The War on Cuba Part I and II - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Mexico to Argentina.

Moderator: PoFo Latin America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15168633
@blackjack21 wrote:

The US does not want a communist satellite state on its Southern border. It's not hard to understand if you aren't putting your normative analysis first.


This is the essence of the problem with imperialism. Cuba is a sovereign nation. It is supposed to be allowed to choose its political, social and economic path without outside interferences by a foreign power. Period. That is what SOVEREIGNTY means.

Now, if the Cuban people are given choices about what kind of path to take and it means trading with other nations that are not the American Merchant Marine like Puerto Rico in its death grip with the USA transport cartel bankster and so on monopolies? If that is what the USA thinks is being FRIENDS is like? What does being its enemy entail?

Bombing people out of existence like the old man in the video thought might be next?

Give up the pawns. For you power is about force. Coercion and sucking out more money than what is invested in decent standards of living and living wages. That needs to stop.

If that is something that you can't release BJ? Then don't be upset when the USA gets owned by some nasty people with the same nasty political philosophy. The Indian Hindus got a word for that stuff. It is called KARMA. And nations have that as well. Just like the intelligence the USA gets is about boneheaded moves. Values that are rotten cost everyone a lot all over the world.

@blackjack21 about IT? Most of our young people are recruited outside of the island to work in IT in the mainland. We need to keep our people. It is not like we don't have the graduates. We do. Look at the numbers. A lot of people in physics, science, math, computer programming, etc. A lot.

It is literally where the USA culls its Latino STEM people from. Thousands of them. From us. Brain drain.

PAY wages that are decent and give us power to make decisions. With time all of it will stabilize. We can start growing our own food, consuming our own products. Not importing everything with that horrible system the USA insists on keeping in place.

But I suspect the USA will only do something when the Boricuas are fed up and getting angry enough to bust a bad move. Don't wait for that BJ.

Engineering department.

I used to walk around that campus on Saturdays. Lol. Once a month.

https://www.uprm.edu/engineering/
#15168646
late wrote:I'll give you this much, you know how to waste bandwidth, and other people's time.

You win the prize for posting when you have nothing to say. Why not try and debate his points?
#15168695
Tainari88 wrote:He essentially blames it on the Democrats. Everything is the Democrats.

Democrats need slapping around. You should do more of it. It will make you feel better. Like that crazed Nancy Pelosi thanking George Floyd for dying... They're just terrible people. Or the idea that Floyd's death had something to do with racism and white supremacy. Minneapolis' mayor is a Jew. The police chief is black. Of the four officers, one is black mixed race and one Asian. The police in that case couldn't be more diverse. Yet, Biden says there's much more to be done--and yet, the DoJ hasn't pressed a federal civil rights charge. Why? Because there is zero evidence that particular incident was racially motivated. You now have a mostly Democrat government. You cannot blame the Cuba embargo or Puerto Rico's situation on Trump now, can you? The Democrats will want Puerto Rico to become a state, because they think Puerto Ricans will fall in love with welfare and become Democrats like Hawaii did. I think Puerto Rico should be an independent nation. It could have some other sort of political union with the US like the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana islands. However, maintaining sovereignty over Puerto Rico and making it difficult for Puerto Rico to develop is bad.

Tainari88 wrote:I am unconvinced you care about los Boricuas.

:roll: Obviously, you took a rather natural apathy and construed it as wanton disregard for human life. You don't spend your time thinking about the plight of Taliban men all day either. That's not how people operate. That's why local democratic government is better than a massive national welfare state. That's why Northern California, and South and Eastern Oregon want to secede and form their own state. Large state governments don't listen to people in rural areas. It's part of why the US won't listen to Puerto Rico.

Tainari88 wrote:Blackjack21 he eats a burrito for breakfast it means he is flexible with Mexican culture? I don't think so Señor. A burrito does not a Mexican culture lover make.

It's assimilation. Or as American leftists like to call it, "cultural appropriation."

Tainari88 wrote:Stop the Merchant Marine ripoff of the Puerto Rican economy.

Ok. I'll give you a Republican to lament. The Jones Act is so named for Wesley Jones--a Republican Senator from Washington State who wrote the act in 1920 to stimulate the US shipping industry in the wake of WWI. In actual fact, it was intended to give the shipping industry in Washington state a monopoly on shipping to Alaska. It really wasn't a problem for Puerto Rico until the Cuban embargo. The Cuban embargo also deeply affected the port of New Orleans too. It made a lot of shipping in the Caribbean less lucrative.

I agree the Jones Act should be repealed at least for Puerto Rico, USVI, Guam, Hawaii and Alaska. There are some who say we should repeal the act in its entirety. However, the problem is that the US has to pay US minimum wage laws, not global averages on international shipping--making US shipping uncompetitive. Other than shipping between US states in US waters, you really don't see a lot of US flagged vessels. The US used to have the largest merchant marine in the world. I don't think cabotage laws are necessarily a very good idea, but I understand the concern of the US no longer being a major ship builder, other than US navy warships.

At any rate, it's interesting to see you on the side of free traders.

Tainari88 wrote:Puerto Ricans need to stop subsidizing that Greed Empire.

They aren't subsidizing the US. They just pay more for goods, because it's cheaper for shippers to go to a US port and then re-route goods to Puerto Rico, because of the Jones Act. While it was designed for Alaska, it should really be a law that operates in lower 48. However, I would guess they would need a wholesale repeal because Alaska and Hawaii are incorporated into the union and the US requires laws to be applied equally (again equality is sometimes more of a problem than a solution). So perhaps they would need to implement some sort of ship-building subsidy or tax credit. Or maintain the Jones Act, with a massive exemption for multi-party democracies that allow US shipping to operate in their domestic navigable water ways on some sort of normalized shipping standards so that it isn't just one more industry the US is giving away to China.

Tainari88 wrote:This is the essence of the problem with imperialism. Cuba is a sovereign nation.

It's the essence of the problem with allying with your next door neighbor's military adversary and maintaining a dictatorship.

Tainari88 wrote:It is supposed to be allowed to choose its political, social and economic path without outside interferences by a foreign power. Period.

They have chosen. They don't get to force the United States to trade with them. That's US sovereignty's choice.

Tainari88 wrote:Now, if the Cuban people are given choices about what kind of path to take and it means trading with other nations that are not the American Merchant Marine like Puerto Rico in its death grip with the USA transport cartel bankster and so on monopolies? If that is what the USA thinks is being FRIENDS is like? What does being its enemy entail?

You are conflating the very outmoded Jones Act with the Cuba trade embargo. The Jones Act goes back to 1920. It's been that way for a long time. It's just that the US used to have the world's largest merchant marine. However, US labor laws make a US merchant marine uncompetitive on a global market. That's why so many international trading ships are registered in Panama or Liberia.

