published Friday, June 1st, 2012

Endorsed by a socialist

In the course of elections, endorsements are sought, offered and celebrated by candidates seeking an advantage or reason to "earn" the media spotlight.

President Obama has received an endorsement that hasn't quite made splashy headlines or his campaign material just yet.

The Miami Herald reports that the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro's niece, Mariela Castro, "hailed" Obama in a speech promoting "justice and social equality" at a California gay rights conference hosted by the Rainbow World Fund.

Castro noted in those same remarks that the Cuban-American community that leans typically to the right is "a small group of delinquents," as she proclaimed her vote would be cast for President Obama.

As a side note, Florida Republicans led by U.S. Congresswoman Mario Diaz-Balart protested the visa awarded to Castro in the weeks before her travel into the country as a violation of Presidential Proclamation 5377 that prohibits non-immigrant visas to Cuban Communist Party members.

Rep. Diaz-Balart publicly criticized the Obama administration's approval of the current travel of Cuban President Raul Castro's daughter: "It is reprehensible, unacceptable and is greatly irresponsible of the administration to allow these high-level Communist Party regime officials to come into the United States on these PR tours," reported.

The national press secretary of the Democratic National Committee, Melanie Roussell, dismissed the criticisms as politically motivated.

The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups assembled in San Francisco reportedly cheered and rose with applause to Castro's declaration: "What we want is the power of emancipation through socialism!"

Anyone want to explain to Castro and the "progressives" the fact that emancipation and socialism are mutually exclusive?

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

Would this editor like to provide us with a list of non-socialist countries? There may be a few in Africa. Somalia comes to mind, but mostly our world is socialized.

Socialized services are provided by every leading country in the world. Before retiring to Canada, many Chattanoogans warned me that Canada was socialist. If this is socialism that my family is living under, the US could learn from it. It works pretty well.

What doesn't work is any form of government that taxes less than it spends, that will end badly.

June 1, 2012 at 1:19 a.m.
joneses said...

nucanuck said

"What doesn't work is any form of government that taxes less than it spends, that will end badly."

Do you know how ridiculous this statement sounds? It would be better to say "What does not work is any form of government that spends "more" than is can tax." America does not have a tax issue as the government brings in enough money. wht we have is a spending issue as proven by Hussein Obama adding 6 trillion dollars to the debt.

Nucanuck is not telling us these facts that are inconvenient to his socialist beliefs. The wealthiest 1% of wage earners in America, those making over $370,000.00 per year and make only 20% of the income in America and are paying 40% of all the taxes. The top 10% of wage earners in America pay 70% of all the taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 0% taxes but they consume most of the resources in America. Hussein Obama gives those an earned income tax credit check which equals about 59 billion dollars every year. So how is it the wealthy are considered greedy? It seems to me the people that do not pay any taxes are the greedy ones that Hussein Obama is turning into a hate filled, entitlement minded populace.

June 1, 2012 at 7:03 a.m.
librul said...

More utterly false and repeatedly discredited statistical gobbledyg@@k from the lie-bot called Joneses. Just another sunny day in a world poisoned by Fox Noise. Like they say - the truth is out there.

June 1, 2012 at 7:11 a.m.
fairmon said...

nucanuck and Joneses....

You are both entirely correct. The problem may be that taking any position that addresses the root cause of the U.S. economic dilemma will not get a desirable election result. The prevailing economics ignorance in governments and the electorate prevents progress and will eventually end badly regardless of the party in power.

June 1, 2012 at 7:22 a.m.
joneses said...


You are just another liberal who cannot stand facts that do not support you socialist agenda. Here is another fact.

How much money would the Buffett Rule Bring to the Government?

The short answer is: some, but not enough to make a dent in the deficit or even have any impact on the debt. If you put a floor at their current marginal tax rate of 35%, the government would obtain $37 billion more dollars. That might sound like a lot, but it amounts to just 2.5% of the 2009 $1.5 trillion deficit. If you increase the floor to the pre-Bush-tax-cut marginal rate of 39.6%, the additional revenue grows a bit — to $66 billion, or 4.5% of the year’s deficit. Even if you get really aggressive, it doesn’t help much. Even a tax floor for these individuals at 75% would cover less than 20% of the year’s deficit. And, of course, even most populist among us probably worries that a tax rate that high could do more harm to the U.S. economy than good. All of these calculations also assume that these wealthy individuals wouldn’t find new and creative ways to ensure that their income was shielded from very high tax rates. (They would including Obama.) So this Buffet Rule is a great populist proposal if the president wants to score some political points, but it has little practical value.

June 1, 2012 at 7:29 a.m.
joneses said...


I do not even have television at my house so therefore I do not watch Fox News or any of the propaganda from the communist controlled media outlets like CNN, NBC, MSNBC and others.

June 1, 2012 at 7:45 a.m.
conservative said...

You stold some of my thunder Joneses.

I have confronted nucanuck with being a Socialist before. Here he exposes himself as a Socialist when he puts forth the everybody does it arguement and further reveals his Socialist mindset when he says that the problem is we don't tax enough!

June 1, 2012 at 8:16 a.m.
Hilltopp said...

Think this happened about two or three weeks ago. I heard it on a "liberal" news media source shortly after it happened. Oh yeah, this is really hidden from the spotlight.

June 1, 2012 at 9:32 a.m.
librul said...

Joneses said:

"I do not even have television at my house..."

Well then, a Lollicock Sucker and a copy of American Spectator and you're good to go! Explains a lot.

June 1, 2012 at 9:56 a.m.
nucanuck said...

You two reactioaries should notice that I did not endorse any spending level, but instead, stated the obvious: provide the revenue(taxes)for whatever Congress appropriates (a little or a lot)...PERIOD. That should be the ultimate conservative position on fiscal management.

C-man, I am waiting for you to point out a non-socialist society/country on planet earth...just one will do.

June 1, 2012 at 10:37 a.m.
joneses said...


grow up

June 1, 2012 at 11:27 a.m.
nucanuck said...

I don't know joneses, I find librul's comments thoughtful, razor sharp...and usually quite amusing unless you happen to be the one being skewered.

June 1, 2012 at 11:53 a.m.
conservative said...

Once again nucanuck, I think you have misunderstood me. Before I clear that up I would like to know what your definition of a Socialist country is.

June 1, 2012 at 2:18 p.m.
nucanuck said...

You, c-man, are the one who applies the term socialist to Canada, Europe, me, and and every other moving target out there. Using any definition you wish to apply, I ask you to provide us with the name of a country that does not practice socialism by YOUR standards...plain and simple.

June 1, 2012 at 5:41 p.m.
Hilltopp said...

^ Would like to see that answer too.

June 1, 2012 at 6:18 p.m.
nucanuck said...


Cat got your tongue?

June 1, 2012 at 7:10 p.m.
conservative said...

Why don't you just admit that you are a Socilaist instead of asking me to name a non-Socialist country? You seemed to justify being a Socialist by claiming you are with the majority. Why not just admit it and put forth arguements why everyone should be a Socialist?

June 1, 2012 at 7:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

I think nucanuck is saying that under your definition of socialism, every country in the world would be socialist. And I would agree with him. Conservative, you don't know what socialism is. Obama and this country are definitely NOT socialist. You would understand that if you actually knew what socialism was. By the way, socialized medicine works great. Just look at France.

June 1, 2012 at 9:10 p.m.
mhbraganza said...

"Socialism" doesn't mean the same thing in the US as it does elsewhere. Here it is a derogatory term, generally referring to anything centrally funded for the common good - with the notable exceptions of The Military and bailing out large financial institutions.

June 1, 2012 at 10:24 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.