[T]hat if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them.

After considering this again he may have only been commenting on what the Cuban government minus himself would have done… however that’s not clear and I’m not going to go buy the book just to check nor is the source page given.

He was still a scumbag.

And where do you live?  Oh yes, in the US.  It doesn’t surprise me that more people around here know George Washington quotes than Che quotes.  I’d bet more people know more Niyazov quotes in Turkmenistan than George Washington quotes.

And where do I spend 50+ hours of my week? NYC. Where is a huge concentration of Che cultists? NYC. Never, as I’ve already said, have I’ve seen a quote by Che used actively or passively. I’ve seen his face on hundreds of things and never his words. Other people these same individuals often worship however are quoted. So there is a discrepancy. Marx is quoted all the time. He’s not American. Besides, I didn’t say people knew their works, I said their likeness and works are or are not found together.

The problem is the blind support.  Blindly supporting anyone is moronic.  Someone who will support a person without researching their beliefs is just as likely to support people on either side of the fence.

That’s not the issue here. My comment and concern is with regard to their influence on me and my beliefs. Totalitarian communist worshipers are more detrimental to my beliefs than Constitution worshipers. A lemming who walks off a cliff is more harm to themselves than one who walks in circles. This has nothing to do with intent or meaning it has to do with results of actions. Those who believe X through years of research or picking it up from Charlie down the street one day while tripping on PCP make no difference if the general actions performed by them are the same. And the probability that someone will act in a way more according to their professed beliefs is higher than them acting in the opposite.

No, I think they do it because the US is more rich and well developed than Cuba.  You could establish the government of your choosing in Cuba tomorrow and people would still float on into the US for years.  You’re avoiding the Baptista question because you know that the current system Fidel has established is better than the previous one.

I didn’t avoid it. The question doesn’t matter. I don’t know that either system is better but I do know what people are doing. They are fleeing the country. Batista was disliked in the end by the upper and middle class. They were already in a shitty system. So what? Tyranny is tyranny. Is universal (except major party members) poverty in tyranny better than some rich some poor in relative freedom? I think it’s pretty obvious that if Cuba was even a sham of a democracy now it’s people would be better off. The USA would be trading with them. Look at every other nation which has opened up relations both politically and economically with the capitalist world? How better off the average Chinese person is? All the ex Soviet nations? East Germany? Vietnam? These nations have more wealth, better standards of living, greater knowledge. Things that generally are considered "better off." To argue otherwise is based on ignorance or lies. We don’t need to talk theory here. There are plenty of evidence for this out there. I’m not concerned with a failing system falling apart and letting more freedom get by. That’s not done purposely.

Cuba has a long way to go, you need to monitor whether it is improving or getting worse.  Once again, I advise that you talk to Cubans. If you like repetitive snippets designed for a desensitized MTV generation you can watch "Surplus Terrorized into being Consumers".  They interview some Cubans as well.

Have you talked to any Cubans? I have one in my house. He tells me of his family and what happened to them and how they feel about Cuba and Fidel. I see videos of Cubans in Cuba afraid to even talk about their elections. I read stories, see photos and smuggled videos of their hideous universal heathcare system. I read about how they aren’t allowed to get satellite TV so one guy will pirate it and run cable lines to several homes. They pay through the nose for it even though they can collectively only watch one channel at a time because it’s illegal to watch things from outside the country. You are welcome to check out how good their system is for your self.

Are you telling me that "patriots" didn’t hang informers during the revolutionary war?  The green in Morristown was the sight of many such murderous actions.  The murderers justified themselves by saying more lives were saved because that person is dead.  I’m sure Che did the same thing.  It’s probably the way Washington justified killing Germans on Christmas.  I don’t think murder can be justified and you know that.

