Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who will be the next world power?
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4276 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 136 of 151 (508345)
05-12-2009 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by 1.61803
05-12-2009 5:03 PM


Re: Introducing the next world power
Heck, they have been in power for ~400 million years.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by 1.61803, posted 05-12-2009 5:03 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 137 of 151 (508346)
05-12-2009 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Straggler
05-12-2009 3:19 PM


Re: Interpretations
If you did get all of the CEO's of all of the biggest corporations in one room and got them to vote on who they wanted to be in power and what policies they wanted them to have I think it would end in a dispirate brawl of non-agreement.
What is good for one industry is not necessarily good for another. What is important to one sector is not to another. What benefits one company in one sector of industry causes a competitor in that same sector to lose market share etc. etc.
if you check the resumes of all these CEOs you'll find they own shares in everything across all industries. if one industry suffers while another profits, you can bet the CEOs of both will profit.
they have protected themselves long ago.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Straggler, posted 05-12-2009 3:19 PM Straggler has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 138 of 151 (508348)
05-12-2009 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by onifre
05-12-2009 4:52 PM


Re: Part 2
In fact, Micky Arison, and most owners of sporting teams, are billionares...not a bad idea to let blacks integrate for after all, eh?
AGAIN, not that this was the reason for integration, but lets not pretend that they aren't making a fuck load of money, that they would not have made when the game was "whites only". - by comparison.
indeed. it may have took as long as it did because the financial structures to funnel the money to them werent known and put in place yet.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by onifre, posted 05-12-2009 4:52 PM onifre has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2599 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 139 of 151 (508350)
05-12-2009 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by onifre
05-12-2009 4:52 PM


Re: Part 2
How integrated is it really, though?
Blacks are generally only athletes. Very rarely are they actually in management, never mind ownership.
Anyhow, with or without black athletes owners will make a lot of money. For example, how many black baseball players are there? Apparently only ~8.2 percent of all baseball players are black. The operating income for the Cleveland Indians (for 2005) was 34.6 million (the yankees were at -50 million; go figure). I can't find the income for their owner, but given that he bought the franchise for 323 million, I doubt he's poor.
Anyhow, how is this even connected with the extension of the franchise (aka suffrage, aka the right to vote)? I fail to see how this properly counters straggler's claim that the extension of voting rights to the "poor unwashed masses" is something that the upper classes try to resist because it dilutes their power.
Indeed, looking at the Reform Act of 1832 is a perfect example. This act extended the suffrage in Great Britain, increasing the total electorate by a minimum of 50% (though even after the reform act only roughly 20% of the population could vote). Prior to this reform act the House of Commons shot down every other attempt to expand the suffrage and make it far less corrupt and far more equitable. Those in power did not want to change the status quo, even a little bit. It was only when the demand for reform threatened to undermine their power that they actually consented.
Now then, the great irony (for the working-class) was that the bourgeois, who had allied with them in order to extend the suffrage, turned around and tried to prevent the working class from gaining the right to vote. They did not want their new found power to be diluted by interests sure to antagonistic to their own.
A similar story plays out in Sweden, though it has more to do with the organization of its parliament. Prior to 1865, the swedish riksdag had four houses (commons, burghers, priests, nobles). The constitutional reform that would lead to two houses was greatly resisted by the priests and nobles. It passed only because the priests resolved to vote in the same manner as the nobles, who ultimately voted for the new constitution (but just barely). Had it not passed, Sweden may very well have experienced the 1848 revolution in 1865.
So, why do the upper classes extend power to the lower classes? Only when the lower classes can credibly threaten revolt against the system. The solution is to include them and thus undermine revolutionary fervor (a similar idea, by the way, seems to be the leading philosophy of Obama's foreign policy) and thereby preserve as much of their original power as possible. I can not think of a case where the upper class extends its power to lower classes in an effort to gain power, or perhaps, there exists no such successful case (Bismarck's creation of the first welfare state could be an example: increase conservative power by gaining the workers who would be grateful for their welfare state, but the workers kept on voting for the socialists anyhow. However, his move could simply be seen as an attempt to subvert socialist power by preserving conservative power).
Okay, so maybe your point does have something to do with. Integration was simply carried out to preserve as much of management's power as possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by onifre, posted 05-12-2009 4:52 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by onifre, posted 05-12-2009 6:17 PM kuresu has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3037 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 140 of 151 (508359)
05-12-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by kuresu
05-12-2009 2:21 PM


