"India is the most popular destination for surgery, followed by Hungary, Turkey, Germany, Malaysia, Poland and Spain. But dozens more countries are attracting health tourists."
I like it because the cardiologist who saved my ass moved, from his native India, to practice medicine here. I asked specifically for him when I needed help, as he had already saved the kazoos of my younger brother and his father-in-law.
So, people go there from Britain to get help, but he came here from there to practice medicine. And I had to travel only 20 miles from home to get it.
And, of course, in ascribing the conditions of failure to the leaders, what the proponents are actually pining for are the ingredients of an active mass movement, rather than the ingredients of the utopia in question.
Utopian Leftists believe in and ascribe sainthood for their leaders and policy-masters - they're really pretty "Catholic" about that, just look at they way they whitewashed and put Che up on a pedestal.
The one thing I think is missing here, though, is that our system will not resemble Great Britain's in the slightest.
We are going to have more, not less, choices. Are there going to be problems? Of course. Are those problems going to piss some of you off? Sure, but at the end of the day, I think that, Senator Obama's plan for example, is going to help more people than harm them.
Thus illustrating your utopist belief that government programs actually work and are anything other than impediments and endless sucking vortexes of tax money.
I had an epiphany the other day. I thought about all the comments that have been left here in the last couple of weeks about taxes and government forcing, by the barrel of a gun, the taking our money from us. OK, they do that. So my question is why do so many who post here think that our government DOESN'T do that with other countries, specifically our international economic policies?
I seem to recall several posts showering the US government with lavish praises about its genorosity and wonderful gifts that we are constantly bestowing upon other nations. How dare the "haters of America" say that we force them to do things by the barrel of a gun? People like John Perkins are liars and lunatics, dadgummit, because all we want to do is spread freedom and democracy in the world.
I can give you some examples but I'm really trying to understand how you think that a government, which clearly takes something by force domestically, wouldn't do it internationally.
I can give you some examples but I'm really trying to understand how you think that a government, which clearly takes something by force domestically, wouldn't do it internationally.
Because then it's called "tribute" and it's done by EMPIRES - as has been explained to you ad nauseam.
It has been, traditionally, the kind of thing we go to war against - when it serves our national interests to do so.
Edited to add: Our "imperial" experiment(s) were the Philippines and Hawaii. They left a generally bad taste in the collective American mouth.
"The one thing I think is missing here, though, is that our system will not resemble Great Britain's in the slightest."
You don't know what kind of system we'll end up with, Mark. You present this as a fact, when the most you can make at this point in time is a prediction. I wanna ask if you understand the difference, but I'll pass, as I'm beginning to understand the meaning of "futility".
"I can give you some examples but I'm really trying to understand how you think that a government, which clearly takes something by force domestically, wouldn't do it internationally."
GIVE the examples, Mark, as Kevin asked, else we'll think you're just spewing bullshit again.
Governments aren't very good at predicting outcomes of programs. The Canadian gov't predicted that its national gun registry would only cost two million dollars and would help prevent and solve crime. Outcome: the program has cost over two billion dollars and hasn't solved or prevented a single gun-related crime.
You present this as a fact, when the most you can make at this point in time is a prediction.
Thanks, DJ. I don't have a lot of time to comment. But obviously, we've not gotten Mark to examine thats there's a difference between his wishes and reality.
DJ, you're right. I don't know for certain what system we will have. So why are you so certain that it will be a single payer system and be as bad as GB?
Alright some examples. How about Iran? The CIA funded the coup of a democratically elected leader in 1953 and the United States, along with Great Britain, set up our own guy (The Shah) in there so we could reap the benefits of oil. We forced the people of Iran to do business with us. While it's not "tribute" by the strictest definition, it is force by the barrel of a gun.
How about Iraq? Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic?
And Cuba? The government and the mob were doing great business in Cuba before Castro came in. The real reason why we hate Castro so much is not because he is an "evil commie who murders people" (he does, of course) but because he doesn't want to share.
I guess what I'm trying to do here is see if you widen that scope a little bit and see that the US government is in the business of strong arming people, whether it's US citizens (taxes) or other nations. I do understand the difference between taxes and trade. I am not arguing that point. I am simply making the case for economic coercion by force, domestically or internationally.
I guess what I'm trying to do here is see if you widen that scope a little bit and see that the US government is in the business of strong arming people...
What I'm trying to do here is get you to understand that ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF STRONG-ARMING PEOPLE. That is what government DOES.
The advancement in government throughout history has been that some governments have - very slowly - started protecting the rights and property of the non-governing classes.
That's why I want you to read God and Gold. I think Mead explains this in a very neutral, non-judgmental, detailed way.
"So why are you so certain that it will be a single payer system and be as bad as GB?"
I don't know what our health care system of the future will be, and I have repeatedly told you that you don't either. So, why are you putting words in my mouth (as it were) that aren't there? Why are you jumping to conclusions again?