Are you actually reading my posts? I clearly said that people were killed but it was not institutional. You are the one dodging questions. You compared murder and self defense as equal. Is that what you actually meant? You continue to redefine the English language so you are "right." Washington killing some mercenaries hired to kill him who had already battled with them is absolutely different than Che’s gang of actual murderers. They went around taking people who were not fighting them, tied them up, blind folded them and put bullets in their heads. The loyalists who sat around and made no active attempt to help the British were not rounded up and shot by the revolutionaries.

The USSR dissolved itself.

The collapse of a system and an active transition to a new governing body are totally different. The USSR could no longer sustain itself. Regardless of the reasons. You don’t say that a bulldozer running over a home and a home collaping because of failing materials are the same. One was bound to happen. The natural progression of the existing system. Those who pick up the pieces are not the same as the individual who would have changed it actively.

The threat of force is different than killing people.

?? Not really. Not in the larger scope. If you threaten force and never use it than the threat doesn’t exist. The threat is a threat because you can and likely will act. You must kill someone at some point to prove your threat is to be taken seriously. The British threatened and acted on those threats. The colonists defended. You can bring up random cases of loyalists being strung up for no reason… they offered no threat… than thats a crime. That’s not indicative of the revolution.

Tossing death around lightly is the mark of someone who hasn’t truly lived or someone who fails to see the beauty in life.

You advocate pacifism. Ideally, you claim that you’d let me beat you to death with a mace. That’s retarded by your own definition. You’ve placed your non-violence over your death. There are some things more important than your life. What that is is up to you. And how is it that you can just change what you believe exactly? How can you weakly hold a belief? At any particular point in time your beliefs are X. You can’t simply change the favorite color value from RED to GREEN. Things don’t work that way. The comments made by people are snapshots…. to act as if new experiences doesn’t change people is ludicrous. You act as if time is not a factor. Ideas only change relative to time. If no time has passed you have a set set of beliefs.

A child is far more tangible than liberty.

Why is tangibility relevant? Are you going to start arguing for the labor theory of value, mutualism, and base vs higher desires now?

That being said, only in hypothetical situations are you ever going to have to choose between life and your child.  The same applies to liberty.  You don’t have to make the choice between liberty and death.  It’s the kind of rhetoric spoon fed to youngsters to encourage them to kill other people.

Really? There has never been as situation in the history of man where a parent was given the choice of their life or that of their child’s? Seems likely to me. As does liberty and death. In fact that statement is incredibly ignorant. Every single day thousands of people are arrested against their will for victimless crimes. They choose to give up liberty to not die. Because if they don’t give in to those in power they will eventually be murdered for disobeying and defending themselves. For some that may be unacceptable. Obviously they don’t know the future and can’t predict whether the lack of freedom will last but that is for everything. Is it any more or less retarded to decide to go to work every morning given you don’t know whether or not you’ll be hit by a bus? No. There is always ignorance in your action. Nothing can be done about that. You make the calculation, weigh the risks and benefits and then act.

And again… you ignore the reality of the phrase you use (Live free or die). Refer to previous post for full quotes. You speak of understanding the beauty of life… why not reread Patrick Henry’s quote above.

I found another interesting thing about Che:

Prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis, Guevara was part of a Cuban delegation to Moscow in 1962 with Raúl Castro where he endorsed the planned placement of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. Guevara believed that the installation of Soviet missiles would protect Cuba from any direct military action against it by the United States. Jon Lee Anderson reports that after the crisis Guevara told Sam Russell, a British correspondent for the socialist newspaper Daily Worker, that if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them.

Sounds like a real loving and peaceful guy. They guy oversaw personally the death of hundreds and maybe thousands in non-battle situations of people who were at least in some cases only held differing opinions to those in power and were willing to speak them. Sounds a lot like other communist countries I’ve read about. He also appears to have advocated the death of possibly hundreds of thousands of people living in the USA. I repeat, the man in actions and in words was in no way someone worthy of idolization. Especially by someone who is supporting the possible next president of the USA who will have direct influence in my life and those I care about.

