Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 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?
onifre
Member (Idle past 3037 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 76 of 151 (507617)
05-06-2009 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Straggler
05-06-2009 8:33 AM


Re: Obvious and Natural Conclusion
paranoid schizoid conspiratorial tendancies
PSCT
Holy shit, I love that! That's going to be the name of my next comedy CD, I promise.

"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 69 by Straggler, posted 05-06-2009 8:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2009 12:43 PM onifre has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 77 of 151 (507677)
05-07-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Straggler
05-06-2009 2:08 PM


Obvious and natural conclusion, no conspiracy
Hey Straggler,
Note, we are drifting off-topic.
"How lucky for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Though you attack conspiracy straw men arguments throughout your post, I think your final conclusion is that no conspiracy theory is supported. If so, then we are in agreement . . .
Although I wrote a very long reply, I feel compelled to only add these few points:
1. The corporate media (Fox "News" and the "liberal" NY Times: check out the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. They show the supposed "liberal" New York Times to be quite conservatively/fascist biased) CAN and DOES often effectively marginalize candidates (Nader, Perot, Kucinich, Dean). (Also, NY Times' self-censoring invisible support for Bush II has been jaw-slacking). But, yes, you are correct, SOMETIMES. . .
" . . . situations such as when that damn thing called "democracy" refuses to give them the result that they would consider ideal."
it a complicated ebb and flow interplay between the results of democracy and the competing and disparate interests of exceptionally wealthy institutions?
Yes, I concur. Where is the conspiracy theory in this? There is only so much propaganda, misinformation, and bias that is successful. Who has argued that big business ALWAYS gets their ways?
2.
"But what does this tell us about the ability of "big business" as a whole (whoever that is) to manipulate the government to the extent that has been suggested?"
Bribery is one sort of effective manipulation. Perhaps you missed my #5 item addition from my last post? Members of Congress get "campaign money" from the military/business contractors.
3.
"If enough of the voting populace gave enough of a shit about the influence and corruption that you describe then something would have to happen."
Of course. This seems what Oni (and I for the lesser part) have been unsuccessfully expressing. The idea is that the corporate media TRIES to keep the public in the dark. USUALLY successfully.
To learn more, an excellent read is Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky "Manufactured Consent". The book argues that mass media news outlets are now run by large corporations and how they effect politics.
Onifre, this topic is usually your bailiwick, if you can clarify/improve any of my thoughts, please do.
cheers
Edited by dronester, : addition
Edited by dronester, : formatting clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Straggler, posted 05-06-2009 2:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2009 2:09 PM dronestar has replied

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


Message 78 of 151 (507694)
05-07-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Straggler
05-06-2009 2:08 PM


