future of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak

[bush_cheney2004]

....Why sure. All Americans are idiots and controlled by the mystical powers of the bagel people.

Got news for you-its time you move past the bagel conspiracy theory and try examine who shapes US foreign policy and why.

Thank you for highlighting this point...it needs to be made clear that Americans can like bagels AND still formulate their own foreign policies. We choose to support Israel, and always will. If some of you don't like that, invade Washington D.C.

Edited January 31, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bud]

Not so...see Rep. Dennis Kucinich. or Sen. Rand Paul.

and then see the other 90%+ of reps and senators who would not dare to go against the grain.

face it bc2004, your government is heavily influenced by lobby groups, namely the military industrial complex, pharmaceutics, energy and israel. meaning that they will respond to special interest first, before the american people's interest. those who go against these lobby groups, risk losing financial support for the election campaigns. except for a very few, majority of the reps and senators are elected because of the money they receive from these major groups. 'money speaks' as you continuously repeat. so please stick with reality and admit that the american government is controlled by special interest groups and the only thing getting in the way of the u.s. political system being as corrupt as most other places around the world is its constitution.

[Bonam]

We choose to support Israel, and always will.

Hmm, while I would like to believe that, I don't see how you can necessarily say that with any confidence. Public opinion in the US constantly shifts on many issues, and antisemitism is on the rise worldwide, including in the US. Furthermore, the migration of ever more and more Muslims and Arabs to the US will also influence the political reality, as they will eventually constitute a far far larger voting bloc than Jews do. I think it is far more likely that US support for Israel will fade over time, both as public opinion continues to slowly drift against Israel (due to the success of Arab propaganda) as well as due to the US eventually seeking to appease its rivals as its relative worldwide dominance becomes less complete (due to the rise of powers such as China, etc). Israel needs to plan accordingly, and have contingencies to continue to survive and prosper even if US support is someday no longer forthcoming. That's why they have nukes, for example.

[bud]

Hmm, while I would like to believe that, I don't see how you can necessarily say that with any confidence. Public opinion in the US constantly shifts on many issues, and antisemitism is on the rise worldwide, including in the US.

once again, you're confused and mixing up being against israel's policies in the occupied territories with anti-semitism. they are not the same.

boy, you guys really know how to kill the meaning of a word.

[Bob]

and then see the other 90%+ of reps and senators who would not dare to go against the grain.

face it bc2004, your government is heavily influenced by lobby groups, namely the military industrial complex, pharmaceutics, energy and israel. meaning that they will respond to special interest first, before the american people's interest. those who go against these lobby groups, risk losing financial support for the election campaigns. except for a very few, majority of the reps and senators are elected because of the money they receive from these major groups. 'money speaks' as you continuously repeat. so please stick with reality and admit that the american government is controlled by special interest groups and the only thing getting in the way of the u.s. political system being as corrupt as most other places around the world is its constitution.

Evidence in "Freakonomics" discredits your assertion that politicians only win because of money. It's a question of chicken and the egg - what comes first, the electable politician or the money? Does money buy the election or does the strong politician secure the money? The truth is that strong politicians get the money they need to win. Consider this, if I gave you twice as much money as the last victor of your riding, could you win your riding in the next federal election? We all know the answer is hell no. Basically, your assertion that money is the be-all and end-all of electability is simply not true. There is no question that money is important, but it's a component in the more complex tapestry of reality that you're out of touch with. Obama is a strong example of grassroots campaigning which brought in record numbers of campaign donations - did the money make the man or the man make the money?

The simplistic claims that lobby groups control the government also isn't true. It is certainly not true with respect to foreign policy, which is what we tend to talk about in this forum. Don't think Obama picks up the phone and calls his AIPAC masters before making his decisions with respect to how to proceed on the Israel-Arab conflict. That's the picture you and others like you try to paint of the executive in your infantile efforts to denigrate Israel and her supporters. Since American leadership doesn't share your anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist views, which in your heart-of-hearts should be obvious to everyone, the only explanation is that the powers that be are controlled by shady evil Zionists behind he scenes. This is only way you can rationalize how your hero Obama doesn't act on what he must know to be true. After all, if the truth is so obvious to you, it must be more than obvious to your homeboy Obama.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Bob

[bush_cheney2004]

and then see the other 90%+ of reps and senators who would not dare to go against the grain.

