America - The Official Thread

[Omnis]

Right wing Cubans are some of my favorite people. One man was quoted asking why Obama didn't send in special forces to rescue an unlawfully-held prisoner.

Do you know how many old cubans down here would have volunteered for that job? With US military support for insertion and extraction, all they would need is a cuchara with a sharpened edge. It would have been the Bay of Pigs 2.

Back in Chicago, my extended family knows a guy that spent 30 years figuring out who betrayed him (he got out, his family went to prison because someone snitched). He snuck back into Cuba, killed the guy, and snuck out again. Hire him. Nothing would stimulate the economy of Miami more than a couple letters of marque and reprisal.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why is it that the political right is so quick to resort to violence? Is it because they just don't like anyone who isn't them?

 

[Pupik]

I think the only reason Marco Rubio and Illiana Ros-Leightinen (spelling is probably off here) are ticked off is that their constituency now have almost no reason to vote for them.

I can see where the families of Hermanos al Rescete are annoyed, since I remember that moment, too...but it's time to put the old feelings away. It's mostly a bunch of Cold War grudges; almost no military action has ensued for decades. There's tons of economic benefit to it. We've dealt with (and changed terms with) China, Vietnam, and Libya since then, and they're not even on the same continent as the US.

 

[Liquid]

But the Cubans embarrassed the Americans on their own doorstep, if not on the same street. They need to be taught a lesson. Vietnam was a 'draw'. Pride is a powerful thing.

Aside from unfunny attempts at being blase and facetious though, I equally agree that it's time for the embargo to be lifted. An official embassy would be an excellent start.

 

[Keef]

Why is it that the political right is so quick to resort to violence? Is it because they just don't like anyone who isn't them?

The conservatism you hear about refers specifically to religious conservatism. Most conservatives are Christian and most Christians are Catholic and therefore many are quick to enforce their idea of morality. I don't think they realize the ugly legacy they're upholding when they do that.

I'm not sure how the Republican party ended up embracing religious authority so much. Nearer to the founding of the country, the Republican party, Grand Old Party, GOP, whatever you want to call it, was basically what the Libertarian or Constitution party is today. Republican...republic...our government was founded as a constitutional republic...you get the idea. And the Democrats weren't so keen on the constitution - Alexander Hamilton was in support of a central bank all the way back in the late 1700s, as well as socializing other industries. The one thing both parties had in common is they are both anti-war.

Today, the Democrats still love socializing things. The Republicans still love capitalism. But they are both pro-war. And somewhere along the line, the Republican part morphed from being driven by constitutional conservatism to religious conservatism which is why they're typically at the forefront of war-mongering. Unfortunately, Democrats are too happy to follow suit.

 

[Liquid]

@Keef I'd argue that the Whigs were as close to libertarianism as the Democratic-Republican party was; firmly in favour of states' rights and cabinet-based politics with the President as just that, President of the committee and not a single, all-powerful entity. These values came from the Westminster system of the anti-Church, anti-absolutist philosophies of the British Whigs who championed governmental rather than monarchical or clerical power as well as the cabinet based system that British politics still has.

Hamilton and Jefferson are only retrospective Democrats; they were of course members of the Federalist party as opposed to Democratic-Republican party. I don't think the "Republican party" as we know it today came into existence until about 40-50 years after the death of Jefferson, Hamilton and the Federalist party. The "Democrat party" came about with Jacksonian politics. But where did the shift from anti-war to pro-war on either side come from? Remants of 1812 or the Civil War?

As has been ofted said, "I didn't leave the party, the party left me". Why Kennedy Democrats see more in the the Republican party now I don't exactly know but these shifts happen all the time. You only have to look at how liberalism had to re renamed classical liberalism after it had become muddled with social liberalism to see what a minefield this is.

 

[Omnis]

But the Cubans embarrassed the Americans on their own doorstep, if not on the same street. They need to be taught a lesson. Vietnam was a 'draw'. Pride is a powerful thing.