Your question was:
"I thought about all the comments that have been left here in the last couple of weeks about taxes and government forcing, by the barrel of a gun, the taking our money from us. OK, they do that. So my question is why do so many who post here think that our government DOESN'T do that with other countries, specifically our international economic policies?"
Kevin's question(s) were:
"Whom do we take money from by force? Be specific. I want examples. Whom do we force to provide tribute?"
Or is it your assertion that we force other countries to trade with us at the point of a gun?
You responded with:
"How about Iran? The CIA funded the coup of a democratically elected leader in 1953 and the United States, along with Great Britain, set up our own guy (The Shah) in there so we could reap the benefits of oil. We forced the people of Iran to do business with us. While it's not "tribute" by the strictest definition, it is force by the barrel of a gun."
No, it's not tribute, it's not forcing the gubmint or the people of another country to give their money to us.
You really don't understand the importance of world-wide free trade in oil, do you?
"How about Iraq? Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic? "
Well, how about them? If you would have us believe we force them to pay tribute to us, or that we force them to do business when they otherwise wouldn't, then show us that we do. Stating "how about ..." doesn't do that, teacher.
"The real reason why we hate Castro so much is not because he is an "evil commie who murders people" (he does, of course) but because he doesn't want to share."
Because he doesn't want to share what? What does Cuba have to share that, because Castro wouldn't share, we blockaded Cuba?
And why do you presume to tell me why I dislike Castro?
"why are you putting words in my mouth (as it were) that aren't there? Why are you jumping to conclusions again?"
Oh, well that's good to hear. I guess I recall an angry post about what Hillarycare would be like...my mistake.
"not forcing the gubmint or the people of another country to give their money to us...You really don't understand the importance of world-wide free trade in oil, do you?"
What part about the 1953 coup don't YOU understand? We removed a democratically elected leader and put our own guy in by force. That is forcing a country to trade with us. There is nothing free about it. This is one of the main reasons we have problems with Iran.
"then show us that we do."
Well, I've tried that and you don't like any of my sources. They are all "liberal" or "looney."
"Because he doesn't want to share what? What does Cuba have to share that, because Castro wouldn't share, we blockaded Cuba?"
Castro nationalized all industry in the country...sugar, fruit etc...which cost US Corporations money. In addition, the Mob and some elements of our government at the time were running several "operations" down there that were shut down by Castro. Again, I could provided sources but there is no point.
"do you really call this drivel thinking?"
No, I call it not accepting what the government tells me about our international economic trade history....the same government who forces you to pay tribute by the barrel of a gun. I find it odd and quite bizarre that you think that our policies with other countries are not coerced, given our government's track record, and that everything is "free trade" and countries can back out of whenever they want.
"You really don't understand the importance of world-wide free trade in oil, do you?"
What part about the 1953 coup don't YOU understand?"
Mark, my assertion was directed toward your statement that our activities regarding Iran at that time were "so we could reap the benefits of oil."
"Well, I've tried that and you don't like any of my sources. They are all "liberal" or 'looney.'"
Bullshit. You didn't city any sources for your bland statment:
"How about Iraq? Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic?"
You didn't "try that," teacher.
Then, regarding Cuba:
"Again, I could provided sources but there is no point."
PROVIDE THEM, Mark. Stop the endless parade of unsubstantiated assertions.
"I find it odd and quite bizarre that you think that our policies with other countries are not coerced, given our government's track record, and that everything is "free trade" and countries can back out of whenever they want."
And I find it irritating that, yet again, you jump to conclusions about what I think or don't think. You didn't ask me, and your reading comprehension skills are not improving.
I have not disputed your assertions that our gubmint has strong-armed other gubmints for both economic and national security reasons, rather I have disputed that our gubmint exacts tribute from other gubmints.
What I have attempted, yet again, is to try to get you to support your assertions with facts which we can verify ourselves. As usual, you gave your two standard excuses: 1) that you have, when you haven't; and, 2) that there would be no point to doing precisely what we repeatedly ask you to do.
Are you EVER gonna learn that this method of argument is not gonna persuade us of anything?
"I have not disputed your assertions that our gubmint has strong-armed other gubmints for both economic and national security reasons, rather I have disputed that our gubmint exacts tribute from other gubmints."
Well, then why are we debating? I agree. We don't exact tribute in the same form as taxes but we do force other countries to trade with us and if they don't, we put people in power who will.
Well, then why are we debating? I agree. We don't exact tribute in the same form as taxes but we do force other countries to trade with us and if they don't, we put people in power who will.
As opposed to the way it was done before the British started that tradition: invasion, subjugation, and tribute (if there were any non-slave survivors to exact it from). Instead, the U.S. did what the British began, only we've been learning how to do it better.
We did the Imperial thing in the Philippines and Hawaii, we did support-the-dictator in South America and Iran, and now we're trying build-a-democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Something tells me that our first efforts at that aren't going to go swimmingly.
But as we've progressed we've learned that a free populace generally yields a better outcome for both us and them - even if we have to smash their culture to accomplish it.