Re: Interpretations
If people are not interested in increasing their power, then my position falls apart. But I think it's pretty well established that people like power, or else we wouldn't have events like Blagojevich.
I think your argument falls apart when you assume that there will be any loss of power at all.
It's just resturcturing for the benefits of money/power/control, but, by one class only.
What you suggest is that people in politics take a short term loss of power, doing it purposefully because they payoff will be even bigger than had they gained power in the short term. Case in point: the dems lose in '04, only to capture the house and senate in '06, expand their majorities to levels not seen since the 1970s and capture the white house in '08. In this case, taking the fall is a brilliant move.
But let's place ourselves above the party divide and see how this power shift also benefits big business, which we have already agreed has more ties to the republicans than the democrats at an individual politician level, only.
IF this move for democrats to be "in charge", or rather "the new face of America", helps America get new PR and better acceptance by people around the world, would this not also benefit those whos interests and businesses depend on good global relations?
This is your chance to lay out an equivalent brilliant strategy for the republicans like you have for the democrats after '04. And, it won't even be in hindsight.
First we need to get past a few illusions, like the fact that government doesn't wins whether or not individual parties are sucessful. Also, big business always wins whether or not individual parties are sucessful.
The stratagy is not to gain or lose power because that's how money is made, the stratagy is to set up as many necessary illusions so that there is a preceived inner power struggle within the parties that every 4 years gets settled at the polling booths.
The fact is that neither the GOP or the Dems, as a party, ever really win or lose, it's equally distributed and eventually one succeeds over the other, WHY, because people are divided by party lines. If the media decides to spin it in a pro-democrat way, then more than likely the overall opinion goes democrat. If the media spins it in a pro-republican way, then more than likely the overall opinion goes republican. In the end, it's a subliminally guilded opinon so each party shares the power, for the most part.
The WINNER is big business. They are the ones who try to guild the opinions through media persuasion and they try to dictate, more or less, how votes will go. So the question isn't "What does the GOP stand to gain?" the question is "What did big business stand to gain?". IMO you are asking the wrong question and not looking deeper into the matter. Maybe there is no "deeper" but IMO there is.
I have to run out, got a show, but I will give you, what I feel, big business stood to gain by, not only the GOP loss this time, but the Dems win. If you can agree to go deeper into the rabbit hole with me. However, if you just want to know what the GOP stood to gain, then I would agree with your entire post. The GOP would be stupid to lose, as would the Dems, but only at the individual party level only. If we go beyond that, to the gains of big business, who are IMO the true seekers of money/power/control, then you may see what I see.
And/or we can concede that you don't feel that it goes beyond the individual parties and it would be a futile attempt on my part to delve further?
Your logic falls apart if it can't satisfactorily answer those questions, because their actions, as you posit them, are seemingly in contradiction to the interest in gaining power.
Not when the individual parties aren't the true seekers of the power, but just pawns in the bigger game that they may, or may not, be aware of.
I would say for example Bush was aware of it, but someone like Obama may not be. Which makes Obama the bigger pawn of the 2.
I don't disagree with you that at the party level it's like you describe it. What you present are the facts that we are aware of and, if taken at face value, seem to be as you have concluded. The GOP, as an individual party involved in the system of politics, lost it's power and control. But, the bigger question is what did the real "powers that be" stand to gain? Namely, big business.
Note: by "power" I don't mean big business makes the decisions, let's not go that route again. I simply mean they control and manipulate using their avenues to do so.
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by kuresu, posted 05-12-2009 2:21 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by kuresu, posted 05-12-2009 7:30 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3037 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 141 of 151 (508360)
05-12-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by kuresu
05-12-2009 5:33 PM