See, if you want the US to change the policy, you have to think about the profit motive and national security and how you would go about it. For example, you could think about the motivation for the Jones Act and how it is rendered meaningless by labor laws. What if you said that all the ships operating within US waters had to be made from US steel and assembled in the US? Not necessarily by a US owned company... Then, you could export US steel to Mexico, France, the Netherlands, etc. and have many of a ships parts made there, reimported to the US and assembled. What if you say all the ships officers must be US citizens and speak English fluently in communication with ports, coast guard and other authorities; but if all of the officers of a crew can speak the same second language, such as Spanish, French or Dutch, then non-officer crews of aliens may be hired subject to US labor laws when operating within the United States, but not in international waters. Then, if you have a reciprocity clause for multiparty democratic governments, you can include Mexico, France, the Netherlands and Britain, to operate shipping lines within the territorial waters of the United States, provided they allow US shipping companies to operate within their territorial waters, subject to the same rules.

Then, you have some new dynamics. A British shipping company can set up in the United States, buy some ships "assembled" in the United States, operate with their own officers, provided they speak English (not a problem for the English), and they can ship from the US to their own territories in the Caribbean, such as Bahamas, BVI, etc. The same can be done with the French and Dutch. However, less expensive labor in the Americas typically speak Spanish. So you could have highly educated Puerto Rican officers, and non-officers from the DR, Mexico, etc. because the officers must be US citizens or citizens of a nation within the reciprocity agreement. A French shipping company with French/English speaking officers can operate in the US, but hire Haitians for the non-officer crew and ship goods from the US to French holdings in the Carribean. The same thing with the Dutch. Yet, you can shut out military rivals who are non-democratic like China.

It would have to have some properties like the Airline industry, where you can make two stops in a foreign nation before returning to your country. So a British shipper can go to say, Charleston, SC pick up some cargo for the BVI and Bahamas and some US cargo headed for Miami. Sail to Miami, drop off the cargo headed to Miami and pick up some more cargo for the Bahamas and BVI, then sail back to Bahamas/BVI. A French shipper can sail into New Orleans, pick up some goods for Puerto Rico and Guadaloupe, sail to Puerto Rico and drop off some goods, and maybe purchase some and sail off to Guadaloupe. The British shippers may have a non-officer Jamaican crew. The French may have a Haitian crew. Similarly, a Puerto Rican shipping company can pick up goods in New Orleans for Puerto Rico, and goods for BVI and Anguilla, stop in Puerto Rico to drop off goods and pick up some more and sail to the BVI and Anguilla.

Tainari88 wrote:For you power is about force.

No. Government is a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. That's the sum and substance of a nation state.

Tainari88 wrote:Coercion and sucking out more money than what is invested in decent standards of living and living wages. That needs to stop.

How can you implement socialism without coercion? You need to take away people's property, which they aren't going to accept willingly. Similarly, if you want to build water, sewer, gas and electrical power lines, and telecommunications cabling, you need to use physical force. The idea that this will all happen without some sort of conflict is absurd. How are you going to do this with the Masai, for example? Do you tolerate other people's cultures, or do you insist on educating people in Western thoughts, and ensure they have electricity? That's not exactly tolerant of their culture, is it?

Tainari88 wrote:@blackjack21 about IT? Most of our young people are recruited outside of the island to work in IT in the mainland. We need to keep our people.

Maybe that will change with Covid. Last year, my team was just me and two other guys and my supervisor. Yet, we'll be about 13 people by year's end. Half of my team is now in Ireland. That's a place with lots of talent that ends up moving overseas. Hopefully, working remote will make things much more flexible.

Tainari88 wrote:A lot of people in physics, science, math, computer programming, etc. A lot.

Yep. Same thing in Ireland, but they are staying there--at least for my team.
#15168733
@blackjack21 wrote:

No. Government is a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. That's the sum and substance of a nation state.


Here is the core of why I am a socialist and a humanist. The nation-state should not be formed for a monopoly of the use of violence. You run around saying Fidel is a dictator, the PRC is about the worst controlling thing, etc. Yet you have the core of it in this statement above.

If ever nation with nukes thought this way and never changed its mentality? We are headed for destruction Relampaguito.

No doubt about it.

If violence is the only way a government can rule over its citizens? This species is down the drain.

If the only way a husband can make his wife do what he wants is by threatening her with violence? That marriage is not a marriage. it is a prison. For both the one trying to control with violence and threats and for the person living under the violence and threats.

The child traffickers, the exploiters, the sex abusers, the criminals basically all use that mentality to get people to obey them. To fear them. To comply. But that is not real freedom Blackjack. It never will be.


And the essence of our nature as human beings is to be free. To have choices, and to be able to transform who we are in this world and in this life we are given. All individuals have to have the freedom to choose who and how they want to be. As long as in the process they don't take other individuals choices away in the process.

What do abusive people have to learn? That you won't fix what is wrong with you by trying to dominate or limit the choices of others with less mundane power. Whatever you do the least of powerless in this world? You do to your own self down the road. We are connected, from our belly buttons to our mothers for hundreds of thousands and millions of years. The programming is always mutating and changing, adapting and creating variations. What for? So we can finally manifest all of our potentials as humans. Why restrict it with these suffocating governments, policies that are self centered and not benefiting the group? And keeping people desperate, poor and willing to trade their dignity and self respect for a plate of food?

It is self defeating and the wrong road.

It is not an easy thing to deal with the ones who are unjust and don't care. Heartless, cold and greedy and LOST to who they are as human beings who live in a human based society. But it has to happen. People learn limits through consequences and being taught how to use their self agency and will to do something by mutual respect and treating others with respect and forethought.

Not by complying out of fear. That is how one gets out of the reptilian brain and enters the realm of the best of the homo sapiens. The rational and the humane.
#15168740
@blackjack21 wrote:

Obviously, you took a rather natural apathy and construed it as wanton disregard for human life. You don't spend your time thinking about the plight of Taliban men all day either. That's not how people operate. That's why local democratic government is better than a massive national welfare state. That's why Northern California, and South and Eastern Oregon want to secede and form their own state. Large state governments don't listen to people in rural areas. It's part of why the US won't listen to Puerto Rico.


No, Relampaguito, you got a lot of misinformation. The reason the USA government doesn't listen to Puerto Rico is because Puerto Rico doesn't have a vote or say so in DC. They can ignore us without any consequences. The last time the USA conceded what we asked of them? In the fifties. Ironically they finally allowed us to fly our national flag alongside the stars and stripes, gave us some piddly self rule governor, and local elections and allowed us to start teaching our children in the Spanish language. Why? Because some nationalists went to DC and shot up congress and they were shitting in their pants from fear of reprisals.

I don't believe in violence. As a form of civilized change. But, I can tell you something? If the USA is inundated with violence from the Middle East, from the Taliban people, and the terror networks and extremists and ISIS and everyone else. And the Irish Republican Army got pissed off enough at the English?

