose of disregarding them.
- ayeroxor, on 04/24/2009, -0/+2Maybe if the had a fraction of China's exposure to the west through industry, they would have by now.
- inactive, on 04/24/2009, -0/+1http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/mlk_jr-expos ...
(disclaimer: these are not my opinions) - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -2/+3Approval ratings change as much as the weather does, its never reliable. On a MSNBC poll, people gave obama an F on his first 100 days, I copied and pasted the poll for you:
Give President Obama a grade
Live Vote
If you were grading Barack Obama on his performance as president, what would he get?
He gets an A
He gets a B
He gets a C
He gets a D
He gets an F
Vote to see results
Live Vote
If you were grading Barack Obama on his performance as president, what would he get? * 2827708 responses
He gets an A
35%
He gets a B
6.9%
He gets a C
5%
He gets a D
13%
He gets an F
40%
Not a scientific survey. Click to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding.
msnbc.com - AROERS, on 04/24/2009, -1/+2I thought part of the reason to prevent travel to Cuba was the mafia was setting up shop and was poised to become a huge player in that market and the Kennedy's have been in battle with them for years.
- canchin, on 04/24/2009, -2/+3It really is time for America to stop the Economic Terrorism against the small country of Cuba.
- canchin, on 04/25/2009, -1/+2Yes, we are, but that doesn't explain your presence.
- ayeroxor, on 04/26/2009, -2/+3Read it again, snookums. The constitution guarantees the right to unhindered travel. Look it up.
- cherrysweet00, on 05/01/2009, -0/+1Cuba is so cold war. let's open up our relations and give our rich bankers somewhere else to blow our money.
- farfromsubtl, on 04/23/2009, -3/+4Canadians are seriously worried about Americans traveling to Cuba. Everything is super cheap there right now for us, but an influx of new tourists would most certainly drive prices up in one of our favorite destinations. Selfish, right? haha
- inactive, on 04/26/2009, -3/+4I've "looked up" this issue—& numerous others—often; in fact, one can say that I'm about as much of a "constitutional freak" as anyone could possibly be w/o an official shingle . . . although I do "own" some others.
While it's difficult to "prove" that this "constitutional right" simply doesn't exist w/o, in this case, strong-arming you into a sitting position and forcing you to read aloud in my presence the entire Constitution, BoR, & subsequent Amendments, I'll facilitate matters by giving you a single link☞
http://www.tysontrips.com/journals/journals_feb20. ...
[see ⁋7]
and returning the ball to your court by demanding you cite Constitution Article/Section a/o BoR/Amend nbr. - inactive, on 04/27/2009, -1/+2Sea lawyers on the Left quote the 10th b/c it is easily the "catch-all" Amend they wet-dream about. So, since the 10th doesn't preclude me burning your house down, it IS my "constitutional right." Don't be an idiot. As well, unqualified-to-practice-in-the-military, civilian lawyers have, since almost time immemorial, relied upon the UCMJ's "catch-all," Article 134; that has never worked, either.
Shapiro v Thomp is an INTERSTATE issue, re: 14th Amend, previously mentioned. Your refusal to read the entire link/decision has resulted in your law school application denial.
Game; set; match. - cerejota, on 04/23/2009, -3/+3Please do a fact check: Cubans overwhelmingly voted for Obama, in particular recent immigrants. Also, the law until a few years ago provided fast track citizenship to any Cuban who reached USA territory. There is not a single nation ever to receive such preferential treatment.
The fact remains that the only reason Cubans brave the sea is because of the USA's quota system. - ddad01, on 04/24/2009, -0/+0Hagiography, at best. Ms. KENNEDY-townsend's memory is selective.
- johnn11238, on 04/24/2009, -2/+261% approval rating as of 4/23
source: www.realclearpolitics.com - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -4/+4Obama sure does love to make friends with our past enemies, first he bows down like a slave to the Saudi king, then he's seen laughing and hugging with Hugo Chavez, I think Hillary has more balls than he does. I wouldnt be surprised if he goes over to north korea and starts making friends with Kim.
You wouldn't have seen McCain being pushed around like Obama is. He's made himself look like pushover on the world stage.
The majority of Americans including myself are regretting voting for him. - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -2/+2I was using my poll to contradict his own statement, he just said obamas approval rating was 60%, while my poll showed the majority were unsatisfied with his performance. That shows how polls cant be relied on.
- inactive, on 04/26/2009, -3/+3I see that in the ensuing time fr/original posting that some disagree* w/the "constitutional" issue. I perceive that some—perhaps even some on the Right—believe that the unalienable rights & freedoms granted by the Creator and seconded by the Constitution/Amendments incl every behavior that "seems lawful & reasonable," whether mentioned outright in these documents or more often "assumed." There are only a couple paths to constitutionality: 1)It's actually in the Constitution/Bill of Rights, mentioned verbatim; 2)an amendment has been added to the Constitution, again verbatim; a/o 3)the SCotUS rules on some issue, often "magically finding" what the framers REALLY had in mind.
Internat'l travel is NOT covered by the US Constitution. There have been several "travel" rulings by the SCotUS concerning the 14th A, but they all dealt w/financial & voting rights [etc] connected to interstate travel, ie: one's temporarily/permanently moving to another state. These rulings were handed down in the day when interstate movement was a much bigger deal than it is now—and in the day before the federal gov't became the behemoth it is currently.
Pls don't embarrass yourselves any further by shouting "It's my constitutional right!" before actually reading the Constitution, the Amendments, & the legal rulings thereto. [standard disclaimer: It IS an unfortunate fact that some SCotUS rulings have been a reflection of theretofore undiscovered constitutional "rights of original intent," the now-legalized "wall of separation" issue being only one of many. F/this reason, it is important to know what local, district, circuit, & supreme court rulings have "found." IoW, an issue doesn't necessarily have to make sense constitutionally in order to become law. OtoH, if an issue—eg, internat'l travel—has not been addressed, it is neither "constitutional" nor "unconstitutional." Don't like it? Leftists can call Ruth Bader Ginsberg et al; everyone in his Right mind, Clarence Thomas.]
*Or, some simply "Digg down" everything I write. This is always the larger problem in attending those one-room schools lacking firm guidance. - BrownieMix, on 04/24/2009, -1/+1I still don't see why there are restrictions with Cuba. It's not like Russia blocked off trading with everyone who had a missile UN defense base in their country.
- p51d007, on 04/24/2009, -1/+1Hey, he's been dead for how long? Who cares.
- shylove, on 04/24/2009, -2/+1I think it is time to return the expropriated Guantanamo base also since expropriation is always on our mind, such as the expropriation of the Western Hemissphere by the Colonial Powers
-
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is