Quote me. See if you can find a situation where I didn’t qualify my response with the word "try". I think I would try not to respond with violence if my life was threatened, but in actuality, baring the hazards of driving, I rarely have my life threatened by individuals. I think I’ve been pretty clear on the fact that I don’t know for certain how I would react.

Showing conviction of one’s beliefs to the point of death is retarded.
Zealots are quick to state that nothing will sway them from what they
believe, even torture or death.  Firstly, they do not know that to be
true as rarely have they faced either and secondly who wants to believe
that firmly in anything.  Tossing death around lightly is the mark of
someone who hasn’t truly lived or someone who fails to see the beauty in
life.

Wait. Slow down a second.

Something doesn’t sound right here.

In numerous previous posts and debates, you’ve said many times that as
one who practices passivism, that you would not fight back if someone
was attacking you-even to the point of death.

Could you better explain how your current practicing belief system fits
into the statement you made above?

I call hypocrisy, sir.

Outside articles praising him or attacking him I’ve never heard anyone quote Che except you. As I said… you don’t see quotes by him on wears with his likeness. Not generally anyway. Shirts of the founders almost always features quotes.

And where do you live?  Oh yes, in the US.  It doesn’t surprise me that more people around here know George Washington quotes than Che quotes.  I’d bet more people know more Niyazov quotes in Turkmenistan than George Washington quotes.

Blindly supporting a person who’s promoting peaceful individualism seems a whole lot less dangerous than those blindly supporting a guy advocating violent collectivism.

The problem is the blind support.  Blindly supporting anyone is moronic.  Someone who will support a person without researching their beliefs is just as likely to support people on either side of the fence.

Ask all the individuals who risk death to float on a raft to get into the USA. You think they do it for the fun?

No, I think they do it because the US is more rich and well developed than Cuba.  You could establish the government of your choosing in Cuba tomorrow and people would still float on into the US for years.  You’re avoiding the Baptista question because you know that the current system Fidel has established is better than the previous one.  Cuba has a long way to go, you need to monitor whether it is improving or getting worse.  Once again, I advise that you talk to Cubans. If you like repetitive snippets designed for a desensitized MTV generation you can watch "Surplus Terrorized into being Consumers".  They interview some Cubans as well.

Are you seriously telling me that putting a bullet in a dissident’s head is the same as attacking a man who is being paid to attack you?

Are you telling me that "patriots" didn’t hang informers during the revolutionary war?  The green in Morristown was the sight of many such murderous actions.  The murderers justified themselves by saying more lives were saved because that person is dead.  I’m sure Che did the same thing.  It’s probably the way Washington justified killing Germans on Christmas.  I don’t think murder can be justified and you know that.

Where in history has the threat of force not been the cause of those in power to relinquish it?

The threat of force is different than killing people.  That being said if you are looking for people in power who relinquished it in an almost bloodless revolution look at the recent fall of the worlds largest nation.  The USSR dissolved itself.  They did it without a major civil war.  You can argue all you want about the conditions that led to it, but made a major changing without running through the woods and slinging lead at each other.

It’s a personal rally call to show the importance of liberty. Showing the conviction of one’s beliefs.

Showing conviction of one’s beliefs to the point of death is retarded.  Zealots are quick to state that nothing will sway them from what they believe, even torture or death.  Firstly, they do not know that to be true as rarely have they faced either and secondly who wants to believe that firmly in anything.  Tossing death around lightly is the mark of someone who hasn’t truly lived or someone who fails to see the beauty in life.

How is that any different than someone professing they’d fight to the death to save their child?

You can hold a child.  A child is far more tangible than liberty.  That being said, only in hypothetical situations are you ever going to have to choose between life and your child.  The same applies to liberty.  You don’t have to make the choice between liberty and death.  It’s the kind of rhetoric spoon fed to youngsters to encourage them to kill other people.

The federal government wasn’t abolished. Women just got the ability to participate in the existing system. Prior to that they could have at least blamed all bad law on men.

Where in history has the threat of force not been the cause of those in power to relinquish it?