The ones who believe like you do? Time to shoot up some politicians is the only real way of opening up their ears to acting on legitimate concerns? We are in for a fiery confrontation.

I hate that stuff. Blood and families and people who are ignorant of what the shitty government folks do behind closed doors thinking that America is fair and just and is not using violence and threats and being fed lies and misinformation to snow people into believing that the politicians are doing good deeds in the world.

No, it will all end up in a bad way. And it won't be pretty. When all else fails? The Reptilian response is predictable.
#15168805
Here is the soberana vaccine piece:

#15168843
Tainari88 wrote:Yet you have the core of it in this statement above.

If ever nation with nukes thought this way and never changed its mentality? We are headed for destruction Relampaguito.

No doubt about it.

It's why MAD works, and gun control doesn't. Fear governs. It's primitive, but it works.

Tainari88 wrote:If violence is the only way a government can rule over its citizens? This species is down the drain.

You're missing the point. I got my covid shot a few days ago. Without a license and my signed consent, the nurse committed a stabbing against me, and could be tried and imprisoned. Derek Chauvin is convicted of manslaughter and second and third degree murder, but many police officers do that sort of thing in the regular course of policing. Arresting someone is felony kidnapping outside of the context of an arrest. There is imprisonment, and false imprisonment. Think about how the law actually works. It does need some rethinking (not reimagining).

If you want to implement socialism, you will have to use force against those who resist.

Tainari88 wrote:If the only way a husband can make his wife do what he wants is by threatening her with violence? That marriage is not a marriage. it is a prison.

Welcome to Afghanistan. In many parts of the world, women are very much second class.

Tainari88 wrote:The child traffickers, the exploiters, the sex abusers, the criminals basically all use that mentality to get people to obey them. To fear them. To comply. But that is not real freedom Blackjack. It never will be.

That's what "woke" and "cancel culture" are too. It's not real freedom. It's not progress. It is straight cold evil. Socialism is not real freedom either.

Tainari88 wrote:And the essence of our nature as human beings is to be free. To have choices, and to be able to transform who we are in this world and in this life we are given.

Yes, and that is why people with the ability to transform themselves in radically positive ways do not want to be socialists.

Tainari88 wrote:All individuals have to have the freedom to choose who and how they want to be.

If you are going to take from people according to their abilities, and give things to them according to their needs (about the exact description of slavery), you are not going to be giving people those kind of choices. Socialism and freedom are opposing forces.

Tainari88 wrote:Why? Because some nationalists went to DC and shot up congress and they were shitting in their pants from fear of reprisals.

Hrmm... sounds like nationalism is effective.

Tainari88 wrote:Time to shoot up some politicians is the only real way of opening up their ears to acting on legitimate concerns? We are in for a fiery confrontation.

Violence is horrible. Yet, that's generally how you have to deal with people who are that arrogant and condescending. They are amazingly petty people. They have to be in fear of their lives in order to relent on their games.

Tainari88 wrote:I hate that stuff. Blood and families and people who are ignorant of what the shitty government folks do behind closed doors thinking that America is fair and just and is not using violence and threats and being fed lies and misinformation to snow people into believing that the politicians are doing good deeds in the world.

That's not the way things are supposed to go in a democratic society. How did they sell free trade with China? NAFTA? They lied to the electorate. Both parties. Now they just call everyone racist who disagrees with them. However, they are nowhere near as effective as they'd have you believe.

In reading Lt. Col Shafer's book, at one point he's advising a colonel against an airstrike, because they only had a single source on a compound's inhabitants, who was a native Afghan and not part of ISAF. I assumed the worst, kept reading, and the idiot Colonel ordered the airstrike anyway, as I anticipated. B1s dropped their payload. After the BDA, they found only women and children. I actually laughed when I read it, because this is the sort of stupidity I expect from liberals educated at Harvard or Yale. They are good at abstraction, but devoid of real life experience. Marry that to arrogance and condescension and it becomes a lethal poison.

I found humor in the most horrible of tragedies, not because I think it's funny when people die. I have heard multiple instances of this sort of thing. The sheer stupidity of the liberal mindset leaves me in awe. There is simply too much of "deep down, we're all the same" such that they ignore a generations old clan rivalry and accept maliciously contrived intelligence to usurp the US Air Force to kill the women and children of their tribal adversaries. These people are dirt poor Tainari88. They are not doing that sort of thing out of greed like people in Washington DC.

How much of that do you hear on the news? It's totally ignored. They don't tell you what it's really like there. It's a straight up horror show. Yes. People are different and varied. However, they are not all nice and sweet and loving.
#15168864
Ay @blackjack21 let me take this line by line tomorrow. My son is wanting to spend some time with his mother.

I love freedom and I am a socialist humanist. So I disagree with your statement of no one wants to be a socialist.

You do make me laugh with your insistence on some things.

BJ said:
Socialism and freedom are opposing forces.


No it is not. It is this.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... h-dict-hed

I simply believe society and people need to come first. Not profit or private property. People first and the need to live, be educated, work and have freedom of thought, freedom from fear and freedom to live a life that serves others and brings out the best in each person who lives in that society. The state should not be a source of oppression but instead be a conduit to liberation of labor, liberation of thought and liberation of life. I find the need for greed in capitalism has the opposite effect.

And the terrible people you are combating are part of it.

Oh, I am tired Relampaguito. I will be back on Saturday to debate with you eh?

Humanist. Fromm. Socialism. It has nothing to do with lack of freedom and oppressing the people in order to use fear to gain coercive control. Read Fromm. If you do? You would know this.
#15168866
blackjack21 wrote:
It's why MAD works, and gun control doesn't.



Gun control works fine, most of the developed world already has it.

Out of your depth, kid.
#15168888
blackjack21 wrote:It's why MAD works, and gun control doesn't. Fear governs. It's primitive, but it works.

MAD usually doesn't work - in the 1900s, many commentators thought that a general European war was now impossible, because it would drag both sides down into mutual ruin. Guess what? They did it anyway.

You're missing the point. I got my covid shot a few days ago. Without a license and my signed consent, the nurse committed a stabbing against me, and could be tried and imprisoned. Derek Chauvin is convicted of manslaughter and second and third degree murder, but many police officers do that sort of thing in the regular course of policing. Arresting someone is felony kidnapping outside of the context of an arrest. There is imprisonment, and false imprisonment. Think about how the law actually works. It does need some rethinking (not reimagining).

Context is everything. When a surgeon cuts into a patient to remove a cancer tumour, they are performing the same actions as a mugger knifing a victim in an alleyway. But the surgeon is trying to save a life, while the mugger is trying to destroy a life.

If you want to implement socialism, you will have to use force against those who resist.

You mean just as the Federal government took up arms against the Confederacy when it resisted the abolition of slavery? Indeed so.

