At 6/13/08 08:03 AM, MickTheChampion wrote:
I've stuck to my guns and you've yet to debunk a single thing I've said. Give up.
Proof by assertion.
No, I said through the revolution Cuba's literacy rate sky-rocketed. You then decided you'd build a straw-man argument that I was putting Che forward as some benevolent Uncle who went around teaching poor peasant children to read.
You said Che taught children to read. I countered that. You admitted it never happened.
No, you said (my quote included):
:: What nonsense. Batista was hardly a great guy...but let's stop pretending that what replaced him wasn't worse. Even if we grant that Che's cause started nobly, it decended into evil REALLY quick.
:Yeah, teaching the poor how to read and providing them with health care is really the stuff of Hell.
So in refuting a claim that Che's work was bad, you claimed he taught school children to read. I countered that by mocking the claim's basis. You admitted that never happened, and that it was Cuba that did it. You did something. I called you on it. When called, you changed your claim and used your new claim to say I was dishonest. Yea, I'm the one with the problem here.
You're trying to cherry pick. Che did indeed help lead the Cuban revolution, and for the few good things they did he deserves some credit. But that also means he gets lumped in with the crap. The "reforms" he helped impliment are what are causing so much hell today in Cuba.
Even this positive biography shows gradual deterioration of the quality of life. Even assuming the US was evil in embargoing Cuba...they did so because of the new government. Wages were constantly lowered, and quality became non-existant. Che's focus on working for "common good" instead of economic prosperity helped doom Cuba.
Stop questioning whether or not I use the meaning of terms I'm using, the fact that I'm using them in their correct context should tell you that.
You're NOT using them in their correct context. You claim I love American imperialism. OK, that's dumb. Where have I voiced support for us taking over countries to make an empire? I haven't you say? Well, shit.
So since I haven't done that, you're use of the term is incorrect. Since you're incorrect, and your inaccuracy stems from a ridiculous assumption, it's a safe bet to say you don't know what you're talking about.
It's never substance with you, it's all petty attack. You haven't proven a damn thing.
It's petty attack MIXED with substance. You support someone who gleefully killed unarmed prisoners, who he admitted he didn't care if they were innocent.
You just keep writing off my criticisms as irrelevant. "Sure he killed unarmed prisoners. But they were bad, so who cares?"
Che was aiding in overthrowing a Dictator. If he had travelled to Cuba with the intention of building an Argentinian Empire, it would have been imperialistic.
Hardly. He went to institute his own form of government. He created an (admittedly small) Cuban empire. He then travelled across Latin America trying to expand his influence.
It is far more imperialistic than this "American imperialism" you are dreaming up.
Ah okay, I pointed out to you that the economy of Nazi Germany was State Capitalist and not Socialist, you had no counter for that. "I can't answer your points syndrome".
Socialism, defined by Webster:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
So we have a government that tells business, "You will make the amount we tell you to. You will buy at the price we demand and you will sell at the price we demand. And at any time we feel you are making too much, we will take it away from you. We will control and oversee every aspect of your business, and you will change anything we don't like for any reason."
So you didn't "point out" that the economy under Nazism was "state capitalism" (which is a stupid term btw), you simply asserted it in the face of facts that proved you were wrong. By this definition, Che was a capitalist, because he controlled wages, and when the government SOLD something they made MONEY.
Making a baseless assertion when the facts say otherwise is definition "trouble me not with facts" syndrome.