Castro reportedly in 'grave' condition

soulsinging

miller8966 wrote:

whats your theories comrade?

nothing genius. odd combinations of birthdays, secret messages to the masons, juvenille pranks... just a curiosity to me and something i think about every time i see the name.

soulsinging

MrBrian wrote:

bad guess, I fully supported nader, the best that I could. I wanted him to be president, but of course I knew the system would never allow it. He even had so much trouble getting on ballots. the dems tried everything to push him away.

point is, sure america may be better than the cuba in that sense, but it's sooooooooo far from being good itself. American democracy is a joke.

i campaigned for nader. in retrospect, it was a dumb idea. i wish the dems had succeeded in keeping him off the ballot.

angelica

jlew24asu wrote:

anyone can be president. even me

How would you realistically do it? Do you think you could realistically run the nearest corporation to you? If you wanted to merely be president of the nearest local corporation, how would you do that? Do you have the skill? Ability? People skills? Intelligence? Connections? Understanding of the power dynamics involved? How long would it realistically take you to claw your way to the top of a corporation, much less the power structure in the United States? Do you have the aptitude? Working one's way through a system is much different than imagining doing it. Are you at the top of the field you are in currently? Do you foresee yourself being on the way to the top, or do you foresee yourself living an average life for the rest of your time on earth?

For example, some people would like to run businesses designing video games and don't even have the natural aptitude to understand the basics of the business, much less become successful realistically at it.

jlew24asu

angelica wrote:

How would you realistically do it?

at this point in my life, I wouldnt, but thats not the point. the point is I have ever right to do pursue being president if I wanted to. I easily could have chosen a different career path but I didnt. I do not want to be in politics or public life.

what do you think Ronald Reagan would have said when you asked him that while he was in his mid-twenties? he was an actor.

angelica wrote:

Do you think you could realistically run the nearest corporation to you? If you wanted to merely be president of the nearest local corporation, how would you do that? Do you have the skill? Ability? People skills? Intelligence? Connections? Understanding of the power dynamics involved? How long would it realistically take you to claw your way to the top of a corporation,

the answer is yes to all your questions. probably about 20 years from now.

angelica wrote:

Do you foresee yourself being on the way to the top,

absolutely 100% yes

angelica wrote:

or do you foresee yourself living an average life for the rest of your time on earth?

you are much smarter then to ask such a question.

angelica wrote:

For example, some people would like to run businesses designing video games and don't even have the natural aptitude to understand the basics of the business, much less become successful realistically at it.

so what.

MrBrian

soulsinging wrote:

i campaigned for nader. in retrospect, it was a dumb idea. i wish the dems had succeeded in keeping him off the ballot.

well that kinda takes away from what the whole democracy thing is about yeah?
---

The dems just ran a very very very bad race, they were the diet republicans in '04. they were soooo scared about going after the issues and When Bush said something good about Israel, kerry quickly followed, when Bush said something about the troops, kerry quickly followed.

Very thin line between the two.

soulsinging

MrBrian wrote:

well that kinda takes away from what the whole democracy thing is about yeah?
---

The dems just ran a very very very bad race, they were the diet republicans in '04. they were soooo scared about going after the issues and When Bush said something good about Israel, kerry quickly followed, when Bush said something about the troops, kerry quickly followed.

Very thin line between the two.

that's 2004 dude. i was talking about 2000, when it was gore against bush. this country would be so much better off today if they'd kept nader off the ballot that year. granted, the dems still ran a poor campaign, but that doesn't mean gore woulda been a poor president. he's certainly better than kerry woulda been and better than bush has been.

ThumbingMyWay32

inmytree wrote:

perhaps you should share an uplifting, positive story....

Well, I had toilet paper this morning, which was definately a positive. Uplifting? Maybe... The Panthers fired offensive coordinator Dan Henning yesterday, which was great. Two missing boys were found alive in MS after their kidnapper was arrested.

LOL Are you really challenging me to find things that are uplifting and positive in America?

I have a go-cart track just a few miles down the road. How cool is that?

angelica

jlew24asu wrote:

angelica wrote:

For example, some people would like to run businesses designing video games and don't even have the natural aptitude to understand the basics of the business, much less become successful realistically at it.

so what.

So what??