In reading Lt. Col Shafer's book, at one point he's advising a colonel against an airstrike, because they only had a single source on a compound's inhabitants, who was a native Afghan and not part of ISAF. I assumed the worst, kept reading, and the idiot Colonel ordered the airstrike anyway, as I anticipated. B1s dropped their payload. After the BDA, they found only women and children. I actually laughed when I read it, because this is the sort of stupidity I expect from liberals educated at Harvard or Yale. They are good at abstraction, but devoid of real life experience. Marry that to arrogance and condescension and it becomes a lethal poison.

If you told the colonel who ordered that airstrike that he was a "liberal", he would probably spit in your eye. This kind of arrogance and stupidity - and the desire not to be seen as 'weak' - is endemic to the human race, no matter what their politics or race or religion.

I found humor in the most horrible of tragedies, not because I think it's funny when people die. I have heard multiple instances of this sort of thing. The sheer stupidity of the liberal mindset leaves me in awe. There is simply too much of "deep down, we're all the same" such that they ignore a generations old clan rivalry and accept maliciously contrived intelligence to usurp the US Air Force to kill the women and children of their tribal adversaries. These people are dirt poor Tainari88. They are not doing that sort of thing out of greed like people in Washington DC.

How much of that do you hear on the news? It's totally ignored. They don't tell you what it's really like there. It's a straight up horror show. Yes. People are different and varied. However, they are not all nice and sweet and loving.

Again, this incident was not caused by "the liberal mind-set", but by ignorance, stupidity, and a fear of being seen as 'weak'. A toxic brew, but a universal one.
#15168908
@blackjack21 wrote:

It's why MAD works, and gun control doesn't. Fear governs. It's primitive, but it works.


You're missing the point. I got my covid shot a few days ago. Without a license and my signed consent, the nurse committed a stabbing against me, and could be tried and imprisoned. Derek Chauvin is convicted of manslaughter and second and third degree murder, but many police officers do that sort of thing in the regular course of policing. Arresting someone is felony kidnapping outside of the context of an arrest. There is imprisonment, and false imprisonment. Think about how the law actually works. It does need some rethinking (not reimagining).


If you want to implement socialism, you will have to use force against those who resist.


The state does coerce people. But? A truly democratic form of government without payoffs and lobbyists and a full spectrum of politically democratic choices without budgets for one or the other being larger and more elitist is the way I would do it. I would do it the AOC way and only that way would be allowed to be done. That means the people/citizens and voters themselves must give money at a very limited cap. For example max allowed per voter/ $25 dollars. Corporations, organizations, interest groups can't influence politics outside of a small amount. Democracy in the workplace. And in the pocket. All citizens required to vote and participate but not allowed to influence via being wealthier or having mundane or political connections. All citizen voters with the same amount of clout. That is a true reflection of what a democracy should be doing in terms of freedom of political choices. Not two party crap only and a campaign against third or fourth or fifth parties. A set amount to spend for each of them and let them compete on EVEN GROUND. Let them pound the pavement and figure out how to convince. The only thing open competition makes sense is with political platforms. People who are not hot air talkers but who actually implement policy that works do wind up convincing. That reflects the majority will. If most people have a consensus? Then it is a truly two way relationship and the decision making process, and the political process is exquisitely responsive to the majority. Since I know the majority are working class people then? Nothing to worry about. If they know fully what it means to be working class people. Systems in which plutocracies an elitist interests run things? Fall into the societies with enormous socioeconomic differences in living standards an it retards growth and progress. Always. So? You make sure no one has an advantage. You don't mistreat your political opponents. You give them a voice. But their actionable shit is limited. You must do the same or better job as the ones with the grassroots activism and not be able to buy off politicians. You kill corruption at the source. MONEY.

Freedom is that. Not being rich and influential and having all your interests backed by corrupted people who ignore the premise of a democracy. Which is? One man and one woman and one vote. Not lots of money and politician ignores the people's will for the ass-kissing of the big donor/influential class. Does that sound like oppression and lack of freedom of choice to you? No. Socialism is that as well. Not what you think it is. Or what you want to tell people it is. It is as good as it gets. For the stage of human consciousness this era in human history has reached. Once every one has basic needs met? We can squabble about the perks and the luxuries and things like fifteen different brands of the same thing with a different label or name. The bottom line is fix what is broken and needs repair, implement something fair and inclusive, include all voices to be heard, let people make choices without bombardment of manipulations. Force face-to-face discussions in people's homes about the most important issues in society. Discuss the concepts of your political and economic policies and then wait for the verdict from the people working hard and paying the state taxes. Period.
Welcome to Afghanistan. In many parts of the world, women are very much second class.


Yes, they are. And each society has to combat injustice and inequality and lack of respect. If you let people to work out their differences without coercive tactics? It works out generally. Women in the 18th century were basically their husband's chattel or property. Not anymore. People and societies change attitudes and policies with time and conditions.



That's what "woke" and "cancel culture" are too. It's not real freedom. It's not progress. It is straight cold evil. Socialism is not real freedom either.


Relampaguito, socialism's history is about a reaction to the problems within capitalism. Its internal contradictions. It was more or less born in France. Just like the base of the Enlightenment period. Capitalism had its internal flaws and contradictions. Socialism was a way of remedying the problems innate in the Industrial age and capitalists exploiting without restrictions. Socialism is basically 'the conspiracy of the equals' or the core of it is 'egalite' French for equality. why? It is simple. All humans have common ground. Need to eat, to be educated, to socialize, to grow, to consume, to reproduce, be housed. Basic needs. And if they are not met while the very few elites have exaggerated rights? It becomes unbalanced. Only by having a core concept of all humans have needs and those needs must be met or people suffer and the result is revolution, unrest and chaos? Then the remedy for it has to be about that. The concept of a united human family. That is the core of socialism. And it is incredibly humane, and very fair and also logical and reason based. It is also stabilizing for all societies. If you live in a family and you never know how to share yourself with your husband or wife, your children and your extended family? And you cook only for yourself and watch your kids with big eyes as you hoard your food in front of them and you deny your husband's thirst for water or food and it is ONLY you who acknowledges need? How do you think that peace and reason will reign? Or logical discussions about differences in approach will be dealt with? I think you fail to deal with what living in human society is about. Socialism is that. The best way of dealing with the needs of human society. The problem is when the ones who's basic needs have been more than met, and then they want more and more and more money and more power and more influence an less sharing with the rest of society that is sociopathic in nature. Never being satisfied. People who defend capitalism without understanding how it gets its innate wealth. Selling the concept as fair and natural when it is the exact opposite. Creating an entire society that LIES about what it means to live with that system while trying to be a true representative democracy and how capitalism undermines democracy. Mainly out of greed. What else do you need for evidence of truth of my last statement but the behavior of the sellouts DEMS/REPUBS? I rest my case.