Re: Obvious and Natural Conclusion
And how did Halliburton's rivals feel about this?
Those that also receive huge government jobs, just not this particular one? They don't care, for the most part, since the too are taken care of. Also note, Halliburton was not the only company awarded bids, they were just the one that the news media brought to light due to the connections with the former admin.
Before my comedy career I worked for an electrical contractor bidding jobs. We worked with the county on many projects and it was basically a give and take situation. One job goes to one company, who offers the city kickbacks for the contract, the next one goes to the other company who also gives a kickback, and so on. We all share the wealth, so to speak. So if you got this particular contract I didn't have to worry because our company was part of the "in group" so we waited and got other contracts.
That's just a quick comparison to how larger companies negotiate the contracts. I'm sure with the government and companies like Halliburton, and the like, it plays out as something similar as to what I did at a smaller scale.
But surely this is an example of the woeful standards of one particular short term administration rather than evidence of the claim that all presidents are just "puppets" of big business, that all politics is just "bullshit" to convince the voters that they have some sort of influence and that the change of one administration to another is nothing more than an orchestrated PR exercise to appease the masses.
Short term? Come now, Straggler, this is not a short term problem or situation, this is standard operating procedure in US politics. Same with Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc.
Who are the military contractors? Who builds our fighter jets? Who builds our overseas bases? Who drills for oil and ships it? They are not mom & pop operations, they are monster companies with a lot of influence in government policy. And they endorse and finance most campaigns to their benefit. Like I've said before, sometimes they win sometimes they lose, but even when they lose they still win because they're still connected to the big picture, which is, being a company that works directly with government agencies.
In this sense, presidents are puppets/poster children for corporate greed. Not that they personally, and knowingly, feel like puppets. But it is not their choice how things go, at least it hasn't been in the past. I will agree that we should take each president case by case and judge them accordingly but, given the constant deception that we see from our government, I don't think it's such a great idea to expect anything different from this particular administration.
Now, that things may be changing is a different story, but one that has yet to be determined. Optimistically, it would be great to know that old politics is changing, but we have been deceived before, so I will reserve my opinion for a later point in time.
Situations such as when that damn thing called "democracy" refuses to give them the result that the would consider ideal.
Ok, you ask for specific evidence now I'll ask. Show me a situation like this where "democracy" thwarted the "wants" and "desires" of a big corporation.
But the idea that "big business" as a whole (whoever exactly that is) has some sort of united desire that can be defined and actualised in the long term such that decisions can be made as to who becomes president and what their policies should be to such an extent that democracy and the rule of government is nothing but a media manipulated charade played out for the benefit of the masses while "big business" (whoever exactly that is) gets on with really running the country for it's own evil ends.........
Well it is paranoid, conspiratorial bollocks.
As dronester pointed out, this is a straw man, straggler.
I have not said that big business is some unified entity that controls all governments and places certain presidents in charge, but this is what you keep thinking I'm advocating for. Even though I have continuously tried to state otherwise.
What you state above IS a conspiracy theory, I agree. However, that large corporations finance campaigns, control media outlets (such as FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, etc.), and use this to gain profit/control/power is not. They don't "decide" who the next president is going to be but, they use every single resource they have to push for the president they want. These resources are mass media news outlets. The information you, the voter, gets is either misinformation or bias information, and we vote based on this information.
Sure, democracy took effect, the people went to the polls and voted for who they honestly felt was the better candidate. But the fact that decisions about candidates often reflect the candidates character rather than what each candidate actually says he can do, is again, part of the bias and misinformation propaganda that IS controled by the media outlets, who in turn are controled by "big business"(whoever they may be). You see what they want you to see and it's shown with the bias that they want it to have, and if it's not, advertisers pull out and there's no more revenue for the company. So either play the game or go bankrupt.
Again I'll ask, why wasn't Al Jazeera News allowed in the US? - Would you not agree that it's because no one wants to advertise on that network due to their Muslim affiliation, and more importantly, because of the type of in-your-face news that Al Jazeera is known to show?
So is this really a free market? Is this really an uncontroled market? Is this really an unbias market? Is this really a non-corporate controled market? - My opinion is, NO.
I agree that this is disgraceful. But what does this tell us about the ability of "big business" as a whole (whoever that is) to manipulate the government to the extent that has been suggested?
Again, corporations do not "control" the government, they control what you the voter watches, thinks and has an opinion on. How, by controling the mainstream mass news outlets.
They control how the voters will vote, again, not by force but by persuasion, with propaganda campaigns, character attacks on presidencial candidates, bias information, etc. It's no secret, it's objectively seen, if one takes the time to look at how campaigns are run and how candidates are shown on tv.
So are all governments equally up for sale. Or not? Is it just "big business" as a whole (whoever that is) that decides these things or is it a complicated ebb and flow interplay between the results of democracy and the competing and disparate interests of exceptionally wealthy institutions?
Everyone is for sale. However, not in the way you may be thinking.
You don't "buy" the government, you control the people that vote, and in turn get the government you want.
If enough of the voting populace gave enough of a shit about the influence and corruption that you describe then something would have to happen. And no corporation no matter how wealthy would be able to stop it. Such events are rare. But when they do happen they are history making.
Please provide an example of one such rare event.
- 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 72 by Straggler, posted 05-06-2009 2:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by dronestar, posted 05-07-2009 1:10 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 83 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2009 2:02 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 79 of 151 (507695)
05-07-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by onifre
05-06-2009 7:42 PM


