Re: Normalizing relations with Cuba
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:01 pm
I like tjg. He does seem unusually grumpy lately though.
*hugz*
*hugz*
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
Don't forget there is an absolute crapload of media that enjoys using that stereotype for everything from humour to outrage, so there is a lot of reinforcement out there. A lot of it is American made media too.RunningMn9 wrote:I would agree that the problem isn't ALL American tourists. But every time I've seen an absurdly loud and annoying tourist, it has ALWAYS been an American. I can accept that my anecdotal evidence is not natural law, but in my experience, it's not a myth.Chrisoc13 wrote:I love the "myth" of loud American tourists.
There are a disproportionate number of American tourists that are entitled douches when they travel. Watching some asshole in the Dublin airport harassing the shit out of some Irish TSA-equivalent that wanted him to do something with his bottles of liquids - and he was yelling at the top of his lungs about how they couldn't do this to him BECAUSE HE WAS AN AMERICAN. It's embarrassing when it happens, and I was just minding my own business.
It seems like you guys are talking past each other.RunningMn9 wrote:This is one of those predictable things. Our current policy towards Cuba was enacted over almost two years. It wasn't a response to a 3 AM phone call (i.e. Cuban Missile Crisis). The 3 AM phone call was almost certainly directly the result of the policy we put in place.Defiant wrote:For predictable things, absolutely. For 80-90, sure. But for that other 10-20% that causes many of the problems. And in some cases, there are no good plans, only least bad options.
Also, I'm confused as to why you be arguing that I live in a dream world for saying that when we enact foreign policy initiatives, we have an end game in mind....and then you post a clear cut example of the US enacting foreign policy...with a very specific end game laid out in the bill. Why did you do that?
I got what you said, I just don't agree with the assertion. Not a biggie.Chrisoc13 wrote:Ah reread what I said. It is a myth in that it is only Americans. Like I said, all tourists are annoying. That is the myth, that it is an American problem. I've been thoroughly annoyed by just about every race and nationality while traveling or when they are tourists here in the US.Carpet_pissr wrote:The stereotype about loud traveling Americans, relative to other "people" is no myth, IMO.
Anecdotal, yes, but 20+ years of living and traveling abroad worth of anecdotal evidence.
Maybe since he moved to Nowhereland?GreenGoo wrote:I like tjg. He does seem unusually grumpy lately though.
*hugz*
I'm saying that there are usually end games in mind (eg, non-3AM phone call issues) but there are many examples when those endgames are incorrect/unrealistic/naive. I didn't say that there was no end game to this particular issue.RunningMn9 wrote:This is one of those predictable things. Our current policy towards Cuba was enacted over almost two years. It wasn't a response to a 3 AM phone call (i.e. Cuban Missile Crisis). The 3 AM phone call was almost certainly directly the result of the policy we put in place.Defiant wrote:For predictable things, absolutely. For 80-90, sure. But for that other 10-20% that causes many of the problems. And in some cases, there are no good plans, only least bad options.
Also, I'm confused as to why you be arguing that I live in a dream world for saying that when we enact foreign policy initiatives, we have an end game in mind....and then you post a clear cut example of the US enacting foreign policy...with a very specific end game laid out in the bill. Why did you do that?
Now that Castro is no longer in power, and Cuba does not, AFAIK, pose a substantial threat to us or our allies, it does seem reasonable to lift most of the sanctions (I'd leave any military, etc, sanctions in place, and possibly some amount of sanctions in place as leverage (eg, to address it's human rights/etc))GreenGoo wrote: With that out of the way, this specific policy with regard to Cuba doesn't seem to be serving any valid modern day purpose. It's a relic of a bygone time that may have made sense 45+ years ago, but making friends with neighbours seems like a good idea, unless there is a substantial, specific reason not to.
This (well, most typical tourists, at any rate). Especially when they're in a herd.Chrisoc13 wrote: all tourists are annoying
Yeah. Sadly I've seen this far too often. I certainly agree that we have no monopoly on being assholes, but if I am traveling and somebody is being a self entitled douchebag it's even odds that said asshole is an American. I think it's getting better - that sense of self importance seems to be more prevalent in older folks. I can hope, at least.RunningMn9 wrote: I would agree that the problem isn't ALL American tourists. But every time I've seen an absurdly loud and annoying tourist, it has ALWAYS been an American. I can accept that my anecdotal evidence is not natural law, but in my experience, it's not a myth.