Yes, and that is why people with the ability to transform themselves in radically positive ways do not want to be socialists.


I want to be a socialist. And apparently I am not alone. Not in Mexico who had Morena win. And not in the USA that challenged those Clintons for the Democratic party and got scared about losing control and had to pull out the dirty tricks to win. I am not some lone person in the night BJ. Not by a lot. You join up with the selfish assholes that wind up thinking in highly individualistic mental state and throw them together to live in a society where all agree on being selfish and me first people? And see where that society winds up? Then call me and say that it is a well oiled machine of cooperation? I don't think so.


If you are going to take from people according to their abilities, and give things to them according to their needs (about the exact description of slavery), you are not going to be giving people those kind of choices. Socialism and freedom are opposing forces.



No, BJ. Out of very able and talented people the expectation is for them to give a lot. Out of the ones who are sick, old, infirm and or impaired and have disabilities you give them ample opportunities to reach their own best. You also give them basics. You reward people in their social lives. If they are great at what they do and the way they conduct themselves? You give those recognition. Some of it is monetary and it should be more about applause and social acceptance. And chances to influence many others. Voluntarily. Not forced. Nothing forced ever brings out the best in others in my opinion. Socialism and freedom are complementary forces. In all ways.

Hmmm... sounds like nationalism is effective.


Nationalism, when it is being oppressed by another nation that occupies it illegally and without mutual consent, is an effective tool. When it is held in the hands of an abusive Empire and wielded by racists who think one group of people is superior to another? You wind up with the Third Reich. Not effective but destructive on a mass scale. To liberate? A good ingredient. To invade and kill and control outside its own society to be dominant and to discriminate against its own citizens to be the ones who control forever? Not good. A force of malevolence.

Violence is horrible. Yet, that's generally how you have to deal with people who are that arrogant and condescending. They are amazingly petty people. They have to be in fear of their lives in order to relent on their games.


A good description of American Imperialism displayed in the Caribbean islands like in Cuba and Puerto Rico. When will the USA government run by arrogant and condescending people to the inferiors in the Caribbean ever relent eh? I have found you (without knowing you well yet) condescending and arrogant. Towards Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Women, Babies. Lol. You sound terrible sometimes. Amazingly petty. Do you got to be threatened to relent? I won't do it. I think appealing to your humanity is more effective. And your logic. Which you do have. Use it in politics with the concept of equality BJ. But you refuse to do so. Stubborn I would say.

That's not the way things are supposed to go in a democratic society. How did they sell free trade with China? NAFTA? They lied to the electorate. Both parties. Now they just call everyone racist who disagrees with them. However, they are nowhere near as effective as they'd have you believe.


Bad politics will never be effective BJ. That is a given. What works is respect, trust and work hard on relationship building with other nations, other cultures, and other lands and their resources. Find legit items to trade with. Don't abuse position. Humans respond to kind and logical and decent values. Universal human values. Like socialism has. Lol. You don't agree. I think it is a very fair and great system. But? If you have people who are cynical, liars, and selfish people? They will try to tear it down. For them might is right. And equality is for fools. Only the most selfish and the most greedy survive. Sort of like this scene from Scarface--Never underestimate the other man's greed. Lol. They think that all people think as criminally minded as they do. It is hard for them to conceive of such relationships. Mainly because they are emotionally and mentally challenged individuals who never played by rules and always thought that violent threatening is the only way to get things to work. I wonder who thinks that way in this debate we are having?


In reading Lt. Col Shafer's book, at one point he's advising a colonel against an airstrike, because they only had a single source on a compound's inhabitants, who was a native Afghan and not part of ISAF. I assumed the worst, kept reading, and the idiot Colonel ordered the airstrike anyway, as I anticipated. B1s dropped their payload. After the BDA, they found only women and children. I actually laughed when I read it, because this is the sort of stupidity I expect from liberals educated at Harvard or Yale. They are good at abstraction, but devoid of real life experience. Marry that to arrogance and condescension and it becomes a lethal poison.

I found humor in the most horrible of tragedies, not because I think it's funny when people die. I have heard multiple instances of this sort of thing. The sheer stupidity of the liberal mindset leaves me in awe. There is simply too much of "deep down, we're all the same" such that they ignore a generations old clan rivalry and accept maliciously contrived intelligence to usurp the US Air Force to kill the women and children of their tribal adversaries. These people are dirt poor Tainari88. They are not doing that sort of thing out of greed like people in Washington DC.

How much of that do you hear on the news? It's totally ignored. They don't tell you what it's really like there. It's a straight up horror show. Yes. People are different and varied. However, they are not all nice and sweet and loving.


You will never be winning over any other nation's loyalties or become friends by bombing their mothers and wives and sisters and daughters BJ. Or their children.

Violence is something that can lead to intense resentment and hatred of the people who are sacrificed in these wars for Empire or for retaliation. I know how that feels. One has to fight the urge to be as violent back.

One has to find the reason for reason and logic and loving people. Even the ones doing the killing and the damage. Otherwise the feelings on the their own never stop. You got to control your own feelings and you got to let your head take control. Otherwise? The violence never ends. Many societies who have been at war for many generations now, know no other way to deal with conflict but violence. No one winds up wanting to stay. They have a mass exodus. The ones who remain accept the severe limiting of their rights. And they hate usually the ones occupying their land by force.

The only road to peace is forgiving. Not forgetting and fighting for peaceful environments. United people. And respect for the rights of everyone.

Not hard. But you got to give up on thinking violence is the only way out.
#15168929
Tainari88 wrote:So I disagree with your statement of no one wants to be a socialist.

Well, the Mujahidin of Afghanistan certainly didn't want to be socialist. Socialism usually appeals to poor people, and the Pashto are certainly poor. There are plenty of Cubans in America who didn't like life under Castro.

Tainari88 wrote:I simply believe society and people need to come first. Not profit or private property.

"Simply" is a very good way of putting it. Now try taking someone's private property from them and let me know how that goes.

Tainari88 wrote:I find the need for greed in capitalism has the opposite effect.

Again, capitalism isn't "greed" as an ideology. It's about capital formation, resource pooling, offsetting risk, specialization of labor, efficient allocation of resources, fractional ownership, etc. It has amazing properties. However, capitalism by itself--in an anarchic way--doesn't have any sort of moral code embedded into it. So you need laws and regulations to prevent anti-social people from using capitalism in detrimental ways.

Tainari88 wrote:And the terrible people you are combating are part of it.

Terrible people generally have a poor moral foundation. Someone here uses TR's quote: "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society." This is a serious problem in the West these days.

Tainari88 wrote:Humanist. Fromm. Socialism. It has nothing to do with lack of freedom and oppressing the people in order to use fear to gain coercive control. Read Fromm. If you do? You would know this.

