I read that about 75% of Cuba's best arable land was owned by foreign individuals or companies before the revolution (mainly USA) How was that fair?

The Cuban Revolution was an armed revolt that led to the overthrow of dictator Fulgencio Batista of Cuba on January 1, 1959 by the 26th of July Movement led by Fidel Castro.[1]

"I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear."

– U.S. President John F. Kennedy, interview with Jean Daniel, October 24, 1963

rod03801: So if the type of socialism got introduced that power over everything was in the power of the people (true worker ownership) you would say no?

Pedro Martínez: Yes I can disagree. He was a revolutionary just like in the American revolution.

As for a dictator.. tricky. That the USA was trying to kill and overthrow him every 5 minutes would have had an effect on how the government went along..

I think in the USA it's called Homeland security now.. or the CIA beforehand.

If a silly argument is about to start, it WILL be deleted, and NO warning messages will be sent

(V): So what? He was a socialist dictator, you can't deny that. So instead of dodging, why don't you go back to your original post and correct it, now that you have been thrown some knowledge.

(V): All I know is I don't want Socialism in MY federal govt, and I will definitely do MY part to not see it be there.

rod03801: You didn't. But it seems socialism only became a dirty word in the USA after WWII. If it wasn't for the Russians and China we'd found WWII a longer and more costly war.

Pedro Martínez: And why did Castro into power.. because the little guy was being trodden on by capitalists.

(V): Cold war talk? I'm not sure where I have mentioned Cold War. Though, I'm not sure I classify as "conservative element". But maybe. I probably fall under that category more closely than I do "liberal element". But it's a bit too "blanket-y" for me.

I don't have the energy to bother going into the "brainwashing" bit as far as socialism goes. He is pretty darn close to it though.

(V): There have been many socialist dictators. Castro, to name one.

rod03801: HA... I think the conservative element in the USA are just rehashing old cold war talk.

Can understand that considering how long the cold war went on for. The US gov had to justify building WMD's in the 10's of thousands somehow.

But.. saying that.. could it be said that this whole "socialist" thing in the USA is federal brainwashing you in the USA still (in part) accept??

(V): HA. He has found a way to combine the 2.

rod03801: I just find that the term "socialist dictator" is a bad inaccurate term. A socialist cannot be a dictator. By being one (such as the former USSR leaders) you are no longer socialist (especially considering some types of socialism are totally against having governments) but just a dictatorship.

Artful Dodger: Yeah, Hannity's radio show deals with that a lot. He always tries to get the libs that call to tell him one great thing that the anointed one has done or has been successful at. Very rarely do they list anything specific. They either turn to bashing the past president, or keep talking in generalizations. I love his show.

Artful Dodger: you said..."too lazy" and that is another reason why obesity is so rife in our communities.

Weekday,get up out of your comfortable chair and twiddle a nob for gods sake. LOL

It is amazing as you say how people want to be controlled, but then some find that is a turn-on.

(V): Doesn't bother me, you calling him that. He was a nasty president too.

I'm sure I have stated over time that I'm truly not a fan of either "defined" major politcal party in the USA.

I am NO fan of Bush.

rod03801: we have the same set up of Govt...3 levels that is...it is generally thought where I live that, that is one too many, so really the only one to go would have to be the Local one. The cost of the 3 is phenomenal and getting rid of the lower levels would save billions of dollars per year that could be put to better use.

as for the level of noise in TV advertising....what the hell is stopping pefople from using their "mute" button...

rod03801: So when Bush had protesters against the Iraq war moved away from the route he was taking to special zones.... he was being what??

A Fascist dictator?

(V): This country has an ingenious set up, (or it DID originally, unfortunately we have a socialist dictator who sees differently), where there are (simply) 3 levels of government. Federal, State, and Local. The Federal level was NEVER intended to INTRUDE upon our lives the way it is starting to do. Really, the level CLOSEST to the common person is the one that should be most involved in our lives. You don't like what your local government is doing, you either vote them out, or you MOVE to an area that is suitable to what you want.

