my personal observations for $15 an hour minimum

[Dadoalex]

The US "liberated" Cuba then proceeded to support a series of brutal dictators each worse than the last until THE PEOPLE decided it was through. Not the US, not the Soviet Union, the people of Cuba.

What part of this is not sinking in?

A factoid no "conservative" will admit.
It was not bombs and soldiers that bought down the Soviet Union.
It was Big Macs, Levis, and Walkmans.
Our embargoes have not worked ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
You want to destroy the CCP? Capitalism
You want to bring down Cuba's govt? Capitalism

Not bombs, not spies, capitalism.
Give the Cuban people cars, iphones, and Taco Bell.

Castro did have public support, but he was also a pawn of the Soviets. This is no different from how his predecessor was a pawn of ours. That should "sink in" for you.

The embargo against South Africa was actually quite successful in ending apartheid. It's just one of many successful ones.

But again, I already mentioned in a previous post that our embargo with Cuba isn't very useful. I'm glad that you seem to agree with me on this now. You should also now understand why I mentioned that it had little to no effect on Cuba's economy in the long run. What has truly held them back is the corruption of their government, which, by the way, was the same thing holding back the Soviets.

You could say that capitalism did effectively expedite the fall of the USSR, but the fall itself was coming anyway. Their system was not sustainable and was extremely corrupt. Unfortunately, Russia's current system suffers from the same corruption despite being capitalistic, but it is able to survive due to the fact that capitalism is more resilient than socialism.

In China, something similar happened. When we opened trade with China in 1970, that allowed them to rapidly advance economically, but it did not change the fact that the CCP ran things. Even today, all foreign companies that operate in China have CCP councils that wield some power over the decisions of these companies.

As for Cuba, us trading with them may have some effects of weakening the current regime, but like in China and Russia, there isn't much evidence to suggest that it would reduce their corruption.

End Apartheid
Overthrow government

Perhaps you fail to understand the difference?

 

[Utilitarian]

The US "liberated" Cuba then proceeded to support a series of brutal dictators each worse than the last until THE PEOPLE decided it was through. Not the US, not the Soviet Union, the people of Cuba.

What part of this is not sinking in?

A factoid no "conservative" will admit.
It was not bombs and soldiers that bought down the Soviet Union.
It was Big Macs, Levis, and Walkmans.
Our embargoes have not worked ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
You want to destroy the CCP? Capitalism
You want to bring down Cuba's govt? Capitalism

Not bombs, not spies, capitalism.
Give the Cuban people cars, iphones, and Taco Bell.

Castro did have public support, but he was also a pawn of the Soviets. This is no different from how his predecessor was a pawn of ours. That should "sink in" for you.

The embargo against South Africa was actually quite successful in ending apartheid. It's just one of many successful ones.

But again, I already mentioned in a previous post that our embargo with Cuba isn't very useful. I'm glad that you seem to agree with me on this now. You should also now understand why I mentioned that it had little to no effect on Cuba's economy in the long run. What has truly held them back is the corruption of their government, which, by the way, was the same thing holding back the Soviets.

You could say that capitalism did effectively expedite the fall of the USSR, but the fall itself was coming anyway. Their system was not sustainable and was extremely corrupt. Unfortunately, Russia's current system suffers from the same corruption despite being capitalistic, but it is able to survive due to the fact that capitalism is more resilient than socialism.

In China, something similar happened. When we opened trade with China in 1970, that allowed them to rapidly advance economically, but it did not change the fact that the CCP ran things. Even today, all foreign companies that operate in China have CCP councils that wield some power over the decisions of these companies.

As for Cuba, us trading with them may have some effects of weakening the current regime, but like in China and Russia, there isn't much evidence to suggest that it would reduce their corruption.

End Apartheid
Overthrow government

Perhaps you fail to understand the difference?

Is there a difference? Ending apartheid did overthrow the South African government for all intensive purposes.

We've both pushed for the end of governments that oppress the majority through minorities (like Syria) and supported said regimes (like Iraq). In fact, in Iraq's case, we did both.

Our rivals have also been guilty of this, like Russia and China.

But again, it's all interventionism to one degree or another. You can try to justify it for one reason or another, but it's all subjective. Was apartheid any worse than what China is doing to Uyghurs now? At first, we didn't do much about apartheid in South Africa, but eventually, we decided to push for the end of that regime. In China, we've failed to really do anything significant to them about their ethnic cleansing, but it's just like how we did little to nothing about Tibet or Hong Kong.

Morality doesn't really seem to enter the picture. It's more about whether or not we believe we can push around the country in question. South Africa was weak enough that we could force them to change. China is too powerful to be affected much, so that's probably a lot of why we don't seem to care. Profit is probably the other reason, given how much American corporations do business in China.

 

[Dadoalex]

The US "liberated" Cuba then proceeded to support a series of brutal dictators each worse than the last until THE PEOPLE decided it was through. Not the US, not the Soviet Union, the people of Cuba.

What part of this is not sinking in?

A factoid no "conservative" will admit.
It was not bombs and soldiers that bought down the Soviet Union.
It was Big Macs, Levis, and Walkmans.
Our embargoes have not worked ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
You want to destroy the CCP? Capitalism
You want to bring down Cuba's govt? Capitalism

Not bombs, not spies, capitalism.
Give the Cuban people cars, iphones, and Taco Bell.

Castro did have public support, but he was also a pawn of the Soviets. This is no different from how his predecessor was a pawn of ours. That should "sink in" for you.

The embargo against South Africa was actually quite successful in ending apartheid. It's just one of many successful ones.

But again, I already mentioned in a previous post that our embargo with Cuba isn't very useful. I'm glad that you seem to agree with me on this now. You should also now understand why I mentioned that it had little to no effect on Cuba's economy in the long run. What has truly held them back is the corruption of their government, which, by the way, was the same thing holding back the Soviets.

You could say that capitalism did effectively expedite the fall of the USSR, but the fall itself was coming anyway. Their system was not sustainable and was extremely corrupt. Unfortunately, Russia's current system suffers from the same corruption despite being capitalistic, but it is able to survive due to the fact that capitalism is more resilient than socialism.

In China, something similar happened. When we opened trade with China in 1970, that allowed them to rapidly advance economically, but it did not change the fact that the CCP ran things. Even today, all foreign companies that operate in China have CCP councils that wield some power over the decisions of these companies.

As for Cuba, us trading with them may have some effects of weakening the current regime, but like in China and Russia, there isn't much evidence to suggest that it would reduce their corruption.

End Apartheid
Overthrow government

Perhaps you fail to understand the difference?

Is there a difference? Ending apartheid did overthrow the South African government for all intensive purposes.

We've both pushed for the end of governments that oppress the majority through minorities (like Syria) and supported said regimes (like Iraq). In fact, in Iraq's case, we did both.

Our rivals have also been guilty of this, like Russia and China.

But again, it's all interventionism to one degree or another. You can try to justify it for one reason or another, but it's all subjective. Was apartheid any worse than what China is doing to Uyghurs now? At first, we didn't do much about apartheid in South Africa, but eventually, we decided to push for the end of that regime. In China, we've failed to really do anything significant to them about their ethnic cleansing, but it's just like how we did little to nothing about Tibet or Hong Kong.

Morality doesn't really seem to enter the picture. It's more about whether or not we believe we can push around the country in question. South Africa was weak enough that we could force them to change. China is too powerful to be affected much, so that's probably a lot of why we don't seem to care. Profit is probably the other reason, given how much American corporations do business in China.

Ending apartheid WAS the intent. Whatever happened next was...

Now stay with me on this...

"THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE"

Not the will of the US, or Clinton, or Bush or...JUST THE PEOPLE.

