Who will be the next world power?

Says who? CNN the BBC?What do you mean by "power"? Military or financial?

---

"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

What's up Kuresu, We have neither one party or two parties with centralized power, we have one class with centralized power. And that class is no different whether it's democrat or republican. They are out for themselves, thier gain and their interests.What you will NEVER see is a "party" run by the Middle Class. A workers union perhaps, or something to that effect. The middle class will NEVER be in charge.The party part is the illusional part, the part that gives false hope. Nothing is going to change in the overall manner in which this country is run. Perhaps you can point to the differences in the way they run the government. Because honestly I don't see any overall differences from Obama. Maybe a few of the Bush methods that were expossed in the media, since the public did become aware of them, have now changed but not much else. And not much else will change. It will be guilded by special interest groups and upper class necessity, as it's always been run.Having said that though, the US isn't going anywhere, for a long, long, long time as a global super power. Our military is the greatest in the world and that is probably the only factor that needs to be looked at. [ABE] Everything else can be controled through propaganda methods.- OniEdited 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

Of the ruling class or simply the class itself?If it's the latter, simple, become wealthy.If it's the former, then become wealthy and use political pressure to ensure more financial gain for yourself and your interests. More specifically, affiliate yourself with one of the two political "parties", doesn't matter which of the two you may just have to shift where your investments are, and lobby them to gain for yourself. The ruling upper class excludes on the basis of common interets. Share in the interests and doors will open, have different interests, like say socializing medicine in the US and going against big business, and you are excluded.Other exclusions could be in the form of media control. Resticting you and what information they'll allow you to tell the general public. We will see. Honestly, Straggler, he was marketed so well that no one knows yet.Obviously if you are just looking at tax brackets he is in the upper class, but is he in the ruling class? Well, that gets a little difficlut with him specifically. Because of his back ground and color and shit like that. Likewise, if say a millionare hispanic becomes president, who was poor, it gets difficult to place them in those catagories.But, that was the beauty of being able to market Obama, you can, and they did, make him look like the every day guy. Just one of us. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, time will tell. This ruling class works independently of all government bodies. Government is used for their benefit, that is why either party will due, you may just have to shift around where you invest. Since war seems to "give life" back to a struggling economy, because the ruling class makes money from it, and also seems to need political support, 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). But we can agree, and visually see, that the conflict remains, yes?That little puppet show re-generates economies and uplifts peoples spirits and trust in the government again, both state side and globaly. So those things can be controled with propaganda strategies, however, once you are able to do that and maintain it, having one badass military shuts everyone up at that point.- 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

As has seemed to be the case here on EvC with my opinions. Absolutely. I wasn't intending it to mean that it was. I just didn't know how you meant when you asked, "how does one become part of this class?"...I just didn't know what you meant by "class". If just Tax bracket "class" or the actual political ruling class.There are wealthy people with NO political opinion at all, wealthy is not the be all and end all of power. I mean, Dave Chappelle is wealthy, I don't think he has a political power at all. Well something has to make the poor and middle, wait that's not PC anymore, the lower(I forget the *new* euphamisms) class and working class, feel good. The wealthy getting taxed higher seems to do that. Sure. That they can shift their investments depending on who's in charge does not mean that they will. What they seem to do is what we see, which is campaign for their individual parties that back their investments. But, technically speaking, if you are a wealthy investor you could make money with either party in charge.Now at the level of the average citizen, including those who are wealthy with no serious political affiliations, the way you sway them is through party line dividing issues that rally support. Gay marraige, abortion, gun control, even with cigarettes...what ever works, basically, to keep people supporting one party or the other. So the average citizen, lower/middle/upper, are controled by exploiting their "principled foundation(s)" with propaganda agendas.Just think how easy it is to gets liberals to vote one way and conservatives to vote the other way, this isn't coincidental, this is a very analized process and is studied very closely...and used in political power struggles...and maintained for those purposes. Sure, if in fact that's what you're getting and not the illusion of it. Time will tell. And the only way you'll know is simple, the US public will tell you how the "feel". Right now we "feel" like there was a lot of government secrecy and information control. This has created descent. Now the agenda is to re-instill this sense of trust back in government, and one good way to do that is to make the people "feel" as though they are actually getting all of the information. But, again, well see.I'm not going to be convinced of that change in 100 days in office. Or 4 years in office. In fact, no one president will convince me, it needs to be an overall change for a long period of time. And thus you now have Obama... And thus you now have Obama... Well any shift has to be attributed to something, this one is economic. That is what political strategies base themselves on, a cause of some sort. But, let's be honest, economic reasons weren't the only things people took issue with with the last administration.But, my point is that economies are balanced by who you put in office. A change in power can be all that is needed to boost an economy, which in my opinion is what Obama's presidency will achieve (and seems to be achieving), a change in opinion of the US and a global economic boost. Having continued down a republican path I don't think it would have had the same effect, thus you now have Obama instead of McCain. The agenda was *new* government, with the intentions that this *new* face would stimulate the economy, and it seems to be working. Whether or not Obama is making it work, the intentions were that it would work, and it is.Good for him if he does this, but also, good for the political ruling class that was protecting it's global investments. Anyone who finds themselves with no other means of protection.Now, believe me, I would hope that the day of military invasions, like that of Iraq and Afgahnistan, are over. I would hope for passive means to end and all global problems. I would hope that all governments see the negative of going to war. With that being said though, we are currently fighting terrorist groups, not political powers. However, if WWIII breaks out the US is the most superior military force on the planet, currently. "Who will advocate US military intervention?" - Anyone with half a brain, at that point.No one wants to admit it but they need the US and Europe. They need our big balls, our big guns, our huge military force, if for nothing more than as the big brother they can point to to scare those who are attacking them. Then, once they get the aid, they can turn on the US and Europe and call them all kinds of nasty names, however, only after the conflict is resolved.

