American embassy opens in Cuba

[Drummond]

Who supports this ? Who opposes it ?

Who's disgusted by the way Obama has deferred, yet again, to a Nation State whose thinking and direction is (arguably ?) opposed to America's ?

As I type, the BBC is making a big thing of this. It's currently their lead story, and their BBC News Channel (the domestically aired one) is relaying its opening, live, suspending reporting of its other news stories while all this is happening.

If one believed the BBC's slanted reporting, all this would be 'progress', to be 'warmly welcomed'. Who'd agree with that ?

Who'd be revolted by it ?

[Kathianne]

Rubio doesn't like it:

http://observer.com/2015/08/rubio-obamas-concessions-to-iran-and-cuba-endanger-america/


Rubio: Obama’s ‘Concessions’ to Iran and Cuba Endanger America By Ross Barkan | 08/14/15 8:55am

Lashing out at the Obama administration’s “concessions” to Iran and Cuba, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida vowed a far tougher stance toward both countries if he’s elected president.

Mr. Rubio, a Republican, said this morning that a nuclear agreement with Iran that President Obama helped broker will endanger America, and called the White House’s renewal of diplomatic relations with Cuba a threat to America’s “moral standing.”

As president, he promised to undo both. “These deals demonstrate with jarring clarity how this administration has failed to anticipate impending crises, ignored the realities of the globalized economy, and sought to make America liked rather than respected,” Mr. Rubio said at a Foreign Policy Initiative event in Manhattan. “The world has missed having an American president who speaks honestly about the world in which we live.”

“Centuries of global affairs tell us the best way to affect an outcome with volatile leaders is through strength and example, while the worst is through weakness and concession,” he continued, charging that both deals also empower China and Russia. “Yet weakness and concession are the preferred tools of statecraft for this administration.”

...

[Drummond]

Rubio doesn't like it:

http://observer.com/2015/08/rubio-obamas-concessions-to-iran-and-cuba-endanger-america/:clap::clap::clap::clap:

I almost hesitate to ask.

What does Carly Fiorina think about it ?

[Drummond]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

I almost hesitate to ask.

What does Carly Fiorina think about it ?

Actually, I just checked myself. Judging by this, given the opportunity, she'd close it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXLeGsgpp84

Very good ! I can and will applaud her for that. :clap::clap:

Her interviewer says it's being opened 'contrary to law'.

Is that really the case ? If so, obviously this makes what's happening doubly outrageous. Says a lot in itself about Obama's disregard for anything, no matter how well grounded, that'll oppose his evidently anti-American agenda.

[tailfins]

Who supports this ? Who opposes it ?

Who's disgusted by the way Obama has deferred, yet again, to a Nation State whose thinking and direction is (arguably ?) opposed to America's ?

As I type, the BBC is making a big thing of this. It's currently their lead story, and their BBC News Channel (the domestically aired one) is relaying its opening, live, suspending reporting of its other news stories while all this is happening.

If one believed the BBC's slanted reporting, all this would be 'progress', to be 'warmly welcomed'. Who'd agree with that ?

Who'd be revolted by it ?

Hopefully a Republican President can use it for giving aid and comfort to dissidents.

[Kathianne]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

I almost hesitate to ask.

What does Carly Fiorina think about it ?

A quick search doesn't turn up anything on it by her.

This would be of particular interest to Rubio, but add his experience on the topic both as Cuban and as congressional member.

A Fiorina, Carson, Trump are just not going to have the information on every issue they'll confront or the issue staff to go into smaller issues, like Cuba.

They'll focus on the 'big issues': Defense, immigration, education, Obamacare, etc.

[Drummond]

The BBC's 3:30 scheduled news broadcast hasn't happened, by the way. As I type, they're still devoting their channel to non-stop coverage of the embassy opening. Currently, a long-winded speech is still droning on ... now a BBC commentator interjects with his reverent-sounding observation ... only a few seconds' worth ... now he's silent and it continues.

Now .. playing the US National Anthem, with renewed commentary with 'reverential tone' again ... US flag raised ...

[Gunny]

Who supports this ? Who opposes it ?

Who's disgusted by the way Obama has deferred, yet again, to a Nation State whose thinking and direction is (arguably ?) opposed to America's ?