You want me to defend the last 80 years of American imperialism and hegemony?
Sorry, you're on the wrong side of that argument.

Whatever the method the interference in the right of a people to choose who and how they will be governed should be abhorrent to every true American.
The use of economic pressure to get China to change a policy is perfectly within reason.
The use of economic pressure to get North Korea to overthrow their government is not.

I do not judge the morality of other countries. I judge the morality of ours. We are lacking.

 

[Utilitarian]

The US "liberated" Cuba then proceeded to support a series of brutal dictators each worse than the last until THE PEOPLE decided it was through. Not the US, not the Soviet Union, the people of Cuba.

What part of this is not sinking in?

A factoid no "conservative" will admit.
It was not bombs and soldiers that bought down the Soviet Union.
It was Big Macs, Levis, and Walkmans.
Our embargoes have not worked ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
You want to destroy the CCP? Capitalism
You want to bring down Cuba's govt? Capitalism

Not bombs, not spies, capitalism.
Give the Cuban people cars, iphones, and Taco Bell.

Castro did have public support, but he was also a pawn of the Soviets. This is no different from how his predecessor was a pawn of ours. That should "sink in" for you.

The embargo against South Africa was actually quite successful in ending apartheid. It's just one of many successful ones.

But again, I already mentioned in a previous post that our embargo with Cuba isn't very useful. I'm glad that you seem to agree with me on this now. You should also now understand why I mentioned that it had little to no effect on Cuba's economy in the long run. What has truly held them back is the corruption of their government, which, by the way, was the same thing holding back the Soviets.

You could say that capitalism did effectively expedite the fall of the USSR, but the fall itself was coming anyway. Their system was not sustainable and was extremely corrupt. Unfortunately, Russia's current system suffers from the same corruption despite being capitalistic, but it is able to survive due to the fact that capitalism is more resilient than socialism.

In China, something similar happened. When we opened trade with China in 1970, that allowed them to rapidly advance economically, but it did not change the fact that the CCP ran things. Even today, all foreign companies that operate in China have CCP councils that wield some power over the decisions of these companies.

As for Cuba, us trading with them may have some effects of weakening the current regime, but like in China and Russia, there isn't much evidence to suggest that it would reduce their corruption.

End Apartheid
Overthrow government

Perhaps you fail to understand the difference?

Is there a difference? Ending apartheid did overthrow the South African government for all intensive purposes.

We've both pushed for the end of governments that oppress the majority through minorities (like Syria) and supported said regimes (like Iraq). In fact, in Iraq's case, we did both.

Our rivals have also been guilty of this, like Russia and China.

But again, it's all interventionism to one degree or another. You can try to justify it for one reason or another, but it's all subjective. Was apartheid any worse than what China is doing to Uyghurs now? At first, we didn't do much about apartheid in South Africa, but eventually, we decided to push for the end of that regime. In China, we've failed to really do anything significant to them about their ethnic cleansing, but it's just like how we did little to nothing about Tibet or Hong Kong.

Morality doesn't really seem to enter the picture. It's more about whether or not we believe we can push around the country in question. South Africa was weak enough that we could force them to change. China is too powerful to be affected much, so that's probably a lot of why we don't seem to care. Profit is probably the other reason, given how much American corporations do business in China.

Ending apartheid WAS the intent. Whatever happened next was...

Now stay with me on this...

"THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE"

Not the will of the US, or Clinton, or Bush or...JUST THE PEOPLE.

You want me to defend the last 80 years of American imperialism and hegemony?
Sorry, you're on the wrong side of that argument.

Whatever the method the interference in the right of a people to choose who and how they will be governed should be abhorrent to every true American.
The use of economic pressure to get China to change a policy is perfectly within reason.
The use of economic pressure to get North Korea to overthrow their government is not.

I do not judge the morality of other countries. I judge the morality of ours. We are lacking.

...except for the fact that various regimes don't actually represent the will of the people. North Korea is a dictatorship that keeps their populace oppressed and ignorant. Some of those people probably support their government since they don't know better, but others just have to play along or possibly get killed.

China is another example. They don't have an actual democracy. A lot of the world's governments aren't really about the will of the people. Even ours is questionable in that regard.

So, again, you're using a rationale that isn't particularly relevant a lot of the time. And to say that we didn't intend for regime change in South Africa is very naive. We knew what would happen. It wasn't exactly hard to predict.

All I'm saying is that interventionism, whether economic or military, is never about morals. We just dress it up that way to sell it to the masses.

It's like how BLM isn't really about civil rights or police brutality.

But I agree that our morality is lacking. That's largely the fault of progressivism and corporate greed.

 

[candycorn]

I love it when good things happen to good people. And really love it when bad things happen to bad people.

Meaning that I REALLY love this.

 

[Dadoalex]

The US "liberated" Cuba then proceeded to support a series of brutal dictators each worse than the last until THE PEOPLE decided it was through. Not the US, not the Soviet Union, the people of Cuba.

What part of this is not sinking in?

A factoid no "conservative" will admit.
It was not bombs and soldiers that bought down the Soviet Union.
It was Big Macs, Levis, and Walkmans.
Our embargoes have not worked ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
You want to destroy the CCP? Capitalism
You want to bring down Cuba's govt? Capitalism

Not bombs, not spies, capitalism.
Give the Cuban people cars, iphones, and Taco Bell.

Castro did have public support, but he was also a pawn of the Soviets. This is no different from how his predecessor was a pawn of ours. That should "sink in" for you.

The embargo against South Africa was actually quite successful in ending apartheid. It's just one of many successful ones.

But again, I already mentioned in a previous post that our embargo with Cuba isn't very useful. I'm glad that you seem to agree with me on this now. You should also now understand why I mentioned that it had little to no effect on Cuba's economy in the long run. What has truly held them back is the corruption of their government, which, by the way, was the same thing holding back the Soviets.

You could say that capitalism did effectively expedite the fall of the USSR, but the fall itself was coming anyway. Their system was not sustainable and was extremely corrupt. Unfortunately, Russia's current system suffers from the same corruption despite being capitalistic, but it is able to survive due to the fact that capitalism is more resilient than socialism.

In China, something similar happened. When we opened trade with China in 1970, that allowed them to rapidly advance economically, but it did not change the fact that the CCP ran things. Even today, all foreign companies that operate in China have CCP councils that wield some power over the decisions of these companies.

As for Cuba, us trading with them may have some effects of weakening the current regime, but like in China and Russia, there isn't much evidence to suggest that it would reduce their corruption.

End Apartheid
Overthrow government

Perhaps you fail to understand the difference?

Is there a difference? Ending apartheid did overthrow the South African government for all intensive purposes.

We've both pushed for the end of governments that oppress the majority through minorities (like Syria) and supported said regimes (like Iraq). In fact, in Iraq's case, we did both.

Our rivals have also been guilty of this, like Russia and China.

But again, it's all interventionism to one degree or another. You can try to justify it for one reason or another, but it's all subjective. Was apartheid any worse than what China is doing to Uyghurs now? At first, we didn't do much about apartheid in South Africa, but eventually, we decided to push for the end of that regime. In China, we've failed to really do anything significant to them about their ethnic cleansing, but it's just like how we did little to nothing about Tibet or Hong Kong.

Morality doesn't really seem to enter the picture. It's more about whether or not we believe we can push around the country in question. South Africa was weak enough that we could force them to change. China is too powerful to be affected much, so that's probably a lot of why we don't seem to care. Profit is probably the other reason, given how much American corporations do business in China.

Ending apartheid WAS the intent. Whatever happened next was...

Now stay with me on this...

"THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE"

Not the will of the US, or Clinton, or Bush or...JUST THE PEOPLE.

You want me to defend the last 80 years of American imperialism and hegemony?
Sorry, you're on the wrong side of that argument.