---

"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

I'll admit I was being a bit facetious. I do think for the most part it has something to do with pro-enterprise equality, but would you agree that it does help on a mental level, sort of like a mental feeling of justice for those less fortunate? Yes. Each party has it's specific interests and lobbyist who lobby for it. In this particular case the president was so bad that there was a general dissatifaction of the republican party. Other times it can get very dirty, like during the Bush 1 campiagn. We are all pawns, Straggler, to someone.I'm sure he's doing the best he personally feels he can. "Democracy" voted for Bush, twice...Only someone who was being flat out stuborn didn't know that the US was voting democrat. We all knew. "Obama" could have been "Hillary" or "Edward" just the same...it was "Obama" for specific reasons. "Hillary" was part of the old politics and "Edward" was, well, just another white guy. "Obama" is the better choice for many reasons.If it's not about looks and characteristics then why are the new GOP future presidencial hopefuls an Indian, a black guy, and a woman? Where's the rich white guy? Why is he gone? Are we really meant to believe that these 3 just so happen to be the best qualified? What a fucking coincidence, huh? Just when they needed diversity, diversity shows up!It's all bullshit, Straggler. Let's say one of the 3 beats Obama, was that really democracy that would have voted him/her in, or propaganda? Yes. 5 industialist smoking cigars, who bring the new president into a room and roll down a screen. They then show the new president a video of the Kennedy assasination from an angle that no one has every seen before. Then they turn on the lights and ask the new president, "Any questions?" - Hick's joke. All I mean is big business drives government policies. No Illuminati, if that's whay you mean. - lol I agree. Who would sell the UN military it's weapons?