There are a disproportionate number of American tourists that are entitled douches when they travel. Watching some asshole in the Dublin airport harassing the shit out of some Irish TSA-equivalent that wanted him to do something with his bottles of liquids - and he was yelling at the top of his lungs about how they couldn't do this to him BECAUSE HE WAS AN AMERICAN. It's embarrassing when it happens, and I was just minding my own business.
tjg_marantz wrote:Not grumpy. If you are referring to the dog thread, I stand by everything I said.
Apparently, no one noticed that I also took Quebecers to task as tourists. And I never said excessive airport security... just that the U.S.had caught up to Cuba in armed presence at airports. Not a bad thing, not a good thing, just a thing. And yes, the armed security personnel at American airports are more intimidating than Cuban armed personnel. Probably because they have a reason to be. Doesn't mean I can't notice it.
And it's MiddleOfNowhereLand, thank you very much
Ah, well, then we are mostly agreed, except for the part where you called what I was saying as being full of poppycock.Defiant wrote:I'm saying that there are usually end games in mind (eg, non-3AM phone call issues) but there are many examples when those endgames are incorrect/unrealistic/naive. I didn't say that there was no end game to this particular issue.
OMG, you are hilarious. You first totally get the Rand Paul thing wrong (even Rubio saw his remarks the same way as the article I posted) and now you are too proud to admit that Breitbart is a terrible source. Let us know how China is this time of year when you get there.Rip wrote:Depends on the story. This one like other is just a piece about two radio interviews. Both can show some bias when it comes to investigative reporting, but this ain't that.Enough wrote:What's the timeline on the new interview? Did it occur after the press on first interview came out and he had to re-buff his firebrand street cred? Oh yes it did, this interview came out after the article I linked (and the countless others from many news outlets) and per your own linked source it appears to be a direct reaction and contradiction to his clear earlier interview. But his new argument to keep the embargo until free and open elections makes no sense when he claims the old approach has been a failure (which was wait for it... free and open elections). So basically Rand is being a slimy, squishy politician talking out of both sides of his mouth. He's just another opportunistic politico, not the uncompromising paragon you all had hoped he was.Rip wrote:Ummmm, yea, what he said was much more complicated and nuanced than that reports. But what do you expect from huffingtonpost.com for all the grief you guys give places like Breitbart at least they give you the entire story and don't try to make it look like what he said was directly in-line and supportive of Obama's approach.Enough wrote:Now that Rand Paul has come out saying trade with Cuba is probably a good idea, what is the firebrand conservative to do?
Oh and I fully agree HuffPost is overall an awful source, not that it really mattered in this case. Will you admit the same about Breitbart?
I wrote something to this effect but nuked it because it was overly wordy and semi-prejudiced against cultures that are into handwaving and overly verbalizing their emotions as forms of communication.Defiant wrote:This (well, most typical tourists, at any rate). Especially when they're in a herd.Chrisoc13 wrote: all tourists are annoying
He's clearly talking about international airports, so your puddle hoppers need not apply. I don't care whether he's right or not, just that we're comparing apples to apples.Rip wrote:tjg_marantz wrote:Not grumpy. If you are referring to the dog thread, I stand by everything I said.
Apparently, no one noticed that I also took Quebecers to task as tourists. And I never said excessive airport security... just that the U.S.had caught up to Cuba in armed presence at airports. Not a bad thing, not a good thing, just a thing. And yes, the armed security personnel at American airports are more intimidating than Cuban armed personnel. Probably because they have a reason to be. Doesn't mean I can't notice it.
And it's MiddleOfNowhereLand, thank you very much
You should also note that this is at the airports you have visited.