If someone wants to do something and they do not have the potential to do so, they will not do it nor will they be able to do it even if they try very hard. Therefore the idea that anyone can become president is an inherently flawed concept. Yes, anyone with a natural predisposition, drive, motivation and means to do what it takes will pursue it. And then very few of that tiny minority achieve that goal. Others won't even be predisposed to go there. If one is not predisposed to become the president how could it be a part of their future? I'll grant you that it's a possibility for everyone, but that's a far cry from saying everyone can do it if they want to.

And yes, in America, anyone can try to achieve that goal, while most will realise it was not "meant to be" for them.

ThumbingMyWay32

angelica wrote:

So what??

If someone wants to do something and they do not have the potential to do so, they will not do it nor will they be able to do it even if they try very hard. Therefore the idea that anyone can become president is an inherently flawed concept. Yes, anyone with a natural predisposition, drive, motivation and means to do what it takes will pursue it. And then very few of that tiny minority achieve that goal. Others won't even be predisposed to go there. If one is not predisposed to become the president how could it be a part of their future? I'll grant you that it's a possibility for everyone, but that's a far cry from saying everyone can do it if they want to.

And yes, in America, anyone can try to achieve that goal, while most will realise it was not "meant to be" for them.

I consider myself pretty fortunate I didn't have you as a role model when I was younger.

angelica

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

I consider myself pretty fortunate I didn't have you as a role model when I was younger.

Care to give any sort of reasonable justification beyond the personal comments?

Collin

jlew24asu wrote:

how many choices do you want? the point is that america and others DO get to choose.

Well, the US have 301 million people, right? And you only have two choices that aren't really that different. A democracy is supposed to represent the people.

ThumbingMyWay32

angelica wrote:

Care to give any sort of reasonable justification beyond the personal comments?

Sure.

angelica wrote:

If someone wants to do something and they do not have the potential to do so, they will not do it nor will they be able to do it even if they try very hard. Therefore the idea that anyone can become president is an inherently flawed concept. Yes, anyone with a natural predisposition, drive, motivation and means to do what it takes will pursue it. And then very few of that tiny minority achieve that goal. Others won't even be predisposed to go there. If one is not predisposed to become the president how could it be a part of their future? I'll grant you that it's a possibility for everyone, but that's a far cry from saying everyone can do it if they want to.

And yes, in America, anyone can try to achieve that goal, while most will realise it was not "meant to be" for them.

angelica

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Sure.

It doesn't seem you are interested in disputing the points on their merits.

Drew263

Collin wrote:

Well, the US have 301 million people, right? And you only have two choices that aren't really that different. A democracy is supposed to represent the people.

America is not a democracy, it is a representative republic. Another fact often missed on the MT.

I come back to this board one time and I see that there are no cubans that are homeless or starving. lol

What a fucking joke. They get rations from the gov't. A coworker of mine went there (sshh don't tell anyone) and said the people were great. She felt so bad for them that she bought the ones she ran across toothbrushes b/c they didn't have them. TOOTHBRUSHES!!! People flee Cuba for the US for a reason. Damn this place is full of idiots..

Yeah Castro!!!!!

Fucking, eh this board....

NCfan

Drew263 wrote:

America is not a democracy, it is a representative republic. Another fact often missed on the MT.

I come back to this board one time and I see that there are no cubans that are homeless or starving. lol

What a fucking joke. They get rations from the gov't. A coworker of mine went there (sshh don't tell anyone) and said the people were great. She felt so bad for them that she bought the ones she ran across toothbrushes b/c they didn't have them. TOOTHBRUSHES!!! People flee Cuba for the US for a reason. Damn this place is full of idiots..

Yeah Castro!!!!!

Fucking, eh this board....

Much Agreed... can't remember the last time Americans risked their life on a piece of shit raft to escape.

Collin

Drew263 wrote:

America is not a democracy, it is a representative republic. Another fact often missed on the MT.

In that case I think it's even more ridiculous that it tried to bring democracy to other countries.

The Illinoisemakers

redrock wrote:

A little snippet from a news article: "'Well Condoleezza Rice said if there is ever a transition in Cuba, then it is the goal of the US to insist the people of Cuba make a choice and hold democratic elections." Pushy, pushy again.....

