While Hillary is telling people she won't talk to Cuba, US students graduate from Cuban med school

Fidel made an offer to American students of a free medical education on the proviso they returned home and provide medical care to the needy. The offer still stands. Hillary won't talk to Cuba. WWJD?

U.S. students graduate from Cuban med school

Castro’s communist government paid for education for 8 minorities

HAVANA - Eight American students graduated from a Cuban medical school on Tuesday and said they planned to put six years of education paid for by Fidel Castro’s communist government to use in hospitals back home.

The four New Yorkers, three Californians and a Minnesota native, all from minority backgrounds, began studying in Havana in April 2001. They are the first class of Americans to graduate from the Latin American School of Medicine since Castro offered free training to U.S. students seven year ago following meetings with members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

“I’ve learned that medicine is not a business,” said Toussaint Reynolds, a graduate from Massapequa, New York. “I will be a better doctor in the United States for it.”

<snip>

On Tuesday, about 2,100 students from 25 countries graduated from the medical school, including some 1,200 medical doctors, as well as dentists, nurses and medical technicians. More than 10,000 students attend the school that opened in 1999 to provide free training to foreign students from disadvantaged families.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19942866/

utterly retarded and I'm really sorry to hear it (still) coming from the left side of the aisle.

Obama had it exactly right.

This is one of those deal-breakers for me.

Another waste of time and energy for the USA.

I stayed up and watched the debate on CNN here in the UK.

I couldn't believe it when she spewed forth and included Cuba in her rantings. Yes - Obama had it right but then he usually does so anyway in my opinion.

I obviously couldn't vote anyway but the USA's treatment of Cuba cracks up most people I know here in the UK who use it both as a very nice holiday resort and also as a base for recording music.

Jesus, I am an undecided voter, unless Gore jumps in, but fair is fucking fair. And that's a bullshit post from the git-go.

The debate question was phrased to ask if the candidates would speak to NK, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, etc.--our historical enemies and newfangled BushCo ones--IN THE FIRST YEAR of the candidate's presidency.

She responded no, because she wouldn't want to be played for propaganda, but she WOULD engage in high level diplomacy with first tier envoys. Go back and listen to it. For comprehension.

But hey--way easier to pull out that BROAD BRUSH, make shit up, and rest on laurels based on a cheesy lie.

What you just did: You took an interesting story about US medical students in Cuba, mixed it up with complete FALSEHOODS about Clinton, and came up with a load of bullshit worthy of a Rovian operation. Heckuvajob, there. The medical student story doesn't get the attention it deserves, because you just had to toss that unmerited jab in there...cheap shot. Credibility affecting, too.

and this thread is just one of many like it. I thought it was the other side that made shit up to look good, and make Dems look bad. Bout time somebody called horseshit on this horseshit. Thanks for saying what needed to be said.
quickesst

So, how can they disseminate facts, when they skew the facts to derive another meaning?

It's called a 'false argument'. Using a true statement then twisting the exact meaning of it into something else that fits into their blogasphere. This technique is used to manufacture easily understood fodder as predigested food for the followers, unable or too lazy to think for themselves. This dynamic provides a homogenized version of what "is" as what "we've made it into" as the easily explainable meme because the whole idea is to propagate a false set of facts en mass.

Cable news networks use the same technique to indoctrinate their audience into groupthink. That way everyone is on the same page with uniform answers as the designated correct answer for people with a 180 viewpoint. The proof?

When you hear a phrase like..."well, thats another reason not to vote for her." The funny thing is, the Truth is what sets you free. Few here are able to stand up for the Truth because it is an 'Inconvenient Truth.'

when she said that because he didn't explicitly say it, Obama would not have his secretary of state or others do the ground work for a leaders' summit - when that is the norm.

In reality, there is probably little difference between the two here - I assume that Hillary will be more willing to use diplomacy than Bush given her past statements. The point of Hillary's attack on what Obama said was to position herself as stronger and more experienced - something she couldn't have done versus Biden or Dodd. It is certainly fair for Obama to counter-attack.

You can equate it to the SATs.. there are several good answers but only one best answer.

How do you address the fact that Hillary, herself, has in the past not specified what you are now claiming is an essential element.

This is like asking someone how to make cookies, then complaining that you did not specify that you had to get all of the ingredients from the cabinets and refrigerator (or buying them for that matter).

and your score is based on you picking the best answer.

Your analogy is the usual twisted conflafuration. Try again...

