Irrelevant if they do not actually support the notion of a banana republic. If you want to make a case for a plutocracy or for a free market paradise or socialism or capitalism or any number of other theories, your numbers will be useful. If I post all the statistics for every baseball player since 1919, it does nothing to prove that baseball is a better or worse sport than football. If you choose to make nonsense claims, posting links to irrelevant statistics fails to magically make your claims reasonable.
tomndebb.
I’ll thank you not to refer to me as an idiot. I thought there were rules on this forum about such things.
I’m sorry. I was not aware that you identified with one of the groups flinging around the terms “fascism,” “communism,” or “socialism.”
Not from you, no.
Regards,
Shodan
Is that a “stand-off” or an additional attempt at another insult? Is this how you want it to be?
I would like you to stop trying to pick a fight simply because the poor logic of your claims regarding the U.S. as a banana republic has been exposed.
I’m not picking any fight, and as I recall I’ve made no personal insult toward you. You have now attempted to insult me three times however, and all I’ve done is point it out to you. Hardly “picking a fight”. I would like for you to stop insulting me simply because your opinion is no better than mine, as is very, very clear. Can you do that now, please so we can focus the subject instead?
You have spent several posts claiming insults when I have made none. You may stop this at any time.
What insults?
Beyond that, I don’t mean to come across as a jerk, but you earlier admitted you didn’t know who J. Edgar Hoover, one of the most reviled and infamous government figures in American history, which does little to inspire confidence in your knowledge or understanding of American history.
If you don’t know who J. Edgar Hoover is, are you certain you know enough about American history to make the claims you’ve made .
If you find the idea that your arguments are not convincing or that they lack logical consistency to be insulting, then you should prepare to be “insulted” regularly on this message board. Those things are not considered insults under the rules of this MB, even if you happen to disagree. If you feel very strongly about this, you should open an ATMB thread and see if you can drum up support for a rule change.
I maintain that the U.S. is becoming a Banana Republic but that it is not a Banana Republic yet. For this you make it seem that I’m some kind of a idiot. In fact, another member recently said the very same thing but … no criticism for him. No insults.
You have insulted me twice, attempted to insult me once again, you now call me a liar and rather than apologise (or just let it go) you deny your actions instead and continue being aggressive towards me. I really don’t think any of this is appropriate, particularly for a moderator.
I’ve asked you politely to stop, but you persist just because you don’t like my opinion. I have no idea why you take it so personally and I’m asking you again to stop. How difficult can it be to treat me with the same respect I give to you and to others?
I have made no assumption nor claim that you are an idiot. Repeating that claim fails to make sense.
I have not insulted you. I have not called you a liar. (You may be confused, but I have not ascribed dishonesty to your claims.)
Continuing to post the same stuff over and over rather than simply dropping it IS a hijack of this thread, however, and before I shift to Moderator mode, I suggest that you stop that behavior.
Riga Marole-
Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board. I see that you’re new here so again, welcome.
You will find that the SDMB is not like most other places on the Internet. At the SDMB, you will find that your statements are subject to challenge and you will have to back up your assertions with a greater level of fact and citation than at most other locations.
Having read this thread through, I see that no one has insulted you. Instead, your assertions are being questioned and you’re being asked to bring further proof of them to the table. This is the way in which the Great Debates forum - the one this thread is in - functions. Anyone may bring almost any subject up for discussion (certain hate-speech related topics will get bounced, for more information read the forum rules) and then can anticipate a spirited argument with cites and counter-cites as the posters in the discussion attempt to ferret out what truth - if any - there is in the original claim.
In this thread, your statements are being challenged, yes, but you seem to be taking those challenges as personal affronts. I assure you that this is not the case and encourage you to respond to such challenges with new information and citations.
If, however, you do feel that a post has crossed the line, please feel free to use the ‘Report this Post’ button in the upper right corner (it’s the triangle with the exclamation point). That will alert moderators for the forum that something might be amiss and we’ll come and take a look and - if you have been insulted or some other offense has occurred - we will take action to correct the problem or admonish the offender.
