Zorro, me no authority on spelling. me only authority on everything else. 
quote:
Oh, and to answer your first question, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of any country going Communist and being successful at it. I mean, name one communist nation, where people actually want to go and live?
Gee, bayonet1976 had no problem understanding me. But wait, the way you talk, it reminds me of someone…oh, oh, oh, I think I got it…Wow, what an honor Mr. Clinton. I mean, I’m a republican who never voted for you, but still, to be talking to a former president…
This explains why you can’t figure out things on your own, and need everything explained to you. I mean, after all, you don’t even know the meaning of the word “is”, so of course you’re having problems reading my posts. I get it now.
As per the OP, the leaders actually giving a squat about the welfare of their people and believing that they are better off in some respects. Comparing a third world country to one of the wealthiest isn’t realistic. Third world countries are often riddled with government corruption military juntas and the like whether communist or capitalist. Therefore, one could genuinely believe there is some justification to the loss of rights.
BTW, Baby Doc in Haiti could easily rival most dictators in terms of oppression.
Regarding migration to communist countries, since that seems to be the debate d’jour, please note that Haiti is a short boat ride away from Cuba, I mean really short. Yet Haitians continue to choose the much longer trip to Florida. Yes I know, that proves nothing, but I know that if I lived next door to a benign paradise I would certainly give that a try before undertaking a riskier enterprise. Unless of course I’m reasonably sure that said benign paradise is no such thing.
Final point, Cuba does not publish migration stats, either online or anywhere I could find a reference to, but I will tell you that most Cubans would smack their head in disbelief if they heard even one such person moved to Cuba voluntarily.
I am very happy that you and bayonet agree on things. But I don´t.
Now, as of yet I don’t see bayonet having any trouble with staying on topic. You on the other hand…
This is the weirdest form of Ad hominem: Out of nowhere you attack the character of… Bill Clinton? Ok fine. You sure you in the right thread?
You think so. When was that? Or are you just making educated guesses? 
bayonet:
Hm, who have stated that Cuba is a “benign paradise”?
Generally people with a choice between fleeing to a poor third-world country and fleeing to a rich first-world country chose the latter. Proven by the continous immigration to western europe and the united states from places all over the world.
If you simply mean that florida is generally a better place to live than cuba for most people i think i would agree though (without having tried either).
The embargo: I’ll have to get back to you on this one later, since a proper answer will require some digging.
Well, I would compare a wealthy communist nation to a wealthy capitalist nation, if a wealthy communist nation existed.
Justification of the loss of rights? I’m afraid I’ll have to agree with Patrick Henry when he said “Give me liberty or give me death.”
Yes, it’s true, that people escaping from a country doesn’t necessarily mean that the country is communist. However; if a country is communist, then it most likely means that people will try to escape it.
Wow, if you think that I was attacking the character of Bill Clinton, then you really missed the point that I was trying to make. But that’s OK, I’m getting use to it 
Well Joel,
If your point was about me being as slippery as (your perception of) the Big Willy, and that I, like him “can’t figure out things on your own, and need everything explained to you” i did follow you. And if your additional point was that I, like him “don’t even know the meaning of the word “is””, then I got that as well.
I just didn’t think they were very good points. Bullshit, frankly. Since you asked…
You’re failure to grasp almost every single post I make amazes me.
My Clinton post had to do with the fact that you have to have things spelled out for you. Bill Clinton had to have the meaning of the word “is” spelled out for him. See the connection?
One more point I’d like to make about what you just said. How does jailing and/or executing disidents feed the starving? And how does giving mock trials, or no trial at all give money to the poor? In short, how does taking away rights improve the lives of people?
I am not familiar would that incident. Surprised still that i didnt get it? I don’t think I have to really.
Your post still amonts to Bullshit. If you can’t participate in a debate without succumbing to arguments at the intellectual level of Jay Leno, don’t bother.
Oh, and Joel, you did forget to adress the issue! In your post:
Could you please specify the scope of “people”? Feel free to pretend that I’m Bill Clinton if that makes you more comfortable.
quote:
I mean, name one communist nation, where people actually want to go and live?
When words like “people” are used, they are generalizations with room for exceptions. Yes, there are communist sympathizers, and people who think that loss of freedom and poverty are good things, but these people are in the minority.
I’ve never been in a conversation, where someone hears the word people, they automatically assume all people. Usually, the all needs to be specified first.