As I type, the BBC is making a big thing of this. It's currently their lead story, and their BBC News Channel (the domestically aired one) is relaying its opening, live, suspending reporting of its other news stories while all this is happening.

If one believed the BBC's slanted reporting, all this would be 'progress', to be 'warmly welcomed'. Who'd agree with that ?

Who'd be revolted by it ?


You mean other than the fact we should be trying a President and Secretary of State for treason?

[Kathianne]

This is the type of issue that does speak to 'politicians' being able to answer somewhat than to non-politicians. Whether or not that matters is up to each voter.

Jeb Bush:

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2015/08/jeb-bush-us-embassy-opening-in-havana-is-birthday-present-to-fidel-castro.html


Jeb Bush: U.S. embassy opening in Havana is 'birthday present' to Fidel Castro@PatriciaMazzei


On Thursday, Fidel Castro turned 89 (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article30989103.html). On Friday, the U.S. will reopen its embassy in Havana. Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, an honorary Cuban American, said raising the stars and stripes in Cuba amounts to a present to the Cuban revolutionary.




The other Miamian seeking the 2016 GOP nomination, Cuban-American Marco Rubio, delivered a speech (http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2015/08/marco-rubio-to-denounce-dangerous-cuba-iran-deals-in-friday-speech.html)in New York on Friday morning pledging to roll back President Obama's Cuba policy, which Rubio referred to as "concessions." "We're going to open up to Cuba, but Cuba's not going to open up to us," Rubio said later on Fox News.

...

Santorum:

http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Santorum/Cuba.php



<tbody>
Santorum position on Cuba (http://2012.candidate-comparison.org/?compare=Romney&vs=Obama&on=Cuba)



Our policy in Central and South America under this administration has been abysmal. The way we have treated, in particular, countries like Honduras, Honduras, which stood up for the rule of law, which threw out a would-be dictator who was using the Chavez playbook from Venezuela in order to try to run for re-election in Honduras, and the United States government, instead of standing behind the -- the people in the parliament, the people in the Supreme Court, who tried to enforce the constitution of Honduras -- instead of siding with them, the Democrats, President Obama sided with two other people in South America -- excuse me -- Central America and South America. Chavez and Castro and Obama sided against the people of Honduras.


This is a consistent policy of siding with the leftists, siding with the Marxists, siding with those who don't support democracy, not standing up for our friends in Colombia, not standing up for our friends who want to engage and support America, who want to be great trading partners and great allies for our country, to be able to form that kind of bond that is so essential in our own hemisphere.


The European Union understood how important it was for diverse people to be able to come together in an economic unit. We only -- not only have to come together as an economic unit, but the threat of terrorism, the threat of Iran now in Venezuela and in other places, and Cuba and in Nicaragua, the threat of radical Islam growing in that region -- is it important for -- it's absolutely important for us to have a president who understands that threat and understands the solution is closer ties. I will visit that area of the world, repeatedly, to solidify those ties when I become president…”

</tbody>


Walker:

http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/jessie-opoien/gov-scott-walker-critical-of-u-s-moves-to-normalize/article_500484d5-37f6-5743-8eb9-765e73cc98dc.html


Gov. Scott Walker critical of U.S. moves to normalize relations with Cuba

Gov. Scott Walker firmly denounced President Barack Obama's move to normalize U.S. relations with Cuba (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/report-cuba-frees-american-alan-gross-after-5-years-detention-on-spy-charges/2014/12/17/a2840518-85f5-11e4-a702-fa31ff4ae98e_story.html) after more than 50 years of severed ties between the countries.


"I think it's a bad idea," Walker told reporters Wednesday. "I don’t think there’s been any noticeable change towards making that a more free and prosperous country. There’s a reason why we had the policy in the first place."


Walker said he hasn't seen solid evidence that Cuba has made changes that would warrant a shift in U.S. policy, which has remained in place through administrations of both parties.

...



Carson mentioned:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/21/ben-carson-has-a-message-for-detractors-who-think-hes-soft-they-clearly-have-no-idea-what-theyre-talking-about/


...

Carson talked about Iran and Cuba as examples where he would be a tougher negotiator than the Obama administration.
“The world is very complex,” Carson said. “We’ve lost an enormous amount of influence in the world because we are not people of our word and because we back down.”

...