But what you seem to not even consider is the probable historical outcome if America did not behave as we've behaved.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in Belgium. Or Switzerland, for that matter. We're the one remaining superpower for a reason, and I'm glad we are.
the same government who forces you to pay tribute by the barrel of a gun.
Mark, let me just remark that again, you've based your entire argument around a linchpin that you are misunderstanding or misuing - the word and concept Tribute.
Which actually, is the same problem with your Empire thoughts - in fact, it's the exact same thought.
Empires demand tribute.
The fact that your argument in support of your quasi-self-reputed "Empire" concept is identically misused is noticeable to us. Obviously, not to you.
"Well, then why are we debating? I agree. We don't exact tribute in the same form as taxes but we do force other countries to trade with us and if they don't, we put people in power who will."
Sigh ...
Look up the word "tribute" in a few dictionaries and try to understand what it means, willya?
Mark, you apparently really do not understand what I've been talking about in my last few comments.
You have made assertions concerning a subject. My complaint is not about the assertions you have made, rather it is about your behavior in making them. It's an old complaint, but I'll explain it so even one of your students can understand it.
When you make assertions on a subject, it is quite reasonable for us to presume that you wish us to believe your assertions are correct. But the burden of proof is on you, not us, for assertions that you make. It is up to you to support those assertions by providing a factual basis for them, including directions to the sources at which we can verify that the facts you present are indeed facts and not just something you made up. It is further up to you to provide a logical, rational, reasoned argument for why the factual basis you present supports the assertions you make.
You don't do that, indeed you rarely even come close.
The complaint is that when we ask you to provide such factual and logical support for your assertions, ...:
1) ... simply repeating the assertions isn't support.
2) ... stating "Oh, I could give it, but ..." isn't support.
3) ... stating "Why? You wouldn't believe them anyway ..." isn't support.
4) ... redefining words of the language we use isn't support.
5) ... changing the subject, or trying to, isn't support.
6) ... ignoring the request isn't support.
Indeed, these responses are pure chickenshit, meaning they don't even rise to the level of bullshit.
You are always quick to cough up an opinion on any issue, and your response to any request to explain yourself, to convince us that you are not just suffering from diarrhea of the mind, is nearly always some combination of the six responses I've listed above. Such responses might intimidate a ten-year-old, but, as I've told you before, you're dealing with grownups. Those six responses, in any combination, don't work here. You will convince no one here of anything by using them.
Do you recall LabRat's complaint that she can make your arguments for you better than you can? She knows how to, and you don't.
Mark, the essence of the complaint is that we are having to teach you, a teacher, how to intelligently discuss a subject, any subject, about which you and another person might disagree, such that you aren't immediately dismissed as a dogma-spouting blowhard.
The complaint arises yet again because you simply won't learn how to overcome it. To do so involves an implicit admission that there is a need to, an admission that we can't fail to notice if you do overcome it, and you just can't bring yourself to do that, can you?
So, here's a hint. If your assertions are correct, then they can withstand this approach to discussing them, and if they can't, then you shouldn't make them in the first place. Now, which matters more to you: being right, or not admitting that you are wrong? The hint is, they are not the same thing, and we understand the difference, even if you don't.
Just as a small addendum because I'm anticipating the response already, and this has been bugging me, with regard to sources there's an extremely substantial difference between a source that says "X happened (reference)" and a source that says "The US has repeatedly committed naked jingoistic imperialism (no reference, limited examples given". One is fact, one is just someone else's opinion. In cases where the linked source is someone else's reasoned opinion with examples and sketched-out reasoning, what we want is for the citer- which in this case would presumably be Mark- to demonstrate that they fully understand that reasoning by employing it themselves, including in situations where just quoting the original source wouldn't apply. That is the difference between just "some other idiot who happens to agree with you" and "a source".
A good debater could build a case for "The US is a shadowy evil empire" (or any other bit of leftist cant with which the general readership here would immediately disagree) based solely on the CIA World Factbook. You don't need your "own side"'s facts, just facts.
"We're the one remaining superpower for a reason, and I'm glad we are."
Kevin, I guess I see this fact as slipping away from us because of current policies. I agree with your assessment of our history and things aren't going swimmingly, hence the reason why I'd like more capable leaders, from either side of the aisle.
Are we still "number one?" Possibly, but we barely holding on and it's our own fault.
Unix, put aside your bias of me for just a moment and think outside of the box. The point I'm trying to make is that people in Iran, Iraq, and other countries view our government in the same way you (and others here) view our government in regards to taxes. Different tactic (forced trade vs. forced tribute), same view and same result.
Are we still "number one?" Possibly, but we barely holding on and it's our own fault.
Regardless, we got to where we are today via those methods that you seem to find so objectionable - and seem to insist that we should now repudiate. Though what we're attempting now IS a repudiation of our earlier methods. We did not install a new America-friendly totalitarian government in Iraq and walk away, did we?
