But, as said above, what do you mean, that 98% of the Commonwealth uses "Guilty until proven innocent"? Someone has seriously misinformed you...

Strangely, I live in Walthamstow, an area of London with a fairly high black/Asian population. It to has a local minority paper, called "The Voice", and what a load of crap that is too. People beat up in the street cause they're black. Not enough blacks in power. The government hates blacks. Blacks left out of schools. Don King was accussed of match rigging cause he was black. Mike Tyson treated like a criminal because he's black. Church is racist cause there were no black Apostles (okay, that one's made up, but the rest is that type of tat that just serves to get everyone hyped up, while ignoring all other evidence. Don King wasn't accussed of match rigging because he was black. He was accussed because of all the evidence saying he did it.)

Now that was a bit of a tangent. But it had an important lesson. There's a difference between a paper that is generally concerned about minority interests, and another that's just a shit-stirrer.
------------------
"Why do you want to spend time with a deer? They're so stupid, they get hypnotized by headlights!" - Guido Anchovy

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

However, after studying this thread closely, I have turned up an interesting parallel...

Omega's arguments, and Jay's counters, and the methods of reasoning (or lack thereof)used therein by both sides, almost EXACTLY mirror the tone of MY arguments with Omega about evolution, except that THIS time it's Jay whose been using the 'either-or' mode of thought (either show that the US's current reasons for not trading with Cuba are justified, or you must trade with Cuba), and Omega's taking steps closer to MY tactics.

I find this endlessly amusing.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

However, I should point out that I did allow for the idea in my evolution arguments that there may be another way that the universe could come to be (besides random chance and intelligent design), but if no one can think of it, and since it seems that those two cover pretty much every possible origin theory, you can't consider it in argument. Thus, either/or reasoning works in that case because there are only two alternatives. (Well, besides steady-state, but the laws of physics don't allow for that.)

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

Oh and Omega, not to pass judgement but you sound suspiciously like you're trying to crawl up First's bottom there. Stop it.

Try this one on for size...

I think you may need either a new elementary logic book / ego deflater or you are going to continue to get things wrong with your assesments of other arguments.

In the 12th post of this now monstrous thread, Sol made the general argument of why the United States should try and open trade with Cuba. In much of what I posted afterwards, I attempted to buttress Sol's wise words.

Lets't go over these again however.

Since I've tried to point out, apparently in vain, to at least 2 people, is some of the history behind our current non trade status with Cuba. American hubris was the initial reason why we stoped our interactions with the island. Well, to some history is apparently irrelevant in this matter. Hmmm....

Moving on...

I then tried to think of how to make history relevant...so I thought I might attempt to point out that we had traded with another bad Cuban man before Casto...in the form of Batistia.

Answer: The US shouldn't have traded with Batistia either.

Ah, good point, but you miss the fact that we did. Why the difference I wonder. For that particular answer, we have to check the nebulas land of 'I'll get back to you later', 'I don't have an answer', or the dismissive wave of the hand (my personal favorite).

Moving on...

So, then I try to point out the fact that in light of the current lobby effort of "dynamic wealth producing American business owners" have pushed for the United States to liberalize trade with a host of communist countries with poor records on human rights...including China and Vietnam, we have increased trade in those areas.

Why is that I asked? If we trade with them, should we not be consistant and trade with Cuba? Does our historical hatred of Castro enter into the picture at all when the US says "no trade with Cuba!!"

Answer: We shouldn't be trading with them (China and Vietnam) either!!! And don't bring up history anymore you dolt, it's irrelevant!!

Ah. Again, a good point. However the point still stands that the US does contiune trade with those other countries and is in fact strengthing trade with China as the Republican controled House voted to make permanent China's normal trading rights in the United States. But we can just sluff that off can't we? I think not. I never did get any sort of material answer as to why the United States would trade with China and not Cuba in light of the fact that it currently is going on. Fine, it's all well and good to rationalize some sort of answer and say we shouldn't, but in the long run, that is simply running away from the question.

And our feelings toward Castro have no bearing on any policy decision regarding Cuba, ever....yeah, right. History is never immaterial.

Moving on...

Then I try to point out at least some other countries that the US trades with (not including China and Vietnam) that have poor human rights records, authoritarian governments or generally do some things every so often that could be considered bad. Heck, even the US on occasion has it's own problems. Other countryly speaking it's a long list, but Burma for example. With whom do we trade?

Answer: ???

Nebulas answer nether region again. This one was generally ignored by the other side other than to tell me to stop changing the subject. But if pressed, probably would have gotten the same "shouldn't trade with them either" response.

Ah, well, that's a fine percieved answer and a good point. However, now that we're not trading with quite a bit of the world, those aforementioned dynamic wealth producing American business owners are getting rather peeved only having Canada left to sell Coke and Tide to. (As an asside, those American business owners pushed for more trade with China and Vietnam, and it's only the memory of the Castro hatred from really pushing for trade with Cuba right now).

Moving on...

So then I sort of rework Sol's statement with the example of North Korea as an example of how, if the hand of trade and peace is extended to a country with some bad memories attched to it, some good things might happen.

Answer: North Korea is not Cuba and you are a moron for even mentioning it.

