And your argument falls apart. Familiar with the false dichotomy, right? There are more than two reasons, some more or less valid than others.
Sure, there can be a billion reasons, but I can see only 2.
Given that McCain's goal is to win, your first choice doesn't make any sense.
So, you believe, honestly believe, that the VP decision was made solely by McCain himself and not his advisors?
IMO, they convinced him she was the right pick - that I'll believe. McCain most likely did make the decision honestly, due to his advisors advice.
Did they expect to pick up voters because Palin was a woman? Yes.
That's a selling point to convince McCain that she's a better choice. One that works.
The moral majority was vocally unhappy with McCain.
How did Palin help?
Now then, McCain is aiming to win.
McCain can be "aiming" for whatever he wants, he was selected as the nominee because he was 75 years old and a sure loss to either Obama or Clinton.
The media however, made sure Clinton didn't win.
McCain had no chance against Obama. Romney, in my opinion, did. Younger, better looking, taller, more appealing, long history in Politics, etc. For fuck sake he even looked like Reagan. The chance, if the republicans were looking to lose this one, could not be taken with Romney, it would have been too close for comfort. This is just my opinion, having analized how it all went down.
If it sounds conspiratorial, then maybe we just analize things differently.
Romney? Never. The moral majority is even more uncomfortable with him than with McCain (he's moderate and -gasp!- mormon).
Where did you get that from FoxNews or MSNBC? Sounds like propaganda to me, dude. That sounds like the very type of crap the media instigates that I've been telling Straggler gets fed to the public.
The media manifests these bullshit opinions about certain candidates then they spreads it through the airwaves, next thing you know "the moral majority doesn't like Romney, next on FoxNews!". People tune in, hear that and figure "well I'm one of these republican folk I guess that's my opinion of him too".
But I guess we analize things differently.
Well, the woman angle certainly makes sense in this narrative. Two for the price of one: pick off disgruntled Clinton supporters, get the social conservative vote.
This also sounds like deceptive media crap. This may be what they've told us in the media that it was for, but either they think people are that stupid or they are liars and that's not the real reason.
I guess we just analize things differently.
Personally, I think electoral math played a large role in her selection. If it wasn't for the fact that she did so miserably in interviews, the one debate, or had various ethical problems, or if she hadn't manage to alienate so many more voters than she actually attracted, the race could have been closer.
Personally, I disagree. Palin was a train wreck waiting to happen. McCain/Palin, even if Palin would have been perfect, didn't stand a chance, why, McCain vs Obama ends in a KO no matter who his running mate was. Palin just "sealed the deal".
I guess we just analize things differently.
Namely, because Kerry wasn't running to lose.
Kerry could want anything he wants, he was selected by the Dems to lose.
What you're arguing is that politicians are purposefully, strategically losing now to build up for the future.
Individual politicians, as I've continuously said, I feel DO work honestly and for what they stand for - not all, of course - but it's beyond them.
You can try and predict it.
Exactly. You have analist that work on this very thing and make future predictions, and develop a stratagy. One being to lose the presidencial elections in (04) and win the House and Senate. Do I think this was a unified effort, of course not. Small groups of people with power pushing for one specific person by controling the media, which they own. Yes, the democrats too.
So you've laid out this brilliant strategy. We know that the republicans will screw it all up. So let's lose now. When they've taken their hits, we can pick up the whole game in one swoop. Except you can't actually know, and people generally, if ever run to lose on purpose.
Bush was failing in Iraq. The lies were starting to surface about the WMD's. I don't have to repeat it we all know what was being brought to light. Bush was destined to either fail completely or leave a bad taste in the US publics mind. The Dems didn't want that tone of crap thrown on them so close to a mid-term election that they could win and take control with. However, if they win the presidency and can't handle the situation in Iraq, because frankly at that time it was one fucked up mess waiting to explode, the "people" may simply get a bad taste for the Dems and blame the whole fiasco on them, that's a risk that, IMO, they were not willing to take. Any political analist working in the Dems camp would have been able to predict Bush's failure.
