Democrats and Castro Sympathizers

[bubie2.5]

perhaps they see him as the ultimate underdog who has been a target by the most powerful nation on earth and yet has survived and defiantly not allowed the US government to turn Cuba into a "Banana Republic" where the people become wage-slaves for conglomerates like United Fruit.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
I would respect your opinion of Castro just as I respect anyone else's. It's not my place to assess the relative value of your opinion or anyone elses for that matter. However, I am impressed to some degree at the opinions formed by those who have actually met the man and spent time getting to know him as an individual. Being able to put aside one's personal ideologies, politics, etc. for a while and talk with someone else with whom you may disagree can be an enlightening experience. It doesn't necessarily follow that doing so means you automatically endorse what that person says, believes or does.

As someone who discusses politics often, why do you state it is "not my place to assess the relative value of your opinion. . ."? Isn't that what discussion is? Susy said earlier (and I paraphrase) that not everything is a shade of gray.

When one visits with someone responsible for the imprisonment and/or murders of that many people, isn't it REASONABLE to have that in mind while discussing ANYTHING else? Are we to find it reasonable that these admirers are, in fact, even ABLE to separate Castro's deeds from who he is? Aren't we, in fact, the sum of all of our experiences--good and bad? If the answer to this question is "yes", then we--in good conscience--can't separate those deeds from the person because the person IS also the deed. How can a REASONABLE and somewhat educated person CHOOSE to ignore and separate vicious deeds from the person that has committed those deeds? Does it do anyone justice to compartmentalize to the point where we can actually admire and COMPLIMENT someone who can commit these types of crimes?

I think that it is hypocritical to do so. You obviously don't agree, but I don't see how we can praise a person when so much of his personal history includes being responsible for so many imprisonments and deaths.

I've been away for a few days, but I wanted to add that Arnold Schwarzenegger has publicly stated that he absolutely does NOT admire Hitler, thereby denying or distancing himself from past comments.

Regarding the comments about Reagan and Gorbachev: Reagan appreciated Gorbachev because he was so different from past Soviet leaders. Gorbachev introduced--as policy-- glastnost. Previous Soviet leaders had been responsible for so many deaths. Gorbachev was different from oppressive and murderous rulers Stalin, Brezhnev, Khrushchev, Cherenko--and deserved Reagan's admiration because of this fact. Embracing glastnost meant being open and being able to criticize the Communist Party which, with Reagan's bold policies, led to the end of the Soviet Union. This is WHY Reagan was able to admire Gorbachev. Had Gorbachev been a friendly and charming guy, yet as murderous as his predecessors, it is very unlikely Reagan would have had that same vocal admiration.

 

[Kendra17]

... As for the Kerry picture; he was over there trying to find ways to get our POW's released. Vietnam is a communist country still, and just because they used his image for propaganda purposes doesn't make what they say the truth.

If you want to believe a communist regime over an American who risked his life for his country and then stood up for what he believed when he returned home, that's you're right. . but I choose to believe the American soldier.

You absolutely make a great point. In this case, I believe Kerry, too-- I believe that he was trying to get our POWs released, as well.

The point that you're missing, however, is that Kerry's PREVIOUS anti-war activism and previous statements made caused the Communist Vietnamese government to deem it necessary to pay homage to him in this museum. Kerry may or may not appreciate the photo being used for the purpose it is being used for. That is completely beside the point. The fact is that the Vietnamese Communist Regime consider his wartime conduct to be one of the reasons they won the war. They are grateful to him. This is the important part of the story.

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by Kendra17
As someone who discusses politics often, why do you state it is "not my place to assess the relative value of your opinion. . ."? Isn't that what discussion is? Susy said earlier (and I paraphrase) that not everything is a shade of gray.

And not everything in this world is either black or white. Life and politics is not as cut and dried as we'd like it to be sometimes. One of the lessons I've learned in life is a greater tolerance for ambiguity.

When one visits with someone responsible for the imprisonment and/or murders of that many people, isn't it REASONABLE to have that in mind while discussing ANYTHING else? Are we to find it reasonable that these admirers are, in fact, even ABLE to separate Castro's deeds from who he is? Aren't we, in fact, the sum of all of our experiences--good and bad? If the answer to this question is "yes", then we--in good conscience--can't separate those deeds from the person because the person IS also the deed. How can a REASONABLE and somewhat educated person CHOOSE to ignore and separate vicious deeds from the person that has committed those deeds? Does it do anyone justice to compartmentalize to the point where we can actually admire and COMPLIMENT someone who can commit these types of crimes?

I think that it is hypocritical to do so. You obviously don't agree, but I don't see how we can praise a person when so much of his personal history includes being responsible for so many imprisonments and deaths.

I suppose some have had more experience in making these distinctions than you have. I don't claim to know why some individuals admire Castro, therefore, I am not going to denigrate them by applying the term "Castro sympathizer" to them. My argument has been that these individuals are free to choose whomever they want to admire. Whether or not I like their choices is immaterial; their choice is their's to make alone. Certainly, we are free to express our displeasure with their choices, but even then there are some limitations. I believe that the title of this thread crossed the line on what is acceptable to express.

Regarding the comments about Reagan and Gorbachev: Reagan appreciated Gorbachev because he was so different from past Soviet leaders. Gorbachev introduced--as policy-- glastnost. Previous Soviet leaders had been responsible for so many deaths. Gorbachev was different from oppressive and murderous rulers Stalin, Brezhnev, Khrushchev, Cherenko--and deserved Reagan's admiration because of this fact. Embracing glastnost meant being open and being able to criticize the Communist Party which, with Reagan's bold policies, led to the end of the Soviet Union. This is WHY Reagan was able to admire Gorbachev. Had Gorbachev been a friendly and charming guy, yet as murderous as his predecessors, it is very unlikely Reagan would have had that same vocal admiration.

It's nice to know that while Gorbachev was in power, real democracy reigned in the Soviet Union.

 

[Pete's Mom]

Just more proof to me that most celebrities are totally out of touch with reality.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
And not everything in this world is either black or white. Life and politics is not as cut and dried as we'd like it to be sometimes. One of the lessons I've learned in life is a greater tolerance for ambiguity.

It is absolutely your choice to ignore the issues or points I made regarding a person being the sum of his deeds. Indeed, things often appear gray for the moral relativist. People in possession of a moral compass are able to see gray, dark gray, light gray, and black and white--in addition to color.

It's nice to know that while Gorbachev was in power, real democracy reigned in the Soviet Union.

Also, would you be so kind to point out where I implied that "democracy reigned in the Soviet Union" during Gorbachev's time? Since I didn't say anything of the sort, would you care to clarify which part you take issue with--or, should I assume that

It's nice to know that while Gorbachev was in power, real democracy reigned in the Soviet Union

is your own incorrect assertion?

I don't claim to know why some individuals admire Castro, therefore, I am not going to denigrate them by applying the term "Castro sympathizer" to them. My argument has been that these individuals are free to choose whomever they want to admire. Whether or not I like their choices is immaterial; their choice is their's to make alone. Certainly, we are free to express our displeasure with their choices, but even then there are some limitations. I believe that the title of this thread crossed the line on what is acceptable to express.

Lastly--lest I have misunderstood you--are you saying that the name "Democrats and Castro Admirers" would have been a more apt title for this thread? If so, I think you may be correct.