Who will be the next world power?

True, but the implication of what you were saying is that they don't and wouldn't support non-democrats/republicans. They support incumbents. Further, if an non-D/R would protect their interests better, they will support that candidate to a greater degree (Lieberman?). Finally, it would seem that part of the duality of their donations can be explained as hedging their bets. That wasn't my point at all. It doesn't matter if Bush felt restricted by lack of control over the purse strings. His lack of control means that he, or rather the presidency in general, just isn't that important a target for donations. They would like the president to be sympathetic, but it's more important to try and influence the HASC. Obama can try and veto a budget he doesn't like--but he will fail since congress would likely override the veto. He can try and suggest levels of spending, but he can't actually tell congress how much in the end (see: most recent appropriations bill, which grew by several billion dollars from his proposal to the one ultimately passed). HASC, on the other hand, has the very real power to approve or kill amendments and legislation benefiting the defense industry.

Of course, it must be remembered that Romney is a defacto Favorite Son of Michigan and would be very hard to beat there, no matter what the details were.

---

- xongsmith

If anything, your statement just shows helps my point.Oni claims that the republicans chose McCain in order to lose. That the auto companies, among others, made this so through their influence. But their "favored" pick didn't win in areas where the auto industry has the most influence (outside of washington), which means that their influence really wasn't all that strong.What good is your influence if you can't convince people to vote against the favorite son? Should be easy enough when you control all the important levers.By the way Oni, do you care to take up my challenge? You know, telling us what the GOP stands to gain by losing tremendously over the last two cycles? You seem to have crystal clear vision for why it was such a good tactic for the dems to lose the presidency in '04, so I'd expect you could articulate such a vision for the GOP.

I concur, thanks for the clarification.

I get what you are saying and agree with much but I still think that you are adding two and two and coming up with five and a half. Taking a dive? Like a boxer fixing a fight? The difference here is that we are talking about the government of the most powerful country in the world.That is pretty conspiratorial dude...... And who would you suggest was "in" on this plan? Who was in on the conspiracy. Again this sounds pretty conspiratorial. Fond of logic........ Oh if only you knew me in real life.I think that you are taking the desires that some might have and deriving a reasonably logical reason for a situation that you know to have occurred based on hindsight. In doing so I think you are ignoring all of the competing desires of all of the other individuals, industrial sectors and other components that could have decided things differently. Thus you convince yourself that the hindsight knowledge you now have was always an inevitable situation.In truth you could have made a similar argument that would describe any of the other possible outcomes.Fitting the evidence to the facts with the benefit of hindsight.More to you and Dronester later.

Let's not get hung up on terms, - or "definitions" if that helps - like "take a dive". How about "gracefully bow out", would that work better? We're talking about a government whos policies are dictated by the upper class, to serve the upper class, and as such is subject to any and all, typically common, business tactics. Such as bowing out of an election, letting the other side get a turn at it to better their financial position...in fact, I believe that's what we've been trying to debate.Is business not corrupt? My government is run in the same fashion, is then my government not corrupt?I'd hate to crumble the fasade of the illusionary government that people believe exists, but it is corrupt, and in my opinion, such measures as I've stated to have happened are not beyond their ability and control. The "most powerful country" is so because it is ran like the "most corrupt business" in the world. If your only point in this debate is to uncover the "smoking gun" then I you may be disappointed.As I've stated before, this is the government, what they do is very well covered up. All I can do is try to present a logical, reasonable argument from what I see occuring. If you disagree with it, cool, but then show me where my logic is wrong, what evidence you are using, and perhaps I'll see your point. But don't ask me to tell you who it was, exactly, that took the shot from behind the grassy knoll, 'cause I don't know. But, "back-and-to-the-left" tells us that logically that bullet didn't come from behind Kennedy... ??? - Aren't you and Kuresu doing the same thing?The only difference here is that you are assuming that what the media tells you took place is right and are using that as "absolute" evidence of truth.What if it's not though, does your entire position fall apart if the evidence that you guys are using from the mass media sources turns out to be false?How then should I go about to show you guys that the media is bias? Misinformant? Leads people to one side or the other? How about if I showed that the media was run by big business? That it is a corporately run business that placates to it's advertisers? That it is manipulated by other companies? That it is owned by other, larger parent companies who placate to the interests of their investors? - Would any othe that be enough to possible show a media bias? If so let me know and I'll begin there.So you see, my argument is not with you guys, it's with what the media has made you guys believe is true.Furthermore, most things that are investigated require a logical deduction based off of hindsight-type evidence - back and to the left - remember? Yet we were told Oswald took the shot from behind Kennedy - however, in hindsight, we can conclude that that is bullshit. We can logical deduct a reasonable guess as to where the shot came from, and we can, in hindsight, take all of the facts that lead up to that event to come up with a "great conspiracy theory" that someone took a shot from the grassy knoll. - Does it sound conspiratorial? If not, why not? I hope so, 'cause this post seemed like no effort went into it. Not a typical Straggler post. - 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

Yep I am with Britney on that one.Only kiddin..... Well I would class myself as more cynical than average on such a scale. Probably a six. But to be honest having read Oni's posts I think he (and therefore you by proxy agreement) are higher than seven. More like 8 and a half.If Britney is "trust everything" you two defintely seem to be on the "Trust no-one. Trust nothing. All is not as it seems" tip.

