Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
POG Politics Thread POG Politics Thread

10-02-2008 , 12:02 PM
That said, I wouldn't put it past King George
10-02-2008 , 12:03 PM
interestingly, the wacky rumor that I heard was that FSB (which is like the KGB) reported that Bush was suspending the elections on the 5th.

I watched the tape of it but it was translated from Russian and I don't think any sort of reputable sources picked it up
10-02-2008 , 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan
Somebody wants to completely collapse the banking system?
its called problem-reaction-solution

they create the problem and then provide the solution and the solution is always more centralized control

I've already linked to a couple different articles where they are discussing the creation of a global financial authority.
10-02-2008 , 12:08 PM
notice now that the language has changed on the bailout

CNBC is no longer calling it a bailout

it is now being called a rescue plan
10-02-2008 , 12:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DustinG
its called problem-reaction-solution

they create the problem and then provide the solution and the solution is always more centralized control
I read a book by pj orouke in which argues that politicians don't really benefit from solving problems. Rather, they benefit from being seen to act against problems, rather than the results. If a policy actually solves a problem too well, it makes the problem seem like it wasn't that bad, so the policy is less well regarded. If otoh, a policy half solves a problem, then it is working well against a serious problem, so must be a really good policy. Or something like that.
10-02-2008 , 12:12 PM
Dustin - I'm saying somebody is faking the "omg banks are shutting down" in the hopes that massive numbers of people withdraw their money from the banks, which the banks (obviously) don't have, collapsing the bank system. I would say it's a plot cooked up by some high college kids trying to fight the man, as opposed to adults with rational opposition to government and central banking.
10-02-2008 , 12:13 PM
Quote:
Rather, they benefit from being seen to act against problems, rather than the results
This is so true, it kinda makes me want to barf

wtf, 30 second post delay now?
10-02-2008 , 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokiri
I read a book by pj orouke in which argues that politicians don't really benefit from solving problems. Rather, they benefit from being seen to act against problems, rather than the results. If a policy actually solves a problem too well, it makes the problem seem like it wasn't that bad, so the policy is less well regarded. If otoh, a policy half solves a problem, then it is working well against a serious problem, so must be a really good policy. Or something like that.
that isn't really what I meant

What I mean is if they want to enact something thats politically unpopular one way to go about doing it is to create a problem and then provide the solution
10-02-2008 , 12:26 PM
My sister went to the bank today and told me there were two elderly gentlemen that quite loudly demanded that all their savings be handed over to them and proceded to call the manager that was called a crooky-banker and went on a long profanity laden rant.
She estimated their age at 80+

The image of that made me lol.
10-02-2008 , 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DustinG
interestingly, the wacky rumor that I heard was that FSB (which is like the KGB) reported that Bush was suspending the elections on the 5th.
I heard that as well but this would never happen. Suspending elections would make transparent how things really work. Holding elections allows the same power elite to remain in control behind a different puppet regime.

People floated the same rumors during teh last year of Reagan's second term. It's an understandable reaction, but misapplied..
10-02-2008 , 12:46 PM
Cancelling an election would surely cause a massive revolt in the US.
10-02-2008 , 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amplify
I heard that as well but this would never happen. Suspending elections would make transparent how things really work. Holding elections allows the same power elite to remain in control behind a different puppet regime.

People floated the same rumors during teh last year of Reagan's second term. It's an understandable reaction, but misapplied..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan
Cancelling an election would surely cause a massive revolt in the US.
what if they want there to be a massive revolt?

not that I think there would be. We are so dumbed down and pacified that i doubt a revolt of any sort of scale would happen.
10-02-2008 , 12:57 PM
dusting,

who would benefit?
10-02-2008 , 12:58 PM
Who's "they"?

Massive shakeups benefit the people at the bottom of the totem poll, not the top.
10-02-2008 , 01:00 PM
Perhaps Bush is secretly a revolutionary and has merely corrupted the powers of the executive branch, murdered hundreds of thousands of people, and stripped citizens of inalienable rights in order to foment revolt.
10-02-2008 , 01:01 PM
You forgot the 9/11 plot.
10-02-2008 , 01:02 PM
The terrorists just won.
10-02-2008 , 01:10 PM
Anyone interested in what happens when your central bank just keeps printing money in order to prop up the economy, check out what's going on in Zimbabwe. Inflation there is said to be running at 40 million percent. 40 million percent. Earlier this year, the government lopped 10 zeroes off the money.

Quote:
Mr. Gono, who blames Western sanctions for the nation’s troubles, did not respond to requests for an interview. But he was quoted in the state media this week as saying, “I am going to print and print and sign the money until sanctions are removed.”
-NYTimes
10-02-2008 , 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amplify
dusting,

who would benefit?
the elites, obviously

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan
Who's "they"?

Massive shakeups benefit the people at the bottom of the totem poll, not the top.
I said what I said as a hypothetical and to provoke thought- I do not think the elections will be canceled

however, if the intention was to cause a massive revolt then the people would most likely be conned (through the media) into accepting a solution that does not benefit them
10-02-2008 , 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan
You forgot the 9/11 plot.
You ready to start discussing 9/11 in a serious way?

I would want to start with what was called the Able Danger program if you were.
10-02-2008 , 01:24 PM
I will discuss 9/11 once somebody, somewhere, presents real evidence that it was anything other than a terrorist plot.

BTW,

"but, GWB & cronies profitted" != evidence
10-02-2008 , 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan
Cancelling an election would surely cause a massive revolt in the US.
I have to be honest, I don't think it would. I don't think ANYTHING would. Americans as a whole are just too damn lazy to really revolt. That includes me. I might be mad as hell, and there's a small-percentage chance I'd move elsewhere, but I wouldn't revolt.
10-02-2008 , 01:26 PM
As much as I hate the government, I do not think that they planted charges to bring the buildings down or anything like that, but it seems pretty clear that at the very least, they let it happen.
10-02-2008 , 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan
I will discuss 9/11 once somebody, somewhere, presents real evidence that it was anything other than a terrorist plot.

BTW,

"but, GWB & cronies profitted" != evidence
Whats important about the Able Danger program isn't really the existence of the program itself

it was the media's total and complete (except for Lou Dobbs) silence on what should have been the biggest news story since 9/11 itself.
10-02-2008 , 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amplify
As much as I hate the government, I do not think that they planted charges to bring the buildings down or anything like that, but it seems pretty clear that at the very least, they let it happen.
I'm not sure I agree. Unless by "let it happen" you mean "didn't treat it as a serious threat".

Before 9/11, security and terrorism was treated far more sanely in the US than it is now. I imagine they get a non-trivial number of terrorist plot threats. They can't shut down the airports every time. Well, they could now, but not in 2001, and I'd argue they shouldn't.

      
m