I read him in high school as part of a Utopian Literature class. So keep in mind, I was reading him alongside BF Skinner, Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, etc.

You know who you should read? Thomas Sowell. He was a dedicated Marxist and ended up becoming a capitalist libertarian. Why? Empiricism. He actually went to work as an intern for the federal government's labor department. He saw the evidence of mandated minimum wage increases in the sugar industry of Puerto Rico and a rise in unemployment in that industry there. He had the empirical evidence, and came to realize that the people working at the labor department were more concerned about their own jobs than the plight of poor people in Puerto Rico.

He's a brilliant guy. He's written countless well-researched books. He is very critical of the welfare state too. State-owned businesses. State-owned public housing, etc. There is a lot of empirical evidence that the type of policies you prefer lead to serious economic and social problems, which is counter-intuitive to people like you. You don't need to look far beyond Venezuela to see how rapidly a rich country can become poor when it adopts socialist policies.

See someone like you approaches this as a moral question. If goods are too expensive for poor people, you want to impose price controls so that poor people can afford things. This happened in Venezuela. Do you know what happens when marginal cost exceeds marginal price? Firms go bankrupt. They shut down. You need a really strong foundation in microeconomics and macroeconomics to understand why so much of "good intentions" produce very bad results. This is why you shouldn't approach economics emotionally. It's why economics teaches a clear distinction between positive analysis and normative analysis.

Potemkin wrote:MAD usually doesn't work - in the 1900s, many commentators thought that a general European war was now impossible, because it would drag both sides down into mutual ruin. Guess what? They did it anyway.

Commentators get it wrong quite often, don't they? They thought that they could abolish war after WWI. We more or less committed to that notion after WWII. It certainly hasn't stopped war. We just don't formally declare them anymore. We changed the name of the Department of War to the Department of Defense. It sounds so nice, doesn't it? Similarly, genocide becomes "ethnic cleansing" so we don't have to do anything about it.

Nuclear weapons change rational people's perceptions a bit. Regardless of party, America is pretty liberal in the use of military force, but has not used nuclear weapons since 1945. Ruin, as in the enemy MIGHT be able to bomb your cities, as a concept changes with nuclear weapons too, because of the speed. In 15 minutes, your urban centers and military bases can be totally nixed.

Even America operates that way. For example, it would be pretty straight forward to beat the Taliban, provided you are willing to fight on both side of the Hindu Kush. Yet, the US doesn't risk it because Pakistan has nuclear weapons--making fighting in Afghanistan profoundly stupid. The Soviets made that same mistake.

MAD doesn't preclude arrogance though. Defeating Al Qaeda devolved into nation building and an additional 15 years of almost pointless warfare.

Potemkin wrote:Context is everything. When a surgeon cuts into a patient to remove a cancer tumour, they are performing the same actions as a mugger knifing a victim in an alleyway. But the surgeon is trying to save a life, while the mugger is trying to destroy a life.

Yes. That is why crimes are typically considered a union of act and intent. Anything that operates outside of a penal code like that has to be licensed. Boxing, for example, is just assault and battery when you get right down to it.

Potemkin wrote:You mean just as the Federal government took up arms against the Confederacy when it resisted the abolition of slavery? Indeed so.

Ah, but the Federal government took up arms against the Confederacy before the abolition of slavery. The war started because of secession. The abolition of slavery is always told in a moral context, because in actual fact the Federal government violated the fourth and fifth amendments of slave owners and even divided Virginia and admitted West Virginia into the union without Virginia's prior consent. To do something like that generally requires extreme violence.

You're a smart fellow. Take a read of the Fourteenth amendment. Here are a few contradictory bits.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...
But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The Fourteenth Amendment clearly allows for violating the fifth amendment rights of slave holders, while reaffirming the fifth amendment. I am not at all a fan of slavery, but I think histories tend to devolve into myth when told in an exclusively moral context and making hagiographies of politicians and generals.

If you understand that land and mansions were relatively worthless--that slaves were what was valuable--the slave owners were largely rendered bankrupt by the war. So there are no "reparations" to be made. The overwhelming majority of whites didn't own slaves, and the former slave owners had their fifth amendments rights violated and constitutional amendment ratifying that fact adopted at gunpoint.

Potemkin wrote:If you told the colonel who ordered that airstrike that he was a "liberal", he would probably spit in your eye. This kind of arrogance and stupidity - and the desire not to be seen as 'weak' - is endemic to the human race, no matter what their politics or race or religion.

Does neoliberal or neoconservative work better for you? They were getting a ton of pressure from Rumsfeld himself to get specific people they called HVTs or High Value Targets. In this case Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. If you read Hammerhead Six by Capt. Ronald Fry, it's more or less the same story from high command. In his case, he actually won the peace in the Pech valley, but they only gave him 50 men to do that job--the Pech valley is the size of Connecticut. They were upset that he wasn't going out and getting HVTs, with the 50 men they gave him to control the 5000 square miles of the Pech valley. The disconnect between Washington "elites" and others is pretty staggering.

Potemkin wrote:Again, this incident was not caused by "the liberal mind-set", but by ignorance, stupidity, and a fear of being seen as 'weak'. A toxic brew, but a universal one.

It's not fear of being seen as weak. It is definitely ignorance and stupidity, but also a lot of pressure from the highest levels of the Pentagon--Rumsfeld being a Princeton graduate.

One of the huge aspects is a cultural disconnect. Most of Afghanistan is literally Medieval with modern small arms. Women are considered a liability. They are very much second class. So it does not occur to a senior well-educated officer that an Afghan intel asset might furnish false information to settle a score with a rival tribe.

Read Level Zero Heroes. It describes an Afghan killing a man's wife and daughter, and trying to blame it on the Americans in order to get compensation. When forensics examines entrance and exit wounds, it matches 7.62 x 39 rounds--AK-47s, not 5.56 M4/M16 rounds.

There are a ton of interesting stories you will never get from the press. Sean Parnell's book, Outlaw Platoon, is also interesting. At one point, they are tasked to hold an old castle/fort near the Pakistan border. They come under 103mm rocket fire from Pakistan, and have to take it because they aren't allowed to return fire into Pakistan. He said it was profoundly demoralizing.

In both Lt. Sean Parnell's book and in Lt. Col Schafer's book they capture Pakistanis in the field. Parnell finds a Pakistani border guard after an airstrike in Afghanistan and Schafer captures a woman working for the Pakistani ISI.

If you read No Way Out by Mitch Weiss and Kevin Maurer, you get a story of going after HVTs in a cliff dwelling, only they are ordered to assault it from below--giving the enemy the advantage of holding the high ground. They get their asses kicked. The major who orders it ends up in tears, but he had a ton of pressure from senior command--who didn't care about the tactics at all.