I go to the local airport frequently, walk right through out onto the tarmac, throw my stuff in the back and jump right into the seat. No armed presence, no metal detector/scanner, no interaction with anyone other than the pilot. There is a helper guy running around to help with bags if you need and a girl at the front desk. Airports that have international flights, well of course they have tons of security. Such is the world we live in.
I didn't think anything about his remarks. I only posted what was said by him in another interview. How can Breitbart be a terrible source for typing out what Paul said. Period. Did they misquote him? Like I said when it comes to opinion they are biased, but news facts are news facts no matter where you read them. The article I linked did nothing more than repeat pretty much exactly what Paul said in the second interview. How is that biased?Enough wrote:OMG, you are hilarious. You first totally get the Rand Paul thing wrong (even Rubio saw his remarks the same way as the article I posted) and now you are too proud to admit that Breitbart is a terrible source. Let us know how China is this time of year when you get there.Rip wrote:Depends on the story. This one like other is just a piece about two radio interviews. Both can show some bias when it comes to investigative reporting, but this ain't that.Enough wrote:What's the timeline on the new interview? Did it occur after the press on first interview came out and he had to re-buff his firebrand street cred? Oh yes it did, this interview came out after the article I linked (and the countless others from many news outlets) and per your own linked source it appears to be a direct reaction and contradiction to his clear earlier interview. But his new argument to keep the embargo until free and open elections makes no sense when he claims the old approach has been a failure (which was wait for it... free and open elections). So basically Rand is being a slimy, squishy politician talking out of both sides of his mouth. He's just another opportunistic politico, not the uncompromising paragon you all had hoped he was.Rip wrote:Ummmm, yea, what he said was much more complicated and nuanced than that reports. But what do you expect from huffingtonpost.com for all the grief you guys give places like Breitbart at least they give you the entire story and don't try to make it look like what he said was directly in-line and supportive of Obama's approach.Enough wrote:Now that Rand Paul has come out saying trade with Cuba is probably a good idea, what is the firebrand conservative to do?
Oh and I fully agree HuffPost is overall an awful source, not that it really mattered in this case. Will you admit the same about Breitbart?
I didn't say I never fly commercial, I just avoid it if at all possible. Been to the doctor a handful of times, just I actually pay them for it rather than rely on the insurance gods to pick up a portion in return for my showering them with gold for years.Isgrimnur wrote:Rip's on record as never flying commercial. Between that and never going to a doctor, his world isn't the same as the hoi polloi.
Right, just as in the case of the factually correct HuffPost article you incorrectly panned as biased crap. But now that we know the other interview happened later and that gobs of conservative-leaning sources reported the exact same thing as HuffPost if not more strongly (see Wall Street and Washington Times articles on Paul's remarks for e.g.). I was happy to admit that HuffPost is a terrible source and was hoping you would be willing to meet in the middle on this.Rip wrote:I didn't think anything about his remarks. I only posted what was said by him in another interview. How can Breitbart be a terrible source for typing out what Paul said. Period. Did they misquote him? Like I said when it comes to opinion they are biased, but news facts are news facts no matter where you read them. The article I linked did nothing more than repeat pretty much exactly what Paul said in the second interview. How is that biased?Enough wrote:OMG, you are hilarious. You first totally get the Rand Paul thing wrong (even Rubio saw his remarks the same way as the article I posted) and now you are too proud to admit that Breitbart is a terrible source. Let us know how China is this time of year when you get there.Rip wrote:Depends on the story. This one like other is just a piece about two radio interviews. Both can show some bias when it comes to investigative reporting, but this ain't that.Enough wrote:What's the timeline on the new interview? Did it occur after the press on first interview came out and he had to re-buff his firebrand street cred? Oh yes it did, this interview came out after the article I linked (and the countless others from many news outlets) and per your own linked source it appears to be a direct reaction and contradiction to his clear earlier interview. But his new argument to keep the embargo until free and open elections makes no sense when he claims the old approach has been a failure (which was wait for it... free and open elections). So basically Rand is being a slimy, squishy politician talking out of both sides of his mouth. He's just another opportunistic politico, not the uncompromising paragon you all had hoped he was.Rip wrote:Ummmm, yea, what he said was much more complicated and nuanced than that reports. But what do you expect from huffingtonpost.com for all the grief you guys give places like Breitbart at least they give you the entire story and don't try to make it look like what he said was directly in-line and supportive of Obama's approach.Enough wrote:Now that Rand Paul has come out saying trade with Cuba is probably a good idea, what is the firebrand conservative to do?
