Who will be the next world power?

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

Hey Straggler,Note, we are drifting off-topic. 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. . . 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. 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. 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.cheersEdited by dronester, : additionEdited by dronester, : formatting clarity

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

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

Good posts Oni. 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.

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, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since 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

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: 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? 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? (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. 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.

OK. See my above post to Oni for the basis of any "conspiracy straw man arguments". 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.

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.

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

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, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since 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

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

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

Sounds pretty conspiratorial to me.