Read The Outpost by Jake Tapper for a vignette of senior command wanting to win hearts and minds, while putting a combat outpost at the bottom of a ravine--again, giving the enemy the high ground advantage. That's coming from senior command, not from some Lt. or Sgt.--from people far away from the battlefield.

It's definitely a product of a mindset. Rumsfeld was a naval aviator. He SHOULD have known better, but was a profoundly arrogant guy. Schafer was critical of Rumsfeld insisting that the war was over when the overwhelming evidence suggested otherwise.

It's wrong though to simply bash the Bush administration. Obama didn't do any better. Read Zero Footprint, one of your fellow Brits, to get a very interesting vignette into why things went down the way they did in Benghazi.

Zero Dark Thirty is good too--how they finally tracked bin Laden to Pakistan (not that it should have been that hard to figure out, but high levels of the US government could not accept that Pakistan is not a US ally). It's one of the calls Obama got right. Guess who was opposed to the bin Laden raid? Biden.

I think the appeal of socialism is the same sort of thing--a massive disconnect between understanding a problem and viable solutions. We can agree Jeff Bezos is kind of a prick, particularly to his warehouse workers and drivers. However, you cannot blame an epidemic of homelessness on him. The so-called "gap between the rich and poor" doesn't reveal massive theft like you see with slavery, particularly in the information age.

That's not the issue with Cuba either. Cuba is a totalitarian government with the sort of production and distribution problems common to totalitarian governments. It cannot all be blamed on the US embargo. There are plenty of wealthy countries around the world Cuba can trade with. Cuba exports to China, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, and Cyprus. They import food mostly from Spain, Canada, China, Italy and Russia.
#15168940
One of the huge aspects is a cultural disconnect. Most of Afghanistan is literally Medieval with modern small arms. Women are considered a liability. They are very much second class. So it does not occur to a senior well-educated officer that an Afghan intel asset might furnish false information to settle a score with a rival tribe.

This is the essence of the problem you're complaining about. It is, as you say, a cultural disconnect. But blaming it on "liberals" is disingenuous. The same cultural disconnect existed in the British Army when we invaded Afghanistan back in the 19th century, and in the Soviet Army when they invaded Afghanistan in the late 20th century. It is the inability of a modern civilised mind to understand a medieval tribal mind. And that inability occurs in liberals, in conservatives, in communists and in fascists. It is a disconnect between a mind steeped in modernity and city-living, and a mind steeped in medieval feudalism and rural backwardness. The officers in all those armies - the British, the Soviet, the American - all kept expecting the Afghan tribesmen to behave like fellow Sandringham graduates or West Point graduates. Never going to fucking happen. And it has nothing to do with "the liberal mind-set". Lol.
#15168944
@blackjack21 wrote:
I think the appeal of socialism is the same sort of thing--a massive disconnect between understanding a problem and viable solutions. We can agree Jeff Bezos is kind of a prick, particularly to his warehouse workers and drivers. However, you cannot blame an epidemic of homelessness on him. The so-called "gap between the rich and poor" doesn't reveal massive theft like you see with slavery, particularly in the information age.

That's not the issue with Cuba either. Cuba is a totalitarian government with the sort of production and distribution problems common to totalitarian governments. It cannot all be blamed on the US embargo. There are plenty of wealthy countries around the world Cuba can trade with. Cuba exports to China, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, and Cyprus. They import food mostly from Spain, Canada, China, Italy and Russia.


No BJ. There are viable and been around a long time that work very well if fully funded and supported in many societies. Especially health care, education and housing.

Francisco Franco was a fascist in Spain and he was an anti-socialist and anti-communist. But? He had to allow the Roman Catholic church to do projects that were socialist. The largest co-opterative socialist owned by the workers' economic structure based on socialism has been going head-to-head since 1956 with capitalist enterprises. It is a model endorsed by Richard Wolff the economist. You go there and they tell you how to set up a model of worker-owners in that industry. The workers own the business. Not shareholders and not stockholders and not capitalists and CEOs with abnormal golden parachutes, etc.

Mondragon, it is called. There are other models BJ. They work. You don't hear about them on CNN or on FOX because they ignore things that work. Even the liberals like to avoid it and wind up with some wishy-washy line about getting rid of capitalism's rough edges. That is all the beginnings of socialism does well. Getting rid of capitalism's rough edges.



So one needs models like Mondragon that has a long track record and started small and continues to expand. The model expands all over the world.



Things change BJ but adapting to what is already solidly working like democratizing the workplace, which you yourself do in your own workplace because you are an integral part of it. If you were being drained, exploited, and trashed when no longer needed your perspective would be different.





The problem then becomes a real lack in Cuba of worker cooperatives and a blood flow of capital, fuels, infrastructure.

The issue in Puerto Rico is suffocating obsolete models imposed by Imperialistic governments from the USA legal old ass codes from the turn of the century and bank cartels. Not allowed to declare bankruptcy because an old racist in the 1980s Thurmond adding it to an obscure bill long ago. All this is suffocating deadly policies. It is going to have to be challenged and removed.



Americans with engineering degrees wrestling with poverty. And he is giving the same prescription. Cooperative models. SOCIALISM. End of the argument. Normative/Positive. It has to do with what is real world. Testable.

He is into problem solving. It is not pie in the sky. It is about reality.
#15168951
blackjack21 wrote:Well, the Mujahidin of Afghanistan certainly didn't want to be socialist. Socialism usually appeals to poor people, and the Pashto are certainly poor. There are plenty of Cubans in America who didn't like life under Castro.


"Simply" is a very good way of putting it. Now try taking someone's private property from them and let me know how that goes.


I have asked this question to many socialists:

Is it possible to have socialism without coercion? Can you have socialism without an authoritarian repressive government?
So far not a single socialist in the forum has been able to answer the question.
#15169067
This is the answer to capitalist coercion with workers:





Cuba is changing. It is going towards small businesses opening and co-operating together. If they had a currency that like the Mexican peso or the Euro would have international acceptance it would be a great change. But if all doors are closed and the pressure has to be absolute so an Empire can continue to try to force the political thing on an island who has already adapted to a shutout by a very powerful neighbor. It other words they have already adapted to being shut out. It will only strengthen the lack of change the system already has there. If you want change? A better life for both nations? Trying to control them from afar and forcing them to live in isolation. Because, don't live with a lie. Puerto Rico is being isolated from other Latin American nations, commercially, socially and legally. Very little is known about Puerto Rico's political status. Mexicans are confused. They think sometimes we speak English and vote in US elections. Others think we live with a lot of money and poverty has been eradicated. Others think we have to go through immigration to get to the states. They don't get it at all. the Mexican government has a program for Cubans. Comarca it is called.

This is their program:

https://www.gob.mx/comar/articulos/dond ... r?idiom=es

This is the Cuban government's website dealing with Mexican-Cuban immigration.

http://misiones.minrex.gob.cu/es/mexico ... consulares
Again many Cubans just want to open small businesses and stay in Mexico. Others want to make money thinking the USA having more help for them and a better starting wage is the better option.