Again, a good point. I am a moron, but examples are not supposed to be the exact same situation...they are an example, an illustrative instance as it were . Using North Korea as an illustration of another similar situation, not much happened while we sat on our collective hands and did nothing. Limited trade initiatives see, to be doing some positive things.

So, in general the two asnwers to the question we've come up with:

Camp Omega:

• Castro should rot and die (you already said I have that one right Omega) with no trade. Futhermore we should stop trading with countries like China and Vietnam that demonstrate clear human rights abuses. Although the Omgea Camp is rather ambiguous about where to draw the line on these instances. I supect the Omega Camp could easily rationalize trade with the military junta of Burma. If not, well, then we're not trading with much of the world and I doubt that that the exceedingly liberal American business lobby would like that too much.

Camp Other:

• "[N]o better way to open a society than to encourage the development of economic ties with them." At the very we can extend of a peaceful hand to Cuba. If nothing works out, well, we tried. With the exception of the riots in Havana, the raising of a dolphin to saint, and more of the '(Insert name of current president here) is selling American interests down the river' crap...it all might just work.

------------------
Oh, fiddle faddle, everyone knows that our mutants have flippers. Oops, I've said too much.....
~C. Montgomery Burns

OK, one final time:

Q: Should we trade with Cuba?

I fail to see why the fact that we haven't been has any effect on the answer to this question, unless you want to call up some rediculous notions of maintianing foreign policy no matter HOW bad it is, but since no one seems inclined to do that...

"Ah, good point, but you miss the fact that we did [trade with Batista]. Why the difference I wonder. For that particular answer, we have to check the nebulas [sic] land of 'I'll get back to you later'"

No, it wasn't a "I'll get back to you later." It was a "This is completely irrelevant to this argument, and I'm not going to let you drag us off topic." Previous governments of Cuba are irrelevant. Previous and current US foreign policy is irrelevant. My attachment to the word "irrelevant" is irrelevant. What conceivable relevancy could the fact that ten presidents back we made a mistake in trading with a country have to the question of whether we should trade with that country now, when we both have different governments?

"With whom do we trade?"

OK, how 'bout this: we don't trade with anyone who's current government has violated the civil rights of its people. And the government has to have ordered it. Rogue agents don't count.

"Castro should rot and die (you already said I have that one right Omega)"

True, but when I said it, it may have been an oversimplification. If he stepped down voluntarily and handed over power to a civilian democracy, I'd be just as happy. Well, maybe not JUST as happy. I'd get a certain perverse satisfaction from watching such a horrible man "rot and die", but since it would be better for the people of Cuba, I'd rather have it.

"I supect the Omega Camp could easily rationalize trade with the military junta of Burma."

Not knowing much about the situation in Burma, I couldn't say. First might be able to, but he said he probably wouldn't post here again.

"If not, well, then we're not trading with much of the world"

Come on, when was the last time you heard of civilians being killed by the German government? Or Australian (outside of that "Crocidile Dundee" guy, that being an accident)? Chilean? Botswanian? Italian? American?

"[N]o better way to open a society than to encourage the development of economic ties with them."

With which I disagree. Appeasing a dictator has NEVER historically had the intended consequences. It's just made things worse. You know Castro would play it to his advantage if we opened trade with him, thus bolstering his regime. That's bad for everyone, especially the Cubans.

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

The point of repealing sanctions on Cuba is NOT about Americans trading with them. As much as it is about your lot very effectively cutting Cuba off from the world at large via your statement that those who trade with Cuba may not trade in the USA. Nice catch 22. Bet Jessie was overjoyed. Since you are always talking about how private citizens will donate to charity and make other benevolent gestures (and my arse is just as likely to sprout oak trees) why don't you let private citizens decide if they wish to trade with Cuba? Wait, I see some tired rebuttal coming in about Evil communists or something.

Since conservatives are very moral , and control the bulk of funds in yer little empire they should not need sanctions to prevent them from trading with Cuba. Wouldn't you say? This is 'just another example of the centre infringing on peoples rights'. (That's your line, by the way). Unless of course you'd like to admit that you have no real reason for opposing trade with Cuba except for the fact that it peeves you that they kicked American business off the island?

On that note, a side point. The Cubans may not allow in US companies even if the sanctions were lifted, what galls most people is the fact that you are dictating trade policy of other groups by preventing them from trading with Cuba. That's called Imperialism. Oh they joys of empire.

Of course, you wouldn't care to admit it. Would you?

The government DOES have the right "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations", as stated in article one, section eight of the constitution.

The government has very few inherant duties. One of which is to deal with external powers. This would include regulating commerce. Though I wouldn't include preventing ALL involvement with Cuba in that power, personally. Just all direct trade. If Coke decided to trade with Cuba, I'd submit that they have the right to do so, as long as they don't ship directly from the US. Ship it to, say, Mexico, THEN to Cuba (assuming Mexico would allow it). That'd be outside the jurisdiction of the US. 'Course, the expense might be prohibitive.

"Since you are always talking about how private citizens will donate to charity and make other benevolent gestures"

Since you obviously don't believe this, I suggest you find the stats for charitable donation in the US for the eighties. Heck, maybe even now. Haven't seen any info for the last ten years or so.

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

Why won't free trade with Cuba encourage the growth of a middle class?

Why won't this middle class begin to seek political representation to go with their newfound economic prosperity?

Why won't this process lead to a more free Cuba?