I’ll give you an example. The auto shop/car repair company Pep Boys have the slogan “Pep Boys. Cars like us, people love us.” Now, you do actually think that they mean all people, everywhere, all over the world? Or do you realize that they’re making a generalization, and there are going to be exceptions?
Gr8Kat:
Of course. But I happened to think that it was necessary in this case to have a proper scope in order to have a proper discussion.
Because generalizations are dangerous. And a debate on government forms should not be carried out with the rethorical techniques used in advertizing.
I suggest that you read my response to Joels claim where I suggested three different scopes of “people”, and discussed them.
Now Joel could have agreed to either one of them. Or he could have suggested another one. That would have lead somewhere. Instead he seems to feel that I should just accept his argument as is.
Presumably because he thinks i’m as slow as Bill Clinton…
Asuming of course that your post was directed towards me
UUUHHHGGGG!!! THOSE POSTS FROM GR8KAT were actually from me!!! She’s my wife, she logs in, and then, from time to time I forget to log out and re-log in as me.!!!
Damn! Damn!, Damn!, I keep doing this…UUUHHHGGGGG!!!
No, No, No, you’re still not getting what I’m saying. I’ll try one last time and then, I give up.
When speaking, usually about anything, when the word people is used, it is almost never ment as “ALL” or every person in the whole wide world. When I said that people don’t want to live in a communist nation, I didn’t feel the need to spell out what I ment by people because I didn’t expect anybody to think I ment all people everywhere because this is one of those things, that most people, figure out on their own.
Now, you say that I need to spell things out OK, the sentence that you choose:
I mean, name one communist nation, where people actually want to go and live?
Now, would you really prefer I write that like this?
I mean, name one communist nation, where people who aren’t part of the regime, or aren’t communist sympathisers, or aren’t that educated, or don’t mind poverty and a lack of freedom, actually want to go and live, and by live, I mean own a permanent residence in a communist country, and stay all, or most of thier life that country.
I do get it!
But you don’t. This time around I’ll take the time to explain my sentiments in enough detail so that we maybe, maybe can understand each other.
Since you didn’t bother to spell it out I suggested three ways to spell it out. For your comfort. And responded to them all. As a starting point for further discussion. If you didn’t like them you could have further explained how you meant. (But instead you resorted to ranting).
I’ll repost them.
So. I would hold it very likely that what you were thinking of was something like (2). Maybe (3). Or both of those.
Why is it important that you spell it out? Can’t I really, really understand what you mean to say anyway?
Of course I understand what you’re aiming at with your question. I can guess pretty accurately. But I do think there are some problems with the question asked in that manner.
(1) It is a rethorical question.
(2) It is a simplistic question.
You are now aware of that I would give a different answer for every new way to interpret “people”. Which is why it is important for you, and for me, to know which “people” you are talking about. And yes it is possible (for some people) to elaborate on “people” without writing 300 word sentences.
Now, to end this useless arguing, I’ll rephrase your question like so: “name one communist nation, where people in general / people in large numbers actually want to go and live?”
And my answer then:
There are probably none. But on the other hand that is also true for all third world countries, which is what the absolute majority of communist nations ever have been.
Let’s take it from there, ok tavaritj?
Let’s see: Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Rumania, USSR, Checkoslovakia, Yugoslavia. Third World countries? Not by the very definition of 3rd world countries. Total immigration? Probably negligible.
That leaves: China, Viet Nam, Cuba, North Korea. 3rd world countries? Ok. Total immigration? Probably negligible.
Common factors? Communism and low immigration. Maybe what these countries needed was a better PR firm.
“Are you bewildered by supermarket shelves with a dizzying array of products? Mortified by short trips to the store? Confused by having to make your own career choices? Voting for more than one candidate for elections?”
“If you answered yes to any of these questions then you’re in luck! Now, and for a limited time, you can solve all these problems! It’s true! Life in a communist worker’s paradise awaits you!”
“Supermarket choices made simple! Products available in only one variety! Long lines where you can socialize at leisure with the proletariat! We will decide what your career will be! The simple one candidate ballot will make voting a pleasure again!”
“But you must act now! Communism is on its way out, and only a priviledge few can enjoy its pleasure! And if you act now we will throw in, at no extra charge, this attractive prison outfit, of genuine sackcloth, which you can wear anytime you’re convicted of a thought crime! Remember supplies are limited, you must act now.”