Democrats and Castro Sympathizers

[RitaZ.]

Considering that I was born in Cuba and got to "experience" socialism first-hand for 14 years of my life, there is NO ONE on this planet that will convince me that it's a "good thing".

As for Castro and communism supporters, I only have this to say... Go, live in Cuba for 6 months, like the common folks, then come back and tell me how you really like it and if you still support it.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Robinrs
I don't do silly things like that and anyone who knows me knows I don't.

Silly?

If it's silly, why did you post a reply?

 

[Robinrs]

Elwood, I sent you a PM

 

[peachgirl]

I think the OP is aware that it will definitely get a rise from people, and, of course, it did.

Well of course she did. That's the reason the title on her thread is "Democrats and Castro", not "Hollywood Elite and Castro."

I wonder if the right realizes that when they pretend to be so dense and ignorant that they don't understand the obvious in order to pull these stunts that they actually succeed?

<center><IMG width="200" SRC="http://irregularradio.com/lovetoomuch.gif"></center>

 

[Maleficent13]

You know, I have been an advocate for people being able to say what they want, when they want. When others demand that political posts go away, I was with those who said, no, this is a community board, and we all have a right to be here and to express our opinions.

I still think that. But now I'm beginning to see why others get so upset. It's because regardless of the literal meaning of the post, it is implicitly clear what the intent of the post is. The intent, more and more frequently, is to get everyone upset and riled up. The intent is to try to make as many people look like hot blooded reactionaries (whether they are or not) as you can, because you know they won't be able to read your posts without getting offended or upset. And then condemn them for getting upset by labeling them "irrational" or "uninformed".

Whether I agree with the literal content of the OP or not, or any OP on a political issue, people on both sides are now just doing it to tick people off. And that makes me very sad. Because to me, it's more important than that.

JMO.

edited to change a word I was sure would be censored to a less offensive one.

 

[disney4us2002]

Originally posted by Maleficent13
You know, I have been an advocate for people being able to say what they want, when they want. When others demand that political posts go away, I was with those who said, no, this is a community board, and we all have a right to be here and to express our opinions.

I still think that. But now I'm beginning to see why others get so upset. It's because regardless of the literal meaning of the post, it is implicitly clear what the intent of the post is. The intent, more and more frequently, is to get everyone upset and riled up. The intent is to try to make as many people look like hot blooded reactionaries (whether they are or not) as you can, because you know they won't be able to read your posts without getting offended or upset. And then condemn them for getting upset by labeling them "irrational" or "uninformed".

Whether I agree with the literal content of the OP or not, or any OP on a political issue, people on both sides are now just doing it to tick people off. And that makes me very sad. Because to me, it's more important than that.

JMO.

edited to change a word I was sure would be censored to a less offensive one.

To some degree I concur; however, I am not sure it is the content of the post that gets people riled up as much as the username of the OP.

Since when is it ever okay to make personal comments about another poster's marriage? How was it even remotely connected to the topic?

 

[Maleficent13]

Originally posted by disney4us2002
To some degree I concur; however, I am not sure it is the content of the post that gets people riled up as much as the username of the OP.

Since when is it ever okay to make personal comments about another poster's marriage? How was it even remotely connected to the topic?

I agree that personal attacks are not appropriate. I am not condoning what was said. I am, however, saying that the intent of the OP (original post or original poster, however you want to look at it) was to illicit an emotional response so that it could be attacked. It is unfortunate that particular respondent chose to use a personal attack in her emotion. It was not right.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Robinrs
I see the title of this post as somewhat "hysterical"... after all since the 50s the idea of being bedfellows with Communists is ground for extreme opinion and hysteria. Maybe it's just me. Boy, I'd hate to t"hink what would happen if someone put up a title such as
"Republicans and Hitler Sympathizers..."

I think the OP is aware that it will definitely get a rise from people, and, of course, it did.

Have you seen/read the Venona Project? Much of the hysteria (as you call it) was, in fact, founded in fact and reason. Although not spoken of too often, the government released the Venona Papers in 1995. . .much information is found on the web. It turns out that, in fact, there were MANY more communist spies, sympathizers, and Party members than originally thought. A recently published book (among many more): http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/103-6229095-6451066?v=glance&s=books
http://www.fact-index.com/v/ve/venona_project.html

I digress, however. I realize my post caused outrage, and I completely understand. Believe it or not, that was absolutely not my only intention. This is a VALID concern and question and I was hoping that instead of posters insulting me or bashing my post, some insights would be shared--if any of those who insulted me or bashed my post actually had any insights regarding this.

Someone here pointed out Republicans have had a history of supporting certain dictators. There is some truth here. Personally, I thought the Shah was a better choice than the Ayatollah, but Carter and his supporters didn't agree (at least he wasn't awarded a Peace Prize for that!).