Re: Obvious and Natural Conclusion
Straggler writes:
paranoid schizoid conspiratorial tendancies
PSCT
Holy shit, I love that! That's going to be the name of my next comedy CD, I promise.
I want royalties!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by onifre, posted 05-06-2009 7:42 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by onifre, posted 05-07-2009 12:45 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 80 of 151 (507696)
05-07-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Straggler
05-07-2009 12:43 PM


Re: Obvious and Natural Conclusion
I want royalties!!
And you'll get them...in US dollars, though.

"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 79 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2009 12:43 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2009 4:41 PM onifre has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 81 of 151 (507702)
05-07-2009 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by onifre
05-07-2009 12:43 PM


Re: Obvious and Natural Conclusion
Good posts Oni.
Now, that things may be changing is a different story, but one that has yet to be determined. Optimistically, it would be great to know that old politics is changing, but we have been deceived before, so I will reserve my opinion for a later point in time.
Off the top of my head, here are four things that show things are NOT a-changing:
1. US continues to sell weapons to Israel (including illegal phosphorus bombs when used against civilians) despite US laws preventing arms shipments to nations with human right violations.
2. "Courageous" SoS H. Clinton Calls Israeli Home Demolitions, "not very helpful". (Wow, what a completely different tact than what C. Rice used. Golly gee, a peaceful Israel/Palestine solution is right around the corner!)
3. Expanding Afghanistan war.
4. More money for C-17 transport planes that the Air Force doesn't want, and the Secretary of Defense explicitly asked to *cut* them from the budget. The only people who still want the planes are the contractors who make money even if the finished planes sit idle, and the members of Congress who get campaign money from the contractors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by onifre, posted 05-07-2009 12:43 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by bluescat48, posted 05-07-2009 2:02 PM dronestar has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4276 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 82 of 151 (507714)
05-07-2009 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by dronestar
05-07-2009 1:10 PM


Re: Obvious and Natural Conclusion
dronester writes:
including illegal phosphorus bombs when used against civilians
They can't be used directly against enemy troops, any more than Napalm (NP1, NP2, NP3), isobutyl methacrylate (IM) or triethyl aluminum (TPA). They can only be employed against equipment or for psychological value.
Edited by bluescat48, : missing ")"

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 81 by dronestar, posted 05-07-2009 1:10 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by dronestar, posted 05-07-2009 3:47 PM bluescat48 has replied

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


Message 83 of 151 (507715)
05-07-2009 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by onifre
05-07-2009 12:43 PM