Another front where Carson said he would be a tougher negotiator was with Cuba, which opened an embassy in Washington Monday, while the United States opened an embassy in Havana.
“I would not have normalized relations with them at this time. I don’t have any problems with normalizing the relationship, but not without getting anything back,” Carson said.
He then pointed out that Cuban President Raul Castro is in his 80s. Castro is 84.
“He’s not going to be there forever,” Carson told TheBlaze. “They are going to have new leadership, and that is going to be a good time to really get into negotiations about bringing them into the Western Hemisphere culture.”

...

[Drummond]

A quick search doesn't turn up anything on it by her.

This would be of particular interest to Rubio, but add his experience on the topic both as Cuban and as congressional member.

A Fiorina, Carson, Trump are just not going to have the information on every issue they'll confront or the issue staff to go into smaller issues, like Cuba.

They'll focus on the 'big issues': Defense, immigration, education, Obamacare, etc.

Well, Cuba was big news in defence terms, I seem to recall, back in the early 1960's .. trouble with Communist upstart regimes, you just can't trust 'em ...

Your post is nonetheless worrying. You'll have seen that I did find Fiorina's statement about this .. but your having failed to, does suggest to me, that she still downgrades its importance, significance ...

.. which could in turn suggest that she'd employ a less-than-vigilant focus on overseas issues more generally ?? Back in 2001, I'm sure Bush's Administration kept its eye on foreign issues (introverted though their priorities were ..) .. and a possible 9/11 got completely past their considerations. The outlook on these things has to be well motivated, and more, CORRECTLY EMPLOYED.

What I like about Santorum is that he'd apparently never dream of adopting, and ordering, less than total vigilance. Solid 'ten' score on everything to do with foreign-based matters and of security implications.

[Kathianne]

Well, Cuba was big news in defence terms, I seem to recall, back in the early 1960's .. trouble with Communist upstart regimes, you just can't trust 'em ...

Your post is nonetheless worrying. You'll have seen that I did find Fiorina's statement about this .. but your having failed to, does suggest to me, that she still downgrades its importance, significance ...

.. which could in turn suggest that she'd employ a less-than-vigilant focus on overseas issues more generally ?? Back in 2001, I'm sure Bush's Administration kept its eye on foreign issues (introverted though their priorities were ..) .. and a possible 9/11 got completely past their considerations. The outlook on these things has to be well motivated, and more, CORRECTLY EMPLOYED.

What I like about Santorum is that he'd apparently never dream of adopting, and ordering, less than total vigilance. Solid 'ten' score on everything to do with foreign-based matters and of security implications.


It's not a big issue here. That may dismay you, but is just the truth.

[Drummond]

This is the type of issue that does speak to 'politicians' being able to answer somewhat than to non-politicians. Whether or not that matters is up to each voter.

Jeb Bush:

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2015/08/jeb-bush-us-embassy-opening-in-havana-is-birthday-present-to-fidel-castro.html



Santorum:

http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Santorum/Cuba.php



Walker:

http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/jessie-opoien/gov-scott-walker-critical-of-u-s-moves-to-normalize/article_500484d5-37f6-5743-8eb9-765e73cc98dc.html



Carson mentioned:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/21/ben-carson-has-a-message-for-detractors-who-think-hes-soft-they-clearly-have-no-idea-what-theyre-talking-about/

All of this confirms my belief that this whole Cuban situation has evolved, with an embassy opening, in such a way that violates proper Conservative thinking on the subject. I'd expect no less than this to be true.

Santorum's own stance is obviously a mark of the man's laudable stature, confirming his worth in my eyes.

But at least we know that Fiorina, if she keeps her word, would close that embassy. Definitely worth acknowledgment and proper applause.

[Drummond]

It's not a big issue here. That may dismay you, but is just the truth.

Well .. it's being made a big issue, here, by the BBC, it's currently a dominant news issue .. as something 'good' that America has done ...

And you're right. I am dismayed. Who can say what will come of the direction being pursued on this ? Who can say what future ramifications will be, especially if the Dems win in your next election, and the embassy's future is secure ?

What if, for example, American staff there are attacked, and Cubans are found to be responsible ?

All this is mere supposition. Nonetheless, potential for trouble exists where it wouldn't have, otherwise. I'd trust a figure like Santorum to properly care.

[Kathianne]

Well .. it's being made a big issue, here, by the BBC, it's currently a dominant news issue .. as something 'good' that America has done ...