Oh and I fully agree HuffPost is overall an awful source, not that it really mattered in this case. Will you admit the same about Breitbart?
I wasn't aware at the time the HuffPost was either before the second interview or they hadn't reviewed it. So their article was accurate as to the first interview.Enough wrote:Right, just as in the case of the factually correct HuffPost article you incorrectly panned as biased crap. But now that we know the other interview happened later and that gobs of conservative-leaning sources reported the exact same thing as HuffPost if not more strongly (see Wall Street and Washington Times articles on Paul's remarks for e.g.). I was happy to admit that HuffPost is a terrible source and was hoping you would be willing to meet in the middle on this.Rip wrote:I didn't think anything about his remarks. I only posted what was said by him in another interview. How can Breitbart be a terrible source for typing out what Paul said. Period. Did they misquote him? Like I said when it comes to opinion they are biased, but news facts are news facts no matter where you read them. The article I linked did nothing more than repeat pretty much exactly what Paul said in the second interview. How is that biased?Enough wrote:OMG, you are hilarious. You first totally get the Rand Paul thing wrong (even Rubio saw his remarks the same way as the article I posted) and now you are too proud to admit that Breitbart is a terrible source. Let us know how China is this time of year when you get there.Rip wrote:Depends on the story. This one like other is just a piece about two radio interviews. Both can show some bias when it comes to investigative reporting, but this ain't that.Enough wrote:What's the timeline on the new interview? Did it occur after the press on first interview came out and he had to re-buff his firebrand street cred? Oh yes it did, this interview came out after the article I linked (and the countless others from many news outlets) and per your own linked source it appears to be a direct reaction and contradiction to his clear earlier interview. But his new argument to keep the embargo until free and open elections makes no sense when he claims the old approach has been a failure (which was wait for it... free and open elections). So basically Rand is being a slimy, squishy politician talking out of both sides of his mouth. He's just another opportunistic politico, not the uncompromising paragon you all had hoped he was.Rip wrote:Ummmm, yea, what he said was much more complicated and nuanced than that reports. But what do you expect from huffingtonpost.com for all the grief you guys give places like Breitbart at least they give you the entire story and don't try to make it look like what he said was directly in-line and supportive of Obama's approach.Enough wrote:Now that Rand Paul has come out saying trade with Cuba is probably a good idea, what is the firebrand conservative to do?
Oh and I fully agree HuffPost is overall an awful source, not that it really mattered in this case. Will you admit the same about Breitbart?
PS, I knew there was no way you were going to admit that Paul has shown here that he is a flip-flopper. Meh, it should still make the primaries fun to watch.
Yeah I've seen quite a number of terrible tourists be American. But I think it is laughable to assume every culture doesn't have their share of jerks.RunningMn9 wrote:I would agree that the problem isn't ALL American tourists. But every time I've seen an absurdly loud and annoying tourist, it has ALWAYS been an American. I can accept that my anecdotal evidence is not natural law, but in my experience, it's not a myth.Chrisoc13 wrote:I love the "myth" of loud American tourists.
There are a disproportionate number of American tourists that are entitled douches when they travel. Watching some asshole in the Dublin airport harassing the shit out of some Irish TSA-equivalent that wanted him to do something with his bottles of liquids - and he was yelling at the top of his lungs about how they couldn't do this to him BECAUSE HE WAS AN AMERICAN. It's embarrassing when it happens, and I was just minding my own business.
Yeah it would be laughable to assume that. Which is why no one was doing that. Get over it.Chrisoc13 wrote:Yeah I've seen quite a number of terrible tourists be American. But I think it is laughable to assume every culture doesn't have their share of jerks.RunningMn9 wrote:I would agree that the problem isn't ALL American tourists. But every time I've seen an absurdly loud and annoying tourist, it has ALWAYS been an American. I can accept that my anecdotal evidence is not natural law, but in my experience, it's not a myth.Chrisoc13 wrote:I love the "myth" of loud American tourists.