...people in Iran, Iraq, and other countries view our government in the same way you (and others here) view our government in regards to taxes. Different tactic (forced trade vs. forced tribute)...
Kevin, that question remains to be seen, doesn't it? Are they friendly to us or not? Are they going to be more friendly to Iran?
From a Sunni point of view, the answer would be yes, they are American friendly and totalitarian. Possibly from a Kurd view as well.
The other thing I really want to know is what exactly is happening with the oil there and how is it being controlled. It could take months of research but I think I might just get into it.
Unix, put aside your bias of me for just a moment and think outside of the box.
Which is something I can do. In fact, I put aside my bias with you all the time, to try and help you out. It's also ironic that you cannot do that, yet instruct me to.
The point I'm trying to make is that people in Iran, Iraq, and other countries view our government
Well, Mark, that's quite a different point than the one you previously made. Ok. So if you're telling me that their perception is that we're an empire, that's one thing.
(But you think we're an empire, and keep that thought, despite all rebuttals to that very concept, and keep coming back to it (tribute?)).
If you mean to say that they think that, that's wholly different than your previous point that Mark thinks that.
See? Words matter.
in the same way you (and others here) view our government in regards to taxes. Different tactic (forced trade vs. forced tribute), same view and same result.
Now, if we're to discuss perceptions, well, that's another story entirely. They may well think that, of course. Most of that world also believes the US is run by the Jewish Conspiracy. And that women's hair emits rays that drive men insane.
Their perception is important. It's worth taking into consideration.
But it's really not something that's easily dealt with. Unless we're going to send troops to enforce order.
That does not yet explain why you, who have the benefit of a free press, and no worries about retribution for speaking your mind, have the same belief you attribute to them. (Or have the ability to understand that your belief does not transfer to them, just because you believe it.)
"A good debater could build a case for "The US is a shadowy evil empire" (or any other bit of leftist cant with which the general readership here would immediately disagree) based solely on the CIA World Factbook. You don't need your "own side"'s facts, just facts."
You also need logical, rational, reasoned argument based on those facts. And, asserting that
"How about Iraq? Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic?"
is an argument, or even an explanation, is much like asserting that "sugar, butter, eggs, and flour" is a recipe.
There are three things that define a socialist/liberal/left wing mindset which, if applied to Governmint (they "govern", it costs us a mint) results in the following sequence of events :-
1) There is never a shortage of good ideas, only a lack of resources (cash, people etc.) to put them into effect.
2) They know how to spend your money better than you do
3) They always run out of money ...
Markadelphia appears to have the mindset and, to add the cherry on the sugar cake, is suffering from what I call the Furher delusion.
Hitler sat in his bunker in Berlin in 1945 while the American 8th Air Force was pounding the city to rubble by day and the RAF pounding it to rubble by night with the Russian tanks approaching rapidly. He nevertheless sent out streams of orders and commands to Armies long since destroyed and expected the results to be achieved. When they weren't it was ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT!!!!
Similarly grandiose schemes dreamed up by the left wingers which bear no resemblance to reality and what is "on the ground" and enforced by decree are doomed to fail. But it is ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT!!!!
As Kevin so eloquently put it, the belief and religious creed can't be wrong, only the implementation of it so more of the same surely MUST work?? Errr ... no it doesn't!
As an aside, I got in from work early one day last week and switched on the TV. At that time of the evening, childrens TV is broadcast. The Blair Broadcasting Communists (BBC to the rest of the world) has a "Childrens Newsround" which is pure propaganda.
The "Childrens Minister" (see rule 1 above) was to visit a school and one young lad of about 10 years old was collecting questions to ask the Childrens Minister on behalf of all the children.
One 10 or 11 year old girl asked "As the government recommends that "we" (i.e. the sheeple) eat 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day, what plans does the Minister have for THE GOVERNMENT to provide this??"
I fear that the rot has gone too far in the Unhinged Kingdom - children growing up with this mindset will be voting in a few years time and expect to be micromanaged by the State and provided with all necessities by the State.
As I said previously, let Markadelphia come over here and see the utopia created by his theories. Or he could visit other socialist paradises (North Korea, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Burma/Myanmar, Vietnam, China, USSR/Russia, etc. etc. and so forth ad nauseam) to see what the PRACTICAL results are. OPf course, the system HE proposes will be different from these regimes because he knows best .. he won't repeat the errors of these states, will he?
Just make sure it's a one way ticket.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/10/quote-of-day_29.html (35 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I like this part, too:
"India is the most popular destination for surgery, followed by Hungary, Turkey, Germany, Malaysia, Poland and Spain. But dozens more countries are attracting health tourists."
I like it because the cardiologist who saved my ass moved, from his native India, to practice medicine here. I asked specifically for him when I needed help, as he had already saved the kazoos of my younger brother and his father-in-law.
So, people go there from Britain to get help, but he came here from there to practice medicine. And I had to travel only 20 miles from home to get it.
Gee. Remind you of anyone?
No.
And you're evil for saying that.