Re: Obvious and Natural Conclusion
As dronester pointed out, this is a straw man, straggler.
If that is the case then fair enough. I am wrong and I will concede that I am wrong and that I have misunderstood your position which, as you phrase it above, sounds pretty cynical but not unduly conspiratorial.
When you said:
Oni writes:
I disgaree with that, Mitt Romney would have, IMO, beaten Obama, thus McCain was selected by the republican party.
In the context it was writen I took this to mean that you thought "big business" had decided that it wanted a democrat win. So "big business" arranged for a hopeless republican candidate to stand in order to ensure that this strategic aim was met.
Is this undeniably conspiratorial interpretation not what you meant?
Oni writes:
I have not said that big business is some unified entity that controls all governments and places certain presidents in charge, but this is what you keep thinking I'm advocating for. Even though I have continuously tried to state otherwise.
Based on the above example and on your earliest posts in this thread can you not see how this apparently erroneous view of your position might be concluded?
Oni writes:
The ruling upper class excludes on the basis of common interest
Oni writes:
I think war and conflicts sustain ecomnomies and political parties. With some balancing needing to be done, Like switching from one puppet (Bush) to a more appealing puppet (Obama).
Oni writes:
Since war seems to "give life" back to a struggling economy, because the ruling class makes money from it
Oni writes:
This ruling class works independently of all government bodies. Government is used for their benefit
(emphasis mine)
But who exactly is "they"?
The previous example along with these comments and others like them, I think, imply that there exists some coherent entity with powers beyond those of government that has a unity of purpose and long term strategy. These comments and others like them also imply, I think, that this unified entity is able to tactically manipulate things from behind the scenes by putting in place "puppets" and controlling information to ensure that these unified and strategic long term aims are fulfilled to "their benefit"
Now that is conspiratorial.
But, as I say, if that is not what you meant then fair enough. I apologise for my mistake and suggest the crime of selective reading as the cause.
Oni writes:
"the interests of big business"
"what big business wants"
I still don't understand who exactly "big business" or the "ruling class" is? Who are these individuals? Do we mean the CEO's of individual corporations? The board? The shareholders? Who exactly do you mean?
Who exactly decides "what big business wants"? Who decides what "the interests of big business" are?
Unless "big business" or the "ruling class" is a single entity seeking to meet unified aims I don't see how "big business" as a whole can have "wants" or "interests".
If by "big business" we just mean individual competing and rival companies, each one out for what it can grab for itself at the expense of other "big business" rivals, sometimes united in short term common purpose but basically a dispirate collection of "wants" and "interests" being largely independently pursued.................
Then, with these dispirate and competing rival independent interests in mind, claims involving "puppets" or using the government for "their benefit" become much less powerful, much less well defined and much less sinister. So much so that highly evocative terms like these seem unwarranted.
So what did you mean exactly and who exactly are "they"?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by onifre, posted 05-07-2009 12:43 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by onifre, posted 05-07-2009 4:52 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 84 of 151 (507716)
05-07-2009 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by dronestar
05-07-2009 11:16 AM


Re: Obvious and natural conclusion, no conspiracy
Though you attack conspiracy straw men arguments throughout your post, I think your final conclusion is that no conspiracy theory is supported. If so, then we are in agreement . . .
OK. See my above post to Oni for the basis of any "conspiracy straw man arguments".
Stragler writes:
it a complicated ebb and flow interplay between the results of democracy and the competing and disparate interests of exceptionally wealthy institutions?
Yes, I concur.
Marvellous.
But, unless I am totally misreading them, I am not sure how you could extract this position from Oni's earlier posts. Posts which you felt compelled to agree wholeheartedly with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by dronestar, posted 05-07-2009 11:16 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by dronestar, posted 05-07-2009 3:26 PM Straggler has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 85 of 151 (507727)
05-07-2009 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Straggler
05-07-2009 2:09 PM


Re: Obvious and natural conclusion, no conspiracy
But, unless I am totally misreading them, I am not sure how you could extract this position from Oni's earlier posts. Posts which you felt compelled to agree wholeheartedly with.
Please review my message #77. Before your quotes, you have may have skipped over the very important qualifying word "SOMETIMES . . .". Strange how I even uppercased the word for emphasis. For clarity, I finished the "Yes, I concur" paragraph with a question that used another qualifier, again, uppercased.
Perhaps it was just bad writing/paragragh formatting on my part. If so, I apologize.
Edited by dronester, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2009 2:09 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2009 5:19 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 86 of 151 (507731)
05-07-2009 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by bluescat48
05-07-2009 2:02 PM


Re: Obvious and Natural Conclusion
Hi Bluescat48,
Thanks for the clarification of phosphorus bomb use.
I also want to use "depleted uranium" weapons in my arguments. But am unsure of it's illegality (internationally) and of its long term health risks. I have done much googling, but can't find any "final" word. Can you assist at all?
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by bluescat48, posted 05-07-2009 2:02 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by bluescat48, posted 05-07-2009 3:52 PM dronestar has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4276 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 87 of 151 (507732)
05-07-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by dronestar
05-07-2009 3:47 PM


Re: Obvious and Natural Conclusion
not on depleted uranium, when I got out of the service they were still legal for tank shells. What has been done in that last 15years I haven't heard.