Whatever the method the interference in the right of a people to choose who and how they will be governed should be abhorrent to every true American.
The use of economic pressure to get China to change a policy is perfectly within reason.
The use of economic pressure to get North Korea to overthrow their government is not.

I do not judge the morality of other countries. I judge the morality of ours. We are lacking.

...except for the fact that various regimes don't actually represent the will of the people. North Korea is a dictatorship that keeps their populace oppressed and ignorant. Some of those people probably support their government since they don't know better, but others just have to play along or possibly get killed.

China is another example. They don't have an actual democracy. A lot of the world's governments aren't really about the will of the people. Even ours is questionable in that regard.

So, again, you're using a rationale that isn't particularly relevant a lot of the time. And to say that we didn't intend for regime change in South Africa is very naive. We knew what would happen. It wasn't exactly hard to predict.

All I'm saying is that interventionism, whether economic or military, is never about morals. We just dress it up that way to sell it to the masses.

It's like how BLM isn't really about civil rights or police brutality.

But I agree that our morality is lacking. That's largely the fault of progressivism and corporate greed.

And just who appointed you the arbiter of who does and does not represent the will of the people? seems you're suffering from White Man's Burden.

 

[Utilitarian]

The US "liberated" Cuba then proceeded to support a series of brutal dictators each worse than the last until THE PEOPLE decided it was through. Not the US, not the Soviet Union, the people of Cuba.

What part of this is not sinking in?

A factoid no "conservative" will admit.
It was not bombs and soldiers that bought down the Soviet Union.
It was Big Macs, Levis, and Walkmans.
Our embargoes have not worked ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
You want to destroy the CCP? Capitalism
You want to bring down Cuba's govt? Capitalism

Not bombs, not spies, capitalism.
Give the Cuban people cars, iphones, and Taco Bell.

Castro did have public support, but he was also a pawn of the Soviets. This is no different from how his predecessor was a pawn of ours. That should "sink in" for you.

The embargo against South Africa was actually quite successful in ending apartheid. It's just one of many successful ones.

But again, I already mentioned in a previous post that our embargo with Cuba isn't very useful. I'm glad that you seem to agree with me on this now. You should also now understand why I mentioned that it had little to no effect on Cuba's economy in the long run. What has truly held them back is the corruption of their government, which, by the way, was the same thing holding back the Soviets.

You could say that capitalism did effectively expedite the fall of the USSR, but the fall itself was coming anyway. Their system was not sustainable and was extremely corrupt. Unfortunately, Russia's current system suffers from the same corruption despite being capitalistic, but it is able to survive due to the fact that capitalism is more resilient than socialism.

In China, something similar happened. When we opened trade with China in 1970, that allowed them to rapidly advance economically, but it did not change the fact that the CCP ran things. Even today, all foreign companies that operate in China have CCP councils that wield some power over the decisions of these companies.

As for Cuba, us trading with them may have some effects of weakening the current regime, but like in China and Russia, there isn't much evidence to suggest that it would reduce their corruption.

End Apartheid
Overthrow government

Perhaps you fail to understand the difference?

Is there a difference? Ending apartheid did overthrow the South African government for all intensive purposes.

We've both pushed for the end of governments that oppress the majority through minorities (like Syria) and supported said regimes (like Iraq). In fact, in Iraq's case, we did both.

Our rivals have also been guilty of this, like Russia and China.

But again, it's all interventionism to one degree or another. You can try to justify it for one reason or another, but it's all subjective. Was apartheid any worse than what China is doing to Uyghurs now? At first, we didn't do much about apartheid in South Africa, but eventually, we decided to push for the end of that regime. In China, we've failed to really do anything significant to them about their ethnic cleansing, but it's just like how we did little to nothing about Tibet or Hong Kong.

Morality doesn't really seem to enter the picture. It's more about whether or not we believe we can push around the country in question. South Africa was weak enough that we could force them to change. China is too powerful to be affected much, so that's probably a lot of why we don't seem to care. Profit is probably the other reason, given how much American corporations do business in China.

Ending apartheid WAS the intent. Whatever happened next was...

Now stay with me on this...

"THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE"

Not the will of the US, or Clinton, or Bush or...JUST THE PEOPLE.

You want me to defend the last 80 years of American imperialism and hegemony?
Sorry, you're on the wrong side of that argument.

Whatever the method the interference in the right of a people to choose who and how they will be governed should be abhorrent to every true American.
The use of economic pressure to get China to change a policy is perfectly within reason.
The use of economic pressure to get North Korea to overthrow their government is not.

I do not judge the morality of other countries. I judge the morality of ours. We are lacking.

...except for the fact that various regimes don't actually represent the will of the people. North Korea is a dictatorship that keeps their populace oppressed and ignorant. Some of those people probably support their government since they don't know better, but others just have to play along or possibly get killed.

China is another example. They don't have an actual democracy. A lot of the world's governments aren't really about the will of the people. Even ours is questionable in that regard.

So, again, you're using a rationale that isn't particularly relevant a lot of the time. And to say that we didn't intend for regime change in South Africa is very naive. We knew what would happen. It wasn't exactly hard to predict.

All I'm saying is that interventionism, whether economic or military, is never about morals. We just dress it up that way to sell it to the masses.

It's like how BLM isn't really about civil rights or police brutality.

But I agree that our morality is lacking. That's largely the fault of progressivism and corporate greed.

And just who appointed you the arbiter of who does and does not represent the will of the people? seems you're suffering from White Man's Burden.

White Man's Burden would be a matter of me advocating we overthrow said regimes. I'm not advocating that. North Korea is a mess that China will likely end up having to clean up eventually, while China itself isn't likely to move on from a dictatorship as long as big business in the West continues to line their pockets.

I'm not the arbiter of determining who represents the will of the people. I'm just employing common sense. You should try it some time.

A dictatorship is not a system that represents the will of the people. That's all I'm saying. I actually prefer for us to stay out of most conflicts.

In the case of South Africa, for example, pushing for the end of apartheid might have seemed like a noble cause, but it resulted in South Africa developing an even more corrupt system than before. They were actually better off with apartheid, in hindsight.

It's similar to what became of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

 

[Slyhunter]

First of all, most would agree the federal minimum wage needs to be more than $7.25 an hour. I don't care if you live in Santa Barbara, Boise or Pittsburgh. Now, generally speaking, $15 an hour is probably too much for entry-level kids counting chicken tenders at Wendy's or mowing lawns at the Holiday Inn.

So there has to be some middle-ground to go from -- something like $10 an hour for single under 30. For married with children over 30 maybe it should be $15, but there needs to be something better.

...my niece had not 1, not 2, NOT 3 but FOUR kids--with no father paying child support/etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is your Niece's fault. She should've been sterilized after the second one.

 

[Concerned American]

First of all, most would agree the federal minimum wage needs to be more than $7.25 an hour. I don't care if you live in Santa Barbara, Boise or Pittsburgh. Now, generally speaking, $15 an hour is probably too much for entry-level kids counting chicken tenders at Wendy's or mowing lawns at the Holiday Inn.

So there has to be some middle-ground to go from -- something like $10 an hour for single under 30. For married with children over 30 maybe it should be $15, but there needs to be something better.

...my niece had not 1, not 2, NOT 3 but FOUR kids--with no father paying child support/etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is your Niece's fault. She should've been sterilized after the second one.

After the first one.

 

[Dadoalex]

The US "liberated" Cuba then proceeded to support a series of brutal dictators each worse than the last until THE PEOPLE decided it was through. Not the US, not the Soviet Union, the people of Cuba.

What part of this is not sinking in?

