So Fildel Castro calls it quits.

[Rhinox]

Thanks for the typical guartz response comment, I think it's a compliment.

Its really not.

oh no not you again.

I like correction and others because they are smart and sometimes make valid points. You however, ...well... eerr, nevermind.

Are you excited about that deadpool movie?! FUCK YEAH DUUUDE. WOOOO!!!

lol

I like them too for the same reasons. Sad to say I dont think anyone on these boards can say the same about you.. you're retarded and jump to conclusions before reading actually whats posted.

oh and lol@your attempt to flame me for being excited about a movie. pretty weak tbh

[guartz]

When I mean 'typical guartz response' I mean you take a defensive position against something nobody said. Nobody said the bay of pigs was a cuban act of aggression. The answer given to 'why is cuba treated this way' was 'because we aren't friends with Cuba, because Fidel Castro gains power by not being friends with the U.S.A., and because Florida politics revolve around placating the anti-Castro exiles.'

To which you immediately respond with 'lol innacurate responses USA is the aggressor blah blah soviets blah blah annexation.'

I should learn my lessons about arguing with you but for god's sake don't fucking take pride in your obliviousness.

But that's exactly it, genius. It's that nobody DOES say U.S is the aggressor why I take a defensive position. And it all does follow my logic quite soundly. And if you still think that I use these tactics of agitation without actually realizing it, then YOU are the one in oblivion.

[archibaldcrane]

Guartz, we don't continue to embargo Cuba today because a U.S. fruit company got kicked out of there nearly 50 years ago.

Pull your head out of your ass.

The embargo is counter-productive and politically motivated, but it's not -that- stupid.

[guartz]

Guartz, we don't continue to embargo Cuba today because a U.S. fruit company got kicked out of there nearly 50 years ago.

Pull your head out of your ass.

The embargo is counter-productive and politically motivated, but it's not -that- stupid.

Why it started and why it continued are two different stories man. I'm not that retarded.


edit: Actually I take that back, partly why it started and partly why it's still continues are the same. It's kinda like what chomsky said, U.S is always right, and by definition, anybody who disagrees is always wrong.

[Charla]

Well, last I checked we were talking about why it continues.

I should have used better punctuation after mentioning Guam. The adjective nearby was only supposed to apply to 'other islands', but there's no way to tell that with text.

[archibaldcrane]

Why it started and why it continued are two different stories man. I'm not that retarded.

Your question was "why does the U.S. treat Cuba like this?"

People give correct answers, you say they are all incorrect, then start talking about bananas in the tailpipe or something. I don't know how the responses are generally "wildly inaccurate" when the question is in the current tense.

[Charla]

But dude, bananas in the tailpipe are hilarious! Didn't you watch animated Clerks?

...wait, what were we talking about again?

[archibaldcrane]

Also, the Cuban government didn't just kick U.S. fruit companies off the island, it expropriated their land - something generally considered to be not cool.

At that point Cuba was basically saying "no thanks" to U.S. business, so the U.S. said "ok, have fun".

[Kuya]

Also, the Cuban government didn't just kick U.S. fruit companies off the island, it expropriated their land - something generally considered to be not cool.

At that point Cuba was basically saying "no thanks" to U.S. business, so the U.S. said "ok, have fun".

Speaking from the Caribbean point of view... best decision they could have possibly made. We can't even get control of our local economy to this day since we let US companies take the foothold and basicaly leech the island dry. Sadly, we're the example of why they were right to do that, not saying of course that you disagree or agree with that, Arch.

[guartz]

Why it started and why it continued are two different stories man. I'm not that retarded.

Your question was "why does the U.S. treat Cuba like this?"

People give correct answers, you say they are all incorrect, then start talking about bananas in the tailpipe or something. I don't know how the responses are generally "wildly inaccurate" when the question is in the current tense.

You are right, but not really Arch. The only correct answer was that U.S evil or any variation thereof, but I don't argue semantics like some people.

[guartz]

Also, the Cuban government didn't just kick U.S. fruit companies off the island, it expropriated their land - something generally considered to be not cool.

At that point Cuba was basically saying "no thanks" to U.S. business, so the U.S. said "ok, have fun".

By "ok, have fun" he means "We are gonna assassinate your leaders"

[Ishido]

Also, the Cuban government didn't just kick U.S. fruit companies off the island, it expropriated their land - something generally considered to be not cool.

At that point Cuba was basically saying "no thanks" to U.S. business, so the U.S. said "ok, have fun".

By "ok, have fun" he means "We are gonna assassinate your leaders"

So you're linking the business to assassination attempts?

[guartz]

No, what makes you say that?

[archibaldcrane]

Also, the Cuban government didn't just kick U.S. fruit companies off the island, it expropriated their land - something generally considered to be not cool.

At that point Cuba was basically saying "no thanks" to U.S. business, so the U.S. said "ok, have fun".

By "ok, have fun" he means "We are gonna fail to assassinate your leaders"

Corrected, but touche.

[guartz]

tsk, tsk.

Didn't you know that Castro is really a clone of a clone? U.S just got tired killing the clones.

edit: grammah

[Beckwin]

I. Hate. Myself.

I was in the middle and near the end of typing up my grand "Why Beckwin Likes Communism" post/essay and I lost it trying to tab over to something else.

ugh ugh ugh

anyways, the very very very condensed version:

1- freedom transcends material goods
2- equality is paramount and hurt by capitalism
3- government is the agent that can reform economy and eventually bury materialism
4- when you take capital and class out of the picture, a truer and all-encompassing meritocracy can develop
5- eventually in theory, and this is gonna shock the hell out of libertarians, a communist society transcends state virtually entirely.

[Charla]

Why Communism sounds great on paper:
Everything Beckwin just said.

Why Communism will never actually work:
The guy in charge would rather just keep it all for himself.

[Stromgarde]

Communism can work fairly well on small, voluntary scales. It's when you try to force people in and have a need to control the populace things start getting crazy.

[Beckwin]

Why Communism sounds great on paper:
Everything Beckwin just said.

Why Communism will never actually work:
The guy in charge would rather just keep it all for himself.

You can say the exact same thing about free-market capitalism XD

And I'd say you'd be naieve to even consider that current government measures aren't responsible for the prevention of a ton of abuse.

[Charla]

Those are both exactly right. The essential difference is that under capitalism, a large number of people are working for their own interests, so if one guy gets greedy and breaks the rules, another guy can be trusted to call him on it, usually for his own gain. Now, you can argue that communism could be decentralized like this as well, and that the historical failures of the system are because of flawed implementations, but I think that communist systems would be necessarily and fundamentally more centralized than capitalist ones.

In other words, capitalism doesn't fail nearly as hard because it's easier for a million people to keep each other honest than for the same million to keep 10 people honest.