Holy Cohiba! Obama lifts ban on Cuban cigars and rum

[martybegan]

The got robbed. But again, its part of your ideology, so its A-OK!

Are you saying that the USA should compensate the Cubans that had their land stolen?

No this is just propganda from the cold war he saying the cuban government should track down and payback wealthy business owners in cuba who lost their sugar plantations... when countries overthrew british french spanish belgian etc colonists they demanded compensation from those new governments... see haiti, rwanda, sierra leonne, zaire, vietnam etc etc

Oh, I thought he was talking about people that lost their homes.

Homes, plantations, hotels, etc. Stolen is stolen, even if you get Commie Jollies from the transfer of stuff from one group of exploiters to another.

Why don't you go fuck yourself Marty? Some of my family fled from Castro. Why don't you go grope someone so you can be the man that Trump is?

And does your family want their stuff back or not?

 

[martybegan]

Obama lifts restrictions on Cuban rum, cigars

The Obama administration announced Friday a new round of executive actions designed to increase trade and travel with the communist island. And this is the one many Americans have been waiting for — no more restrictions on the island's famed rum and cigars.

Under the new rules, travelers can purchase unlimited quantities of Cuban rum and cigars in any country where they are sold so long as they are for personal consumption.




.

Are they slapping an excise tax on the items to compensate the people who lost $$ when Castro stole their businesses and land?

Apparently the same standards that were applied to American Indian tribes will apply to Cuba.

Considering the Tribes didn't have a legalized system of ownership until the Europeans imposed it on them, you are comparing apples to paperclips.

 

[martybegan]

The got robbed. But again, its part of your ideology, so its A-OK!

Are you saying that the USA should compensate the Cubans that had their land stolen?

No, the Cubans should compensate the Cubans who got their land stolen, plus the others who got their land stolen.

I agree. But they need money to do that and I am willing to pony up by purchasing some rum.

I'm sure if a Democrat is in office the Cubans who now control the stolen property will get off scott free.

Happens all the time with revolutions

Those who back the wrong side lose property. They don't get to come back in 50 years to reclaim it



.

Actually, they do.

Property Restitution in Central and Eastern Europe

 

[martybegan]

Obama lifts restrictions on Cuban rum, cigars

The Obama administration announced Friday a new round of executive actions designed to increase trade and travel with the communist island. And this is the one many Americans have been waiting for — no more restrictions on the island's famed rum and cigars.

Under the new rules, travelers can purchase unlimited quantities of Cuban rum and cigars in any country where they are sold so long as they are for personal consumption.




.

Are they slapping an excise tax on the items to compensate the people who lost $$ when Castro stole their businesses and land?

Oh, you mean reparations?

No, restoration and restitution.

 

[martybegan]

Are they slapping an excise tax on the items to compensate the people who lost $$ when Castro stole their businesses and land?

You mean those same oligarchs who made up the 00.01 percent rich of the island who stole the land of the original inhabitants all the while leaving the other 99.99 percent in abject poverty. Those people?

And all the others who lost property when the communists came in and said "this is ours now"

Just like what has and is happening in Eastern Europe.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

And all the others who lost property when the communists came in and said "this is ours now"

Just like what has and is happening in Eastern Europe.

The only reason those people were rich in the first place was because they supported the corrupt dictator Batista. All Cuba did was replace one dictator with another. The difference was Fidel spread the love. Batista and his cronies wanted it all for himself. The revolution didn't happen in a vacuum.

 

[Skull Pilot]

BFD

Bourbon is far better than rum and cigars all stink no matter where they are made

 

[martybegan]

[

And all the others who lost property when the communists came in and said "this is ours now"

Just like what has and is happening in Eastern Europe.

The only reason those people were rich in the first place was because they supported the corrupt dictator Batista. All Cuba did was replace one dictator with another. The difference was Fidel spread the love. Batista and his cronies wanted it all for himself. The revolution didn't happen in a vacuum.

That still doesn't justify unfunded appropriation of legally owned property. If Cuba wants to play nice the commie upperclass has to give back what it took.

 

[rightwinger]

[

And all the others who lost property when the communists came in and said "this is ours now"

Just like what has and is happening in Eastern Europe.

The only reason those people were rich in the first place was because they supported the corrupt dictator Batista. All Cuba did was replace one dictator with another. The difference was Fidel spread the love. Batista and his cronies wanted it all for himself. The revolution didn't happen in a vacuum.

That still doesn't justify unfunded appropriation of legally owned property. If Cuba wants to play nice the commie upperclass has to give back what it took.

That would be like asking Batista's cronies to give back what they took

 

[martybegan]

[

And all the others who lost property when the communists came in and said "this is ours now"

Just like what has and is happening in Eastern Europe.

The only reason those people were rich in the first place was because they supported the corrupt dictator Batista. All Cuba did was replace one dictator with another. The difference was Fidel spread the love. Batista and his cronies wanted it all for himself. The revolution didn't happen in a vacuum.