The USA wants extremely educated and highly skilled people who have or come from well-developed nations or who are not what they perceive as national security risks like the Chinese student population, or who are planning on leaving to India to start their own corporations. They want very educated people, English speaking, and with a minimum of about one million dollars to invest in the USA economy. Good luck with that. Most people who fit that desirable profile prefer to stay in their home nations where the options are good and they don't have to deal with USA taxes and bureaucracy that is slow as molasses in many ways.

The pool of people who are applying for USA citizenship is not the one they want. They are the ones (the new immigrants applying for permanent and citizenship status) who think the USA system is a better system for those on the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. If the economy in the USA continues to tank? The pool of even fruit pickers and landscapers and hotel workers and restaurant workers? Will bottom out and the freefall of businesses post-pandemic will be staggering.

I think the USA will shoot itself in the foot.

How many applicants from Europe with big BUCKS and professional educations are on that list? Very few people! So the USA immigration department (Homeland Security) needs to make a decision. Educate the socioeconomic lower classes. because? The pool is small of the Europeans wanting to emigrate to the USA and the goodies they got there (in the EU nations such as), like high wages in comparison, example Denmark McDonald's employees getting $22 dollars an hour, or Australian minimum wages of $20 dollars an hour, and unemployment insurance and a year of maternity leave. No one who is some PhD in Australia and making big bucks there with one million in the bank and a house in Sydney's Gold Coast is going to be thinking? I want to deal with the red tape and double taxing on my butt once I become a USA citizen. Aint gonna happen people!

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files ... s_2019.pdf

Mexico ............. 118,559 16.8 131,977 17.3 122,286 14.5
India ............... 50,802 7.2 52,194 6.9 64,631 7.7
Philippines ........... 36,828 5.2 38,816 5.1 43,668 5.2
China, People’s Republic . 37,674 5.3 39,600 5.2 39,490 4.7
Cuba ............... 25,961 3.7 32,089 4.2 36,246 4.3
Vietnam ............. 19,323 2.7 21,082 2.8 25,646 3.0
Dominican Republic .... 29,734 4.2 22,970 3.0 23,101 2.7
Iraq ................ 7,875 1.1 12,448 1.6 18,366 2.2
El Salvador .......... 16,941 2.4 17,300 2.3 18,260 2.2
Jamaica ............. 15,087 2.1 17,213 2.3 18,010 2.1
Colombia ............ 16,184 2.3 17,564 2.3 17,126 2.0
Korea, South ......... 14,643 2.1 16,031 2.1 16,298 1.9
Haiti ............... 12,794 1.8 14,389 1.9 14,308 1.7
Pakistan
Last edited by Tainari88 on 25 Apr 2021 15:35, edited 3 times in total.
#15169069
Potemkin wrote:
This is the essence of the problem you're complaining about. It is, as you say, a cultural disconnect. But blaming it on "liberals" is disingenuous. The same cultural disconnect existed in the British Army when we invaded Afghanistan back in the 19th century, and in the Soviet Army when they invaded Afghanistan in the late 20th century. It is the inability of a modern civilised mind to understand a medieval tribal mind. And that inability occurs in liberals, in conservatives, in communists and in fascists. It is a disconnect between a mind steeped in modernity and city-living, and a mind steeped in medieval feudalism and rural backwardness. The officers in all those armies - the British, the Soviet, the American - all kept expecting the Afghan tribesmen to behave like fellow Sandringham graduates or West Point graduates. Never going to fucking happen. And it has nothing to do with "the liberal mind-set". Lol.



Yes, it's disingenuous. But the cause is the Right losing any sense of responsibility or governing.

They're sociopathic.
#15169076
late wrote:Yes, it's disingenuous. But the cause is the Right losing any sense of responsibility or governing.

They're sociopathic.


Late you also have the issue of them being laser-focused on what they perceive as 'the liberals who are white'. Why? They see them as being the dominant power group and are fearful of their way of life? Being in extinction. White males being attacked and insulted and such things.

I am curious how come white males on the right think they are being disrespected by liberals? Who are like you? Who go for Stigler compassionate capitalism and who is into LGBTQ rights and stuff? Why such animosity towards your group?

Can you answer that one? You are a white liberal male. And you are the enemy here for the people who want nationalism and traditional values and a return to no welfare state and freedom for profiting or something?
#15169081
Tainari88 wrote:
Late you also have the issue of them being laser-focused on what they perceive as 'the liberals who are white'. Why? They see them as being the dominant power group and are fearful of their way of life? Being in extinction. White males being attacked and insulted and such things.

I am curious how come white males on the right think they are being disrespected by liberals? Who are like you? Who go for Stigler compassionate capitalism and who is into LGBTQ rights and stuff? Why such animosity towards your group?

Can you answer that one? You are a white liberal male. And you are the enemy here for the people who want nationalism and traditional values and a return to no welfare state and freedom for profiting or something?



They're always like that, unless something is discouraging them. I can remember them using anti-Communism in the 50s and 60s as a cudgel to try and achieve dominance, in person as well as politically.

Aholes.

You know all the reasons why, bad education, getting suckered by the powerful, racism. The cesspool that they live in.
#15169089
late wrote:They're always like that, unless something is discouraging them. I can remember them using anti-Communism in the 50s and 60s as a cudgel to try and achieve dominance, in person as well as politically.

Aholes.

You know all the reasons why, bad education, getting suckered by the powerful, racism. The cesspool that they live in.


I don't know about some generalized people or posters but @blackjack21 is not badly educated. He is very well-read and very thoughtful in his mode of being. He hates the Republicans for betraying something he holds dear. Nationalism and being a nation of law and order and priorities to hearth and home and patriotic protection of property, rights, and economic prosperity (don't sell your base technology or business dominance to foreign actors and governments).

Relampaguito, is not suckered by the powerful--I think he despises the Deep State as he calls it.
The Neoliberals are his enemies the same as the Bushes and etc.

So he is not suckered by the powerful.

He doesn't see himself as racist. Not in his own mind.

So why is he against the white liberal class. Because his rage is focused on them. He doesn't accept that the Democratic party morphed and is not the same one as in the KKK Dixiecrat party with hooded members in the Democratic national convention from the 1920s is not the same party as the Obama-Biden ticket from 2008.

All of them are deceitful, nasty liars and out to destroy the USA's pillars of civilization.

I am trying to understand if you can explain why he thinks that way about white liberals who are pro-capitalism?
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 18

@B0ycey There is a touch of irony in this thr[…]

Big Vehicles: War Wagons

There's a weird dominance thing with some drivers[…]

A question for our Marxists

The left wingers and the socialists types such as[…]

Just get the god damn vaccine already. The argume[…]