Why? With only two names, I have demonstrated that their is political viability for candidates who espouse cutting off or reducing foreign aid to Israel (and other nations).

face it bc2004, your government is heavily influenced by lobby groups, namely the military industrial complex, pharmaceutics, energy and israel. meaning that they will respond to special interest first, before the american people's interest.

You do not understand why America even exists. They are all "special interest groups", at the federal, state, and local level. Oh, and it includes well paid lobbyists from Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmm, while I would like to believe that, I don't see how you can necessarily say that with any confidence.

I can say that with an exceeding amount of confidence. Indeed, recent events have forged an even closer tie between the two nations and shared interests in the region. I am old enough to rememebr the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty during the Six Day War....you would be surprised how much the relationship can endure.

[Bob]

- mistake.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Bob

[bud]

Evidence in "Freakonomics" discredits your assertion that politicians only win because of money. It's a question of chicken and the egg - what comes first, the electable politician or the money? Does money buy the election or does the strong politician secure the money? The truth is that strong politicians get the money they need to win.

in the united states and many other places, this definition of a strong politician means someone who will abide by the rules. if you go against what the military industrial complex wants, the israeli lobby wants, the energy sector wants, then they will not give you money. it's quite simple.

most of these lobby groups have their favourites, but they support most other candidates from all 2 parties as long as they see eye to eye with their agenda.

imagine if obama did what's right and stopped supporting israel's violation of international law by stopping to give israel $3 billion a year and giving it political immunity internationally. what would happen in the next elections when it comes to 'donations' from the lobby groups? special interest groups have the strongest influence in the country. if this continues, they'll run the country into the ground.

who donates the most to these candidates? would the candidate risk future donations to them and their party by going against what the big donors pay them?

here is obama's donation information: who is at the top of the list? lawyers and lobbyists.

how does obama use the money? over 56% ($427 million) of it went towards media. media is the best propaganda tool out there.

Consider this, if I gave you twice as much money as the last victor of your riding, could you win your riding in the next federal election? We all know the answer is hell no. Basically, your assertion that money is the be-all and end-all of electability is simply not true.

name one president who spent less money than his opponent and still won.

It is certainly not true with respect to foreign policy, which is what we tend to talk about in this forum. Don't think Obama picks up the phone and calls his AIPAC masters before making his decisions with respect to how to proceed on the Israel-Arab conflict.

you don't think or you don't know?

Steiner resignation

In 1992, AIPAC president David Steiner was forced to resign after he was recorded boasting about his political influence in obtaining aid for Israel. Steiner also claimed that he had

met with (then Bush U.S. Secretary of State) Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear ... Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about.

Steiner also claimed to be "negotiating" with the incoming Clinton administration over who Clinton would appoint as Secretary of State and Secretary of the National Security Agency. Steiner stated that AIPAC had "a dozen people in [the Clinton] campaign, in the headquarters... in Little Rock, and they're all going to get big jobs."[31]

NY real estate developer Haim Katz told The Washington Times that he taped the conversation because "as someone Jewish, I am concerned when a small group has a disproportionate power. I think that hurts everyone, including Jews. If David Steiner wants to talk about the incredible, disproportionate clout AIPAC has, the public should know about it."[32]

the only explanation is that the powers that be are controlled by shady evil Zionists behind he scenes.

i wouldn't say 'controlled', but the foreign policies are heavily influenced by the 'evil zionists'.

i await your claim that the former head of AIPAC was totally lying.

Edited February 2, 2011 by bud

[Bob]

Yes, yes.... the former head of AIPAC boasted about his imagined influence. Why is that surprising? You think people would continue to donate to AIPAC if they didn't think the organization was effective? AIPAC boasts all the time about their influence. While it's certainly true that AIPAC can put the scare into certain congressmen/women or senators who run in districts with sizable Jewish populations (or where the elections are close and the Jewish demographic can make the difference), it's a completely different story at the executive level.