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 86 by dronestar, posted 05-07-2009 3:47 PM dronestar has not replied

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


Message 88 of 151 (507739)
05-07-2009 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by onifre
05-07-2009 12:45 PM


Re: Obvious and Natural Conclusion
Straggler writes:
I want royalties!!
And you'll get them...in US dollars, though.
At current exchange rates not a problem at all.
In fact I look forward to making my civic contribution by paying that high earners tax rate we were talking about earlier

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by onifre, posted 05-07-2009 12:45 PM onifre has not replied

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


Message 89 of 151 (507740)
05-07-2009 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Straggler
05-07-2009 2:02 PM


Re: Obvious and Natural Conclusion
Oni writes:
I disgaree with that, Mitt Romney would have, IMO, beaten Obama, thus McCain was selected by the republican party.
Straggler writes:
In the context it was writen I took this to mean that you thought "big business" had decided that it wanted a democrat win. So "big business" arranged for a hopeless republican candidate to stand in order to ensure that this strategic aim was met.
Is this undeniably conspiratorial interpretation not what you meant?
No it's not what I meant but, I can see how you arrived at such an interpretation from my posts. I think if we were face to face the context of what I've been trying to convey would be easier.
Let me try it this way: I believe Mitt Romney would have beaten Obama - (we can get into the specific reasons if you like). I also feel that corporations with global investments would have rathered a democrat than a republican due to the current opinion of that party - (I think you would agree with that).
So, if you had global interests would you not have used your influence and financial power, which you've agreed that corporations do, to push for one specific candidate?
Remember that the current global conflicts have not gone anywhere, they are still alive and well. The former contractors are still the current contractors. The US military budget has not changed. More troops are being sent to Afgahn so the demand for weapons will still be high and the demand for companies to provide these weapons will still be high as well.
In other words, "big" - military - "business" cares who the president will be, NOT because they won't get government contracts, that's not it at all, they(Big Military Business) cares who the president will be because the "people" will get the illusion that the US is not corrupt anymore, due to the exit and introduction of a new, seemigly different, administration and party, and thus support their governments tyranny. If the "people" support the governments actions Big Military Business continues to reep the financial gains.
So, now when we go into Afgahn for example, the general "opinion" of the "people" will be to support the invasion rather than be against it. Why, because it's not Bush doing it, it's the new guy that's in place doing it, and the general opinion of this "new guy" is that he is acting for the people not for corporations. The people are wrong in that sense!
Does that sound conspiratorial? Or does that sound like standard operating procedures?
Based on the above example and on your earliest posts in this thread can you not see how this apparently erroneous view of your position might be concluded?
Yes I do, however, I hope that my above comments, and that of my previous post to you, in combination, help present my argument better.
But who exactly is "they"?
It varies.
"They" could be military, oil, pharm, tabacco, auto indus, mass media etc.
imply that there exists some coherent entity with powers beyond those of government that has a unity of purpose and long term strategy.
What there is is a standard way of operating when you are a large enough corporation with global and governmental ties. The "startegy" would be to use your money and power to influence the government and control the media, who is also a corporate entity.
Is it a conscious, united effort? Probabaly not. Is it an individual effort that, due to common interests(power/money), seems like it's unified when I try to explain it, I'd say, yes.
These comments and others like them also imply, I think, that this unified entity is able to tactically manipulate things from behind the scenes by putting in place "puppets" and controlling information to ensure that these unified and strategic long term aims are fulfilled to "their benefit"
What corporations manipulate is the media and information. The result is that the new president ends up being, I guess through my cynical interpretation, just another "puppet" that is meant to calm the people and make them think that all is well.Whould you not agree that the general consensus about Obama and his administration is that they're doing things differently? That's why originally I ask Kuresu, what is so different? - Nothing. So, why is there a new opinion of this administration? - Media persuasion.