And, of course, in ascribing the conditions of failure to the leaders, what the proponents are actually pining for are the ingredients of an active mass movement, rather than the ingredients of the utopia in question.
Utopian Leftists believe in and ascribe sainthood for their leaders and policy-masters - they're really pretty "Catholic" about that, just look at they way they whitewashed and put Che up on a pedestal.
The one thing I think is missing here, though, is that our system will not resemble Great Britain's in the slightest.
We are going to have more, not less, choices. Are there going to be problems? Of course. Are those problems going to piss some of you off? Sure, but at the end of the day, I think that, Senator Obama's plan for example, is going to help more people than harm them.
Thus illustrating your utopist belief that government programs actually work and are anything other than impediments and endless sucking vortexes of tax money.
Hey Kevin (et al)
Since you mentioned this
"endless sucking vortexes of tax money."
I had an epiphany the other day. I thought about all the comments that have been left here in the last couple of weeks about taxes and government forcing, by the barrel of a gun, the taking our money from us. OK, they do that. So my question is why do so many who post here think that our government DOESN'T do that with other countries, specifically our international economic policies?
I seem to recall several posts showering the US government with lavish praises about its genorosity and wonderful gifts that we are constantly bestowing upon other nations. How dare the "haters of America" say that we force them to do things by the barrel of a gun? People like John Perkins are liars and lunatics, dadgummit, because all we want to do is spread freedom and democracy in the world.
Can you see the disconnect?
Not really.
Whom do we take money from by force? Be specific. I want examples. Whom do we force to provide tribute?
Or is it your assertion that we force other countries to trade with us at the point of a gun?
Have you picked up a copy of God and Gold yet? I'm getting to the part where Mead is beginning to discuss trade and the Anglosphere.
Not yet.
I can give you some examples but I'm really trying to understand how you think that a government, which clearly takes something by force domestically, wouldn't do it internationally.
Because it's not as easy to do.
And, as you note by insinuation, our government can get better results abroad by indirect means like trade.
I can give you some examples but I'm really trying to understand how you think that a government, which clearly takes something by force domestically, wouldn't do it internationally.
Because then it's called "tribute" and it's done by EMPIRES - as has been explained to you ad nauseam.
It has been, traditionally, the kind of thing we go to war against - when it serves our national interests to do so.
Edited to add: Our "imperial" experiment(s) were the Philippines and Hawaii. They left a generally bad taste in the collective American mouth.
"The one thing I think is missing here, though, is that our system will not resemble Great Britain's in the slightest."
You don't know what kind of system we'll end up with, Mark. You present this as a fact, when the most you can make at this point in time is a prediction. I wanna ask if you understand the difference, but I'll pass, as I'm beginning to understand the meaning of "futility".
"I can give you some examples but I'm really trying to understand how you think that a government, which clearly takes something by force domestically, wouldn't do it internationally."
GIVE the examples, Mark, as Kevin asked, else we'll think you're just spewing bullshit again.
Governments aren't very good at predicting outcomes of programs. The Canadian gov't predicted that its national gun registry would only cost two million dollars and would help prevent and solve crime. Outcome: the program has cost over two billion dollars and hasn't solved or prevented a single gun-related crime.
You present this as a fact, when the most you can make at this point in time is a prediction.
Thanks, DJ. I don't have a lot of time to comment. But obviously, we've not gotten Mark to examine thats there's a difference between his wishes and reality.
...we've not gotten Mark to examine thats there's a difference between his wishes and reality.
That's because the ideal is so beautiful, it must be true!
But (and to borrow from the comics today) you'd think he'd want a day off now and then ...
DJ, you're right. I don't know for certain what system we will have. So why are you so certain that it will be a single payer system and be as bad as GB?
Alright some examples. How about Iran? The CIA funded the coup of a democratically elected leader in 1953 and the United States, along with Great Britain, set up our own guy (The Shah) in there so we could reap the benefits of oil. We forced the people of Iran to do business with us. While it's not "tribute" by the strictest definition, it is force by the barrel of a gun.
How about Iraq? Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic?
And Cuba? The government and the mob were doing great business in Cuba before Castro came in. The real reason why we hate Castro so much is not because he is an "evil commie who murders people" (he does, of course) but because he doesn't want to share.
I guess what I'm trying to do here is see if you widen that scope a little bit and see that the US government is in the business of strong arming people, whether it's US citizens (taxes) or other nations. I do understand the difference between taxes and trade. I am not arguing that point. I am simply making the case for economic coercion by force, domestically or internationally.
I guess what I'm trying to do here is see if you widen that scope a little bit and see that the US government is in the business of strong arming people...
What I'm trying to do here is get you to understand that ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF STRONG-ARMING PEOPLE. That is what government DOES.
The advancement in government throughout history has been that some governments have - very slowly - started protecting the rights and property of the non-governing classes.
That's why I want you to read God and Gold. I think Mead explains this in a very neutral, non-judgmental, detailed way.