Re: Part 2
I gotta run, I'll hit this whole post when I get back but...
Anyhow, with or without black athletes owners will make a lot of money. For example, how many black baseball players are there?
BIGGER QUESTION:
How many black kids from inner cities do you know of that can afford a glove, a bat, a helmet and enough money, seasonally, to pay for youth baseball leagues? Which can run into the Hundreds per year.
However, give a few black kids a chance and you have the Williams sisters and Tiger Woods. Who are equally making a lot of money for corporate investors.
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by kuresu, posted 05-12-2009 5:33 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 142 of 151 (508364)
05-12-2009 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by onifre
05-12-2009 4:52 PM


Re: Part 2
Straggler writes:
So how come women, blacks and non-property owners have got the vote now? Because the ruling classes felt guilty? Because they wanted to spread the power? Were they suddently overcome with feelings of fairplay, honour, dignity and desire to give the masses their rightful say?
Really quickly, as to not take this further off topic, how well have WHITE sports team owners profited from allowing black people to integrate into the games???? Wanna take a guess as to how much Micky Arison makes off of the Miami Heat every year?
So the civil rights movement was just a secret plot by white big business owners to get blacks to play baseball.....?
Could they not have done this without giving them the vote?
I am being faececious. Obviously.
But c'mon Oni - It has reached the point where everything that seems corrupt and conspiratorial is obviously corrupt and conspiratorial.
And anything that seems like it might counter such claims is just an example of something that is really really corrupt and conspiratorial designed to look like a concession such that it will appease the suckered masses. If you just look at it in the right way.....
Literally anything can be viewed as supporting such a position. Unless we can get into the specifics of "who", "when" and "how" (which apparently we cannot because it is too high level, well co-ordinated and secret) then you have created an unassailable position.
I was going to ask why various big businesses contributed so much to the doomed campaigns of the other candidates? Particularly Clinton's campaign. Presumably these big businesses were not in on the Obama decision? Presumably those who contributed to Romney were not in on the plans devised by the Republican's higher echalons to intentionally lose the election?
But I am sure if I just view it in the right way I will be able to see how it all makes sense in the context you have previously outlined.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by onifre, posted 05-12-2009 4:52 PM onifre has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2599 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 143 of 151 (508373)
05-12-2009 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by onifre
05-12-2009 6:11 PM