A factoid no "conservative" will admit.
It was not bombs and soldiers that bought down the Soviet Union.
It was Big Macs, Levis, and Walkmans.
Our embargoes have not worked ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
You want to destroy the CCP? Capitalism
You want to bring down Cuba's govt? Capitalism

Not bombs, not spies, capitalism.
Give the Cuban people cars, iphones, and Taco Bell.

Castro did have public support, but he was also a pawn of the Soviets. This is no different from how his predecessor was a pawn of ours. That should "sink in" for you.

The embargo against South Africa was actually quite successful in ending apartheid. It's just one of many successful ones.

But again, I already mentioned in a previous post that our embargo with Cuba isn't very useful. I'm glad that you seem to agree with me on this now. You should also now understand why I mentioned that it had little to no effect on Cuba's economy in the long run. What has truly held them back is the corruption of their government, which, by the way, was the same thing holding back the Soviets.

You could say that capitalism did effectively expedite the fall of the USSR, but the fall itself was coming anyway. Their system was not sustainable and was extremely corrupt. Unfortunately, Russia's current system suffers from the same corruption despite being capitalistic, but it is able to survive due to the fact that capitalism is more resilient than socialism.

In China, something similar happened. When we opened trade with China in 1970, that allowed them to rapidly advance economically, but it did not change the fact that the CCP ran things. Even today, all foreign companies that operate in China have CCP councils that wield some power over the decisions of these companies.

As for Cuba, us trading with them may have some effects of weakening the current regime, but like in China and Russia, there isn't much evidence to suggest that it would reduce their corruption.

End Apartheid
Overthrow government

Perhaps you fail to understand the difference?

Is there a difference? Ending apartheid did overthrow the South African government for all intensive purposes.

We've both pushed for the end of governments that oppress the majority through minorities (like Syria) and supported said regimes (like Iraq). In fact, in Iraq's case, we did both.

Our rivals have also been guilty of this, like Russia and China.

But again, it's all interventionism to one degree or another. You can try to justify it for one reason or another, but it's all subjective. Was apartheid any worse than what China is doing to Uyghurs now? At first, we didn't do much about apartheid in South Africa, but eventually, we decided to push for the end of that regime. In China, we've failed to really do anything significant to them about their ethnic cleansing, but it's just like how we did little to nothing about Tibet or Hong Kong.

Morality doesn't really seem to enter the picture. It's more about whether or not we believe we can push around the country in question. South Africa was weak enough that we could force them to change. China is too powerful to be affected much, so that's probably a lot of why we don't seem to care. Profit is probably the other reason, given how much American corporations do business in China.

Ending apartheid WAS the intent. Whatever happened next was...

Now stay with me on this...

"THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE"

Not the will of the US, or Clinton, or Bush or...JUST THE PEOPLE.

You want me to defend the last 80 years of American imperialism and hegemony?
Sorry, you're on the wrong side of that argument.

Whatever the method the interference in the right of a people to choose who and how they will be governed should be abhorrent to every true American.
The use of economic pressure to get China to change a policy is perfectly within reason.
The use of economic pressure to get North Korea to overthrow their government is not.

I do not judge the morality of other countries. I judge the morality of ours. We are lacking.

...except for the fact that various regimes don't actually represent the will of the people. North Korea is a dictatorship that keeps their populace oppressed and ignorant. Some of those people probably support their government since they don't know better, but others just have to play along or possibly get killed.

China is another example. They don't have an actual democracy. A lot of the world's governments aren't really about the will of the people. Even ours is questionable in that regard.

So, again, you're using a rationale that isn't particularly relevant a lot of the time. And to say that we didn't intend for regime change in South Africa is very naive. We knew what would happen. It wasn't exactly hard to predict.

All I'm saying is that interventionism, whether economic or military, is never about morals. We just dress it up that way to sell it to the masses.

It's like how BLM isn't really about civil rights or police brutality.

But I agree that our morality is lacking. That's largely the fault of progressivism and corporate greed.

And just who appointed you the arbiter of who does and does not represent the will of the people? seems you're suffering from White Man's Burden.

White Man's Burden would be a matter of me advocating we overthrow said regimes. I'm not advocating that. North Korea is a mess that China will likely end up having to clean up eventually, while China itself isn't likely to move on from a dictatorship as long as big business in the West continues to line their pockets.

I'm not the arbiter of determining who represents the will of the people. I'm just employing common sense. You should try it some time.

A dictatorship is not a system that represents the will of the people. That's all I'm saying. I actually prefer for us to stay out of most conflicts.

In the case of South Africa, for example, pushing for the end of apartheid might have seemed like a noble cause, but it resulted in South Africa developing an even more corrupt system than before. They were actually better off with apartheid, in hindsight.

It's similar to what became of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

Why don't you talk that over with Mr. Jefferson.
After all, the declaration was speaking of and directed toward a king.
AND there is little or no difference between a king and a dictator.

Any issues with Russia's leader?
How about Trump who wants to be just like Russia's leader?

Or is it just countries with Brown people whose dictators bother you.

Yep. White Man's Burden. The ultimate racist's view.

 

[Slyhunter]

The US "liberated" Cuba then proceeded to support a series of brutal dictators each worse than the last until THE PEOPLE decided it was through. Not the US, not the Soviet Union, the people of Cuba.

What part of this is not sinking in?

A factoid no "conservative" will admit.
It was not bombs and soldiers that bought down the Soviet Union.
It was Big Macs, Levis, and Walkmans.
Our embargoes have not worked ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
You want to destroy the CCP? Capitalism
You want to bring down Cuba's govt? Capitalism

Not bombs, not spies, capitalism.
Give the Cuban people cars, iphones, and Taco Bell.

Castro did have public support, but he was also a pawn of the Soviets. This is no different from how his predecessor was a pawn of ours. That should "sink in" for you.

The embargo against South Africa was actually quite successful in ending apartheid. It's just one of many successful ones.

But again, I already mentioned in a previous post that our embargo with Cuba isn't very useful. I'm glad that you seem to agree with me on this now. You should also now understand why I mentioned that it had little to no effect on Cuba's economy in the long run. What has truly held them back is the corruption of their government, which, by the way, was the same thing holding back the Soviets.

You could say that capitalism did effectively expedite the fall of the USSR, but the fall itself was coming anyway. Their system was not sustainable and was extremely corrupt. Unfortunately, Russia's current system suffers from the same corruption despite being capitalistic, but it is able to survive due to the fact that capitalism is more resilient than socialism.

In China, something similar happened. When we opened trade with China in 1970, that allowed them to rapidly advance economically, but it did not change the fact that the CCP ran things. Even today, all foreign companies that operate in China have CCP councils that wield some power over the decisions of these companies.

As for Cuba, us trading with them may have some effects of weakening the current regime, but like in China and Russia, there isn't much evidence to suggest that it would reduce their corruption.

End Apartheid
Overthrow government

Perhaps you fail to understand the difference?

Is there a difference? Ending apartheid did overthrow the South African government for all intensive purposes.

We've both pushed for the end of governments that oppress the majority through minorities (like Syria) and supported said regimes (like Iraq). In fact, in Iraq's case, we did both.

Our rivals have also been guilty of this, like Russia and China.

But again, it's all interventionism to one degree or another. You can try to justify it for one reason or another, but it's all subjective. Was apartheid any worse than what China is doing to Uyghurs now? At first, we didn't do much about apartheid in South Africa, but eventually, we decided to push for the end of that regime. In China, we've failed to really do anything significant to them about their ethnic cleansing, but it's just like how we did little to nothing about Tibet or Hong Kong.

Morality doesn't really seem to enter the picture. It's more about whether or not we believe we can push around the country in question. South Africa was weak enough that we could force them to change. China is too powerful to be affected much, so that's probably a lot of why we don't seem to care. Profit is probably the other reason, given how much American corporations do business in China.