There are a disproportionate number of American tourists that are entitled douches when they travel. Watching some asshole in the Dublin airport harassing the shit out of some Irish TSA-equivalent that wanted him to do something with his bottles of liquids - and he was yelling at the top of his lungs about how they couldn't do this to him BECAUSE HE WAS AN AMERICAN. It's embarrassing when it happens, and I was just minding my own business.
Point is every culture has their jerks, and tourists in general manage to bring that out, especially those who think they are above the current country they are in. One anecdotal story can likely be stated about every culture or state.
Or just, you know, run it by your own sensor in your head that helps you look at what you are posting and see if it is hypocritical or ridiculous. Just a thought. Nobody needs to "get over" anything. You posted, I responded. Unless I am mistaken that is the purpose of a forum. Your post was beyond ridiculous and I called it out for such. Maybe I will make it more of a habit, it's not usually my thing on these boards but that particular post couldn't have received more of a from me. Get over that.tjg_marantz wrote:Yeah it would be laughable to assume that. Which is why no one was doing that. Get over it.Chrisoc13 wrote:Yeah I've seen quite a number of terrible tourists be American. But I think it is laughable to assume every culture doesn't have their share of jerks.RunningMn9 wrote:I would agree that the problem isn't ALL American tourists. But every time I've seen an absurdly loud and annoying tourist, it has ALWAYS been an American. I can accept that my anecdotal evidence is not natural law, but in my experience, it's not a myth.Chrisoc13 wrote:I love the "myth" of loud American tourists.
There are a disproportionate number of American tourists that are entitled douches when they travel. Watching some asshole in the Dublin airport harassing the shit out of some Irish TSA-equivalent that wanted him to do something with his bottles of liquids - and he was yelling at the top of his lungs about how they couldn't do this to him BECAUSE HE WAS AN AMERICAN. It's embarrassing when it happens, and I was just minding my own business.
Point is every culture has their jerks, and tourists in general manage to bring that out, especially those who think they are above the current country they are in. One anecdotal story can likely be stated about every culture or state.
As for one anecdotal story, I'm sorry, I have only one to give, I'm one person. I was asked what I thought. So I posted my thoughts. I'll make sure to run it be you first next time I answer a question asked to me.
The Treasury and Commerce Departments issued a package of new rules that will allow U.S. exports of telecommunications, agricultural and construction equipment, permit expanded travel to Cuba and authorize some kinds of banking relations.
...
The new regulations, which take effect on Friday, will allow Americans to travel to Cuba for any of a dozen specific reasons, including family visits, education and religion, without first obtaining a special license from the U.S. government as was previously the case.
Though general tourism will still be banned, those U.S. travelers who do visit will be allow bring home small amounts of the Cuban cigars that are highly rated by aficionados.
The revamped rules will also make it easier for U.S. companies to export mobile phone devices and software as well as to provide Internet services in Cuba. U.S. airlines will be permitted to expand flights to the Caribbean island.
In an expansion of remittances allowed, Americans will now be able to send up to $8,000 to Cuba a year, up from the $2,000 previously permitted, and bring $10,000 with them when they travel to the country. They will also be able to use credit and debit cards in Cuba.
In addition, there will be a change in the definition of “cash in advance” payment required by Cuban buyers, which could help a variety of business interests, most notably U.S. agriculture, in gaining greater access to Cuban markets.
Closer American ties with one of the world's major cigar exporters could actually be good news in the fight against lung cancer. Cuba has developed Cimavax, an effective lung cancer vaccine, and American researchers can now finally get their hands on it,
ABC News reports that Gonzalez looks to come back to the United States, but as a tourist. The 21-year-old would like to see a baseball game, visit Washington museums and talk to Americans.
"To the American people, first I say thank you for the love they give me," Gonzalez tells ABC News. "I want the time to give my love to American people."
...
Today, Gonzalez is studying engineering, ABC News says. He also is engaged to marry his high school sweetheart Ilianet Escaño, 22. She is studying for a bachelor's in Chemical Biology.