Re: Interpretations
I think your argument falls apart when you assume that there will be any loss of power at all.
Who sets the agenda in the capitol? Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Not Joh Boehner and Mitch McConnel.
There is absolutely a loss of power within the political class.
You seem to view the political class as irrelevant to the larger picture. I am not sure why. They are as equally concerned about their own power as any business is. Indeed, we live in an era where politicians have greater power than big business (Rick Wagoner?). Some of it is certainly a show, but Wall Street for example is very concerned that if it doesn't press the buttons it controls the politicians will make the finance world a very boring place to be. And when you have company CEOs grovelling before a Senate Committee, I daresay you do actually have two separate groups. "Big Business" and "Politicians" are not one and the same, and to ignore the politician's self-interest is ridiculous. They are one of the "real powers that be", since they ultimately write the laws, not "big business". They are not pawns, but partners, if you will, in the game.
If politicians are actually pawns, you haven't laid out the case for that. All you've said is that the voter is the pawn (through media manipulation).
First we need to get past a few illusions, like the fact that government doesn't wins whether or not individual parties are sucessful. Also, big business always wins whether or not individual parties are sucessful.
I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here. Government never wins?
IF this move for democrats to be "in charge", or rather "the new face of America", helps America get new PR and better acceptance by people around the world, would this not also benefit those whos interests and businesses depend on good global relations?
Then why, pray tell, did "big business" overwhelmingly support republicans earlier? If good relations are the key to profit, then perhaps with their influence they could make the party in power improve global relations? If they have the power to swing elections to give us the illusion of change, if they have politicians in their pockets, then they also have the power to get politicians to improve relations with other countries without having to have a facelift.
Actually, good relations with other countries really aren't that necessary for profits. I point you to the United Fruit Company. What's important is that the country the company is exploiting doesn't object to that company's exploitation. As well, the last eight years saw a period of record profits at the same time as relations with other countries soured.
The stratagy is not to gain or lose power because that's how money is made, the stratagy is to set up as many necessary illusions so that there is a preceived inner power struggle within the parties that every 4 years gets settled at the polling booths.
What benefit does this supply "big business"? Businesses in China seem to do just fine without party competition. Businesses in the US seemed to do just fine when the democrats controlled the House for 41 years straight (1954-1995). The democrats also controlled the senate for 31 out of the last 55 congresses, often for large chunks of time. It is really only the presidency that seems to swing every 8 or so years.
So why is the illusion of change necessary? One party rule is not prohibitive when it comes to making a profit. Indeed, one-party rule in favor of "big business" would help stabilize the system in their favor. Why risk changing parties that do actually have some differences (republicans would probably never even consider the bare amount of regulation reworking Obama's administration is considering, and this regulation certainly seeks to at least try to contain and restrain finance's worst impulses)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by onifre, posted 05-12-2009 6:11 PM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 144 of 151 (508444)
05-13-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by onifre
05-12-2009 4:41 PM


Re: Part 1
Oni writes:
I'll start fitting everyones aluminum-hat to size.
Yep. Count me in.
Oni writes:
I would place myself at 7.5, leaning toward 8, when the situation calls for more cynicism - determined by me of course.
7.5 leaning towards 8? I think you are being modest...........
I have coated myself in tin foil and await my hat with eager anticipation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by onifre, posted 05-12-2009 4:41 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by onifre, posted 05-13-2009 1:40 PM Straggler has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3037 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 145 of 151 (508451)
05-13-2009 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Straggler
05-13-2009 12:53 PM


Re: Part 1
7.5 leaning towards 8? I think you are being modest...........
Shit dude, really? - lol
Well if a (10) was an "Oregon aluminum-hat-wearing, anarchist-survivalist-conspiracy-theorist", I figured a (9) would be an "Oregon-anarchist-conspiracy-theorist" so an (8) would a a "Miami-conspiracy-theorist", leaning towards a 7.5 when I travel and lose focus on the actual intentions behind the news stories I read about.
I'm really not that bad, I may embellish a bit and run with a few points a little further than I would normally, but it's all for debating purposes. I'm not, as Taz suggested, an anarchist - by any means. I may have fun with it and agree to it to motivate a debate, but I'm a pothead and too fuck'n lazy to fight against any institution - I enjoy pointing out their hypocrisies and making jokes about it - I'm content with doing only that.
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Straggler, posted 05-13-2009 12:53 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 05-13-2009 3:33 PM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 146 of 151 (508458)
05-13-2009 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by onifre
05-13-2009 1:40 PM


Re: Part 1
I may embellish a bit and run with a few points a little further than I would normally, but it's all for debating purposes.
Oh as do we all. As do we all.
We have to keep ourselves amused somehow huh.
That offer of meeting up for a beer (and possibly a hair cut for Keresu) should you tour London next year stands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by onifre, posted 05-13-2009 1:40 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by onifre, posted 05-13-2009 6:38 PM Straggler has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3037 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 147 of 151 (508464)
05-13-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Straggler
05-13-2009 3:33 PM