Aside from unfunny attempts at being blase and facetious though, I equally agree that it's time for the embargo to be lifted. An official embassy would be an excellent start.

I'm usually facetious, but on this issue I was 100% serious.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Today, the Democrats still love socializing things. The Republicans still love capitalism.

When it comes to Cuba, a lot of the political maelstrom seems to centre on the idea that when Castro took over, he denied American interests that were established under Fulgencio Batista. Never mind that Batista was a terrible leader who did his best to stifle democracy at the end of his first presidency, led a military coup to regain control of the country, and led a government that was largely corrupt - the embargo that was established once Castro was in control always seemed like it was payback for shutting America out, especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis was over.

Maybe I'm misreading things because I'm somewhere on the political left. I've never cared much for power, position or wealth that was simply inherited (to my mind, you have to earn it for it to be truly legitimate). But come the 1970s, that embargo was a blanket economic penalty that unjustly affected everyone in Cuba because it denied Cuba the ability to take control of its own destiny unless they capitulated and did it on America's terms. Ironically, this is exactly the sort of thing that Castro and Guevara were trying to fight, so the embargo would have only ever reinforced their beliefs.

 

[Badasp5.0]

But the Cubans embarrassed the Americans on their own doorstep, if not on the same street. They need to be taught a lesson. Vietnam was a 'draw'. Pride is a powerful thing.

Aside from unfunny attempts at being blase and facetious though, I equally agree that it's time for the embargo to be lifted. An official embassy would be an excellent start.

Embarrassment not really more the US has viewed Cuba as a mortal threat since they were a Soviet client state 90 miles from the United states, and the events of 1962 sure cemented that idea as correct. Honestly it should have been lifted back in '90 or '91 when it was no longer needed.

 

[Sanji Himura]

@prisonermonkeys and the fact that the Soviets were stuffing the country with the Russian made SS-4 ICBM Nuclear missiles escaped your notice?

All of the information is available with a little research into Wikipedia.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

@prisonermonkeys and the fact that the Soviets were stuffing the country with the Russian made SS-4 ICBM Nuclear missiles escaped your notice?

Nope. Just as it didn't escape my notice that the embargo was introduced two years before the Missile Crisis began, or that it continued for fifty years afterwards.

All of the information is available with a little research into Wikipedia.

 

[Keef]

When it comes to Cuba, a lot of the political maelstrom seems to centre on the idea that when Castro took over, he denied American interests that were established under Fulgencio Batista. Never mind that Batista was a terrible leader who did his best to stifle democracy at the end of his first presidency, led a military coup to regain control of the country, and led a government that was largely corrupt - the embargo that was established once Castro was in control always seemed like it was payback for shutting America out, especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis was over.

Maybe I'm misreading things because I'm somewhere on the political left. I've never cared much for power, position or wealth that was simply inherited (to my mind, you have to earn it for it to be truly legitimate). But come the 1970s, that embargo was a blanket economic penalty that unjustly affected everyone in Cuba because it denied Cuba the ability to take control of its own destiny unless they capitulated and did it on America's terms. Ironically, this is exactly the sort of thing that Castro and Guevara were trying to fight, so the embargo would have only ever reinforced their beliefs.

The official excuse for the embargo is that Cuba was embracing communism and hurting its people. It was probably more payback than anything.

As for inheritance, I realize that's another issue but you know me, I can't not throw my 2 cents in. Earning money is great. That's what property rights are based on, the idea of transforming nothing into something with your labor which itself is a commodity. But once you earn said property and it becomes your you also have the right to decide what to do with it, whether to spend or save or give to charity or, indeed, reserve it for your descendants. Otherwise, who gets it when a person dies? The government? God knows they didn't earn that wealth. The dead guy earned it and while he was alive he signed a contract dictating where he wants his wealth to go.

 

[Dennisch]

@prisonermonkeys and the fact that the Soviets were stuffing the country with the Russian made SS-4 ICBM Nuclear missiles escaped your notice?