Ending apartheid WAS the intent. Whatever happened next was...

Now stay with me on this...

"THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE"

Not the will of the US, or Clinton, or Bush or...JUST THE PEOPLE.

You want me to defend the last 80 years of American imperialism and hegemony?
Sorry, you're on the wrong side of that argument.

Whatever the method the interference in the right of a people to choose who and how they will be governed should be abhorrent to every true American.
The use of economic pressure to get China to change a policy is perfectly within reason.
The use of economic pressure to get North Korea to overthrow their government is not.

I do not judge the morality of other countries. I judge the morality of ours. We are lacking.

...except for the fact that various regimes don't actually represent the will of the people. North Korea is a dictatorship that keeps their populace oppressed and ignorant. Some of those people probably support their government since they don't know better, but others just have to play along or possibly get killed.

China is another example. They don't have an actual democracy. A lot of the world's governments aren't really about the will of the people. Even ours is questionable in that regard.

So, again, you're using a rationale that isn't particularly relevant a lot of the time. And to say that we didn't intend for regime change in South Africa is very naive. We knew what would happen. It wasn't exactly hard to predict.

All I'm saying is that interventionism, whether economic or military, is never about morals. We just dress it up that way to sell it to the masses.

It's like how BLM isn't really about civil rights or police brutality.

But I agree that our morality is lacking. That's largely the fault of progressivism and corporate greed.

And just who appointed you the arbiter of who does and does not represent the will of the people? seems you're suffering from White Man's Burden.

White Man's Burden would be a matter of me advocating we overthrow said regimes. I'm not advocating that. North Korea is a mess that China will likely end up having to clean up eventually, while China itself isn't likely to move on from a dictatorship as long as big business in the West continues to line their pockets.

I'm not the arbiter of determining who represents the will of the people. I'm just employing common sense. You should try it some time.

A dictatorship is not a system that represents the will of the people. That's all I'm saying. I actually prefer for us to stay out of most conflicts.

In the case of South Africa, for example, pushing for the end of apartheid might have seemed like a noble cause, but it resulted in South Africa developing an even more corrupt system than before. They were actually better off with apartheid, in hindsight.

It's similar to what became of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

Why don't you talk that over with Mr. Jefferson.
After all, the declaration was speaking of and directed toward a king.
AND there is little or no difference between a king and a dictator.

Any issues with Russia's leader?
How about Trump who wants to be just like Russia's leader?

Or is it just countries with Brown people whose dictators bother you.

Yep. White Man's Burden. The ultimate racist's view.

We can't fix the world. We can't save everyone that needs saving. Especially when, after we drive out the bad guys we have to stay around and manage the country because those that are left are incapable of defending themselves.
Which is why those who want to live free must fight for it and win. Regardless of their color.

 

[Dadoalex]

The US "liberated" Cuba then proceeded to support a series of brutal dictators each worse than the last until THE PEOPLE decided it was through. Not the US, not the Soviet Union, the people of Cuba.

What part of this is not sinking in?

A factoid no "conservative" will admit.
It was not bombs and soldiers that bought down the Soviet Union.
It was Big Macs, Levis, and Walkmans.
Our embargoes have not worked ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
You want to destroy the CCP? Capitalism
You want to bring down Cuba's govt? Capitalism

Not bombs, not spies, capitalism.
Give the Cuban people cars, iphones, and Taco Bell.

Castro did have public support, but he was also a pawn of the Soviets. This is no different from how his predecessor was a pawn of ours. That should "sink in" for you.

The embargo against South Africa was actually quite successful in ending apartheid. It's just one of many successful ones.

But again, I already mentioned in a previous post that our embargo with Cuba isn't very useful. I'm glad that you seem to agree with me on this now. You should also now understand why I mentioned that it had little to no effect on Cuba's economy in the long run. What has truly held them back is the corruption of their government, which, by the way, was the same thing holding back the Soviets.

You could say that capitalism did effectively expedite the fall of the USSR, but the fall itself was coming anyway. Their system was not sustainable and was extremely corrupt. Unfortunately, Russia's current system suffers from the same corruption despite being capitalistic, but it is able to survive due to the fact that capitalism is more resilient than socialism.

In China, something similar happened. When we opened trade with China in 1970, that allowed them to rapidly advance economically, but it did not change the fact that the CCP ran things. Even today, all foreign companies that operate in China have CCP councils that wield some power over the decisions of these companies.

As for Cuba, us trading with them may have some effects of weakening the current regime, but like in China and Russia, there isn't much evidence to suggest that it would reduce their corruption.

End Apartheid
Overthrow government

Perhaps you fail to understand the difference?

Is there a difference? Ending apartheid did overthrow the South African government for all intensive purposes.

We've both pushed for the end of governments that oppress the majority through minorities (like Syria) and supported said regimes (like Iraq). In fact, in Iraq's case, we did both.

Our rivals have also been guilty of this, like Russia and China.

But again, it's all interventionism to one degree or another. You can try to justify it for one reason or another, but it's all subjective. Was apartheid any worse than what China is doing to Uyghurs now? At first, we didn't do much about apartheid in South Africa, but eventually, we decided to push for the end of that regime. In China, we've failed to really do anything significant to them about their ethnic cleansing, but it's just like how we did little to nothing about Tibet or Hong Kong.

Morality doesn't really seem to enter the picture. It's more about whether or not we believe we can push around the country in question. South Africa was weak enough that we could force them to change. China is too powerful to be affected much, so that's probably a lot of why we don't seem to care. Profit is probably the other reason, given how much American corporations do business in China.

Ending apartheid WAS the intent. Whatever happened next was...

Now stay with me on this...

"THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE"

Not the will of the US, or Clinton, or Bush or...JUST THE PEOPLE.

You want me to defend the last 80 years of American imperialism and hegemony?
Sorry, you're on the wrong side of that argument.

Whatever the method the interference in the right of a people to choose who and how they will be governed should be abhorrent to every true American.
The use of economic pressure to get China to change a policy is perfectly within reason.
The use of economic pressure to get North Korea to overthrow their government is not.

I do not judge the morality of other countries. I judge the morality of ours. We are lacking.

...except for the fact that various regimes don't actually represent the will of the people. North Korea is a dictatorship that keeps their populace oppressed and ignorant. Some of those people probably support their government since they don't know better, but others just have to play along or possibly get killed.

China is another example. They don't have an actual democracy. A lot of the world's governments aren't really about the will of the people. Even ours is questionable in that regard.

So, again, you're using a rationale that isn't particularly relevant a lot of the time. And to say that we didn't intend for regime change in South Africa is very naive. We knew what would happen. It wasn't exactly hard to predict.

All I'm saying is that interventionism, whether economic or military, is never about morals. We just dress it up that way to sell it to the masses.

It's like how BLM isn't really about civil rights or police brutality.

But I agree that our morality is lacking. That's largely the fault of progressivism and corporate greed.

And just who appointed you the arbiter of who does and does not represent the will of the people? seems you're suffering from White Man's Burden.

White Man's Burden would be a matter of me advocating we overthrow said regimes. I'm not advocating that. North Korea is a mess that China will likely end up having to clean up eventually, while China itself isn't likely to move on from a dictatorship as long as big business in the West continues to line their pockets.

I'm not the arbiter of determining who represents the will of the people. I'm just employing common sense. You should try it some time.

A dictatorship is not a system that represents the will of the people. That's all I'm saying. I actually prefer for us to stay out of most conflicts.

In the case of South Africa, for example, pushing for the end of apartheid might have seemed like a noble cause, but it resulted in South Africa developing an even more corrupt system than before. They were actually better off with apartheid, in hindsight.

