Dictators

Please, dont abuse my imperfect English. You know what I meant by secret vote.

As to the democratic or not systems: Whenever there is a huge accumulation of wealth (which wishes to remain accumulated) there will be ways of financing even the most perfect of systems.

Just look at the pages I sent to Air-war: Cologne ruined and American (military production) factories - intact. Is this not influence on politicians? Then I don´t know what corruption of system of power is. Sorry.

I wish you could read all the books on Wall St by Antony C. Sutton, as well as

The rich and the super-rich : A study in the power of money today.
Ferdinand Lundberg , 1969, 812 s.

Pleasant reading! Don´t be afraid if your Weltanschauung begins to veer. :lol:

 

Before this topic digresses into a debate of what is truly a democracy (it's interesting, but there's a topic for it somewhere already), I'll just see if you'd agree with me that no elected leader is a dictator as long as (s)he doesn't actually abolish opposition and bodies of democratic government altogether. In that though (s)he may wield power beyond the limits the theory of democracy sets upon its leaders, (s)he is still the leader of a democratic system.

 

Then we have to make two categories:
Dictator (oligarchy) in officio and
Dictator (oligarchy) in facto

In the US both parties are sponsored more or less equally by "the business community" - meaning that there is actually one party only. The Oligarchy is then "in facto". IMHO

 

Izaak Stern wrote:

Sorry. I did not (and still do not )know to what you are referring.

Unlike some I am in no way hostile to wealth or capital. It it one of the factors that has made the western nations prosperous. The fact that the politicans are influenced by money and the power it brings does not particularly disturb me as long as the influence is open and aboveboard.
It is also perfectly consistent with human nature and inevitable. It was a factor in ancient Rome and it remains a factor today. We, as a society must recognize this fact of life and control it as much as possible.

Haven't seen it. Will have to look at it, then comment.

 

I just ruled out the possibility of an American president being a dictator, since he will never abolish democartic bodies or annihilate opposition. A person put in power by an Oligarchy is out of the control of that same oligarchy as soon as he gathers supreme power within his person, which means that oligarchies will always attempt to avoid installing dictators and prefer influential leaders of democratic (or seemingly democratic) systems. Thus an in facto oligarchy is never ruled by a dictator.

When both sides of a political spectrum are funded by business, surely this does not mean the system knows only one party? It knows only one group which funds the existing parties: big business. No surprise, since that's where the money is. I'd be surprised if any party was not funded by business. However, the different parties still represent different ideas about governing and will issue different policies: the fact that American government policy over the years seems like more of a see-saw than a continuous line, shows that the American political system has more than one party.

Anyway, if we can't accept the above about presidents not being dictators this debate will be endless without ever reaching the point canadianpatriot wants it to reach. I suggest therefore that we do.

 

Izaak Stern wrote:

I read the pages you scanned. To begin with you are incorrect when you call any of these organizations "American (military production) factories".
AEG was a German organization formerly affiliated with GE. Hitler did not nationalize these industries because there was no need; as long as he exercised ultimate control over them he considered it wiser to leave the day to day control in the hands of those who had shown themselves capable. After the war began US ties to these organizations were severed. There were many ties financial and otherwise between Germany and the US (as well as many other countries) before the war. To attempt to construct a conspiracy theory out of guilt by(business) association is weak IMO.

The "proof" in those pages is nonexistent. The second hand comments made by a Jeep driver; The "fact" that certain factories were apparently not targetted (as if there were unlimited raids and all possible targets in Germany were bombed). Targets were assigned based on priorities. The fact that a particular industry or factory was not bombed does not therefore mean that it was "protected". It can also mean that it was a low priority target or did not meet other criteria in the risk/benefit analysis used to determine potential targets. In other words if the risk of unacceptable losses exceeded the likely benefit to be derived it would not be assigned as a target.

But why let things like logic and reason interfere with a much more interesting "theory"?

Just as soon as I finish reading another "true" story The DaVinci Code



Roel wrote:

Well put (wish I had said it as clearly )

 

I´ll allow myself to be of different opinion than Grieg. I have also read the whole book : I have not any possibility to scan a whole book. Nor do I think that anything would have convinced you that connections between US and German companies were not severed, and the owners (co-) tried, more or less successfully to influence the bombing strategy of USAF. Let´s leave it.

Conc. US president: of course there is nothing bad in business sponsoring politics. But as soon as sponsoring gives political leverage in military and other contracts - it stinks of corruption.

As to zigzags in American politics: Roel, are you able, to the best of your knowledge se major differences in big programs of different presidents: New Deal, Great Society or whatever. As soon as business is at stake - the programs are very alike. Minor differences being widely publicized as a proof of your zigzag.

And as soon as the Strongman doesn´t listen carefully to the puppetmansters - see JFK (not necessarily the film - sea what happened with the man who didn´t like the idea of military intervention and opposed it .)

 

I think he means the fact that ballots are secret - that nobody can know who you have voted for.

Which is interesting, because I am not sure that British ballots are secret any more.