"So why are you so certain that it will be a single payer system and be as bad as GB?"
I don't know what our health care system of the future will be, and I have repeatedly told you that you don't either. So, why are you putting words in my mouth (as it were) that aren't there? Why are you jumping to conclusions again?
Your question was:
"I thought about all the comments that have been left here in the last couple of weeks about taxes and government forcing, by the barrel of a gun, the taking our money from us. OK, they do that. So my question is why do so many who post here think that our government DOESN'T do that with other countries, specifically our international economic policies?"
Kevin's question(s) were:
"Whom do we take money from by force? Be specific. I want examples. Whom do we force to provide tribute?"
Or is it your assertion that we force other countries to trade with us at the point of a gun?
You responded with:
"How about Iran? The CIA funded the coup of a democratically elected leader in 1953 and the United States, along with Great Britain, set up our own guy (The Shah) in there so we could reap the benefits of oil. We forced the people of Iran to do business with us. While it's not "tribute" by the strictest definition, it is force by the barrel of a gun."
No, it's not tribute, it's not forcing the gubmint or the people of another country to give their money to us.
You really don't understand the importance of world-wide free trade in oil, do you?
"How about Iraq? Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic? "
Well, how about them? If you would have us believe we force them to pay tribute to us, or that we force them to do business when they otherwise wouldn't, then show us that we do. Stating "how about ..." doesn't do that, teacher.
"The real reason why we hate Castro so much is not because he is an "evil commie who murders people" (he does, of course) but because he doesn't want to share."
Because he doesn't want to share what? What does Cuba have to share that, because Castro wouldn't share, we blockaded Cuba?
And why do you presume to tell me why I dislike Castro?
"I guess what I'm trying to do here ...
Meaning you don't know what you're trying to do?
Mark, do you really call this drivel thinking?
"why are you putting words in my mouth (as it were) that aren't there? Why are you jumping to conclusions again?"
Oh, well that's good to hear. I guess I recall an angry post about what Hillarycare would be like...my mistake.
"not forcing the gubmint or the people of another country to give their money to us...You really don't understand the importance of world-wide free trade in oil, do you?"
What part about the 1953 coup don't YOU understand? We removed a democratically elected leader and put our own guy in by force. That is forcing a country to trade with us. There is nothing free about it. This is one of the main reasons we have problems with Iran.
"then show us that we do."
Well, I've tried that and you don't like any of my sources. They are all "liberal" or "looney."
"Because he doesn't want to share what? What does Cuba have to share that, because Castro wouldn't share, we blockaded Cuba?"
Castro nationalized all industry in the country...sugar, fruit etc...which cost US Corporations money. In addition, the Mob and some elements of our government at the time were running several "operations" down there that were shut down by Castro. Again, I could provided sources but there is no point.
"do you really call this drivel thinking?"
No, I call it not accepting what the government tells me about our international economic trade history....the same government who forces you to pay tribute by the barrel of a gun. I find it odd and quite bizarre that you think that our policies with other countries are not coerced, given our government's track record, and that everything is "free trade" and countries can back out of whenever they want.
"You really don't understand the importance of world-wide free trade in oil, do you?"
What part about the 1953 coup don't YOU understand?"
Mark, my assertion was directed toward your statement that our activities regarding Iran at that time were "so we could reap the benefits of oil."
"Well, I've tried that and you don't like any of my sources. They are all "liberal" or 'looney.'"
Bullshit. You didn't city any sources for your bland statment:
"How about Iraq? Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic?"
You didn't "try that," teacher.
Then, regarding Cuba:
"Again, I could provided sources but there is no point."
PROVIDE THEM, Mark. Stop the endless parade of unsubstantiated assertions.
"I find it odd and quite bizarre that you think that our policies with other countries are not coerced, given our government's track record, and that everything is "free trade" and countries can back out of whenever they want."
And I find it irritating that, yet again, you jump to conclusions about what I think or don't think. You didn't ask me, and your reading comprehension skills are not improving.
I have not disputed your assertions that our gubmint has strong-armed other gubmints for both economic and national security reasons, rather I have disputed that our gubmint exacts tribute from other gubmints.
What I have attempted, yet again, is to try to get you to support your assertions with facts which we can verify ourselves. As usual, you gave your two standard excuses: 1) that you have, when you haven't; and, 2) that there would be no point to doing precisely what we repeatedly ask you to do.
Are you EVER gonna learn that this method of argument is not gonna persuade us of anything?
"I have not disputed your assertions that our gubmint has strong-armed other gubmints for both economic and national security reasons, rather I have disputed that our gubmint exacts tribute from other gubmints."
Well, then why are we debating? I agree. We don't exact tribute in the same form as taxes but we do force other countries to trade with us and if they don't, we put people in power who will.
Well, then why are we debating? I agree. We don't exact tribute in the same form as taxes but we do force other countries to trade with us and if they don't, we put people in power who will.