There is no unified startegy, just standard corporate strategies. "They" don't pick presidents, the media influences voters opinions about the presidencial candidates, through misinformation and bias information. Who does FoxNews support? Who does CNN suport? Is that a consipiracy, that they each support not just a candidate but the whole damn party? Are CNN and FoxNews not corporate giants in the media game? Would those 2 not be considered a major influence in how people vote? Don't peoples opinions usually reflect that of these 2 networks? If they do, which I think you would agree that they do, would that not mean that peoples opinions about the candidates have been guilded?
I still don't understand who exactly "big business" or the "ruling class" is?
Big business: media, auto industry, pharm industry, farming industry, healthcare industry, military, oil industry, global construction contractors, tabacco...need more?
Ruling class: The owners of the above industries.
Unless "big business" or the "ruling class" is a single entity seeking to meet unified aims I don't see how "big business" as a whole can have "wants" or "interests".
Ok, so can you see it as individual corporations jockeying for control?
Then, with these dispirate and competing rival independent interests in mind, claims involving "puppets" or using the government for "their benefit" become much less powerful, much less well defined and much less sinister.
You almost hit it but ran past it.
It becomes "much less well defined" and as such, their individual "intentions" and "desires" - such as more wars for the weapons indusrty, no socialized medicine, government bailouts, NOT MAKING TABACCO ILLEGAL, awareded bids for oversea conflicts, etc - looks like business as usual, but it's far from that. It gives the illusion that it's less sinister, but again, it's far from that.
It's a game of persusive measures to ensure citizen support, because, like you said, if the "people" get wind of it then it's expossed. But, measures are taken to distort the information and control what gets out into the mainstream?
It is well known that people just get home, turn on one of the networks, depending on which they prefer, and listen, figuring that the information is accurate, or all the information. And in some cases they simply get side tracked with steroid bullshit, TMZ crap and what titty popped out of Britney's shirt yesterday (relax, I made that up - lol).
Subdued, controled and blinded by shinny shit...that's the general public, and the government knows it.
So too do corporations with "interests" and "desires" that can be thwarted by a conscious general public. So, yes, feed them TMZ nonsense, tell them about the new iPhone, tell them to watch the NFL draft, get them to buy and buy and buy, and get into debt and further into debt, until you have them by the balls. Quitely living their lives unaware of the constant propaganda that continuously plagues their tv's and radios, until someone speaks up, makes an issue about it...but, sadly gets labeled a conspiracy theorist.
- 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 83 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2009 2:02 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by kuresu, posted 05-07-2009 4:55 PM onifre has replied
 Message 95 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2009 6:38 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 90 of 151 (507742)
05-07-2009 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by onifre
05-07-2009 4:52 PM


Re: Obvious and Natural Conclusion
Remember that the current global conflicts have not gone anywhere, they are still alive and well. The former contractors are still the current contractors. The US military budget has not changed. More troops are being sent to Afgahn so the demand for weapons will still be high and the demand for companies to provide these weapons will still be high as well.
In other words, "big" - military - "business" cares who the president will be, NOT because they won't get government contracts, that's not it at all, they(Big Military Business) cares who the president will be because the "people" will get the illusion that the US is not corrupt anymore, due to the exit and introduction of a new, seemigly different, administration and party, and thus support their governments tyranny. If the "people" support the governments actions Big Military Business continues to reep the financial gains.
So, now when we go into Afgahn for example, the general "opinion" of the "people" will be to support the invasion rather than be against it. Why, because it's not Bush doing it, it's the new guy that's in place doing it, and the general opinion of this "new guy" is that he is acting for the people not for corporations. The people are wrong in that sense!
Does that sound conspiratorial? Or does that sound like standard operating procedures?
Sounds pretty conspiratorial to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by onifre, posted 05-07-2009 4:52 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by onifre, posted 05-07-2009 5:00 PM kuresu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024