Um, no.I'm operating on the principle that people are interested in gaining power in the short and long term.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.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.Your problem is two-fold. People are not just interested in increasing power in the long term but also the short term. Why put off winning a seat for next cycle when you can try and win this cycle? Second, the future just isn't that predictable. As I said earlier, did you know about Katrina in 2004? If you knew about it then, did you know it would hit New Orleans? If you knew it would, did you think that republican self-interest would lead them to botch the response?This is why people take short term gains first: because they do not know what the future holds, and power now is better than power four years later. What if bin Laden had been found? Do you not think that Bush's popularity would have soared (an easy task when it was so low to begin with)? What if Katrina had never happened (he never recovered to pre-Katrina approval ratings, Katrina, not Iraq or any other thing, is what sunk Bush; it was the wake-up call for a lot of people)?So in hindsight, it looks like a smart move to lose, since that way the republicans can lose any and all credibility and the dems can sweep. But only in hindsight. This is why I've asked you to explain why the GOP would purposefully lose this cycle by putting forward McCain. What do they hope to gain in 4 years? Second, why would they want to lose the power they had? There's no guarantee they will win back their power over the next few cycles. Indeed, it could well be a decade or more until the republicans fully recover. Why would you want to be out of power for so long? 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.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 only is it bad logic, but it is conspiratorial because it suggests that someone/group is pulling the levers--but this group must inform the voters of the ultimate goal (the presidency in '08, not in '04) and convince them to pick the weaker candidate. Voters, however, typically vote in the hopes that their preferred candidate wins. You have no evidence of this, nor does logic support such a conclusion.

Abso-fucking-lutely.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?Fat chance.The reason that the masses now have the right to vote is because piece by piece and bit by bit they fought for that right. The very fact that it is not just the ruling classes that decide the government is testament to the fact that if enough people collectively give enough of a shit they can force change on the ruling classes against their will to dramatic effect.The rich and powerful obviously do not want the poor and downtrodden to have the vote because democracy is a numbers game and the masses have the potential of voting for the things that will benefit the poor and downtrodden majority rather than the wealthy and powerful minority.It may not be perfect. It may sometimes be compromised beyond all recognition. But democracy is the only thing that forces the "ruling classes" or "big business" to make any compromises at all. It is important. And the fact that this power has had to be devolved to the masses despite this aim is testamenat to the fact that the slow rumbling power of colective will works. It is also testamant to the fact that democracy matters.

Hmmm. Arguably yes.But it could arguably mean that it is not actually known who will win any given election. That the plans and chenanigans of small undefinable groups of elite individuals don't actually have the power to decide and ensure that their own party will intentionally lose an election for global PR reasons.It could actually indicate that "big business" is hedging it's bets because in fact even "big business" might end up having to deal with a president not of it's choosing.Radical suggestion I know.....................

I am not sure that I dispute that it is "corrupt" in the sense of money grabbing. What I dispute is that the collective will of those providing the funds that oil this machine are as single purposed, focussed and able to collectively assert their will as is required for the intricate level of planning that you suggest.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.It is a hugely complex interweaving of shared, dispirate and downright conflicting interests.That is whay I keep asking "who" exactly?Because I don't believe that these guys can all seperately but unanimously come to the same conclusion as to how their interests are best served and this renders phrases like "big business wants" or "the defence industry decides" almost meaningless.Who exactly wants and who exactly decides? Simply stating that some undefined collection of individuals makes and executes these plans from behind the scenes in the interests of "big business" is too vague. Good God no. And doesn't yours fall apart if in fact "big business" doesn't and cannot collectively have a unified plan of action? Not really. Suggesting that "big business" does not have a unified will that can predetermine candidates and elections months if not years in advance, suggesting that the vast sums of money given to even the losing party were actually intended to help them win OR at least gain favour IF they win and suggesting that individual politicians, their advisors, staff and supporters have quite a lot of say in deciding who actually wins...........I am not sure that this is exactly fittting evidence to facts?Here is a bit of subjective evidence for you (): I remember watching a Channel 4 news programme very early on in the whole US nominee election thing when they went through all of the potential candidates on both sides. I obvioulsy knew of Clinton. I had heard of Giuliani from his NYC "zero tolerance" days. Huckabee I took note of straight away because of the creationist angle. None of the others had I heard of previoulsy.By the end of that short programme I had concluded that Obama seemed the best but that 'they would never vote for the black guy' and that Clinton was a dead cert (the most money, the most suport, political aristocracy etc. etc.). Romney, McCain etc. didn't even register on my radar. I would have put money on Clinton to win at that point.Now is that media manipulation? Or could it be that Obama is just pretty good at his job? (and you can be as cynical as you like about what the "job" of a modern politician is in the television age - all style and no substance etc. etc. - and I am unlikley to disagree) I'l take that as a compliment. I have a domestic situation that is not conducive to EvC participation this week.
So this and other posts are rushed and relatively unthought out.

I'll start fitting everyones aluminum-hat to size. I would place myself at 7.5, leaning toward 8, when the situation calls for more cynicism - determined by me of course. This is true. The reason being that I veiw the current rate of government control equal to (relatively equal to) that of Dark Age religion.By comparison:Control of information
Manipulation of gov officials
Affiliation with big business
Control of the media
Control of scientific progress (at least with Bush)
Affiliation with totalitarian gov's
Affiliation with gov's that lack civil liberties...and of course, our "In God we Trust" motto

---

"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

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?

quote:

---

Forbes magazine places Arison's wealth at $6.1 billion, making him the 94th wealthiest person in the world as of 2006. He is the son of the late Ted Arison, Carnival Corporation's founder, and his sister is Shari Arison.

---

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. I agree that in theory democracy should do this. But when the media is compromised in the way that it has been, then no trust can be placed on the information that is given to the masses. Thus we must, as a people, find avenues for which we can begin to get the proper information, since people do not have the time or energy to waste on these measures, they follow what is told to them by their news sources and trust that it's correct. Knowing this about people has empowered the government to great levels and given them a means to control that goes, for the most part, unnoticed.BTW, what size hat do you wear?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

quote:

---

Who will be the next world power?

---

This get my vote.

LOL1.6180339

---

- xongsmith