Stupid votes like the volume of TV commercials irritate me, and if I find out that someone I CAN vote for was responsible for wasting the federal government's time with it then I will certainly keep that in mind with the next election. Now, the FCC is a totally different thing. THAT was set up for that sort of thing, and if THEY had regulated on it? Well, I would probably feel differently. (I'm NOT against people lowering the volume on commercials. LOL. I agree completely, it's annoying. It's NOT the job of the SENATE to decide that though.)

I find this an hilarious conversation on free speech

it sure as hell doesn't happen in here does it, when your opinions have to be passed by someone who thinks they are a higher being.

I wonder if this will get passed.....

Sounds like if you have a big business and like to trample on the little people.. move your business to the USA!!

Vikings: Really?

It sounds like the only free 'people' are the big companies who you'll let trample all over you anytime, anyplace.. anywhere..... As long as local law says it's ok.. even if they might be bought (as has happened in the past)... you have no rights but to lobby (timely) or move.

.. That's really great... NOT!!

(V): it's obvious that you don't understand the meaning of the UNITED STATES, Each state has the right to make up their own own laws, you see the constitution was designed to protect us, the citizens, from the federal government over reaching it's authority, that is why we are truly a free country

Vikings: Within the law?? Now you are saying you can trespass and affect mob rule on a business.

"local business here have been run out of town by not being citizen friendly."

What happened to free speech??

(V): and since you have brought this example up, look at New York, they are loosing many of their highest tax base because they do not like what the local government is doing and the town will suffer untill the will of the people have worked their magic

(V): bussiness have the right to do whatever is within the law,you are twisting it all around, local business here have been run out of town by not being citizen friendly.

and I wouldn't want to live in such a corrupt town , they wouldn't be getting my tax money for long, as it is my right to live where I want to live

Vikings: IF it did happen you are powerless you are saying... I mean, some councilmen might have a nice job lined up after via the advertising company and not give a damn. Lobbying can take a while...

.. basically it sounds like you are saying businesses have the right to do whatever and your rights don't matter as it's a business?

(V): That won;t liklely happen as even city councilmen like to be re-elected, and that wouldn't be very likely the case once you brought it up to the attention of the local media, but if that wasn't to be the case, you'd have the right to put up with it or move or lobby against it

Vikings: So if the local gov was bought out ... then what?

(V): yes you can, it is called local jurisdiction, a city ordinance which is different
but you were talking about the federal government not local government, try again

Vikings: Ok.. but someone could if they wanted to place an advert 100 feet tall (with permission of the land owners) opposite your house selling say.. "Obama healthcare works" in neon lights.. and you can't do anything?

(V): it is a criminal offense here, the severity depends on the situation, ie. inside or outside

Vikings: Isn't trespassing in the USA a civil offence like here in the UK.

ie sellers can still knock.. especially if they have no morals... which isn't unusual considering past records on what they will try and get upto.

Tuesday: I agree it's tasteless, just like flag burning and mosques 2 blocks from ground zero.
Our constitution never guaranteed that anything would be easy

Advert just on UK TV.....

A blonde woman dancing with moves suggesting the injection of drugs... she speaks claiming she is our addiction for a perfume who's name is based on opium.

Gee.. why not not just name it Eu da heroin!!

Tuesday: I am posting a sign that warns of trespassing, just like you can do by turning the chanel or complaining and boycotting that particular channel

Vikings: Unfortunately, it also means that some whako church group can stand outside a funeral of a fallen soldier and spew tasteless messages

Tuesday: Yes, unless I post clearly a "No soliciting" sign. And that happens all the time, every time someone makes news, the media camp out on that persons lawn until the story no longer fills their needs

Vikings: First it was free speech.. now it's "speech".

Make up your mind!!

Tuesday: selling is a right, it is in the constitution, it's called THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

(V): if you look it up on wikipedia you would find out that it was in fact judges that took that right away
and tell me how a comercial is not a form of speech, you can't

Tuesday: Its a privilage to drive, its a privilage to purchase a t.v., its a right to talk