However, I am specifically concerned with the members of the Hollywood elite that seem to sympathize with Castro. And, when I did some searches before I posted that article, I specifically searched for Republicans that may have supported him in some way. I didn't find any at all. Since many of these sympathizers mentioned in the article are also Kerry supporters, I thought I'd pose the question to other Kerry supporters (and Bush supporters, too), with the hope that some on the left would share their views intelligently.

Many of these folks in the article have also been quoted as being concerned that the Patriot Act or our present Administration has attempted to curtail our civil liberties. With this in mind, I was curious to find out why that concern wasn't given to the many living under Castro's rule. I was curious to find out why State healthcare and education is more important to these people than Freedom and the Right to pursue happiness. And, I wanted to find out why those sympathizers also dislike our present Administration and think Kerry would be a better choice.

I think the misunderstanding here is that I posted to cause outrage. The truth is, I posted because I AM outraged.

 

[Teejay32]

Socialism is a religion for some people , I tell you. My cousins are like that. [I think they consider me a black sheep.]

I think the problem is a simple one - it's easy to stand up and tell thousands or millions of people how they should think, or believe, or live their lives, but it's another for the chief proponents to live it themselves. People entrenched in their beliefs don't see the contradictions that other, ordinary people can see a mile away, and that's why we have the Pat Robertsons of the world (and their supporters) on the right along with the Castros on the left.

 

[Abracadabra]

I thought the thread title is misleading at best suggesting that Democrats are Castro sympathizers or Castro sympathizers are automatically Democrats. It also assumes that all those mentioned in the article are affiliated with the Democratic Party, which may or may not be the case.

After wading through the article, I didn't see where anyone quoted was essentially a Castro sympathizer or supporter of his politics ... well, except for Chevy Chase, who's taken so many pratfalls in his career, I doubt he could think straight if his life depended on it.

What I came away with was an impression of people who met someone famous and were left with a significant memory of that event. They have the right to express their opinions just as you and I do. The fact that we may or may not agree is no justification to demonize them for their opinions. They, like you and I, are free to pursue happiness. They are just doing it in a different way than the OP approves. But then again there's nothing in the DOI or Constitution that requires any of us obtain every other American's approval of our pursuit of happiness BEFORE we begin the pursuit. Thank goodness for that!

 

[disney4us2002]

Honestly Kendra, I don't have any idea why the liberal actors sympathize with Castro. How anyone could think a country where the people are not free to leave is ideal is simply beyond my understanding.

As for the posters here, it seems they cannot get past your title and probably your username (note this is my opinion from all the lurking I've done here). It was suggested that actors be stated in the title rather than democrats. Yes, the actors mentioned are vocal democrats but perhaps some feel that is not relevant.

quote
I digress, however. I realize my post caused outrage, and I completely understand. Believe it or not, that was absolutely not my only intention.


It is pretty clear you are not believed. Someone posted a while ago that liberal meant open-minded. I question either the definition or those claiming to be liberal.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Does any one of you, regardless of your politcal party, REALLY CARE what an extremly wealthy, spoiled rotten and probably way out of touch with the real world celebrity thinks about politics anyway???

I certainly don't. They are entitled to their opinions, but I honestly don't care what their opinions are and I don't know many people who do.

 

[Paradise]

Castro has outlived how many American Presidents now? We are perpetuating more than 40 years of failed policy. When nature runs it course and Castro dies, we did not win the battle. He simply died. Cuba is a small Caribbean island that is not a military or political threat to the World Power USA or any of the tiny nations in the region.

I have yet to find a politian or a layman to explain why tiny Cuba is such a big threat yet Communist China is such a great friend?

 

[Planogirl]

This article is so insignificant IMO. The number of Hollywood elite mentioned in the article is only a small number and who knows why they did what they did? It's never made clear that most of those who met with Castro actually support him.

As for caring what famous people think, I care about what they think as much as virtually anyone else.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Teejay32
Socialism is a religion for some people , I tell you. My cousins are like that. [I think they consider me a black sheep.]

I think the problem is a simple one - it's easy to stand up and tell thousands or millions of people how they should think, or believe, or live their lives, but it's another for the chief proponents to live it themselves. People entrenched in their beliefs don't see the contradictions that other, ordinary people can see a mile away, and that's why we have the Pat Robertsons of the world (and their supporters) on the right along with the Castros on the left.

This is interesting!

What differs here, however, is a very vocal segment of the population is sympathizing with Castro--though he stands for everything that is the antithesis of liberty and Democracy. And, many of these SAME folks are also anti-Bush. I'm really trying to find out WHY this is. What is the connection that makes those mentioned admire Castro and admire Kerry? Due to the political climate of our country today, I think the answer to this question would be interesting and worth trying to discover.

Pat Robertson supporters (as nutty or sane as one may find them) don't display this same inconsistency in their politics--as far as I know. They are religious Christians and their politics reflect this.

The people I'm questioning are vocal Democrats, some have said they are concerned that the Bush Administration is trampling on our civil liberties (or close) yet they are sympathetic to this Communist Dictator.