Final Words
We have to keep ourselves amused somehow huh.
Trust me this site keeps me going through some boring days in hotel rooms waiting for evening gigs.
Just to add, I also have some of the most intellectual conversations on this site then I do all day, since I spend most of my days alone hitting on house keepers - since I speak spanish, they love me.
That offer of meeting up for a beer (and possibly a hair cut for Kuresu) should you tour London next year stands.
Awesome! But I'm concerned with your (a) beer suggestion, I like my beer in plural form.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this debate has ran it's course, differences in opinions and perspectives I feel will remain, but I also feel that we can all agree on many points - and those that we differ on we'll chalk up to individual PoV's.
I concede that:
(1) In many cases government works as a democratic process with individual voters dictating what certain outcomes will be.
(2) Individual candidates from both parties, for the most part, try their best to win elections on the basis of...(whatever their current reasons are)
(3) No individual candidate from either party is consciously trying to lose elections for some greater entity that controls all of them.
(4) The Illuminati doesn't exist.
I will not concede:
(1) That the media isn't a tool for manipulation, controled by corporate entites, most, if not all, having major ties with our government.
(2) That both parties aren't constantly lobbied by big business and offered money/power/control for the sole purpose of financial gain and profit for big business.
(3) That through the infuences of big business, and their control of the mass media, elections/voting/campaigns - in some cases - are manipulated in such a way that the outcomes can be predicted, and often are to the benefit of big business.
(4) The Illuminati exists.
Thanks for the great debate Straggler, Kuresu, and of course Dronester. I'm sure, actually I hope, that we do battle again as I'm pretty confident that we'll each hold to our positions and cross paths in future topics involving similar senarios.
My final words:
I feel I have done my best to present my argument. That we may feel that neither side understands the other is, I think, fine. I feel that for the most part we agree on many things, that we differ on a few is good for future debates.
My thoughts though, on conspiracy theories, is that they are sometimes viewed as radical, anarchist opinions that devalue the democratic system that the US, and many other counrties, have been built on. But, that does not, in anyway, mean they don't have some basis in the thruth. Many, still to this day, think that the "Grassy Knoll" idea is a "conspiracy theory", however, many think of it as one of our governments greatest deception to it's people. Which is of course the PoV I have.
IF such an event can take place on our soil, (assassination of a president by it's own government), then we should not rule out the ability of those in power to be able to do whatever they please, using some very silent and unseen measures. We the people have to be constantly vigilant, awake to the methods of persuasion, and limit our trust in what is said by our government, through our media sources. If it smells like shit odds are you stepped in shit. If it smells like deception odds are we are being deceived. As long as big business continues to run all of our mass media outlets, their word is suspect. As long as big business is allowed to lobby freely with barely any supervision, their word is suspect. As long as issues are driven down party lines and fed that way through the media, their word is suspect. As long as campaigns are ran like American Idol and presidents chosen on the basis of character and not for what they stand for on real issues, their word is suspect. As long as debates between the presidents are media controled and the questions set up to deviate from actual issues, their word is suspect.
I do not trust that which money has bought, and sadly, my opinion of this government is that it has been bought and no *new* face will change what took years to build. It's like a bad episode of 24 where everytime you figure something out, something else surfaces that has been corrupted and manipulated. Iraq, Afgahn, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, all have some underlying bullshit about them and NONE of us can pin point what is true or not true. We hope that we are told truths by our government, we hope that democracy works in the way that it should, we hope that our elected officials make decisions honestly, we hope, we hope, we hope...
When that hope runs out, and the vail is lifted, and the government is expossed for the deceptive institution that I believe it is, and people realize that they've been lied to for soooo long, I'll be there saying "I told you so", drinking a shit load of beer(s) and holding Kuresu's hair.
Thanks again guys,
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : cleaned up "final word" a bit...
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 05-13-2009 3:33 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2009 7:44 PM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 148 of 151 (508551)
05-14-2009 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by onifre
05-13-2009 6:38 PM