As opposed to the way it was done before the British started that tradition: invasion, subjugation, and tribute (if there were any non-slave survivors to exact it from). Instead, the U.S. did what the British began, only we've been learning how to do it better.
We did the Imperial thing in the Philippines and Hawaii, we did support-the-dictator in South America and Iran, and now we're trying build-a-democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Something tells me that our first efforts at that aren't going to go swimmingly.
But as we've progressed we've learned that a free populace generally yields a better outcome for both us and them - even if we have to smash their culture to accomplish it.
But what you seem to not even consider is the probable historical outcome if America did not behave as we've behaved.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in Belgium. Or Switzerland, for that matter. We're the one remaining superpower for a reason, and I'm glad we are.
the same government who forces you to pay tribute by the barrel of a gun.
Mark, let me just remark that again, you've based your entire argument around a linchpin that you are misunderstanding or misuing - the word and concept Tribute.
Which actually, is the same problem with your Empire thoughts - in fact, it's the exact same thought.
Empires demand tribute.
The fact that your argument in support of your quasi-self-reputed "Empire" concept is identically misused is noticeable to us. Obviously, not to you.
"Well, then why are we debating? I agree. We don't exact tribute in the same form as taxes but we do force other countries to trade with us and if they don't, we put people in power who will."
Sigh ...
Look up the word "tribute" in a few dictionaries and try to understand what it means, willya?
Mark, you apparently really do not understand what I've been talking about in my last few comments.
You have made assertions concerning a subject. My complaint is not about the assertions you have made, rather it is about your behavior in making them. It's an old complaint, but I'll explain it so even one of your students can understand it.
When you make assertions on a subject, it is quite reasonable for us to presume that you wish us to believe your assertions are correct. But the burden of proof is on you, not us, for assertions that you make. It is up to you to support those assertions by providing a factual basis for them, including directions to the sources at which we can verify that the facts you present are indeed facts and not just something you made up. It is further up to you to provide a logical, rational, reasoned argument for why the factual basis you present supports the assertions you make.
You don't do that, indeed you rarely even come close.
The complaint is that when we ask you to provide such factual and logical support for your assertions, ...:
1) ... simply repeating the assertions isn't support.
2) ... stating "Oh, I could give it, but ..." isn't support.
3) ... stating "Why? You wouldn't believe them anyway ..." isn't support.
4) ... redefining words of the language we use isn't support.
5) ... changing the subject, or trying to, isn't support.
6) ... ignoring the request isn't support.
Indeed, these responses are pure chickenshit, meaning they don't even rise to the level of bullshit.
You are always quick to cough up an opinion on any issue, and your response to any request to explain yourself, to convince us that you are not just suffering from diarrhea of the mind, is nearly always some combination of the six responses I've listed above. Such responses might intimidate a ten-year-old, but, as I've told you before, you're dealing with grownups. Those six responses, in any combination, don't work here. You will convince no one here of anything by using them.
Do you recall LabRat's complaint that she can make your arguments for you better than you can? She knows how to, and you don't.
Mark, the essence of the complaint is that we are having to teach you, a teacher, how to intelligently discuss a subject, any subject, about which you and another person might disagree, such that you aren't immediately dismissed as a dogma-spouting blowhard.
The complaint arises yet again because you simply won't learn how to overcome it. To do so involves an implicit admission that there is a need to, an admission that we can't fail to notice if you do overcome it, and you just can't bring yourself to do that, can you?
So, here's a hint. If your assertions are correct, then they can withstand this approach to discussing them, and if they can't, then you shouldn't make them in the first place. Now, which matters more to you: being right, or not admitting that you are wrong? The hint is, they are not the same thing, and we understand the difference, even if you don't.
Just as a small addendum because I'm anticipating the response already, and this has been bugging me, with regard to sources there's an extremely substantial difference between a source that says "X happened (reference)" and a source that says "The US has repeatedly committed naked jingoistic imperialism (no reference, limited examples given". One is fact, one is just someone else's opinion. In cases where the linked source is someone else's reasoned opinion with examples and sketched-out reasoning, what we want is for the citer- which in this case would presumably be Mark- to demonstrate that they fully understand that reasoning by employing it themselves, including in situations where just quoting the original source wouldn't apply. That is the difference between just "some other idiot who happens to agree with you" and "a source".
A good debater could build a case for "The US is a shadowy evil empire" (or any other bit of leftist cant with which the general readership here would immediately disagree) based solely on the CIA World Factbook. You don't need your "own side"'s facts, just facts.
"We're the one remaining superpower for a reason, and I'm glad we are."
Kevin, I guess I see this fact as slipping away from us because of current policies. I agree with your assessment of our history and things aren't going swimmingly, hence the reason why I'd like more capable leaders, from either side of the aisle.
Are we still "number one?" Possibly, but we barely holding on and it's our own fault.
Unix, put aside your bias of me for just a moment and think outside of the box. The point I'm trying to make is that people in Iran, Iraq, and other countries view our government in the same way you (and others here) view our government in regards to taxes. Different tactic (forced trade vs. forced tribute), same view and same result.