---

"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

Hi Straggler,I guess we've side tracked this thread enough. I'll make some final comments and give you the last word, sir.I'd be happy to continue in another thread, if you like. Good, then I'm not that crazy after all.It's also very hard to pin-point the actual intentions of any policy since it is so well concealed with propaganda, but you can make a logic conclusion from what you observe that points to their intentions. But it's always in hindsight that those intentions are revealed. I don't think there is any sole purpose to any movement, there are projected outcomes that are campaigned towards.In my opinion, you need to seperate what the people want vs. what big business wants. Sometimes they are one and the same, other times they're not, and that's the game that is then played via media persuation. How do you get the people to rally behind certain politicians/policies? The 2 different parties use their best stratagist to figure these things out, sometimes they are successful, sometimes they're not, but most of the time they can count on party divide to sway voters. Liberals are swayed one way and conservatives the other way, both sides know the game quite well and do what they gotta do to get the outcome they want.I hope this isn't considered some big conspiracy theory, this is US politics, there's no secret to it. I think it goes through phases where honesty pays off at times, then misinformation tactics works other times. But I feel that in either case, the interests of big business out weighs the interests of the people. I feel that there are 2 sides that are appealed too. One side is the citizens the other side is big business. The key is to satisfy big business while maintaining support from the citizens. Again, this also may be seen as a conspiracy theory but I don't see why, this is US politics and there's no secret about it. At the heart of it, which I consider that to mean "at the individual politician level" I think you are right, there's more to it than brainwashing and special interests, but regardless of what an individual politician may want to achieve he must still play by the rules of Washington, which is to, at least was to, lobby for your causes.At the individual level there is no need for "brainwashing". It's not at the level of the individaul politician, this is behind the scene Washington bureaucracy, which, if too much bullshit goes on, or someone pisses the wrong person off, gets made public to give the people the illusion that Washington polices those commiting fraud.But this can also be viewed as dirty politics in the sense that everyone does it and those with the most power control it. The bigger ranks in Washington get away with the most, until again, they piss off the wrong people with more power than they have.This is not a consipracy theory, this is normal US politics, and it's all legal. It also looks like Obama's camp is trying to regulate this, or at least this is what they tell the public they are doing. Time will tell if he will be successful, but even Obama recognizes the bullshit done by lobbyist in Washington and made it clear to the US public that action needed to be taken. Again, whether or not action will be taken remains to be seen. The overall impact of his anti-lobbist movement may or may not be pure propaganda to settle the citizens mind. Remember, Washington is older than him, the rules have been established long before he wanted in, he will either play by the rules or try to change it, but let's not forget what happened to the last guy who tried to do this, he got to take a ride in a convertible through Dallas that he never got to enjoy. I disgaree with that, Mitt Romney would have, IMO, beaten Obama, thus McCain was selected by the republican party. That, I'll admit, is purely speculative, but so was your statement that any republican would have lost, so I get to speculate too. Of course people will push back, but what conditions have been put in place to avoid such a revolt? Financial debt? Longer work hours? Government dependancy? Constant materialistic distractions? TV shows? etc, etc, etc.The "people" have been subdued, in my opinion, by these methods of persuasion and distractions. Now, I don't think it's a conscious effort to distract and persuade but it is the effect of the type of society that glorifies materialism and vainty and has placed their selfworth on their ability buy and consume. King? Cheif pawn? Really in charge? - This all gives the impression that you feel I'm talking about some small group of rich people who control all mass media and politics, well, I'm not.Big business dictates government policy, there's no conspiracy to it. US politics runs like that. Perhaps with this new administration it will change, I doubt it, but at least they're giving the impression that they are going a different route.But, I also feel that it would benefit Obama's administration, to gaining the trust of the American public again, which has fallen due to the last administration, by doing things the way they're doing it. Giving the impression of change that may or may not be real. Again, time will tell what their true intentions are. I believe you are being optimistic here for the sake of showing some optimism. The republican party is showing just how stupid they think Americans are, that if a black guy was voted, then anyone with color will be voted for before a millionare white guy will.And, sadly, people are that fuck'n stupid to believe that those 3 poster kids for diversity actual are the best choices. They are not the best choices, they are what the market wants, or what they "feel" the market wants.There's an appeal for diversity, so that's what you'll get. Until such time that people won't care either way, then they'll think of a new strategy. For now though, the strategy is present diversity to the ignorant masses and trust that they'll follow. No. Big business lobbys for what they want. There IS a strategy in place, lobby for what you want.If you are under the impression that big business ONLY supports republicans then you are wrong, IMO.This time around a democrat was better for the global economy, more so one who looks like Obama, given the issues with the Middle East. Had big business wanted a republican, and when I mean "big business" I'm not talking about one sole group of people, I'm just referinig to the general consensus that would be agreed upon by those with global interests, which should be common interests, they would have made a push for Romney in the media and to the public. I'm not saying it would have worked, but had they wanted a republican you would not have seen a McCain/Palin ticket. McCain/Palin was a sure fire loss. Because we aren't talking about just US businesses, I'm talking global monsters. I'm not talking about Walmart changing governemnt policies, I'm talking about Saudi oil demands and companies at that level. The major global players who do have interest in US gov. policies and support presidencial candidates. Exactly, and because there will be many, including the US, government will make a push for control of that market and the American public will be convinced through media persuasion that it's good for world peace.I wouldn't be surprised if at that point the UN would feel a need to be armed with nuclear weapons.- 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

Hi dronester, Thanks. Where have you been? I've been taking bullets in the trenches with these "wild" conspiracy theories. My guess is that they trust the information that they get from news sources and the internet, or, what I would refer to as the mass media outlets. Anything outside of the mainstream "ideology" is seen as conspirational because no other news sources are talking about it. Exactly... Exactly... Exactly... Well said. I may use that. If I was being cynical , I'd say because ignorance is bliss. I'll look into it.- 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

Except for the "Good post Onifre" part, right?

---

"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

PSCTHoly 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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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

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? 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. It varies."They" could be military, oil, pharm, tabacco, auto indus, mass media etc. 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. 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? 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. Ok, so can you see it as individual corporations jockeying for control? 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

Thanks for your well thought out input.