All of the information is available with a little research into Wikipedia.

That argument doesn't hold water since the USA had missiles pointed at the USSR in Turkey, Britain etc. etc.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

As for inheritance, I realize that's another issue but you know me, I can't not throw my 2 cents in. Earning money is great. That's what property rights are based on, the idea of transforming nothing into something with your labor which itself is a commodity. But once you earn said property and it becomes your you also have the right to decide what to do with it, whether to spend or save or give to charity or, indeed, reserve it for your descendants. Otherwise, who gets it when a person dies? The government? God knows they didn't earn that wealth. The dead guy earned it and while he was alive he signed a contract dictating where he wants his wealth to go.

Oh, I have no problem with the concept - it's the application that bothers me. It's one thing to enjoy privilege, but sometimes that privilege turns into a sense of entitlement. It's like a student who goes to an expensive private school because their parents can afford it; that's fine. But it becomes a problem when that student starts expecting a particular mark because they are in the school, rather than because of what they are capable of achieving.

 

[Keef]

Entitlement is normally a social or family problem. Parents not doing a good job of teaching their kids that they still have to work for what they earn.

 

[FoolKiller]

That argument doesn't hold water since the USA had missiles pointed at the USSR in Turkey, Britain etc. etc.

Do as we say, not as we do. All parents understand this rule.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Entitlement is normally a social or family problem. Parents not doing a good job of teaching their kids that they still have to work for what they earn.

Well, I frequently associate the idea with the political right, since conservatives tend to support ideas that have worked in the past - and oftentimes these are ideas that established their wealth and power.

 

[Dotini]

Funny to think that work is a conservative, old-fashioned idea, now left behind by the culture. But I guess it is! What fraction of the population in the US - or the UK - is actually employed at a job? A minority?

If work is now obsolete in terms of cultural priorities, then perhaps it represents a triumph of sorts by the Green Anarchy movement? I still have a few of their slogan bumper-stickers left over from the 1999 Battle in Seattle WTO. They say "**** Work!"

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, I frequently associate the idea with the political right, since conservatives tend to support ideas that have worked in the past - and oftentimes these are ideas that established their wealth and power.

There is a difference between entitlement (I have nothing, you have something, I should have something of yours) and inheritance (I don't have to do anything, ever, because my dad was rich).

 

[Joel]

Well, I frequently associate the idea with the political right, since conservatives tend to support ideas that have worked in the past - and oftentimes these are ideas that established their wealth and power.

While the political left supports policies that would literally entitle them by law to money they haven't worked for, taken by force from other citizens.

Maybe it's a language gap thing with Australian vs North American English, but personally the situation you described with a kid going to an expensive private school and expecting the world on a silver platter I would describe as spoiled. Entitlement to me in this context I'd apply to people advocating for wealth redistribution, progressive tax policies, etc. Wealth redistribution, welfare, progressive tax policies and the like are inherently an entitlement, you are by law entitled to money which came from someone else's pocket.

Granted, that's certainly not something that's only found on the political left, for every college kid at a 99%er rally demanding WalMart pay their "fair share", there's a senior citizen who goes on a tear about welfare but don't you dare touch his medicare or his pyramid scheme retirement benefits. In either case it's someone who's been detached from the connection of work to success. The spoiled kid doesn't understand hard work because he's always got everything he wanted from his rich parents, while the college liberal believes he's entitled to money out of someone else's pocket because reasons.

 

[Dotini]

Granted, that's certainly not something that's only found on the political left, for every college kid at a 99%er rally demanding WalMart pay their "fair share", there's a senior citizen who goes on a tear about welfare but don't you dare touch his medicare or his pyramid scheme retirement benefits. In either case it's someone who's been detached from the connection of work to success.

In the near future, there is no more work for Americans to do. I's all done either by machines, outsourcing or immigrants.