To be more specific, I am not concerned about these people because they are celebrities. I am concerned because I would like to discover what the commonality may be that would cause one to be supportive of Castro--despite what he has done to his people--while, strangely enough, accusing Bush (falsely, imho) of putting our civil liberties at risk, etc.

Danny Glover has said, for instance: "The whole idea is to crush any kind of dissent," he said. "Something is happening now that is very dark and very sinister in this country, and for us to not admit it is happening is, in some ways, for us to be blind." 5/18/2003

Now, what does he see in Castro that is welcoming of dissent?

Ed Asner has said this on 10/10/2003: "I think Joe Stalin was a guy that was hugely misunderstood, and to this day, I don't think I have ever seen an adequate job done of telling the story of Joe Stalin, so I guess my answer would have to be Joe Stalin." But he has also said this: "I feel that George Bush's actions are desecrating the America that I grew up in and believed in. "

Spielberg is quoted here yet he also produced Kerry's nin minute bioepic this past month.

There are obviously many more quotes. . .

I'm not saying that these celebrities are positive representitives of the Democratic Party! However, many of them (more than those in the article, for instance) ARE fundraisers or supporters for Kerry and many of them have vocally expressed many negative views towards Bush.

Since less famous people aren't often quoted in news stories, I'm trying to discover the connection with those that ARE quoted in news stories. That they are celebrities is definitely not my main concern.

If one is a Castro sympathizer--therefore showing some support for his rule--why are they also supportive of Kerry and not supportive of Bush?

 

[peachgirl]

I realize my post caused outrage, and I completely understand. Believe it or not, that was absolutely not my only intention.

Well, at least you admit that part of the reason you threw up this post was to cause outrage.

<center><IMG width="150" SRC="http://homepage.mac.com/colonelpanic/DU_Photos/web-content/IwoBush.jpg"></center>

 

[Maleficent13]

From Websters:

Main Entry: 2liberal
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights

So, the definition of liberal you supplied was correct (albeit not complete), disney4us2002. However, I fail to see how disliking to be baited makes someone closed-minded.

I am open minded. I have to say that some of the debates on this board and the old DB actually made me re-evaluate my stances on certain issues and then, after researching them on my own, I in fact actually reversed some of my long held views. I truly enjoy a good debate.

However, I have seen few of those on the boards in quite some time, and I assume I won't until at least after the election.

BTW, as to the OP, I don't like Castro, but I refuse to be outraged that such august personages like Naomi Campbell and Kate Moss do.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by Kendra17
The people I'm questioning are vocal Democrats, some have said they are concerned that the Bush Administration is trampling on our civil liberties (or close) yet they are sympathetic to this Communist Dictator.

well, at one level Dems vs. Repubs is a battle of practical matters. Union vs. non-union, big government vs. fiscal responsibility, etc. Tip O'Neill vs. Orrin Hatch. Not that it's any less serious or less vocal - quite the contrary. But on higher levels you add in idealogues on both sides - the battles for "our moral fiber, family values, American way of life" etc, opposed to those who actively support world socialism, reflexively oppose American hegemony and influence and whatnot. I think that both of these broader ideas could result in totalitarianism if strictly implemented. And the chief proponents even wouldn't be bothered by that. Those people, though, don't speak for the majority on either side, and they belong in the extremist camps.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Teejay32
well, at one level Dems vs. Repubs is a battle of practical matters. Union vs. non-union, big government vs. fiscal responsibility, etc. Tip O'Neill vs. Orrin Hatch. Not that it's any less serious or less vocal - quite the contrary. But on higher levels you add in idealogues on both sides - the battles for "our moral fiber, family values, American way of life" etc, opposed to those who actively support world socialism, reflexively oppose American hegemony and influence and whatnot. I think that both of these broader ideas could result in totalitarianism if strictly implemented. And the chief proponents even wouldn't be bothered by that. Those people, though, don't speak for the majority on either side, and they belong in the extremist camps.

Thank you, teejay, for your thoughtful reply. I agree with most of what you are saying. However, does this mean--in your opinion--that the folks that are sympathetic to Castro--are in the extremist camp?

If the answer is "yes", no matter what our opinion is on the matter, then I understand. However, many of these people (and I have a few more quotes and articles--for example Whoopi Goldberg stated, "I don't really view communism as a bad thing.") SEEM to be-- representative of the current Democratic party. Or, at least, they haven't been touted as extreme by the "mainstream" Democratic party. Many of them have donated money to the Democratic party (http://www.opensecrets.org) and have not been disparaged by the Democratic party for their sympathy towards a communist regime.

 

[bsnyder]

IMO, they are definitely on the fringes of the liberal side.

And conservatives have their own fringe element, as well.

And neither side goes out of their way to disavow their fringe elements, or antagonize them. From a political standpoint, why would they want to?