USA vs Cuba - Page 3 of 15

I received this in an Email from one of our - Page 3 - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 11th Mar, 2004 - 11:40am

Text RPG Play Text RPG ?

+  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  ...Latest (15) »
Posts: 113 - Views: 8312
Should US Americans be Allowed to Visit Cuba? Should a country tell you where you can and cannot go?
3rd Feb, 2004 - 8:27pm / Post ID: #

USA vs Cuba - Page 3

think they should leave it the way it is,americans that 'need' to go there have ways of getting there,as was pointed out already.Why would an average american care if they could go to cuba?I mean from what I've seen, it reminds me of tijuana;yuck.hack.!

For me the point isn't whether or not I need or want to go. Instead it is, why is it not my right to go. In a free society, I don't think my government should tell me where I can and can't go. Sounds a bit like communist countries that don't allow their citizens to travel to "free" countries for the good of the "state." I am all for embargos, etc., but I don't think they should tell me I can't travel some place if I want to do so.

Attached Image Edited: tenaheff on 3rd Feb, 2004 - 8:28pm

International Level: Diplomat / Political Participation: 320 ActivistPoliticianDiplomat 32%

Sponsored Links:
Post Date: 3rd Feb, 2004 - 9:09pm / Post ID: #

USA vs Cuba
A Friend

Cuba USA

Really its all words,that have no effect.americans go there anyway,the government cannot control it.I know they would like to but.............
what can they do?
I say keep it the way it is,because here in america we break the rules for everything,so saying we cant go somewhere is a moot point.I know they say we cant go there,but its really more of a you should'nt than you cant.

3rd Feb, 2004 - 9:15pm / Post ID: #

USA vs Cuba History & Civil Business Politics

Well, see I disagree because I don't think you could keep a law just to keep a law. If it is not a good one, it should be changed. Also, I don't think it is o.k. to break the rules without consequences. I speed, but when I am caught I pay a fine. They don't stop patrolling the highways because everyone speeds. Also, what happens in this country often is the laws everyone breaks are eventually used to prosecute someone when the government official wants to get them for some crime, but can't get them for what it is believed they did so they find some other obscure charge. Mail fraud is an example of this.

So, in short, unless there is a valid reason to prevent me from going, then the law shouldn't exist. Keeping it the way it is just because I can choose to disobey or get around it makes no sense to me.

Why should it be kept. I mean valid reasons not just that it isn't effective so why change it. That really isn't a reason to keep a law in place. What purpose do you think this law serves. Also, the question really is about whether or not the government in a free society has the right or should have the right to tell it's citizens where they can travel. Not just Cuba specifically.

International Level: Diplomat / Political Participation: 320 ActivistPoliticianDiplomat 32%

25th Feb, 2004 - 11:32am / Post ID: #

Page 3 Cuba USA

This may seem unrelated, but really it isn't because this new proposal by President Bush seeks to decide to whom you can legally have a relationship in marriage. Interestingly enough, how do you prove that having a homosexual marriage is a bad thing without getting into 'religion', and once you go there you have to ask, is it seperation of Church and State? What is your view?


President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment that would effectively
ban same-sex marriage prompted strong reactions Tuesday. Some top Democrats
and a gay civil rights group criticized the President's statement, but
Republican leaders said an amendment would protect the foundation of American society.

Why the call for an amendment now? We'll talk to the sponsors of the
controversial amendment. Plus, Candace Gingrich, author of "The Accidental Activist", joins us for the other side of this emotional debate.

International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 2929 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 100%

25th Feb, 2004 - 12:31pm / Post ID: #

Cuba USA

Interestingly enough, how do you prove that having a homosexual marriage is a bad thing without getting into 'religion', and once you go there you have to ask, is it seperation of Church and State? What is your view?

But that's exactly what some Americans are fighting against, the fact that a country that is called the land of freedom, wants to decide for their citizens what is good or not and that makes some Americans really angry.

International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 1089 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 100%

25th Feb, 2004 - 10:42pm / Post ID: #

USA vs Cuba

Well, first of all it takes an awful lot to actually get a constitutional amendment passed. This would take years. You need congress to approve it and then 2/3 of all the states also have to approve it. That doesn't happen very easily or very quickly. Then if it did pass, it would be a part of the constitution and therefore not against the constitution. It would mean that the citizens of this country decided that it is what they wanted for a constitutional law. At that point, it makes no difference why. When laws are challenged as being regarding the separation of church and state they are challenged as being unconstitutional. If you do pass an amendment to the constitution, there is no way to challenge it as unconstitutional because it becomes a part of the constitution. For example, for years they tried to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, but never were successful.

I believe there are only 27 amendments that have ever been passed in the entire history of our country so it doesn't happen often.

Here are the last two amendments approved.

Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

This gives you an idea of the frequency and also of what constitutes an amendment.

International Level: Diplomat / Political Participation: 320 ActivistPoliticianDiplomat 32%

Sponsored Links:
Post Date: 27th Feb, 2004 - 2:41am / Post ID: #

USA Cuba - Page 3

Another point of view?