U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry signed the order Friday, 45 days after the Obama administration informed Congress that it would remove Cuba from the list. The State Department determined Cuba had not supported international terrorism in the previous six months, a requirement for getting off the list that now holds only three names — Iran, Syria and Sudan. Cuba had been on it since 1982.
...
Removing the terror designation lifts some trade barriers against Cuba, but an overall embargo remains in effect and requires a congressional vote to reverse it. President Obama has said he hopes to work with Congress to get the embargo lifted.
Until then, the action taken Friday will not provide a huge economic boost. It could, however, encourage some international companies and banks to do business in Cuba, as they will no longer fear running afoul of U.S. laws.
...
This month a small bank in Florida agreed, at the request of the State Department, to allow the Cuban interests section in Washington to open an account. That means it no longer has to pay its bills in cash.
It was probably an American stuck with Canadian dollars. The only thing worse than an American tourist is an illiquid American tourist.Chrisoc13 wrote:
Yeah I've seen quite a number of terrible tourists be American. But I think it is laughable to assume every culture doesn't have their share of jerks.
Speaking of Canadians in tourism I remember one of the worst tourists I ever saw was Canadian in Panama. We were in a long line at the bank since the only ATM in town was down and everyone was trying to get money. They use the US dollar in Panama as their main currency but I needed to withdraw money. The lady in front of me spent a good twenty minutes berating the bank teller in this tiny Panamanian town (with like 700 people total in it) for not being willing to exchange Canadian dollars. He kept saying "we only exchange Euros." She kept yelling loudly at him "Well why not the Canadian dollar? Canada is a big country no?!" at the top of her lungs. Look lady I'm sure you mean well, but they only take the euro, move on and accept that your currency isn't as widely accepted as the euro. Then as she walked out the door of the bank she yelled back "I'm never coming to this stupid country again." Yeah, it was awesome. She was rude to the country and managed to hold up the line for 15 minutes because of her need to cash in Canadian money.
Cue the criticismIsgrimnur wrote:U.S. takes Cuba off list of state sponsors of terrorism
Former Gov. Jeb Bush continued to take a hard line against normalizing relations with Cuba on Friday, accusing the Obama administration of capitulating to an oppressive regime by removing it from a state-sponsored terrorism list.
“Neither continued repression at home nor Cuba’s destabilizing activities abroad appear sufficient to stop President Obama from making further concessions to the Communist regime in Havana,” Mr. Bush, who is considering a run for president, said in a statement.
It's valid criticism coming from the Governor of Florida. The Cuban vote is very important there and they lost property, family, and civil rights with the Castro takeover which has never really been addressed or compensated.Isgrimnur wrote:Cue the criticismIsgrimnur wrote:U.S. takes Cuba off list of state sponsors of terrorism
Former Gov. Jeb Bush continued to take a hard line against normalizing relations with Cuba on Friday, accusing the Obama administration of capitulating to an oppressive regime by removing it from a state-sponsored terrorism list.
“Neither continued repression at home nor Cuba’s destabilizing activities abroad appear sufficient to stop President Obama from making further concessions to the Communist regime in Havana,” Mr. Bush, who is considering a run for president, said in a statement.
The US and Cuba will on Wednesday announce the opening of embassies in each other's capitals, a major step in re-establishing diplomatic ties severed in 1961, a senior US official has said. Relations had been frozen since the early 1960s when the US broke links and imposed a trade embargo with the Communist island. But the US and Cuba agreed to normalise relations at the end of 2014. The country's two leaders held historic talks in April. Since 1977, the US and Cuba have operated diplomatic missions called "interests sections" in each other's capitals under the legal protection of Switzerland. However, they do not enjoy the same status as full embassies.
All the same, I would probably avoid mentioning the script at all in your job application to be the new ambassador.hepcat wrote:Listen pal, just because you were uncomfortable with the script I gave you for your role as Lucy, that doesn't mean the whole evening was a failure.
Just be sure to watch Scarface the night before your interview, and you should be ready.hepcat wrote:Can I stick with the really bad Cuban accent?