I read the posts of half truth and bullshit, and I have to say if these posters think they're actually TOUTING for their candidates, their candidates probably don't want their shitty, ham-handed help. All they do is make it worse.

Good thing we aren't voting based on what these "helpers" have to say. If I didn't know better, I'd swear Rove was paying some of them!

once at the Council of Foreign Affairs. No one is trying to back track except Hillary. She did not put any exceptions in her speech at the foreign council. Now she is trying to FLIP FLOP and you want us to let it go Hell No. Like the youtube person ask. Would you talk to your enemies. She said NO. Bottom line she would be another Bush.

That said, only partisans who get all twitchy about that shit care one way or the other. I'm still undecided, so I don't get all 'offended' when "my candidate" missteps. Because I don't HAVE a candidate yet.

I watched those debates twice, and you're--shall I be polite and say--MISCHARACTERIZING what she said. She said she'd send envoys, high level ones, just that she wouldn't be played. And somehow, to you, that's a sin?

She wouldn't be another Bush. That's just an astoundingly obtuse remark by a politically naive and rather inexpressive individual--to be polite.

We are the ones that stole Guantanamo from them. We are the ones that wrote the Platt Amendment in their Constitution giving America a perpetual right to intervene in Cuba's internal affairs. We are the ones that supported and armed the Batista dictatorship. We are the ones that taught torture techniques to Batista's henchmen at the School of the Americas at Fort Benning. We are the ones that invaded and bombed their country during the Bay of Pigs. We are the ones that have funded terrorist attacks by Miami-based exile groups which caused the deaths of hundreds innocent civilians. We are the ones that prevent Americans from freely traveling to Cuba and seeing their country on their own.

As to Venezuela, it was America that staged a coup to topple a democratically elected government, all in the name of the phony American "freedom and democracy."

I don't give a shit if GREENLAND is our historical enemy, frankly.

I don't go for people puffing up bullshit tales to advance a political agenda--no matter WHO the candidate. It's just not "on." It's unfair, it's UNPROGRESSIVE, it's the OPPOSITE of LIBERAL to shop lies in that fashion, and when I see it, I fucking NOTE it.

You BS'd, and it was NOTED. Stop trying to move the goalposts.

Cuban history includes the bloody events when shortly after Cuba was "liberated" from Spain, US troops were used to put down a strike by tobacco workers. Do yourself a favour and go to the library and read a book on Cuban history (preferably one written by Cuban historians), even one that predates Fidel's revolution, and see all the wonderful things that were done in the name of "freedom and democracy."

It isn't possible to have a rational foreign policy if we base it on myths of our own making. To do so would make us fall in Bush's nonsense of "they hate us for our freedoms."

Stick to the point, and stop trying to devolve the argument to Cuba exclusively.

See, I don't give a shit if you are telling lies about a candidate in relation to Cuba, or to Greenland. That's MY point. What bothers me is that you are lying about what a candidate said.

You go on about "ignorance." I am not ignorant of the history of Cuba--I'll bet I could give you a run for your money on the subject matter if I chose to.

But you are either ignorant, or willfully deceiving people about what a candidate SAID about Cuba and other nations. When you shop untruths about a candidate and wrap them in that history to bolster your curious 'points,' as though that makes them more valid, you are deceiving people--either accidentally or willfully.

And I am NOT gonna let you get away with that without calling you out--and frankly, I don't care WHICH candidate it is, from Obama to Richardson--because what you are doing is cheapening discourse for your own curious purposes.

You don't build anything on a lie. With all your high falutin' talk about the history of Cuba, you should fucking KNOW that. So stop lying about what the candidate actually said.

Seems to me that Hillary is pursuing the same Bush-Cheney policies towards Cuba, which also happens to be similar to the ones followed by her husband.

And I won't even go into her 100-percent Bush-Cheney views when it comes to the Middle East. Hillary was happy to sit on the sidelines, just as Bush did, while Israel bombed Beirut and rained cluster and radiological bombs all over Lebanon.

The answer to Bush is not in turning a page back to more of the Clintoons, but to move forward into a new direction.

The point I will continue to make is that you used an interesting story to shop a falsehood about a candidate. You did the old "Weave an obvious truth with a lie, and watch the lie be perceived as truth" trick. It is a shitty and SHAMEFUL thing to do. And you did it.

I don't think that is fair or appropriate, and I really don't care which candidate we're talking about. When you lie about what anyone says, it reflects poorly--on YOU.