A big reason for the success and stability of American society is the rule of law. The time-honored tradition is that laws, not the whims of charismatic leaders, govern the actions of people, and that those laws are made by elected representatives and kept in check by the Constitution.

11th Mar, 2004 - 11:40am / Post ID: #

USA Cuba Politics Business Civil & History - Page 3

I received this in an Email from one of our clients that also happens to be gay. It is here for your review:

Bette Midler's letter to the President:

Dear President Bush,

Today you called upon Congress to move quickly to amend the US Constitution, and
set in Federal stone a legal definition of marriage. I would like to know why.

In your speech, you stated that this Amendment would serve to protect marriage
in America, which I must confess confuses me. Like you, I believe in the
importance of marriage and I feel that we as a society take the institution far
too lightly. In my circle of family, friends and acquaintances, the vast
majority have married and divorced - some more than once. Still, I believe in
marriage. I believe that there is something fundamental about finding another
person on this planet with whom you want to build a life and family, and make a
positive contribution to society. I believe that we need more positive role
models for successful marriage in this country - something to counteract the
images we get bombarded with in popular culture. When we are assaulted with
images of celebrities of varying genres, be it actors, sports figures,
socialites, or even politicians who shrug marriage on and off like the latest
fashion, it is vitally important to the face of our nation, for our children and
our future, that we have a balance of commitment and fidelity with which to
stave off the negativity. I search for these examples to show my own daughter,
so that she can see that marriage is more than a disposable whim, despite
overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

As a father, I'm sure you have faced these same concerns and difficulties in
raising your own daughters. Therefore I can also imagine that you must
understand how thrilled I have been over the past few weeks to come home and
turn on the news with my family. To finally have concrete examples of true
commitment, honest love, and steadfast fidelity was such a relief and a joy.
Instead of speaking in the hypothetical, I was finally able to point to these
men and women, standing together for hours in the pouring rain, and tell my
child that this is what it's all about. Forget Britney. Forget Kobe. Forget
Strom. Forget about all the people that we know who have taken so frivolously
the pure and simple beauty of love and tarnished it so consistently. Look
instead at the joy in the beautiful faces of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon - 51
years together! I mean, honestly Mr. President - how many couples do you know
who are together for 51 years? I'm sure you agree that this love story provides
a wonderful opportunity to teach our children about the true meaning and value
of marriage. On the steps of San Francisco City Hall, rose petals and champagne,
suits and veils, horns honking and elation in the streets; a celebration of love
the likes of which this society has never seen.

This morning, however, my joy turned to sadness, my relief transformed, and my
peace became anger. This morning, I watched you stand before this nation and
belittle these women, the thousands who stood with them, and the countless
millions who wish to follow them. How could you do that, Mr. President? How
could you take something so beautiful - a clear and defining example of the true
nature of commitment something so beautiful - a clear and defining example of
the true nature of commitment - and
declare it to be anything less? What is it that validates your marriage which
somehow doesn't apply to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon? By what power, what
authority are you so divinely imbued that you can stand before me and this
nation and hold their love to a higher standard?

Don't speak to me about homosexuality, Mr. President. Don't tell me that the
difference lies in the bedroom. I would never presume to ask you or your wife
how it is you choose to physically express your love for one another, and I defy
you to stand before Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and ask them to do the same. It
is none of my business, as it is none of yours, and it has nothing to do with
the "sanctity of marriage". I'm sure you would agree that marriage is far more
than sexual expression, and it's high time we all started focusing on all the
other aspects of a relationship which hold it together over the course of a
lifetime. Therefore, with the mechanics of sex set aside, I ask you again - what
makes a marriage? I firmly believe that whatever definition you derive, there
are thousands upon thousands of shining examples for you to embrace.

You want to protect marriage. I admire and support that, Mr. President.
Together, as a nation, let us find and celebrate examples of what a marriage
should be. Together, let us take couples who embody the principles of
commitment, fidelity, sacrifice and love, and hold them up before our children
as role models for their own futures. Together, let us reinforce the concept
that love is about far more than sex, despite what popular culture would like
them to believe.

Please, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our society, for the sake
of our future, do not take us down this road. Under the guise of protection, do
not support divisiveness. Under the guise of unity, do not endorse
discrimination. Under the guise of sanctity, do not devalue commitment. Under
the guise of democracy, do not encourage this amendment.

Bette Midler

International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 2929 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 100%

+  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  ...Latest (15) »
Sponsored Links:

Comment Add Comment As A Guest
Important Guest, please be considerate by using the appropriate tags as well as checking your grammar before submitting or it will be deleted. See: Constructive Posting Policy.

# Characters:
# Words:
# Sentences:
# Paragraphs:
Reading Time:

Tip TIP: Press above button ONCE only. If you come back here via the [Back] button on your browser then you will need to click [More Options] button (below) first in order to re-enable your ability to Post.

> TOPIC: USA vs Cuba

International Discussions Coded by: BGID®
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Copyright © 1999-2021
Disclaimer Privacy Report Errors Credits
This site uses Cookies to dispense or record information with regards to your visit. By continuing to use this site you agree to the terms outlined in our Cookies used here: Privacy / Disclaimer,