Suspended 5 games for admiring Fidel Castro

This is probably a more apt description.

I was serious, by the way.

I know, I was serious in that you were right. That is a better description than an Israeli soccer player saying he admires Hitler.

Complete nonsense in my opinion. Everyone has the right to have their own opinions and if you are libertarian and support this, you are a hypocrite.

Everyone is aloud to have an opinion, and if it's the owner's opinion that they should suspend the manager, you can't tell them they can't. You are a hypocrite for not supporting the rights of business owners.

Who says I'm libertarian? I assume you are since many of your posts in other threads show your support on libertarian issues.
Also, you are right, they do have the right to suspend him but it just seems very hypocritical of them to do so. But whatever pleases the Cubans.

I never remotely implied that you are a libertarian, as I know you are another one of those dirty leftists.

So libertarians can't be leftist?

No, that doesn't make any sense. Libertarians value liberty, which despite what some dirty leftists might lead you to believe, includes liberties for business owners.

And Leftist are just a bunch of commie, Stalinist supporters who despise freedom of speech or press,etc. And they want to enslave everyone, right?

No. Nobody is idiotic or simple minded enough to believe that, stop trying to depict me in such a way. It is a fact that libertarianism and socialism are incompatible, they rival each other.

Pretty much everywhere else in the world, Libertarianism is a type of socialism. For some a reason, a bunch of market-fundamentalists in the US decided to take the steal the word for themselves. I think American 'Libertarians' should go back to calling themselves market fundamentalists.

Market fundamentalists have been stealing a lot from us socialists, actually. From the name of one of our forms, to our propaganda/speech style, and even the international. Kind of ironic, given their ideology.

A libertarian is "a person advocating liberty in thought and conduct". That is exactly what an "American libertarian" is. We think people should have personal and economic freedom. Socialism is not libertarian because it forces people to be apart of the socialist state (or leave), and that is not liberty, no matter how much you twist it. And that isn't even on to the economics...

I don't know, and I don't care. Whatever you're talking about it's irrelevant.

Both are compatible with forms of Socialism. I myself advocate a form of government and socialism that leaves medium/small businesses alone, and the government just controls the largest ones. Not to mention that this government would have a constitution, four branches of government, more voting than we currently have in America, and more equality. The constitution would guarantee basic freedoms such as freedom of religion, press, and speech. Do you see? Socialism works very well with democracy, I would even go so far as to say democracy and socialism are made for each other. Remember socialism main ideals are everyone is equal and everyone is provided for.

My socialist state would have 1 goal, bringing the world under one flag, so you can still leave, you just have to leave Earth

Nice plan. I can help, also those who don't want to be a part of it can live on the moon in their own little society.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to suspend a person based on gender, political stance, colour etc.
So no, a owner can't just suspend whoever he wants, he has to have a valid(in the eyes of the state) reason.(at least that's how it works in Denmark and most European countries)

Yes, that's how it works in the countries where people are usually happier and enjoy high standard of living.

No, they aren't. Economic liberty requires the existence of private property. Socialism exists to get rid of property altogether.

Not socialism.

There's nothing inherently socialist about that one either.

Most do.

Because more is always better. And frankly, what the hell else do you throw into government that isn't covered by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches?

Because more is always better.

See above. Actually, don't see above. 'More equality' is just an utterly hollow phrase.

Again, most do.

Right, because there's clearly a great history of democratic socialist nations.

So we invade Cuba correct?

Private property is theft, not a right. Most libertarian socialists also argue that they do not support a state, hence why libertarian socialist and anarchist are often used interchangeably.