The Smallest Minority

I've been taking to task on this one in comment threads here and I think I've finally nailed down how America is Imperialist. And it's quite obvious....

By the tradional meaning of the word Imperialist, America is not an Imperial country. This is true. We are pouring money into Iraq, for example. This money is our money--the money of the taxpayers. But where is the money going?

Well, it's going to American defense contractors and foreign oil companies who have economic ties to American oil companies. So basically, we are paying ourselves. In the process, however, the people that own these companies are making millions, if not billions of dollars. Now, it is true that American workers are seeing some jobs as a result of this but for the most part, the government is basically helping certain wealthy people get wealthier.

We are also helping many Middle Eastern folks, some of whom don't like us very much, get richer as well. Are we funding terrorism, then? Maybe. Maybe not. But my point is this: America is participating in "Corporate" Imperialism--the corporations of the new global economy are benefitting fromt the Iraq War a great deal, including American corporations who essentially have the Bush Administration wrapped around their fingers.

...including American corporations who essentially have the Bush Administration wrapped around their fingers.

Mark:

Check the donor's lists on the Democrat side of the aisle. Corporations have politicians wrapped around their fingers. Power corrupts and attracts the corrupt, remember?

But which group was it again that has received lots of hard cash from (it would appear) the government of mainland China?

And, given that government is heavily influenced (if not outright owned) by major corporations, why is it again that we should trust government with even more control over our access to health care?

Now, go study the word "Imperial" in more detail. "Corporate Imperialism" is a non-sequitur.

Well, there's no denying your first comment. It's true. Democrats receive money from large corporations as well. But it seems to me that Bush Co lets them dictate policy more than the Democrats do. The Dick Cheneys of the world believe it is their manifest destiny to lord over all....to be domineering and imperious. One could say that Hillary Clinton is the exact same way.

So, I don't see how "Corporate" Imperialism doesn't follow. You don't have to have a country to be an imperial power. You just need certain key people in the government to go along with your goals of being Imperial. Think about Dick Cheney and then look at the defintion of the word Imperial.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Imperial

As far as the China thing goes, what are you saying? China owns us pretty much now. Why does it matter if the Democrats get cash from them? Our entire government's debt is being guarenteed by the Chinese now.

Health Care...why should we trust the government? Because of this....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/us/07medicare.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1191770175-1w3hPMhEU8rg864Hhamehg&oref=slogin

Someone has to stop these people because the free market is not. At this point, for me anyway, it's the lesser of two evils.

Mark, your last example is one of privatized government-funded health care. Isn't that what you said you supported?

So now you're saying we'd be better off with the kind of health care that our soldiers get at Walter Reed?

But that's just it...it's the private side of it that was whirred out of control. We're talking about a program that really isn't government run at all. It's the "wink wink" and "do whatever you want" relationship government has had with corporate America for the last six years that has been the problem. There is no oversight.

At the same time, there shouldn't be a monolithic HEALTH CENTER that we all get our government approved care from either. What I'd like to see is three options for the American people:

1. Buy your own insurance through private industry either through your employer or on your own.

2. Access to the same health care that members of Congress get if you are employed.

3. Federal Care of basic services and emergencies if you are unemployed and if (and only if) your home state does not offer a similar program. As soon as one becomes employed, they would be taken off the dole and revert back to one or two.

It's the balance of private and public that I support...with neither side having an advantage over the other. It's not going to be easy to get to this point but I think it is possible. We are so far slanted in one direction right now, it's insane.

It's the "wink wink" and "do whatever you want" relationship government has had with corporate America for the last six years that has been the problem.

Myopic, aren't you? You believe, honestly, that what Ike warned of only first occurred six years ago?

Maybe we should start using AB (Anno Bush) and BB (Before Bush) just to keep the before the fall/after the fall thing straight...

No, it would have to be BW and AW because of his daddy.

Kevin, yes, you're right. It has been going on a long time but I think it has been growing exponentially in the last six years. One of th reasons why I don't want Hillary to win is that there is no doubt in my mind that it will continue under her presidency...or perhaps get worse.

Gee, ya think??

And it won't under which administration?

Well, I don't think it will happen in an Obama administration. If you read his books, especially the Audacity of Hope, he talks a lot about the need to change the system and how bad it has gotten. And how it is time for a change.

Mark:

I've been taking to task on this one in comment threads here and I think I've finally nailed down how America is Imperialist. And it's quite obvious....

1) *sigh*
2) You've been taken to task, but now you know how you were right?
3) And it's so obvious?

Mark, this is why I post to you, to try and get you to think, preferably before you spout off.

Here, you admit that you did just that, got drubbed for it, but have figured out how to justify your position. Not that it was justified first, not that there were points we were missing.

No, a way to stand behind what you said.