And you're right. I am dismayed. Who can say what will come of the direction being pursued on this ? Who can say what future ramifications will be, especially if the Dems win in your next election, and the embassy's future is secure ?

What if, for example, American staff there are attacked, and Cubans are found to be responsible ?

All this is mere supposition. Nonetheless, potential for trouble exists where it wouldn't have, otherwise. I'd trust a figure like Santorum to properly care.

Keep in mind, Americans are not voting for World President, in spite of how things appear to others.

Cuba isn't a threat to the US, other than politically even with distance.

That doesn't mean that their communist influence in Central and South America are ignored. There are real dangers of a more immediate nature than it.

[Drummond]

Keep in mind, Americans are not voting for World President, in spite of how things appear to others.

Cuba isn't a threat to the US, other than politically even with distance.

That doesn't mean that their communist influence in Central and South America are ignored. There are real dangers of a more immediate nature than it.

In other words, don't look any more towards forward logistical planning than issues of the immediate moment suggest are pertinent ?

Didn't we see this played out in the days leading up to 9/11 ? And where did that lead ?

Your preference might be in line with what GW Bush's pre-9/11 instincts told him was right and proper. But, there's a real world out there. And it will be as it is, do what it does, offer the dangers and challenges it does, independently of American preferences.

The world situation isn't static. Far from it. Flux is a constant feature of it. Any competent and vigilant American Administration SHOULD be keeping its beady eye on it all. If it doesn't .. where will it lead ? Where COULD it lead ?

What does history teach you (or NOT) on that subject ?

[Kathianne]

In other words, don't look any more towards forward logistical planning than issues of the immediate moment suggest are pertinent ?

Didn't we see this played out in the days leading up to 9/11 ? And where did that lead ?

Your preference might be in line with what GW Bush's pre-9/11 instincts told him was right and proper. But, there's a real world out there. And it will be as it is, do what it does, offer the dangers and challenges it does, independently of American preferences.

The world situation isn't static. Far from it. Flux is a constant feature of it. Any competent and vigilant American Administration SHOULD be keeping its beady eye on it all. If it doesn't .. where will it lead ? Where COULD it lead ?

What does history teach you (or NOT) on that subject ?

That the US is always what we're concerned with. We don't historically get ours killed, if others are available to fight wars.

Keep our interests first and be cognizant of our strengths and weaknesses.

[Drummond]

That the US is always what we're concerned with. We don't historically get ours killed, if others are available to fight wars.

Keep our interests first and be cognizant of our strengths and weaknesses.

Then you'll want to see America's security interests served to the best possible level.

Judging by what I've seen, Fiorina is weak in that area.

Santorum is not.

9/11 taught GW Bush to completely rethink his priorities. World realities gave him no other reasonable choice, and the lesson, by him at least, was duly learned, his response to it no less than magnificent. I for one do not want to see history having to repeat itself in that way.

[Kathianne]

Then you'll want to see America's security interests served to the best possible level.

Judging by what I've seen, Fiorina is weak in that area.

Santorum is not.

9/11 taught GW Bush to completely rethink his priorities. World realities gave him no other reasonable choice, and the lesson, by him at least, was duly learned, his response to it no less than magnificent. I for one do not want to see history having to repeat itself in that way.

Sorry, I'll make my own priorities and vote for whom I choose. As will everyone else entitled to vote in our elections. Thanks for your input.

[Drummond]

You mean other than the fact we should be trying a President and Secretary of State for treason?:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Drummond]

Sorry, I'll make my own priorities and vote for whom I choose. As will everyone else entitled to vote in our elections. Thanks for your input.

You're very welcome.

[NightTrain]

Rewarding Cuba for their consistent push to spread communism to Central & South America by normalizing relations and removing sanctions that have been in place for decades is very stupid. Everyone knows that Bambam loves him some socialism and what better way to promote commie ideology than this?

That being said, Drummond, while your average conservative American thinks this is sheer folly, no one is surprised. We all know he's a buffoon doing stupid things as fast as he can to establish his legacy and he doesn't have much time left to muck things up. He's kicking into overdrive and it's going to get much worse as the time runs out with even less regard for the consequences for his actions.

Honestly, though, we're facing much more important issues than Cuba.