---

"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

To be honest, I really enjoy reading your posts and was just antagonizing a bit of a more substantial reply from you. If you don't want to, that's cool, but know that it is welcome and appreciated as you always make an excellent argument that is challenging, Straggler as well.-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

Well, Mitt Romney is not just any "normal" politician. Romney was CEO of Bain & Company, and co-founder of Bain Capital. Romney's father was former Michigan Governor, American Motors chairman, U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Nixon, and a 1968 presidential candidate.In my opinion, this was no "normal" candidate, unless you intended for "normal" to mean something else? You have to question certain actions. At face value it may look normal, but, as a fan of logic, ask yourself why Palin? Why not a McCain/Romney ticket?I can see only 2 reasons::(1) The republican party, which is attached to big business(I don't think you disagree with that), made the choice to bring in Palin to guarantee a loss.or,(2) The republican party felt that Americans were dumb enough to change their vote because of a woman VP.Either of the 2 requires a consensus from the republican party, so which do you think is the more plausable of the 2?I feel it's the 1st one, which do you feel it was? If we disagree here on this point I think I'm cool with that. Let's try to simplify the way we are using the term "big business".When you're speaking of specific interests "big business" does not fit, we would have to present the actual specific business we're talking about - like defence, pharm, auto, etc. When we're speaking about the general goal of large corporations "big business" can be thrown in to cover the general spectrum of most large corporations.So to answer your above quote, no, there obviously cannot be a universally prefered candidate. But, that's not to say that the universal goal for big business isn't a candidate that meets their specific interests. But yet even with a government bailout, GM has cut thousands of jobs, closed hundreds of factories, cut worker benefits, thousands have lost their job, etc. That's just GM. So, loss of jobs isn't their main concern, their main concern is not letting the company fold.But I get your point. For whatever reason? How about media persuasion?That's ALL the media seems to do, create these illusionary issues, divide the general public into liberal/conservative, every single issue is divided, why? Why do they portray it like that?It's a marginalizing tactic, IMO.Also note that the way the democrats may "feel" doesn't justify continuing to fund an illegal war that has caused the death's of over 100,000 civilians and troops. But again, I get your point. Cool. No. Maybe. I don't know. I doubt they went that far, but I would have no idea what they were actually doing.All I'm saying is that the defence industry wanted a president that wasn't hated like Bush. That it worked out with Obama was just the way it worked out. If they personally supported him or not I cannot say. But the media did it's job in making Obama the featured, rockstar candidate, that most of American loved. If I was a defence industry executive I would have loved to see that opinion of him from the American public, and done whatever was in my power to make sure he was continuously shown in that light. Ok. Now go one step further and see how he got to be that "rockstar character". Why was he the one choosen to give the speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention?IMO, he was selected with the intentions that he would be able to change the worlds opinion of America. In (04) he had NOT established anything about his abilities to "do the job". Furthermore, during his campaighn he didn't establish why he was the better choice for the job. He simply had more appeal. More media hype. The rockstar quality. He was the iPhone G3 of presidencial candidates, and just like with the iPhone, people camped out over night to be the first to get to the early voting. This administration is NOT less compatible with the defence agenda, show me how it's less compatible? Why? You agreed that republicans have big business connections, in fact you stated that sometimes they are one in the same. So what's so far fetched about the republicans taking a dive in this election so that their big business affiliates can reep the benefits?I also feel the democrats took a dive when they picked John Kerry. 2 more years of Bush fuck ups pretty much guaranteed them control of the house and senate, and with the (08) elections going to a democrat as well, the have control of all 3 branches of our government. Seems like a good plan. So, the dems took a dive to gain control of the house and senate, and the rep took a dive to satisfy their corporate affiliates.It may sound conspiratorial, maybe, I guess, depends on how you look at it. No. The defence industry wanted a president that would give the US more global appeal. If I had to take a shot at guessing how or who decided, I would say it was a consensus amoung the republican parties higher memebers who picked McCain and ruined any chance of winning by giving him Palin. But this I admit is purely speculative. How it is done is very secretive. I'm just swinging in the dark. But I think it makes logical sense, you seem to be fond of logic, what do you think? Logical or not? and if not, why? Hope I did.PS. Thanks for the invite to London. I'm in the works for a UK tour next year but no specifics yet. I may be doing a Middle East tour first, but I'll defintely let you know if I'm in London. If Kuresu makes it there too I say we get him drunk and cut his hair, for fun, you know, laughs and shit. If you, or Kuresu, are ever in Miami, Fl. the same invitation is extended to you guys from me.

---

"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