Obviously, postal votes are not (you must sign your ballot paper!), and chunks of the country have compulsory postal voting now.
More worrying, when I went to vote, they took my ballot card (basically you are assigned one, with a number on, to ensure that you do not vote twice) and crossed my name off the list of people who could vote in my area (all fine), then tore an actual voting slip from a pad, and wrote my ballot card number on the stub on the pad! And each voting slip has its own number...

Not a good development. :angry:

 

Guessed correctly my secret voting!

The thing you are talking about is a possible way to a sort of Big Brother watchin you. "1984" removed by some 20-25 years? Horror for me. I can´t even try to imagine something like that in Holyland. :angry: That would get people to the streets. (Notwithstanding, the local Brother is watching veeery carefully: if someone knows about it, it´s me, imho).

 

On dictionary.com the term dictators is stated as follows : An absolute ruler.
A tyrant; a despot.
An ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency.
One who dictates: These initials are those of the dictator of the letter

 

Izaak Stern wrote:

I have no problem with that. I think( and I think you do also) that people can disagree without being disagreeable. I do take exception to your stated opinion regarding a closed mind on my part. Whenever one wishes to rewrite accepted history (or even conventional wisdom) the burden of proof is on the revisionist and the evidentiary standard is high. Mere stated opinions, vague innuendo or allusion will not satisfy that high standard. Credible evidence supporting a well constructed plausible theory would go a long way to changing opinions however. I'm not expecting you to scan the whole book, I commented on the pages you did supply and if what is presented is representtive of the whole then it would be pointless anyway.

I agree. The problem is that you assume that that is the case without evidence to support that assumption. It is not disputed that business organizations donate money to candidates and political causes. That practice is legal and virtually universal worldwide (though not openly in many places) yet where is the evidence of the corruption you are impying is so widespread that these business interests have usurped power and are running the US government from behind the scenes?

Have there been cases of corruption and abuse uncovered in the US..of course..who would be so naive to maintain otherwise? People are people no matter where you go in the world and one can always find a small percentage of people who abuse or cheat the system. Does not this situation exist everywhere in the world? Is that an indictment of the system? No.

No comment because it's not clear what point you are tring to make.

More indulgence in interesting "theories"? We know what happened to JFK. We know who pulled the trigger. His motivations can only be speculated upon. There is no credible evidence to support the various "theories" of CIA involvement, or a mob hit..or a Castro ordered asassination or any connection with hangar 51 or Rozwell NM..or any other conspiracy theory. I have read all of them over the years and none hold water when subjected to logical, scientific scrutiny.

None of this is an attack on you Izaak but on the conspiracy theories being debated and in a larger sense the pseudo-science and illogical reasoning behind the popularity of fringe "literature" (and increasingly bloggers) promoting this nonsense.

 

Or do we...

 

Ricky wrote:

Not you too ! :lol:

Seriously though, conspiracy theories are fun...such ideas make life more interesting..like believing in ghosts or UFOs. Just don't confuse fantasy and reality.
If you have any serious, credible evidence regarding anyone besides Oswald being the killer of JFK please bring it out and let's discuss it.

 

Um, er...

not really.

There has always been lots of interesting discussions about angles of bullet penetration etc for Both JFK & Ted Kennedy's shootings. Personally I kinda like the theory that Oswald missed, but Jack was shot in the back of the head accidently by his bodyguard

But anyway, enough sillyness.

 

The Skeptical Inquirer is an excellent publication that should be required reading for the logic deprived and reason deficient amongst us

Link to a short overview of a few of the issues raised by the conspiracy theorists:

[url=http://www.csicop.org/si/200.../www.csicop.org/si/2005-01/strange-world.html[/url]

A good read.

 

i believe there was a gunman in the grazzy knoll , because a bolt action rifle was heard going off , but , but ...... there were reports that a semi-automatic rifle was heard. Heres more food for thought ... all 18 bystanders who went public on what they heard and saw were dead within a year , here are some causes of death , gunshot wound to the head , .. karate chop to the neck .... a few died from poisoning. hmmm ... makes you think, the other causes of death are just as strange

 

canadiansuperpatriot wrote:

You really need to read some articles in the Skeptical Inquirer. Most of those urban legends are shot down with evidence and data. That isn't true BTW about the bystanders all being dead within a year.

 

"I do take exception to your stated opinion regarding a closed mind on my part. Whenever one wishes to rewrite accepted history (or even conventional wisdom) the burden of proof is on the revisionist and the evidentiary standard is high."

Grieg, for G_ds sake! I respect you. Can´t you see it? I am a provocateur because I don´t know myself. I almost envy your stoic certainty. Maybe you´re right. I even hope so. So it is said.

I haven´t time for more today. Tomorrow I´ll read and answer the rest.
To tell you the truth: You are one of the most important discutants and Reasons why I still am here, Grieg. So, please, don´t tell me I´m looking at you as a unchangeable fossil!!!

 

here come the skeptics ........... :roll:

 

Izaac wrote:

Hehe..thanks. I don't get upset about anything discussed on these forums. I find the different perspectives interesting even though I don't agree that often with the Euro outlook.
To get an educated Israeli/Jewish/sorta Russian perspective is most interesting to me (though I realize you speak only for yourself and not your nation or religion).
To return your compliment if I may, I always read your posts and find them intriquing even when I disagree (which is often)