It's just another thing that will have to be corrected when we get a competent leader in the saddle.

[Drummond]

Rewarding Cuba for their consistent push to spread communism to Central & South America by normalizing relations and removing sanctions that have been in place for decades is very stupid. Everyone knows that Bambam loves him some socialism and what better way to promote commie ideology than this?

That being said, Drummond, while your average conservative American thinks this is sheer folly, no one is surprised. We all know he's a buffoon doing stupid things as fast as he can to establish his legacy and he doesn't have much time left to muck things up. He's kicking into overdrive and it's going to get much worse as the time runs out with even less regard for the consequences for his actions.

Honestly, though, we're facing much more important issues than Cuba.

It's just another thing that will have to be corrected when we get a competent leader in the saddle.:clap::clap::clap:

Almost all of this is very well said, and thanks.

You make an important point, in that Obama is indeed making an almighty mess, and it's still ongoing. This means, if a Conservative takes over, that Conservative will have to do all possible to remedy what CAN be remedied. Counterbalances will be needed where they can be applied - and not least, internationally.

This means that it's vitally important for someone to come into Office whose priorities are fully up to that task.

Iran's one example. The deal reached is a bad one, for a number of reasons, but the nub of that matter is that, principally, one of consideration for Israel's wellbeing. Obama has shown contempt for all that, by acting as he has. Any replacement for Obama will need to be sufficiently keen to get involved in foreign political issues as to want to prove that America is a worthwhile and trusted ally, one which will not sell them out. Someone committed to caring about these considerations in the White House is absolutely vital.

Anyone WEAK on foreign policy issues, anyone not caring deeply about geopolitical security matters, just will not do. Which is chiefly why, now, I'm for Santorum, because (a) he's NOT weak, and (b) he understands that marrying that up with American security is in itself absolutely vital.

You just can't divide the two, without threatening both.

The world is not a static place. Compare the world's chief concerns, circa 1985, with what they are now. You'd struggle to even regard them as similar. The demise of the USSR. The 'evolution', for want of a better term, of global terrorism, almost all of it Islamic, or certainly linked to Islamism. 1985, compare it with early 2001. Early 2001, compare it with post- 9/11. Post-9/11 with now, and the 'new' dominance of Islamic State as a world terrorist threat. All these comparisons speak of an ever-changing global situation, and a world-leading power such as the US absolutely MUST have someone at the helm who cares a damn, and more, will adapt to world changes !!!

Santorum definitely does care, and has it in mind to adapt as needs require. I think Trump does, too, in his own way. Fiorina .. maybe, though she's comparatively weak in that area, so she's NOT ideal.

And here's the thing. You're not the only ones involved in all this. The UK is too, and so, of course, is the Western world. Since the US is so pivotal to all our futures, we ALL have to give a damn about what the US does. Even if we'd prefer not to, still, we MUST. Reality demands nothing else.

We have a saying here, which you might know. 'If America sneezes, the world catches a cold'. This, geopolitically, is VERY true.

'Fannie and Freddie'. Lehmann Brothers -- remember them, and the mess they created between them ? That mess created a GLOBAL financial crisis, a very severe one. You had to get involved in emergency financial bailouts to keep certain financial institutions afloat, didn't you ? Well ... SO DID WE, and from the SAME basic cause, namely, the financial imbalances that came about in the WORLD's banking system. The same was true throughout Europe, and certainly elsewhere.

America is tied into so much in the world, that the WORLD has to care what you do, because we've all got a stake in it. As true as it is that I care about America, and want to see her do well, it's also true that I have my own country to think about. What YOU do, makes its impact on MY welfare, nationalistically speaking.

You elect an equivalent joker like Obama into Office, and we will ALL suffer. More 'mistakes' will be made. The world will become an ever-more dangerous place. And we will catch the cold from your diplomatic sneezes.

I give a damn. I have that right. Hopefully Kathianne will understand this ?

[Kathianne]

:clap::clap::clap:

Almost all of this is very well said, and thanks.

You make an important point, in that Obama is indeed making an almighty mess, and it's still ongoing. This means, if a Conservative takes over, that Conservative will have to do all possible to remedy what CAN be remedied. Counterbalances will be needed where they can be applied - and not least, internationally.

This means that it's vitally important for someone to come into Office whose priorities are fully up to that task.