I won't engage you on any other issue in this thread. You already started out with a Big Lie, so what's the point?

I think that when candidates give carefully reasoned answers, we should respect them for it and not lie about what they said.

The question was whether she would promise to meet with ALL of those leaders in her FIRST YEAR as President. No, she wouldn't make that promise, but she didn't say "no" either -- it would all depend on the situation in each case, and the results of ongoing diplomacy.

==="Jesus, I am an undecided voter, unless Gore jumps in, but fair is fucking fair. And that's a bullshit post from the git-go.===

These are the same people (the Far Left and Greens) who voted for Nader and scuttled Gore's chances for an undeniable landslide victory in 2000. What makes us think Gore would stick his neck out again for people who didn't vote for him the first time around. I'm sure he's thought long and hard about this betrayal. Where were you my brother; when I needed you?

her Flip Flops. Hell no. Someone in the media called her a Flip Flopper yesterday and they are correct.

but her statement in the debate made a lot of sense. That is the issue, not the lame label of "flip flopper."

By the way, I would MUCH rather have a President who is capable of changing his or her mind as a result of new or different information, than a simple minded fanantic like Bush. No one has ever accused Bush of being a flip-flopper.

Give me a thoughtful, flexible-minded President any day.

Give me a break. If you are going to disrupt and stir the pot, at least be good at it.

"Someone" on some message board somewhere just called YOU "a bullshitter" and they are correct???

You buying that? Yet you want us to buy your horseshit?

Puh-leeeeeeze, as the kids say.

on a wing-nut site.

Stop contributing to the bull shit lies


:dunce: :hangover: :hurts: :spank:

It's pretty sad that some folks on here continue to be disengenuous and purposefully misrepresent what she said.

Anyone able to watch the debate or read a transcript knows she did not say that she would not meet with Catro. She said she would not commit to such a meeting before knowing the intent and what the way forward would be. And she mentioned probably sending an envoy first.

Now, if you want to argue with her on those grounds, fine. But it's wong to say that she said she wouldn't meet with Castro, et al.

Al Jolson come to that. Exactly what has Castro done against USA interests within the recent past which should prevent some form of speedy accord ?

issues and responses. Many good people do not understand this. But HRC is doing little to frame the issue and her own response in the correct way. She, seeminly would rather that her minions attack. I can't believe that she is so blind to this.

it's getting tiresome.

How can she reconcile that when she rubber stamps anything Israel does, a nation that is truly a rogue nation in her disregard of international law and common decency. Her occupation of Palestine is 24/7 terrorism.

Then there is Bush who has also turned the USA into a rogue nation, running concentration camps with systematic torture and human rights abuses.

As Obama said today, for Hillary to put conditions on our talking to other nations is what Bush & Cheney have done for the past 6 years.

No doubt oppress millions for a few decades.

And yeah, Castro is a real prince. He seems to be generous to everyone but his own people.

If you have a link to the statement by Obama I would like to see it.

BTW of the 1st and 2nd tier candidates I think Richardson's stance on this issue is the best. I think it is worth noting, though, that Obama voted to cut off TV Marti funding and Clinton did not.

"Obama also opposes ending the embargo, campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said after the debate."

http://havanajournal.com/politics/entry/obama-fidel-fidel-obama-the-most-open-minded-presidential-candidate/

Also in the Miami Herald:

http://www.miamiherald.com/416/story/179947.html

and because the HRC people are up in arms, it was the tone and inference of her response that reeks of Old World Order. She may not have actually said the words to validate that impression, but she left the impression nonetheless lumping in Cuba with the other Axis of Evildoers, a long-held (reads: moldy) position by the U.S. government that is in dire need of reform.

Obama isn't perfect on the issue, either. I'd prefer someone who is actively pushing for change in this regard. But I'm also a realist. I much prefer Obama's at least being open to change than Hillary's firm declaration that the status quo is just fine.

That's the only thing keeping me from being able to buy good cigars and rum.

and just as Madelyn Albright was contemptuously insensitive to the million Iraqi children that had died as the result of America's embargo on Iraq, Hillary is just as insensitive to the suffering caused by America's embargo on Cuba.

Plus she panders to the Venezuelan elites.

Plus she lies when she refers to Cuba and Venezuela as rogue states, and when she calls Chavez a dictator.

the american-cuban vote in Florida.

If we would have won Ohio in 2004, Florida would have been unnecessary.