And that's "obvious". Well, if it's so obvious, isn't it rather insulting to you that you missed it for that long? That you couldn't use that in the discussion and the debate?

This is why I, and others that I'd presume say similar things, tell you that you're thinking is sloppy. And sloppy thinking leads to more of it.

The point is that you're fixated, obsessed, unchanging with your initial, non-factual, emotionally-driven first impression, and will then find any way to attempt to justify them. Just like now, when you admit that gee, Wally, I hadn't thought it through, but now that I have, my opinion's identical!

But then you want credit for being a deep-thinking, rational, logical actor with serious thoughts.
Chomsky can pull that off. You - can't.

Well, I believe at one point I did explain that I do think (or write in this case) out loud. Unix, I wasn't aware that there was such a strict code on how to think and express yourself. And that there is such a thing as a singular, iron clad way to justify yourself.

"to think, preferably before you spout off."

Well, I am. I don't know for sure what you think is going on in Iraq or why we are there but if you believe the party line, I think it's safe to say that there isn't a lot of thinking going on at all.

Much as in other areas of life, once you lose credibility it's much more difficult to gain it back than it was to acquire in the first place.

Some degree of trust in another person's assertions is generally granted to a stranger. If you're having an argument with a stranger, you don't trust his words as much as you do a friend's, but you also probably don't fact-check every single thing he says either.

In your case, you have almost NEVER provided evidence for anything you say other than someone else's *opinion*, you frequently contradict yourself (all government is evil and corrupt, but we should give it more power anyway because I like these guys), you never admit to having been caught out as flat wrong about something, even when you admit that you were using a word in a sense that bore no resemblance to its actual meaning (imperialism) in one place you wait a few days and then figure we forgot about that and start using it again in that exact same sense, and you drop uncomfortable lines of questioning to ask open-ended questions that had nothing to do with the topic of conversation.

Given that you keep complaining that we won't take you seriously anymore (and continuing to assert it's because we're close-minded, further insulting us), we have taken that to mean you wish to be taken seriously. To that end, we have told you how you can arrange that, which you are now complaining is somehow cruel and unusual.

If you don't want to do it, then fine. We will never take you seriously, no matter how hard you whine to be given special dispensation from thinking and accorded respect anyway. Given that you seem to regard the level of effort required to form any sort of credible opinion about the world in general to the point where you'd rather fall back on "the truth is hard to find, so I'll just go with there's no real truth whatsoever", I kind of figure this is something you will never be willing to do, as your one point of consistency is wholesale opposition to anything that requires real mental effort.

Of course, if there's no truth then there's absolutely no point to your continuing these discussions with us anyway, but... that's not all that far from the point we've already gotten to, is it?

Actually, most of what you say here is untrue or misunderstood. DJ asked me a question awhile back about taxes. I provided evidence to back up my claims. The facts were there, no opinions.

I have admitted three times on this blg that I was flat out wrong about the gun lobby.

Of course I contradict myself. I am not, nor will I ever be, a person who believes one thing all the time and sticks to it no matter what. There are many different perspectives to the "government is evil" debate. It is not a black and white issue.

It really doesn't bother me if you take me seriously or not.

"we have told you how you can arrange that"

in your opinion. I'm kinda one of those wacky, crazy folks that doesn't like to do what he's told to do....ah well...call me a rebel :)

Actually, most of what you say here is untrue or misunderstood.

Only in your world, Mark. Only in your world.

"Well, I believe at one point I did explain that I do think (or write in this case) out loud."

I fart sometimes while writing, but I edit it out. Why don't you?

OK, that was funny :)

I do think though that because I have different views on the world than some folks here do that I am held to higher standard. A statement like "Hillary Clinton is a socialist bitch" would be met with nods in agreement. "George Bush is a fascist asshole" would be met with cries and demands of proof as well as accusations that I don't know what the word fascism means.

A statement like "Hillary Clinton is a socialist bitch" would be met with nods in agreement.

Simple. Because of her words, policies and voting records.

"I do think though that because I have different views on the world than some folks here do that I am held to higher standard."

No, you are held to the same standards. You simply refuse to even try to meet them.

Or even understand the standards.

"Well, I believe at one point I did explain that I do think (or write in this case) out loud."

That is a cop out. And requires us to be mind readers.

There are many different perspectives to the "government is evil" debate. It is not a black and white issue.

No duh, Sherlock. All this statement does is illustrate your failure to understand the 'debate'. Again.

LabRat: "we have told you how you can arrange that"

Mark: "in your opinion"

No. Logic isn't a matter of opinion. Using logic in a debate isn't a matter of opinion.

Calling Hillary Clinton a bitch and George Bush an asshole is a matter of opinion.

But again, like the wind blowing through the trees, all this passes on by...