Re: Final Words
Oni writes:
I will not concede:
(1) That the media isn't a tool for manipulation, controled by corporate entites, most, if not all, having major ties with our government.
(2) That both parties aren't constantly lobbied by big business and offered money/power/control for the sole purpose of financial gain and profit for big business.
(3) That through the infuences of big business, and their control of the mass media, elections/voting/campaigns - in some cases - are manipulated in such a way that the outcomes can be predicted, and often are to the benefit of big business.
I disagree with your above assessment only in terms of the degree to which I would say these things occur. The actuality that they do occur to some degree is undeniable in my view.
Where I disagree most with you in this thread is where you seem to be suggesting that "big business" is able to find a united purpose and long term consensus such that the undisputed influence individual companies and industrial sectors have can be realistically thought to plan and action the detailed manipulaton of whole elections and policies to the extent that a shady elite decide the desired outcome of "big business" as a whole months if not years in advance.
The current battle over Obama's green energy policy is a case in point. The "dirty" energy indstry have started spending vast amounts of money on lobbying and media PR to thwart the bill. The "green" industry are complaining that they cannot match the financial muscle of the energy industry but are themselves spending a fortune on lobbying and media manipulation. Meanwhile Obama has set about trying to persuade congress that some tough targets need to be set in the name of using the fiscal stimulus to implement the "green inrastructure of the future".
Now I cynically predict that the industry with the most cash will ulimately "win". Most likely in the form of a bill so watered down that it will have little effect on reduced dirty energy use in terms of green tax incentives or meaningful carbon reduction targets.
Media manipulation? Certainly.
Big Business lobbying for it's own financial gain? Certainly
Eventual outcome decided largely on the basis of the above? Very probably.
But the fact that there are these dispirate interests, the fact that the competing industries are having to spend vast sums of money on PR, the fact that the opinions of the masses matter enough to require such money to be spent on PR, the fact that the government is attempting to get this through and may even yet do so in some form that has some negative effect on even the powerful and wealthy energy industry.......
All of this suggests to me that an elite few representatives of "big business" cannot be deciding elections, governments and key policies from behind the scenes because there is no such thing as "big business" in terms of united common interests on such things.
Essentially it is all much too dispirate and competetive to be anything other than largely reactive and unplanned. Which, thankfully, means that the voting public do still get to have some small say in matters. Even if it is on the basis of largely biased infomation and even if it is only once every few years.
Democracy matters. Even when heavily compromied it can still count for a great deal. We lose it, or give up on it, at our peril.
/END RANT
Stay happy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by onifre, posted 05-13-2009 6:38 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by onifre, posted 05-17-2009 10:56 AM Straggler has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3037 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 149 of 151 (508937)
05-17-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Straggler
05-14-2009 7:44 PM


Re: Final Words
Hi Straggler,
I don't want to pull you away from your other battles - lol - but I thought this video was interesting. Ralph Nader speaking out on Bush and Kerry's affiliation with Skull and Bones society and their individual oath to it.
Even Nader has conspiratorial tendencies, I guess...
The video is shitty, the sound is good. Enjoy

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2009 7:44 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Straggler, posted 05-18-2009 1:38 PM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 150 of 151 (509081)
05-18-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by onifre
05-17-2009 10:56 AM


Re: Final Words
You are as bad as me with my "final" posts.
I don't want to pull you away from your other battles - lol
Indeed
I am not sure I have resources to "battle" on two fronts at the moment.
I just wanted to acknowledge you video and let you know I had not ignored it. Interesting. The report made the "secret organisation" sound really sinister. I looked it up here Skull and Bones - Wikipedia and it sounded like anyone who went to Yale and looked destined for anything (like the oportunity to become president of the US) would probably end up being a member. It didn't sound as sinisetr to me as described by Wiki. But I accept your point about an "elite". The question I would ask is how many "elites" are there? And do they all want the same things? Or are their interests "dispirate and conflicting"?
But who knows. Just because something sounds conspiratorial and paranoid does of course not mean that there is not actually a conspiracy to be justifiably paranoid about. The truth is out there.
Beers (note plural form) and shaggy blonde wigs all round then?
Edited by Straggler, : Add "The question I would ask is how many "elites" are there? And do they all want the same things? Or are their interests "dispirate and conflicting"?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by onifre, posted 05-17-2009 10:56 AM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024