Well, the only way you'll get me drunk is to trick me.
I'll start working on a plan now.
But if I do go to London or Miami will certainly look you all up.
Cool
- 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
I'll get to your post, Kuresu, probably Monday, but here's something for you and Straggler to think about.
Here's an old Op-Ed piece I rememberd reading in the NY Times written by Mitt Romney. This, IMO, could be considered one of the reasons Romney wasn't wanted by certain representatives of Big Auto Business.
Not that this is IT, but this can give us an idea as to why the republican party, being lobbied by the Auto Industy(ie. Big Business, Straggler), didn't want Romney.
quote:IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
And:
Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.
Also:
But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass they bet on management and they lost.
finally:
The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
However, the shareholders wanted the bailout. Mitt was against it. Does it sound conspiratorial to think that the Auto Industry had a hand in McCain being pushed before Romney?
If you were a shareholder, CEO, executive, in the Auto Industry wouldn't you have endorsed McCain and done whatever you could to make sure Romney doesn't win?
As fate should have it though...
Apparently, now, the Auto Industry is going to go bankrupt anyways, at least 2 companies will be:
quote:GM, which has received $15.4 billion in federal aid, faces a June 1 government deadline to complete its restructuring plan. If it can't finish in time, the company will follow Detroit competitor Chrysler LLC into bankruptcy protection.
So it looks like in the end, Obama, was the better choice, as now the Auto Industry gets federal aid AND bankruptcy protection. Did they have a hand in it? Maybe, maybe not.
Is it conspiratorial to think that too?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : Changed bailout in final comment to "federal aid" as per kuresu's post
"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
It's a little difficult to call the federal aid given to the auto companies a bailout, because the money didn't bail them out of anything.
Yeah I noticed in my final comment I wrote "bailout" instead of "federal aid", which I have since changed.
But my point wasn't about what actually took place, I was simply refering to the campaign portion of the issue. Where each candidate stood on Auto Industry Bailouts.
McCain on Auto Industry bailout:
quote:The government recently promised the auto industry $25 billion in loans in order to produce more fuel-efficient models. Now, as General Motors and Chrysler consider a merger, executives are hinting at another $10 billion in federal help. Earlier this week, top McCain adviser Carly Fiorina said the campaign opposes any auto bailout:
I don’t think the government can rescue the industry, Carly Fiorina, former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard Corp, told Reuters at an event in suburban Detroit.Whatever the government does, it should not take away the fundamentals of risk-taking. Sometimes it leads to rewards and sometimes consequences, downside, she said. In other words, the auto industry cannot be saved from its own bad bets.
Interviewed on Good Morning America, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) expressed support for the auto industry bailouts:
Q: We’re finding out that there may be a possibility of some sort of bail-out or government assistance for the auto industry. Would that be something that you would support?
MCCAIN: Well, we’ve already done that to $25 billion, and we’ve delayed getting them the money. I would do whatever I think needs to be done to help our automotive industry. We’ve got to make this transition to flex fuel, battery powered, hydrogen automobiles. And, obviously and, also, I would provide tax credits for people who buy these new automobiles. We’ve got to keep this industry alive. There’s no doubt about that.
Finally:
McCain has been slowly creeping towards supporting bailouts for the auto industry. In June, he stated, Frankly I just don’t see a scenario where the federal government would come in and bail out any industry in America today. Earlier this week, McCain was on the fence, telling NBC, Let’s get the $25 billion to them to start with and see how that goes. Finally, today, he hinted at full support for more bailouts.
quote:HENDERSONVILLE, NC — GE Lighting Systems, Inc., will provide General Motors Corp., with its newly available NuVation Electronic Ballast Lighting System in GM's new 2.4-million square foot, three-building manufacturing complex in Delta Township, Michigan. More than 2,500 GM employees involved with body shop, paint shop, general assembly and office activities will work at the complex when it begins operations in 2006.