That still doesn't justify unfunded appropriation of legally owned property. If Cuba wants to play nice the commie upperclass has to give back what it took.

That would be like asking Batista's cronies to give back what they took

Did they Seize things illegally?

 

[rightwinger]

[

And all the others who lost property when the communists came in and said "this is ours now"

Just like what has and is happening in Eastern Europe.

The only reason those people were rich in the first place was because they supported the corrupt dictator Batista. All Cuba did was replace one dictator with another. The difference was Fidel spread the love. Batista and his cronies wanted it all for himself. The revolution didn't happen in a vacuum.

That still doesn't justify unfunded appropriation of legally owned property. If Cuba wants to play nice the commie upperclass has to give back what it took.

That would be like asking Batista's cronies to give back what they took

Did they Seize things illegally?

Yes they did

See current Cuban law

 

[martybegan]

[

And all the others who lost property when the communists came in and said "this is ours now"

Just like what has and is happening in Eastern Europe.

The only reason those people were rich in the first place was because they supported the corrupt dictator Batista. All Cuba did was replace one dictator with another. The difference was Fidel spread the love. Batista and his cronies wanted it all for himself. The revolution didn't happen in a vacuum.

That still doesn't justify unfunded appropriation of legally owned property. If Cuba wants to play nice the commie upperclass has to give back what it took.

That would be like asking Batista's cronies to give back what they took

Did they Seize things illegally?

Yes they did

See current Cuban law

You have to do better than that.

But from Wiki:

In the aftermath of the Revolution, the Congress was supplanted by a Council of Ministers, consolidating greater power in the hands of the revolutionary government. In the years to follow, the revolutionary government enacted hundreds of laws and decrees with the aim of affecting basic change in Cuba's socio-economic system. Some of the major laws enacted include the First Agrarian Reform Law of May 1959, Urban Reform Law of October 1960, Nationalization Law of October 1960, Nationalization of Education Law of June 1961, and the Second Agrarian Reform Law of October 1963. Furthermore, new institutions, such as the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (INRA), were created to carry out these laws more efficiently.

So these laws seemed to have been enacted by a "council" not any elective body. So basically the Constitution of 1940 was obviated due to revolutionary "necessity".

kind of calls those nationalizations into question once an actual restoration of the Constitution of 1940 occurs.

 

[rightwinger]

The only reason those people were rich in the first place was because they supported the corrupt dictator Batista. All Cuba did was replace one dictator with another. The difference was Fidel spread the love. Batista and his cronies wanted it all for himself. The revolution didn't happen in a vacuum.

That still doesn't justify unfunded appropriation of legally owned property. If Cuba wants to play nice the commie upperclass has to give back what it took.

That would be like asking Batista's cronies to give back what they took

Did they Seize things illegally?

Yes they did

See current Cuban law

You have to do better than that.

But from Wiki:

In the aftermath of the Revolution, the Congress was supplanted by a Council of Ministers, consolidating greater power in the hands of the revolutionary government. In the years to follow, the revolutionary government enacted hundreds of laws and decrees with the aim of affecting basic change in Cuba's socio-economic system. Some of the major laws enacted include the First Agrarian Reform Law of May 1959, Urban Reform Law of October 1960, Nationalization Law of October 1960, Nationalization of Education Law of June 1961, and the Second Agrarian Reform Law of October 1963. Furthermore, new institutions, such as the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (INRA), were created to carry out these laws more efficiently.

So these laws seemed to have been enacted by a "council" not any elective body. So basically the Constitution of 1940 was obviated due to revolutionary "necessity".

kind of calls those nationalizations into question once an actual restoration of the Constitution of 1940 occurs.

Batista encouraged foreign investment to come to Cuba in sweetheart deals that enriched both the investors and the Batista regime. Left out of the equation was the people of Cuba

Those investors took a big risk in anticipation of obscene profits. They underestimated the will of the people who chose revolution.

I have no interest in restoring the losses of those responsible for the people revolting in the first place

 

[martybegan]

That still doesn't justify unfunded appropriation of legally owned property. If Cuba wants to play nice the commie upperclass has to give back what it took.

That would be like asking Batista's cronies to give back what they took

Did they Seize things illegally?

Yes they did

See current Cuban law

You have to do better than that.

But from Wiki:

In the aftermath of the Revolution, the Congress was supplanted by a Council of Ministers, consolidating greater power in the hands of the revolutionary government. In the years to follow, the revolutionary government enacted hundreds of laws and decrees with the aim of affecting basic change in Cuba's socio-economic system. Some of the major laws enacted include the First Agrarian Reform Law of May 1959, Urban Reform Law of October 1960, Nationalization Law of October 1960, Nationalization of Education Law of June 1961, and the Second Agrarian Reform Law of October 1963. Furthermore, new institutions, such as the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (INRA), were created to carry out these laws more efficiently.