Offenses that can get a poster sanctioned are:
- Calling another poster a liar (or any variation thereof)
- Hijacking a thread with a tangent and not letting it go
- Hate speech
- Personal attacks and insults
There are others, so again, please read the forum descriptions.
Now, please, continue your discussion. I look forward to your continued participation. However, please restrain yourself to only discussing the topic at hand, not any other posters involvement nor style.
Jonathan Chance
Moderator
Great Debates
Such as this … ?
… and this … ?
I have been told by you that I have insulted someone for far, far, far less than what you now chose to deny for yourself.
And this isn’t the first time. Making a very thorough, honest, and earnest post on another thread, the response I got for my efforts was something in the order of “whatever”, to which I subsequently replied that my efforts were “pearls before swine” - a common expression which itself means no personal insult and certainly did not mean any personal insult by me either. This I explained but was rebuffed in terms by you that fall clearly into the category of ***“Calling another poster a liar (or any variation thereof)”. *** The rules don’t seem to be valid for everyone. You have been unfair more than once which leaves me to think that you have a personal grudge.
If it is possible to resolve this problem I will gladly put it behind me and carry on contributing to SD, but the question of resolve is not my decision to make. It is yours.
Right, so the definition of banana republic, according to The Free Dictionary is -
“A small country that is economically dependent on a single export commodity, such as bananas, and is typically governed by a dictator or the armed forces.”
According to Wikipedia a banana republic is -
“a politically unstable country whose economy is largely dependent on the export of a single, limited-resource product, e.g. bananas. It typically has stratified social classes, including a large, impoverished working class and a ruling plutocracy that comprises the elites of business, politics, and the military.[1] This politico-economic oligarchy controls the primary-sector productions and thereby exploits the country’s economy”
NOTE that one says it’s a **small country **but the other makes no mention of size. Personally, I don’t think there is - or can be - a true definition for the expression because it’s only used as slang, and slang, well, is always up for grabs. Like “Awesome”, what does that mean, anything from mild agreement to catastrophic?
Anyway, if we take the definition to heart I don’t really think the U.S. would be excluded as a Banana Republic if it were to fulfill all of the requirements … except for size. In that case all of the next urban definitions would simply leave out size all-together. So the U.S. is definitely becoming a Banana Republic simply because it’s slowly moving step by step to resembling the definition.
Here is one more explanation that goes along with what I’ve already said.
"The term ‘Banana Republic’ is loosely used and no single definite meaning can be given. Popularly, the terms is referred to small Latin American Caribbean or African countries which are politically unstable, dependent on limited agriculture and ruled by a small, self elected wealthy and corrupt clique. The ‘banana republic’ thus refers to 'politically unstable country that economically depends upon the exports of a limited resources (usually fruits, crops), which is dominated by a rich businessmen or other elites and has a impoverished working class. It a a derogatory term and is also used to refer to the countries which are commercially exploited for private profits by the State itself for the benefit of small elite class. "
http://www.allbankingsolutions.com/Banking-Tutor/Banana-republic.htm Exactly. There is no definition beyond your own.
- The U.S. seems to be moving towards a single commodity, namely the manufacture of arms, military mostly.
- “Politically unstable”? Increasingly so.
- “Ruled by a small, self elected wealthy and corrupt clique”? It is beginning to look that way. I’m particularly thinking about Bush Jr., his family, and Florida.
- “An impoverished working class.” Pretty much so yes.
- “commercially exploited for private profits by the State itself for the benefit of small elite class”? How much doubt is there?
- “typically governed by a dictator or the armed forces”? Damned close!
So all in all the U.S. certainly does look to be heading in the direction of membership as a Banana Republic … except for its size. You think so too, otherwise the thread would have died on day one. 
Let’s see a cite for that, although I will note the weasel word “seems” in your post. Does it or doesn’t it, and on what data do you make that statement?