It's similar to what became of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

Why don't you talk that over with Mr. Jefferson.
After all, the declaration was speaking of and directed toward a king.
AND there is little or no difference between a king and a dictator.

Any issues with Russia's leader?
How about Trump who wants to be just like Russia's leader?

Or is it just countries with Brown people whose dictators bother you.

Yep. White Man's Burden. The ultimate racist's view.

We can't fix the world. We can't save everyone that needs saving. Especially when, after we drive out the bad guys we have to stay around and manage the country because those that are left are incapable of defending themselves.
Which is why those who want to live free must fight for it and win. Regardless of their color.

Who decides who is the "bad guys?"
Are we not, after all, the heroes of our own stories?
Isn't it possible some of the people we call "bad guys" believe the same about us? And, wouldn't an unbiased view of the last 125 years prove them right?

In any case, agree with the sentiment if not the wording.

 

[Indeependent]

First of all, most would agree the federal minimum wage needs to be more than $7.25 an hour. I don't care if you live in Santa Barbara, Boise or Pittsburgh. Now, generally speaking, $15 an hour is probably too much for entry-level kids counting chicken tenders at Wendy's or mowing lawns at the Holiday Inn.

So there has to be some middle-ground to go from -- something like $10 an hour for single under 30. For married with children over 30 maybe it should be $15, but there needs to be something better.

no most wouldnt agree to that,,,

the feds have no business being involved in the transaction between me and my employees,,

But the Feds can determine that we can inundate our workforce to suppress wages.

 

[Concerned American]

First of all, most would agree the federal minimum wage needs to be more than $7.25 an hour. I don't care if you live in Santa Barbara, Boise or Pittsburgh. Now, generally speaking, $15 an hour is probably too much for entry-level kids counting chicken tenders at Wendy's or mowing lawns at the Holiday Inn.

So there has to be some middle-ground to go from -- something like $10 an hour for single under 30. For married with children over 30 maybe it should be $15, but there needs to be something better.

no most wouldnt agree to that,,,

the feds have no business being involved in the transaction between me and my employees,,

But the Feds can determine that we can inundate our workforce to suppress wages.

They've been using immigration to hold wages down for years.

 

[Utilitarian]

The US "liberated" Cuba then proceeded to support a series of brutal dictators each worse than the last until THE PEOPLE decided it was through. Not the US, not the Soviet Union, the people of Cuba.

What part of this is not sinking in?

A factoid no "conservative" will admit.
It was not bombs and soldiers that bought down the Soviet Union.
It was Big Macs, Levis, and Walkmans.
Our embargoes have not worked ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
You want to destroy the CCP? Capitalism
You want to bring down Cuba's govt? Capitalism

Not bombs, not spies, capitalism.
Give the Cuban people cars, iphones, and Taco Bell.

Castro did have public support, but he was also a pawn of the Soviets. This is no different from how his predecessor was a pawn of ours. That should "sink in" for you.

The embargo against South Africa was actually quite successful in ending apartheid. It's just one of many successful ones.

But again, I already mentioned in a previous post that our embargo with Cuba isn't very useful. I'm glad that you seem to agree with me on this now. You should also now understand why I mentioned that it had little to no effect on Cuba's economy in the long run. What has truly held them back is the corruption of their government, which, by the way, was the same thing holding back the Soviets.

You could say that capitalism did effectively expedite the fall of the USSR, but the fall itself was coming anyway. Their system was not sustainable and was extremely corrupt. Unfortunately, Russia's current system suffers from the same corruption despite being capitalistic, but it is able to survive due to the fact that capitalism is more resilient than socialism.

In China, something similar happened. When we opened trade with China in 1970, that allowed them to rapidly advance economically, but it did not change the fact that the CCP ran things. Even today, all foreign companies that operate in China have CCP councils that wield some power over the decisions of these companies.

As for Cuba, us trading with them may have some effects of weakening the current regime, but like in China and Russia, there isn't much evidence to suggest that it would reduce their corruption.

End Apartheid
Overthrow government

Perhaps you fail to understand the difference?

Is there a difference? Ending apartheid did overthrow the South African government for all intensive purposes.

We've both pushed for the end of governments that oppress the majority through minorities (like Syria) and supported said regimes (like Iraq). In fact, in Iraq's case, we did both.

Our rivals have also been guilty of this, like Russia and China.

But again, it's all interventionism to one degree or another. You can try to justify it for one reason or another, but it's all subjective. Was apartheid any worse than what China is doing to Uyghurs now? At first, we didn't do much about apartheid in South Africa, but eventually, we decided to push for the end of that regime. In China, we've failed to really do anything significant to them about their ethnic cleansing, but it's just like how we did little to nothing about Tibet or Hong Kong.

Morality doesn't really seem to enter the picture. It's more about whether or not we believe we can push around the country in question. South Africa was weak enough that we could force them to change. China is too powerful to be affected much, so that's probably a lot of why we don't seem to care. Profit is probably the other reason, given how much American corporations do business in China.

Ending apartheid WAS the intent. Whatever happened next was...

Now stay with me on this...

"THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE"

Not the will of the US, or Clinton, or Bush or...JUST THE PEOPLE.

You want me to defend the last 80 years of American imperialism and hegemony?
Sorry, you're on the wrong side of that argument.

Whatever the method the interference in the right of a people to choose who and how they will be governed should be abhorrent to every true American.
The use of economic pressure to get China to change a policy is perfectly within reason.
The use of economic pressure to get North Korea to overthrow their government is not.

I do not judge the morality of other countries. I judge the morality of ours. We are lacking.

...except for the fact that various regimes don't actually represent the will of the people. North Korea is a dictatorship that keeps their populace oppressed and ignorant. Some of those people probably support their government since they don't know better, but others just have to play along or possibly get killed.

China is another example. They don't have an actual democracy. A lot of the world's governments aren't really about the will of the people. Even ours is questionable in that regard.

So, again, you're using a rationale that isn't particularly relevant a lot of the time. And to say that we didn't intend for regime change in South Africa is very naive. We knew what would happen. It wasn't exactly hard to predict.

All I'm saying is that interventionism, whether economic or military, is never about morals. We just dress it up that way to sell it to the masses.

It's like how BLM isn't really about civil rights or police brutality.

But I agree that our morality is lacking. That's largely the fault of progressivism and corporate greed.

And just who appointed you the arbiter of who does and does not represent the will of the people? seems you're suffering from White Man's Burden.

White Man's Burden would be a matter of me advocating we overthrow said regimes. I'm not advocating that. North Korea is a mess that China will likely end up having to clean up eventually, while China itself isn't likely to move on from a dictatorship as long as big business in the West continues to line their pockets.

I'm not the arbiter of determining who represents the will of the people. I'm just employing common sense. You should try it some time.

A dictatorship is not a system that represents the will of the people. That's all I'm saying. I actually prefer for us to stay out of most conflicts.

In the case of South Africa, for example, pushing for the end of apartheid might have seemed like a noble cause, but it resulted in South Africa developing an even more corrupt system than before. They were actually better off with apartheid, in hindsight.

It's similar to what became of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

Why don't you talk that over with Mr. Jefferson.
After all, the declaration was speaking of and directed toward a king.
AND there is little or no difference between a king and a dictator.

Any issues with Russia's leader?
How about Trump who wants to be just like Russia's leader?

Or is it just countries with Brown people whose dictators bother you.

Yep. White Man's Burden. The ultimate racist's view.

Jefferson owned slaves, so his view on blacks wasn't the most flattering by today's standards. Then again, if we look at how a lot of Africa has fared over the last millennium, it's not inaccurate to view many of their cultures as rather primitive.

I don't care about skin color, but culture is very important. Some cultures are simply better than others, and sometimes, the less desirable cultures tend to be among those of darker complexion. That being said, Indians often assimilate well into the West. They're often rather ambitious and industrious, and so, it is not so simple as to suggest that "brown" people are the problem.