Are we still "number one?" Possibly, but we barely holding on and it's our own fault.
Regardless, we got to where we are today via those methods that you seem to find so objectionable - and seem to insist that we should now repudiate. Though what we're attempting now IS a repudiation of our earlier methods. We did not install a new America-friendly totalitarian government in Iraq and walk away, did we?
...people in Iran, Iraq, and other countries view our government in the same way you (and others here) view our government in regards to taxes. Different tactic (forced trade vs. forced tribute)...
Really? We force Iran to sell us oil?
At what, $96 per barrel?
Kevin, that question remains to be seen, doesn't it? Are they friendly to us or not? Are they going to be more friendly to Iran?
From a Sunni point of view, the answer would be yes, they are American friendly and totalitarian. Possibly from a Kurd view as well.
The other thing I really want to know is what exactly is happening with the oil there and how is it being controlled. It could take months of research but I think I might just get into it.
"At what, $96 per barrel?"
Iran 1953-1979 not Iran since...
Unix, put aside your bias of me for just a moment and think outside of the box.
Which is something I can do. In fact, I put aside my bias with you all the time, to try and help you out. It's also ironic that you cannot do that, yet instruct me to.
The point I'm trying to make is that people in Iran, Iraq, and other countries view our government
Well, Mark, that's quite a different point than the one you previously made. Ok. So if you're telling me that their perception is that we're an empire, that's one thing.
(But you think we're an empire, and keep that thought, despite all rebuttals to that very concept, and keep coming back to it (tribute?)).
If you mean to say that they think that, that's wholly different than your previous point that Mark thinks that.
See? Words matter.
in the same way you (and others here) view our government in regards to taxes. Different tactic (forced trade vs. forced tribute), same view and same result.
Now, if we're to discuss perceptions, well, that's another story entirely. They may well think that, of course. Most of that world also believes the US is run by the Jewish Conspiracy. And that women's hair emits rays that drive men insane.
Their perception is important. It's worth taking into consideration.
But it's really not something that's easily dealt with. Unless we're going to send troops to enforce order.
That does not yet explain why you, who have the benefit of a free press, and no worries about retribution for speaking your mind, have the same belief you attribute to them. (Or have the ability to understand that your belief does not transfer to them, just because you believe it.)
"A good debater could build a case for "The US is a shadowy evil empire" (or any other bit of leftist cant with which the general readership here would immediately disagree) based solely on the CIA World Factbook. You don't need your "own side"'s facts, just facts."
You also need logical, rational, reasoned argument based on those facts. And, asserting that
"How about Iraq? Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic?"
is an argument, or even an explanation, is much like asserting that "sugar, butter, eggs, and flour" is a recipe.
There are three things that define a socialist/liberal/left wing mindset which, if applied to Governmint (they "govern", it costs us a mint) results in the following sequence of events :-
1) There is never a shortage of good ideas, only a lack of resources (cash, people etc.) to put them into effect.
2) They know how to spend your money better than you do
3) They always run out of money ...
Markadelphia appears to have the mindset and, to add the cherry on the sugar cake, is suffering from what I call the Furher delusion.
Hitler sat in his bunker in Berlin in 1945 while the American 8th Air Force was pounding the city to rubble by day and the RAF pounding it to rubble by night with the Russian tanks approaching rapidly. He nevertheless sent out streams of orders and commands to Armies long since destroyed and expected the results to be achieved. When they weren't it was ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT!!!!
Similarly grandiose schemes dreamed up by the left wingers which bear no resemblance to reality and what is "on the ground" and enforced by decree are doomed to fail. But it is ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT!!!!
As Kevin so eloquently put it, the belief and religious creed can't be wrong, only the implementation of it so more of the same surely MUST work?? Errr ... no it doesn't!
As an aside, I got in from work early one day last week and switched on the TV. At that time of the evening, childrens TV is broadcast. The Blair Broadcasting Communists (BBC to the rest of the world) has a "Childrens Newsround" which is pure propaganda.
The "Childrens Minister" (see rule 1 above) was to visit a school and one young lad of about 10 years old was collecting questions to ask the Childrens Minister on behalf of all the children.
One 10 or 11 year old girl asked "As the government recommends that "we" (i.e. the sheeple) eat 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day, what plans does the Minister have for THE GOVERNMENT to provide this??"
I fear that the rot has gone too far in the Unhinged Kingdom - children growing up with this mindset will be voting in a few years time and expect to be micromanaged by the State and provided with all necessities by the State.
As I said previously, let Markadelphia come over here and see the utopia created by his theories. Or he could visit other socialist paradises (North Korea, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Burma/Myanmar, Vietnam, China, USSR/Russia, etc. etc. and so forth ad nauseam) to see what the PRACTICAL results are. OPf course, the system HE proposes will be different from these regimes because he knows best .. he won't repeat the errors of these states, will he?
Just make sure it's a one way ticket.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>