Long ago, the culture has changed from one where every male worked on a farm or factory, through a transitional paradigm where people succeeded through education and administrative or technical employment. Now it is obvious there is not enough work for everyone, and we have gradually built an entitlement society starting with social security, government and company pensions, supplemented by unemployment benefits, foodstamps, and all the other things that help people limp along. This is all theoretically unsustainable, but culturally there is no going back, no matter how many Republicans win elections. We find ways to innovate new borrowing and financing schemes, and the day of reckoning never comes. There's now talk of minting trillion dollar coins, and our money woes will be in the past.

The whole business of income inequality and the 1% versus the 99% is going to get a whole lot of action, particularly as Elizabeth Warren gets more involved in the '16 presidential election nomination process.

 

[Badasp5.0]

That argument doesn't hold water since the USA had missiles pointed at the USSR in Turkey, Britain etc. etc.

Turkey and NATO western Europe was in the US's sphere of influence as was Cuba until the
Cuban revolution. Just because MAD existed doesn't mean Cuba becoming a Soviet client state and having Soviet nuclear weapons stationed there wasn't destabilizing. The cold war and the concept of MAD was all about balance of forces between Soviet SRF/PVO strany and the US SAC/NATO . It would only be equally destabilizing if American/NATO nuclear weapons showed up in China aimed at the Soviets.

 

[Dennisch]

Turkey and NATO western Europe was in the US's sphere of influence as was Cuba until the
Cuban revolution. Just because MAD existed doesn't mean Cuba becoming a Soviet client state and having Soviet nuclear weapons stationed there wasn't destabilizing. The cold war and the concept of MAD was all about balance of forces between Soviet SRF/PVO strany and the US SAC/NATO . It would only be equally destabilizing if American/NATO nuclear weapons showed up in China aimed at the Soviets.

Look at a map. From Turkey, or Europe for that matter most of Russia's important cities were well in reach. From China? A lot less cities.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

While the political left supports policies that would literally entitle them by law to money they haven't worked for, taken by force from other citizens.

I disagree. Maybe the extreme left would feel that way, but I'm not on the extreme left. I just believe that those who have more should help those who have less. And ideally, they would do it of their own volition. But I have found that right-wing governments only protect their own - the rich and the powerful.

 

[Joel]

I disagree. Maybe the extreme left would feel that way, but I'm not on the extreme left. I just believe that those who have more should help those who have less. And ideally, they would do it of their own volition. But I have found that right-wing governments only protect their own - the rich and the powerful

And if they don't do it of their own volition you would support wealth redistribution laws, which would then legally entitle people to money they didn't work for.

I'm not really right wing either, I don't support business bailouts or anything of the such that goes along with being a "conservative". The principle is the same whether it's feelgood social programs or GM bailouts.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And if they don't do it of their own volition you would support wealth redistribution laws, which would then legally entitle people to money they didn't work for.

No, I support the idea of welfare. Because I have needed it in the past, and without it, I would have struggled to make ends meet. It becomes a problem when people solely rely on the system to support them, but without such a system, people aren't going to be able to survive unless they already have money.

 

[Dennisch]

It has now come so far that even Dutch media reports about deaths in the USA. Black guy shot by the police in St Louis. Apparently for pointing a gun at the cops.

 

[HKS racer]

It has now come so far that even Dutch media reports about deaths in the USA. Black guy shot by the police in St Louis. Apparently for pointing a gun at the cops.

If that's true this guy has been that smart. After everything happen'd these days someone still expect not being taked down when pointing a gun to the cops. Why people is so stupid.

 

[Dotini]

Why people is so stupid.

Anger and fear cause people to do stupid things.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It has now come so far that even Dutch media reports about deaths in the USA. Black guy shot by the police in St Louis. Apparently for pointing a gun at the cops.

This one was 2 miles from Ferguson, Missouri and apparently an 18 year old kid pulled a gun on the cops and was shot to death. Happened at a gas station, small riot ensued when the community found out. This is only going to get worse on both sides.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/24/justice/missouri-officer-involved-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2