Women’s suffrage?  Though they hold a certain power perhaps more powerful than a gun. 

Che doesn’t get some special exception from your rule because he wore a beret instead of a tricorne.  Murder is murder and messages are messages.

Yes and? I’m not. I pointed out very clearly that he acted and spoke of violence and murder and disregard for individual freedoms. I am criticizing the man and the message. They both suck. His talk of love and helping is meaningless given his talk of murder intertwined. They in the least contradict each other and cancel out. His actions then are all that are left and are fairly  undefendable IMO.

Sure they are.  The same way Paul has a cult following for his writings.

Outside articles praising him or attacking him I’ve never heard anyone quote Che except you. As I said… you don’t see quotes by him on wears with his likeness. Not generally anyway. Shirts of the founders almost always features quotes. Nor are they idolized like Christ as Che is. And Paul doesn’t have a cult following because of his writings. I can guarantee to you that most of his supporters have not read any of his works nor many understand the core of his libertarian beliefs. I’ve said many times there are plenty of bandwagon people in the movement. They are their because freedom sounds good and it’s a very friendly and open community. Just like Obama gets lots of people who want "change." I don’t care all that much given that the freedom movement is about peace which I agree with. Murder and tyranny is not something I agree with and people who blindly follow that kind of person is in my opinion are far more dangerous. I care about people’s actions and their results. Blindly supporting a person who’s promoting peaceful individualism seems a whole lot less dangerous than those blindly supporting a guy advocating violent collectivism.

Using who’s value system, your’s or mine? We aren’t going to be able to agree unless we determine an objective method of determining how a group of people are "better off".

Neither, theirs. Just ask them. Look at their action. Ask all the individuals who risk death to float on a raft to get into the USA. You think they do it for the fun of it? You think those Cubans down in Florida are being kept out of Cuba and that’s why they haven’t gone back? Just took a trip and wasn’t let back in? Watch some videos and read about their healthcare system… about their recent elections. You honestly believe they like having 600+ legislative seats open and that same number of candidates running for them… one for each. A single party? How could you possibly deduce that? I saw footage not a month ago of people afraid to even comment on camera about the elections. Those that did gave the wink wink nudge nudge body language while grinning and saying how they had no issues. I’m not arguing for Baptista vs Castro. I’m talking about the system Castro and Che helped create. Tyranny is tyranny.

Shooting dissidents in the head with a .32 is as appalling slitting the throats of Hessians or shooting French diplomats in the back with a musket.

murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Are you seriously telling me that putting a bullet in a dissident’s head is the same as attacking a man who is being paid to attack you?

Are you smoking crack Mr. Franklin?  You’re calling for periodic martyrdom as a means of public education. You want armed citizens to rise up periodically and die to remind the government that they are willing to do so?

That was Jefferson and no… crack wasn’t invented at the time. Can you seriously tell me that historically, that is not the only way that things could work? Where in history has the threat of force not been the cause of those in power to relinquish it? Has he not been proven right? Seems to me like he was right on the nose. They distrusted government and knew first hand it’s problems. If it had been 50 years later all the anti-federalists would have probably been practically anarcho-captialists. Also… seems to me to be saying that the rebellion is for the government officials education… not that of the public. He says accurately that lethargy is the "forerunner of death to the public liberty." It’s the publics responsibility to get riled up once in a while to keep the government on it’s toes. Given the state of most nations I’d say he was on to something.

This one kills me.  Applied literally it may kill you too.  Seriously though, it’s some Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade style crap and we stamp it on license plates.  Surely there are more options than liberty and death.

You’ve again ignored the full quote. "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils." And Patrick Henry’s fully is: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" It’s a personal rally call to show the importance of liberty. Showing the conviction of one’s beliefs. It’s not instructing people to murder as Che did. It’s giving the oppressor the necessary information. I will fight for my liberty to my death. How is that any different than someone professing they’d fight to the death to save their child?