What will happen is anyone's guess - a couple of options discussed here http://www.guardian.co.uk/cuba/story/0,,1835341,00.html

If Condi had said, it was a goal of ours for Cuba to hold free and democratic elections like those in India, would that be ok with you? Its not really the idea that a democracy in Cuba that bothers you, it's just that the US has suggested it? Give me a break. I hope that when Castro passes away, Cuba holds free democratic elections like they do in France. There, does that make you feel better?

norm

redrock wrote:

But.. my father was serving his country.. american bases are considered american soil.... Should I be at a disadvantage because my father was sent by his goverment to another country? I was born american, I have not acquired american citizenship by other means. BTW your stance is incorrect because now the law has changed, not retrospectively, but it has changed. So you no longer need to be born in the US to run for president.

When did they amend the constitution?

Article. II.

Section. 1.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

ThumbingMyWay32

Alright angelica. Here's your chance to giggle and roll your eyes.

angelica wrote:

If someone wants to do something and they do not have the potential to do so, they will not do it nor will they be able to do it even if they try very hard.

What in the hell does this even mean? That sentence doesn't even relate to 'potential'. Potential, in your opinion, is more or less predicated on wether one has motivation; or the lack there of. It isn't up to you, or anyone else, to define someone's potential. Unfortunately, Liberalism does do that for you.

angelica wrote:

Therefore the idea that anyone can become president is an inherently flawed concept. Yes, anyone with a natural predisposition, drive, motivation and means to do what it takes will pursue it. And then very few of that tiny minority achieve that goal. Others won't even be predisposed to go there. If one is not predisposed to become the president how could it be a part of their future?

Again, what in the world does this mean? Are you suggesting that someone must first be implanted with the idea to become president before one may choose to do so? Why does predisposition even matter in the first place? Have you ever thought about why Generals become President's? It isn't because they were handed life on a silver platter, nor were any of them predisposed to become President. Otherwise, you've just described an average job interview.

Actually, I don't even really know how to respond to what you've just said. It doesn't even make any sense. Why are you trying to debate why someone can't become president? I'm pretty sure the welfare state has it's ugly roots entrenched in your arguement somewhere.

angelica wrote:

I'll grant you that it's a possibility for everyone, but that's a far cry from saying everyone can do it if they want to.

Thank you Einstein for your knowledgeable take on the definition of literalism. Wasn't my original post sufficient?

angelica

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

angelica wrote:

If someone wants to do something and they do not have the potential to do so, they will not do it nor will they be able to do it even if they try very hard.

What in the hell does this even mean? That sentence doesn't even relate to 'potential'. Potential, in your opinion, is more or less predicated on wether one has motivation; or the lack there of. It isn't up to you, or anyone else, to define someone's potential. Unfortunately, Liberalism does do that for you.

First you say "what does this mean?". Then you overlook your uncertainty and go on to interpret what my opinion actually is, uncertain of what my opinion is. Inaccurately, no less. Oh, and the liberal part is inaccurate too. I'm a person with a wide ranging view point, even within topics--such as this one--meaning I range on both sides of this issue in different ways, which is backed up in many of my posts, if you were to know anything about me. That you are uninterested in understanding what I'm saying tells me a lot about the potential of this line of discussion.

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

angelica wrote:

Therefore the idea that anyone can become president is an inherently flawed concept. Yes, anyone with a natural predisposition, drive, motivation and means to do what it takes will pursue it. And then very few of that tiny minority achieve that goal. Others won't even be predisposed to go there. If one is not predisposed to become the president how could it be a part of their future?

Again, what in the world does this mean? Are you suggesting that someone must first be implanted with the idea to become president before one may choose to do so? Why does predisposition even matter in the first place? Have you ever thought about why Generals become President's? It isn't because they were handed life on a silver platter, nor were any of them predisposed to become President. Otherwise, you've just described an average job interview.

Actually, I don't even really know how to respond to what you've just said. It doesn't even make any sense. Why are you trying to debate why someone can't become president? I'm pretty sure the welfare state has it's ugly roots entrenched in your arguement somewhere.

You would save yourself time if you would ask what I mean and wait for clarification from me before revealing your inaccurate assumptions about me. It's pretty clear you want to vent regarding your preconceptions, so have at it. That's not about me, or my opinions as much as you'd like to make it that way.

ThumbingMyWay wrote:

I'll grant you that it's a possibility for everyone, but that's a far cry from saying everyone can do it if they want to.

Thank you Einstein for your knowledgeable take on the definition of literalism. Wasn't my original post sufficient?

Assumptions and condescension do not make for legitmate points.