“Politically unstable” does not mean politically contentious. It means that the government itself is subject to change; eg a military coup.
Right now, what percent of the the government consists of Bush family members? Hint: There is not a single Bush family member in the federal government at this moment. And I’ll ask the same question about Florida.
Our working class is overwhelmingly middle class, so this is simply false. The US poverty rate has fluctuated a bit over the last few decades, but it’s basically pegged at 12% +/-.
Well, that’s not much of an argument. I doubt it. Convince me that I’m wrong. Please do not come back with some stats about income inequality, which is a global phenomenon, but that it’s “the state” that is doing the exploiting.
Again, that’s an opinion, not an argument. An opinion that is pure BS, too. Are you sure you don’t want to include “Lizard People” in that?
You need proof or a cite of what “seems”? Oh, you mean you don’t like it when I give opinion because it’s “weaseling”. Shit, now I forgot what the question was about. Oh yes, you were insinuating that it doesn’t seem like the U.S. is increasingly relying on the manufacturing of military arms and unless I can cite exact figures … you won’t. Is that right?
You don’t think the U.S. population is nearer to upheaval lately? Bush’s WMD hoax, the invasion of Irak, the lie of proof, the cover-ups, the question of Obama’s birth and his popularity, the economic crash, the Wall Street uprising? It doesn’t seem (oooops!) that a coup or revolution à la 1960’s is possible?
Bush is a microcosm example of the small, corrupt, American elite. You thought I was talking about Bush alone, huh. Sure.
And how does that tally with the unemployment rate leaving more and more uninsured? http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/Over-A-Million-Unemployed-Americans-Now-Hurting-For-Cash-237846221.html Do you think the population is not affected?
Explain to me please how Bush profited from the Iraki war while John Q. Citizen suffered at the pumps? http://www.globalresearch.ca/congress-must-cut-off-bush-family-war-profits/5337
Ask your countrymen that question. They’d know better than I. http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/12-million-americans-believe-lizard-people-run-our-country/63799/
I think we can end the thread here, since this is single silliest statement in a thread full of unsupportable assertions.
Good old Wikipedia has a list of the world’s largest defense contractors. The U.S. does have 12 of the top 20. They combine for about $190 billion in arms sales.
So arms are no more than about 10% even of manufacturing and a robust 1% of GNP. Wal-Mart and Exxon Mobile each have more than twice the annual revenues of the top 12 arms manufacturers combined. Lockheed Martin, the largest defense contractor, shows up at 59th on Fortune’s top 500 list. It’s smaller than Coca-Cola, even including non-arms revenue. If we stuck just with arms sales, it would rank 85th tied with Deere, the mower maker.
Damn. I was wrong. This is single silliest line in the thread.
Yes, that’s right.
There was no revolution or coup in the US in the 1960s, but as someone who was alive during that time, I can tell you that the country was much, much more fractured than it is now. So no, I don’t think we’re closer now to the coup that didn’t happen in the 1960s.
Eh, I read what you posted. You posted about Bush. If you meant others, you should have named them. If you want to try again to prove that point, know yourself out As it is, you failed.
Wow, talk about moving the goal post! But at least most people, when moving the goal posts, do so in order to shift the discussion towards something that bolsters their argument. The unemployment rate in the US is relatively high by historical averages, but it is decreasing, not increasing. So, if you’d like to argue that a decreasing unemployment rate is a sign that the country is becoming a Banana Republic, that’s going to be a pretty hard sell.
As to the loss of unemployment benefits, as bad as that might be, it represents less than 1% of the population. You claimed that we had an “impoverished working class”. That is factually incorrect as the graph I linked to shows.
Well connected people make money. News at 11. This is true of every country. Is it your contention that every country is a Banana Republic?
And with that, you have officially jumped the shark. I can see that debating with you is a complete and utter waste of time.
So you disagree that it is on the increase, is that right?
http://www.propublica.org/article/in-big-win-for-defense-industry-obama-rolls-back-limits-on-arms-export