So these laws seemed to have been enacted by a "council" not any elective body. So basically the Constitution of 1940 was obviated due to revolutionary "necessity".

kind of calls those nationalizations into question once an actual restoration of the Constitution of 1940 occurs.

Batista encouraged foreign investment to come to Cuba in sweetheart deals that enriched both the investors and the Batista regime. Left out of the equation was the people of Cuba

Those investors took a big risk in anticipation of obscene profits. They underestimated the will of the people who chose revolution.

I have no interest in restoring the losses of those responsible for the people revolting in the first place

And Castro illegally nationalized the property, but you are OK with that because you are a communist apologist and a overall scum sucking progressive Twat.

 

[rightwinger]

That would be like asking Batista's cronies to give back what they took

Did they Seize things illegally?

Yes they did

See current Cuban law

You have to do better than that.

But from Wiki:

In the aftermath of the Revolution, the Congress was supplanted by a Council of Ministers, consolidating greater power in the hands of the revolutionary government. In the years to follow, the revolutionary government enacted hundreds of laws and decrees with the aim of affecting basic change in Cuba's socio-economic system. Some of the major laws enacted include the First Agrarian Reform Law of May 1959, Urban Reform Law of October 1960, Nationalization Law of October 1960, Nationalization of Education Law of June 1961, and the Second Agrarian Reform Law of October 1963. Furthermore, new institutions, such as the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (INRA), were created to carry out these laws more efficiently.

So these laws seemed to have been enacted by a "council" not any elective body. So basically the Constitution of 1940 was obviated due to revolutionary "necessity".

kind of calls those nationalizations into question once an actual restoration of the Constitution of 1940 occurs.

Batista encouraged foreign investment to come to Cuba in sweetheart deals that enriched both the investors and the Batista regime. Left out of the equation was the people of Cuba

Those investors took a big risk in anticipation of obscene profits. They underestimated the will of the people who chose revolution.

I have no interest in restoring the losses of those responsible for the people revolting in the first place

And Castro illegally nationalized the property, but you are OK with that because you are a communist apologist and a overall scum sucking progressive Twat.

Nope

Because I don't support returning property that was fraudulently obtained in the first place
As far as Cuba is concerned...there is a blank slate
You lost out 50 years ago.....that is your problem

 

[martybegan]

Did they Seize things illegally?

Yes they did

See current Cuban law

You have to do better than that.

But from Wiki:

In the aftermath of the Revolution, the Congress was supplanted by a Council of Ministers, consolidating greater power in the hands of the revolutionary government. In the years to follow, the revolutionary government enacted hundreds of laws and decrees with the aim of affecting basic change in Cuba's socio-economic system. Some of the major laws enacted include the First Agrarian Reform Law of May 1959, Urban Reform Law of October 1960, Nationalization Law of October 1960, Nationalization of Education Law of June 1961, and the Second Agrarian Reform Law of October 1963. Furthermore, new institutions, such as the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (INRA), were created to carry out these laws more efficiently.

So these laws seemed to have been enacted by a "council" not any elective body. So basically the Constitution of 1940 was obviated due to revolutionary "necessity".

kind of calls those nationalizations into question once an actual restoration of the Constitution of 1940 occurs.

Batista encouraged foreign investment to come to Cuba in sweetheart deals that enriched both the investors and the Batista regime. Left out of the equation was the people of Cuba

Those investors took a big risk in anticipation of obscene profits. They underestimated the will of the people who chose revolution.

I have no interest in restoring the losses of those responsible for the people revolting in the first place

And Castro illegally nationalized the property, but you are OK with that because you are a communist apologist and a overall scum sucking progressive Twat.

Nope

Because I don't support returning property that was fraudulently obtained in the first place
As far as Cuba is concerned...there is a blank slate
You lost out 50 years ago.....that is your problem

So someone who bought a plantation in the 1930's automatically obtained it via Fraud?

If fraud was involved it can be proven. It still doesn't justify uncompensated nationalization by a group of communist fucktards.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

That still doesn't justify unfunded appropriation of legally owned property. If Cuba wants to play nice the commie upperclass has to give back what it took.

But was it? If you definition of 'legally' owned property means acquiring it because your mates with the dictator.

 

[Dr Grump]

And Castro illegally nationalized the property, but you are OK with that because you are a communist apologist and a overall scum sucking progressive Twat.

regre
But you'll give a free pass to the scumsucking arseholes who supported Batista and regressive regime?

 

[Claudette]

Sounds like obie wants to start smoking Cuban cigars and drinking Cuban rum.

I agree but I see nothing wrong with doing this.

From what I understand Cuban cigars are some of the best in the world and their rum?? Well lets just say its damned tasty. LOL

 

[Iceweasel]

Sounds like obie wants to start smoking Cuban cigars and drinking Cuban rum.

I agree but I see nothing wrong with doing this.

From what I understand Cuban cigars are some of the best in the world and their rum?? Well lets just say its damned tasty. LOL

Never had much rum at all, might have to check it out.