Iran's one example. The deal reached is a bad one, for a number of reasons, but the nub of that matter is that, principally, one of consideration for Israel's wellbeing. Obama has shown contempt for all that, by acting as he has. Any replacement for Obama will need to be sufficiently keen to get involved in foreign political issues as to want to prove that America is a worthwhile and trusted ally, one which will not sell them out. Someone committed to caring about these considerations in the White House is absolutely vital.

Anyone WEAK on foreign policy issues, anyone not caring deeply about geopolitical security matters, just will not do. Which is chiefly why, now, I'm for Santorum, because (a) he's NOT weak, and (b) he understands that marrying that up with American security is in itself absolutely vital.

You just can't divide the two, without threatening both.

The world is not a static place. Compare the world's chief concerns, circa 1985, with what they are now. You'd struggle to even regard them as similar. The demise of the USSR. The 'evolution', for want of a better term, of global terrorism, almost all of it Islamic, or certainly linked to Islamism. 1985, compare it with early 2001. Early 2001, compare it with post- 9/11. Post-9/11 with now, and the 'new' dominance of Islamic State as a world terrorist threat. All these comparisons speak of an ever-changing global situation, and a world-leading power such as the US absolutely MUST have someone at the helm who cares a damn, and more, will adapt to world changes !!!

Santorum definitely does care, and has it in mind to adapt as needs require. I think Trump does, too, in his own way. Fiorina .. maybe, though she's comparatively weak in that area, so she's NOT ideal.

And here's the thing. You're not the only ones involved in all this. The UK is too, and so, of course, is the Western world. Since the US is so pivotal to all our futures, we ALL have to give a damn about what the US does. Even if we'd prefer not to, still, we MUST. Reality demands nothing else.

We have a saying here, which you might know. 'If America sneezes, the world catches a cold'. This, geopolitically, is VERY true.

'Fannie and Freddie'. Lehmann Brothers -- remember them, and the mess they created between them ? That mess created a GLOBAL financial crisis, a very severe one. You had to get involved in emergency financial bailouts to keep certain financial institutions afloat, didn't you ? Well ... SO DID WE, and from the SAME basic cause, namely, the financial imbalances that came about in the WORLD's banking system. The same was true throughout Europe, and certainly elsewhere.

America is tied into so much in the world, that the WORLD has to care what you do, because we've all got a stake in it. As true as it is that I care about America, and want to see her do well, it's also true that I have my own country to think about. What YOU do, makes its impact on MY welfare, nationalistically speaking.

You elect an equivalent joker like Obama into Office, and we will ALL suffer. More 'mistakes' will be made. The world will become an ever-more dangerous place. And we will catch the cold from your diplomatic sneezes.

I give a damn. I have that right. Hopefully Kathianne will understand this ?
I habe always understood. However, I don't have to think of any interests more than I do the US, by my judgement. There are domestic ones

[Drummond]

I habe always understood. However, I don't have to think of any interests more than I do the US, by my judgement. There are domestic ones

I suppose that makes good sense. International concerns, for you, become domestic ones (e.g 9/11 and its impact). This is uniquely true for you.

But they aren't identically indivisible. GW Bush made no initial allowance such as this, he simply was forced to, through force of circumstances.

Better to avoid those circumstances in the first place, than to be on the receiving-end of where neglecting them leads ...

[Kathianne]

I suppose that makes good sense. International concerns, for you, become domestic ones (e.g 9/11 and its impact). This is uniquely true for you.

But they aren't identically indivisible. GW Bush made no initial allowance such as this, he simply was forced to, through force of circumstances.

Better to avoid those circumstances in the first place, than to be on the receiving-end of where neglecting them leads ...

I don't mind that you have an opinion regarding our elections, not at all. I do mind your harping on how I should think.

[Gunny]

It's important because of its symbolism. Not because it's mattered since the 70s. The Navy and USAF bases in South FL are mostly cloded now. It was an armed war camp throughout the Cold War.

The importance is it is just one more case of our anti-American President making pals with our enemies.

Which gives me cause to wonder .... why does he and Jerkoff Kerry think they're going to be famous? They like both need to renounce their citizenship and get the f*ck out.

[Voted4Reagan]

I despise this move.

I wouldn't resume diplomatic contact till every Castro is dead, buried and feeding the flipping worms.

Not a day sooner.