A dictatorship only bothers me when it affects the interests of this nation. The CCP is very much a threat to the world and to America more specifically, so their dictatorship concerns me. The Syrian dictatorship, however, does not affect me or the world overall.

As far as Putin is concerned, we should keep an eye on Russia, but they're easier to negotiate with than the CCP. Russia has far less power than China, and so we have the ability to leverage their help on certain things. They helped us somewhat during the War on Terror, for example.

Since this discussion touched on Zimbabwe, they also have a dictatorship, but I don't think it is in our interests to topple it. South Africa has something similar to a dictatorship as well, but again, it's not in our interests to topple it.

At this point, Trump is no longer in office and isn't likely to enter office again because of how old he will be by 2024. He's just a campaign fundraiser by now.

 

[Dadoalex]

The US "liberated" Cuba then proceeded to support a series of brutal dictators each worse than the last until THE PEOPLE decided it was through. Not the US, not the Soviet Union, the people of Cuba.

What part of this is not sinking in?

A factoid no "conservative" will admit.
It was not bombs and soldiers that bought down the Soviet Union.
It was Big Macs, Levis, and Walkmans.
Our embargoes have not worked ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
You want to destroy the CCP? Capitalism
You want to bring down Cuba's govt? Capitalism

Not bombs, not spies, capitalism.
Give the Cuban people cars, iphones, and Taco Bell.

Castro did have public support, but he was also a pawn of the Soviets. This is no different from how his predecessor was a pawn of ours. That should "sink in" for you.

The embargo against South Africa was actually quite successful in ending apartheid. It's just one of many successful ones.

But again, I already mentioned in a previous post that our embargo with Cuba isn't very useful. I'm glad that you seem to agree with me on this now. You should also now understand why I mentioned that it had little to no effect on Cuba's economy in the long run. What has truly held them back is the corruption of their government, which, by the way, was the same thing holding back the Soviets.

You could say that capitalism did effectively expedite the fall of the USSR, but the fall itself was coming anyway. Their system was not sustainable and was extremely corrupt. Unfortunately, Russia's current system suffers from the same corruption despite being capitalistic, but it is able to survive due to the fact that capitalism is more resilient than socialism.

In China, something similar happened. When we opened trade with China in 1970, that allowed them to rapidly advance economically, but it did not change the fact that the CCP ran things. Even today, all foreign companies that operate in China have CCP councils that wield some power over the decisions of these companies.

As for Cuba, us trading with them may have some effects of weakening the current regime, but like in China and Russia, there isn't much evidence to suggest that it would reduce their corruption.

End Apartheid
Overthrow government

Perhaps you fail to understand the difference?

Is there a difference? Ending apartheid did overthrow the South African government for all intensive purposes.

We've both pushed for the end of governments that oppress the majority through minorities (like Syria) and supported said regimes (like Iraq). In fact, in Iraq's case, we did both.

Our rivals have also been guilty of this, like Russia and China.

But again, it's all interventionism to one degree or another. You can try to justify it for one reason or another, but it's all subjective. Was apartheid any worse than what China is doing to Uyghurs now? At first, we didn't do much about apartheid in South Africa, but eventually, we decided to push for the end of that regime. In China, we've failed to really do anything significant to them about their ethnic cleansing, but it's just like how we did little to nothing about Tibet or Hong Kong.

Morality doesn't really seem to enter the picture. It's more about whether or not we believe we can push around the country in question. South Africa was weak enough that we could force them to change. China is too powerful to be affected much, so that's probably a lot of why we don't seem to care. Profit is probably the other reason, given how much American corporations do business in China.

Ending apartheid WAS the intent. Whatever happened next was...

Now stay with me on this...

"THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE"

Not the will of the US, or Clinton, or Bush or...JUST THE PEOPLE.

You want me to defend the last 80 years of American imperialism and hegemony?
Sorry, you're on the wrong side of that argument.

Whatever the method the interference in the right of a people to choose who and how they will be governed should be abhorrent to every true American.
The use of economic pressure to get China to change a policy is perfectly within reason.
The use of economic pressure to get North Korea to overthrow their government is not.

I do not judge the morality of other countries. I judge the morality of ours. We are lacking.

...except for the fact that various regimes don't actually represent the will of the people. North Korea is a dictatorship that keeps their populace oppressed and ignorant. Some of those people probably support their government since they don't know better, but others just have to play along or possibly get killed.

China is another example. They don't have an actual democracy. A lot of the world's governments aren't really about the will of the people. Even ours is questionable in that regard.

So, again, you're using a rationale that isn't particularly relevant a lot of the time. And to say that we didn't intend for regime change in South Africa is very naive. We knew what would happen. It wasn't exactly hard to predict.

All I'm saying is that interventionism, whether economic or military, is never about morals. We just dress it up that way to sell it to the masses.

It's like how BLM isn't really about civil rights or police brutality.

But I agree that our morality is lacking. That's largely the fault of progressivism and corporate greed.

And just who appointed you the arbiter of who does and does not represent the will of the people? seems you're suffering from White Man's Burden.

White Man's Burden would be a matter of me advocating we overthrow said regimes. I'm not advocating that. North Korea is a mess that China will likely end up having to clean up eventually, while China itself isn't likely to move on from a dictatorship as long as big business in the West continues to line their pockets.

I'm not the arbiter of determining who represents the will of the people. I'm just employing common sense. You should try it some time.

A dictatorship is not a system that represents the will of the people. That's all I'm saying. I actually prefer for us to stay out of most conflicts.

In the case of South Africa, for example, pushing for the end of apartheid might have seemed like a noble cause, but it resulted in South Africa developing an even more corrupt system than before. They were actually better off with apartheid, in hindsight.

It's similar to what became of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

Why don't you talk that over with Mr. Jefferson.
After all, the declaration was speaking of and directed toward a king.
AND there is little or no difference between a king and a dictator.

Any issues with Russia's leader?
How about Trump who wants to be just like Russia's leader?

Or is it just countries with Brown people whose dictators bother you.

Yep. White Man's Burden. The ultimate racist's view.

Jefferson owned slaves, so his view on blacks wasn't the most flattering by today's standards. Then again, if we look at how a lot of Africa has fared over the last millennium, it's not inaccurate to view many of their cultures as rather primitive.

I don't care about skin color, but culture is very important. Some cultures are simply better than others, and sometimes, the less desirable cultures tend to be among those of darker complexion. That being said, Indians often assimilate well into the West. They're often rather ambitious and industrious, and so, it is not so simple as to suggest that "brown" people are the problem.

A dictatorship only bothers me when it affects the interests of this nation. The CCP is very much a threat to the world and to America more specifically, so their dictatorship concerns me. The Syrian dictatorship, however, does not affect me or the world overall.

As far as Putin is concerned, we should keep an eye on Russia, but they're easier to negotiate with than the CCP. Russia has far less power than China, and so we have the ability to leverage their help on certain things. They helped us somewhat during the War on Terror, for example.

Since this discussion touched on Zimbabwe, they also have a dictatorship, but I don't think it is in our interests to topple it. South Africa has something similar to a dictatorship as well, but again, it's not in our interests to topple it.

At this point, Trump is no longer in office and isn't likely to enter office again because of how old he will be by 2024. He's just a campaign fundraiser by now.

Do you actually read and comprehend what you type?
I tell you your attitudes reflect the racist "White Man's Burdern"
and in denial you proceed to describe how Africans and Orientals NEED White men to keep them safe.

You should reflect on the source of these ideas.

 

[Utilitarian]

The US "liberated" Cuba then proceeded to support a series of brutal dictators each worse than the last until THE PEOPLE decided it was through. Not the US, not the Soviet Union, the people of Cuba.