"GM is taking advantage of the cost of light concept," says GE's Armstrong. "GM employees and the community as a whole benefit from GM's commitment to finding and deploying these kinds of advanced energy-saving solutions."
First in June McCain doesn't support bailouts. I don't have the date for the interview, I tried to see it on the video provided in the link, but he then slowly "changes his mind" on it. Really?
(Two invitations served, and I am on neither guest list. For christ's sake, I'm standing right in front of you! Sheesh. (Damn that Stile, he said I would be more likeable/credible with an avatar!)
Great posts, Dronester!!! I'd have a hard time seeing it any other way than what you and I have been trying to convey, from your posts.
PS. My bad on not extending you the same hospitality, you are more than welcome to look me up as well if you are ever in Miami. I must admit though, from your first avitar pic I thought you were a magician, it made you look like David Copperfield. But the new one is more likeable/credible...no one ever trusts a magician.
"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
Do you know when McCain had the nomination wrapped up? March 08. That would be when both he and Romney were against auto bailouts.
The underlying point is that McCain WAS selected nominee, he then changed his opinion on the bailouts, hmmm, why? Even though Romney stuck to his guns about the bailout.
What were McCains reasons to support the bailout? Did he ever give anything substancial for a reason? - No. He just changed his mind, convinently AFTER he wins.
Can an assumtion be made about a possible change of opinion due to financial backing and support from certain members of the republican party who have major ties with the Auto Industry and those that will be affected by it? - I'd say yes.
Well, he kind of said that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" at the wrong time. People started buying into Obama's economic message more than into McCain's.
Problem: Neither McCain or Obama supported bailouts in March, yet both changed their minds. Plus even in October McCain is vaguely supportive. But, does support the 25 billion that was once promissed to the Auto Industry by Congress.
Here's McCain by October:
McCain cautious on U.S. auto industry bailout Wed Oct 29, 2008
quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Sunday declined to embrace the idea of $15 billion more in government aid for the struggling U.S. automobile industry but did not rule it out.
McCain noted the U.S. Congress recently authorized $25 billion in low-interest loans to help the industry retool to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.
"Let's get the $25 billion to them to start with and see how that goes," McCain said.
Here's Obama in March:
Obama gets tough on auto bailouts by The Associated Press Monday March 30, 2008
quote:WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama refused further long-term federal bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler, saying more concessions were needed from unions, creditors and others before they could be approved. He raised the possibility today of controlled bankruptcy for one or both of the beleaguered auto giants.
Here's Obama by November:
Obama Supports Government Assistance for Auto Industry, Emanuel Says President-Elect Backs Aid Through 'Existing Authority' By MARY BRUCE Nov. 9, 2008
quote:In his first interview since joining the Barack Obama team, incoming White House Chief of Staff Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said this morning that Obama supports government assistance for the auto industry using existing authority.
Emanuel talks on the senator's role on the Homeland Security Committee.
More Photos"First the auto industry is an essential part of our economy and an essential part of our industrial base," Emanuel said in a "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" interview.
"Second they should look at accelerating the $25 billion that was offered for re-tooling for the industry going forward.
Flip flop much guys?
Yet Romney stayed opposed throughout the whole campaign and into Novemebr. He didn't get the nominee, he didn't get the VP nod, he didn't win anything. However, the 2 that did support the bailout, eventually, and IMO due to persusive measures, ARE the nominees.
Like I stated in the other post, I don't think "this is it" the "smoking gun", but all I was trying to do is show the connections to big business, reasons for possibly why Romney wasn't asked to be VP, or given the nomination.
I think I showed possible reasons why. At the very least, their flip flopping and change of hearts is evidence of some kind of manipulation, IMHO.
- 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
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?
The difference here is that we are talking about the government of the most powerful country in the world.
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.
And who would you suggest was "in" on this plan? Who was in on the conspiracy.
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...
Fitting the evidence to the facts with the benefit of hindsight.
??? - 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?
More to you and Dronester later.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
- like "take a dive". How about "gracefully bow out", would that work better?
™ Version 4.2