What part of this is not sinking in?

A factoid no "conservative" will admit.
It was not bombs and soldiers that bought down the Soviet Union.
It was Big Macs, Levis, and Walkmans.
Our embargoes have not worked ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
You want to destroy the CCP? Capitalism
You want to bring down Cuba's govt? Capitalism

Not bombs, not spies, capitalism.
Give the Cuban people cars, iphones, and Taco Bell.

Castro did have public support, but he was also a pawn of the Soviets. This is no different from how his predecessor was a pawn of ours. That should "sink in" for you.

The embargo against South Africa was actually quite successful in ending apartheid. It's just one of many successful ones.

But again, I already mentioned in a previous post that our embargo with Cuba isn't very useful. I'm glad that you seem to agree with me on this now. You should also now understand why I mentioned that it had little to no effect on Cuba's economy in the long run. What has truly held them back is the corruption of their government, which, by the way, was the same thing holding back the Soviets.

You could say that capitalism did effectively expedite the fall of the USSR, but the fall itself was coming anyway. Their system was not sustainable and was extremely corrupt. Unfortunately, Russia's current system suffers from the same corruption despite being capitalistic, but it is able to survive due to the fact that capitalism is more resilient than socialism.

In China, something similar happened. When we opened trade with China in 1970, that allowed them to rapidly advance economically, but it did not change the fact that the CCP ran things. Even today, all foreign companies that operate in China have CCP councils that wield some power over the decisions of these companies.

As for Cuba, us trading with them may have some effects of weakening the current regime, but like in China and Russia, there isn't much evidence to suggest that it would reduce their corruption.

End Apartheid
Overthrow government

Perhaps you fail to understand the difference?

Is there a difference? Ending apartheid did overthrow the South African government for all intensive purposes.

We've both pushed for the end of governments that oppress the majority through minorities (like Syria) and supported said regimes (like Iraq). In fact, in Iraq's case, we did both.

Our rivals have also been guilty of this, like Russia and China.

But again, it's all interventionism to one degree or another. You can try to justify it for one reason or another, but it's all subjective. Was apartheid any worse than what China is doing to Uyghurs now? At first, we didn't do much about apartheid in South Africa, but eventually, we decided to push for the end of that regime. In China, we've failed to really do anything significant to them about their ethnic cleansing, but it's just like how we did little to nothing about Tibet or Hong Kong.

Morality doesn't really seem to enter the picture. It's more about whether or not we believe we can push around the country in question. South Africa was weak enough that we could force them to change. China is too powerful to be affected much, so that's probably a lot of why we don't seem to care. Profit is probably the other reason, given how much American corporations do business in China.

Ending apartheid WAS the intent. Whatever happened next was...

Now stay with me on this...

"THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE"

Not the will of the US, or Clinton, or Bush or...JUST THE PEOPLE.

You want me to defend the last 80 years of American imperialism and hegemony?
Sorry, you're on the wrong side of that argument.

Whatever the method the interference in the right of a people to choose who and how they will be governed should be abhorrent to every true American.
The use of economic pressure to get China to change a policy is perfectly within reason.
The use of economic pressure to get North Korea to overthrow their government is not.

I do not judge the morality of other countries. I judge the morality of ours. We are lacking.

...except for the fact that various regimes don't actually represent the will of the people. North Korea is a dictatorship that keeps their populace oppressed and ignorant. Some of those people probably support their government since they don't know better, but others just have to play along or possibly get killed.

China is another example. They don't have an actual democracy. A lot of the world's governments aren't really about the will of the people. Even ours is questionable in that regard.

So, again, you're using a rationale that isn't particularly relevant a lot of the time. And to say that we didn't intend for regime change in South Africa is very naive. We knew what would happen. It wasn't exactly hard to predict.

All I'm saying is that interventionism, whether economic or military, is never about morals. We just dress it up that way to sell it to the masses.

It's like how BLM isn't really about civil rights or police brutality.

But I agree that our morality is lacking. That's largely the fault of progressivism and corporate greed.

And just who appointed you the arbiter of who does and does not represent the will of the people? seems you're suffering from White Man's Burden.

White Man's Burden would be a matter of me advocating we overthrow said regimes. I'm not advocating that. North Korea is a mess that China will likely end up having to clean up eventually, while China itself isn't likely to move on from a dictatorship as long as big business in the West continues to line their pockets.

I'm not the arbiter of determining who represents the will of the people. I'm just employing common sense. You should try it some time.

A dictatorship is not a system that represents the will of the people. That's all I'm saying. I actually prefer for us to stay out of most conflicts.

In the case of South Africa, for example, pushing for the end of apartheid might have seemed like a noble cause, but it resulted in South Africa developing an even more corrupt system than before. They were actually better off with apartheid, in hindsight.

It's similar to what became of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

Why don't you talk that over with Mr. Jefferson.
After all, the declaration was speaking of and directed toward a king.
AND there is little or no difference between a king and a dictator.

Any issues with Russia's leader?
How about Trump who wants to be just like Russia's leader?

Or is it just countries with Brown people whose dictators bother you.

Yep. White Man's Burden. The ultimate racist's view.

Jefferson owned slaves, so his view on blacks wasn't the most flattering by today's standards. Then again, if we look at how a lot of Africa has fared over the last millennium, it's not inaccurate to view many of their cultures as rather primitive.

I don't care about skin color, but culture is very important. Some cultures are simply better than others, and sometimes, the less desirable cultures tend to be among those of darker complexion. That being said, Indians often assimilate well into the West. They're often rather ambitious and industrious, and so, it is not so simple as to suggest that "brown" people are the problem.

A dictatorship only bothers me when it affects the interests of this nation. The CCP is very much a threat to the world and to America more specifically, so their dictatorship concerns me. The Syrian dictatorship, however, does not affect me or the world overall.

As far as Putin is concerned, we should keep an eye on Russia, but they're easier to negotiate with than the CCP. Russia has far less power than China, and so we have the ability to leverage their help on certain things. They helped us somewhat during the War on Terror, for example.

Since this discussion touched on Zimbabwe, they also have a dictatorship, but I don't think it is in our interests to topple it. South Africa has something similar to a dictatorship as well, but again, it's not in our interests to topple it.

At this point, Trump is no longer in office and isn't likely to enter office again because of how old he will be by 2024. He's just a campaign fundraiser by now.

Do you actually read and comprehend what you type?
I tell you your attitudes reflect the racist "White Man's Burdern"
and in denial you proceed to describe how Africans and Orientals NEED White men to keep them safe.

You should reflect on the source of these ideas.

You keep using that phrase, but I don't think you know what it actually means. The "white man's burden" was a doctrine that believed that we should intervene in the affairs of various nations throughout the world to "civilize" them.

I have not advocated that idea at all. I actually tend to favor us staying out of foreign affairs. So again, I have no idea what you're basing your accusations on.

 

[danielpalos]

Should we ask landlords what the optimum minimum wage should be?

 

[Slyhunter]

Should we ask landlords what the optimum minimum wage should be?

It should be set to cost of living. But there should be no fed minimum wage. Allow the states to decide for themselves.

 

[Wyatt earp]

First of all, most would agree the federal minimum wage needs to be more than $7.25 an hour. I don't care if you live in Santa Barbara, Boise or Pittsburgh. Now, generally speaking, $15 an hour is probably too much for entry-level kids counting chicken tenders at Wendy's or mowing lawns at the Holiday Inn.

So there has to be some middle-ground to go from -- something like $10 an hour for single under 30. For married with children over 30 maybe it should be $15, but there needs to be something better.

Tell us who is hiring for $7.25 an hour besides waitress and other jobs where you get tips?