There are several examples of AIPAC boasts from current and former directors, and other executives. That's what AIPAC and other lobbies do - exaggerate their influence in order to fundraise. I'm quite sure Jim Baker addressed this controversy and squashed it.

If you want more ammunition in your rhetoric-rolodex, go read "The Israel Lobby". I can't recall at the moment, but I know there is certainly one example they use as "proof" of AIPAC's influence, by claiming that AIPAC was able to defeat a political candidate in some district that they didn't like. The evidence of this claim? Boasts from AIPAC that they beat their opponent, without any consideration of the real reasons why the election went the way it did.

Anyways, using AIPAC boasts its influence in Washington as evidence of the influence you claim it to have is.... ridiculous.

You've still done nothing to address the reality that funding follows successful politicians, rather than the other way around. Does money make the politician or does the politician make the money?

Don't let me stop you from continuing to parrot the myth of evil Zionist control in Washington. It's the Protocols of the Edlers of Zion, version 2011.

[bush_cheney2004]

name one president who spent less money than his opponent and still won.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt vs. Gov. Thomas E. Dewey in 1944

[dre]

You no doubt feel the criticism is muted but why? Is it because its muted or because you choose no to see it?

Tell me when you don't see the criticism of Israel in the U.S. is it because it really isn't there? You so sure?

You think Israel mind controls the US and has it simply doing what it wants? Golly gee never heard that before.

Really? Right. I know. The Military Industrial lobby which controls Israel as much as it does the US economy can you see it? Can you see the oil lobby? Why not? How did they magically disappear? Did they go poof the same way all the support for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, the UAE and Kuwait did? Poof?

I love it. The military industrial and oil lobbies have nothing to do with US Middle East foreign policy-its just Israel that shapes it. No one else. Poof begone. Its those mind controlling Jews. They send a couple of Jews to congressional hill and presto, the entire country is captive.

Why sure. All Americans are idiots and controlled by the mystical powers of the bagel people.

Got news for you-its time you move past the bagel conspiracy theory and try examine who shapes US foreign policy and why.

Save the bagel people conspiracy theories for a UFO site. We are after all alien invaders some to suck the brains of Yanks.

I honestly dont know what the fuck youre talking about.

I love it. The military industrial and oil lobbies have nothing to do with US Middle East foreign policy-its just Israel that shapes it. No one else. Poof begone. Its those mind controlling Jews. They send a couple of Jews to congressional hill and presto, the entire country is captive.

Why sure. All Americans are idiots and controlled by the mystical powers of the bagel people.

Got news for you-its time you move past the bagel conspiracy theory and try examine who shapes US foreign policy and why.

Save the bagel people conspiracy theories for a UFO site. We are after all alien invaders some to suck the brains of Yanks.

All that retarded mumbo jumbo. I didnt say anything about conspiracy theories.

I love it. The military industrial and oil lobbies have nothing to do with US Middle East foreign policy-its just Israel that shapes it.

More retarded bullshit. I never said a WORD about Israel shaping US policy.

[bud]

Yes, yes.... the former head of AIPAC boasted about his imagined influence.

imagined influence.

it took you just one sentence to oppose the truth.

[bud]

President Franklin D. Roosevelt vs. Gov. Thomas E. Dewey in 1944

thanks for supporting my point.

[bush_cheney2004]

thanks for supporting my point.

If your point was to be proven wrong, you are most certainly welcome.

[bud]

If your point was to be proven wrong, you are most certainly welcome.

my point is that unless you spend enough money on your campaigns and the elections, then you will have no shot at becoming president. since 1944 (i haven't really checked to see if you're right, but lets say that you are), every single president has out spent his opponents. in order to spend, you need to have the money. in order to have the money, you have to do as you're told by those giving you the money.

despite obama's grassroots fundraising, most of the money he received were from lobbyists. this goes for pretty much all the other major candidates in the past elections (except for maybe ross perot and ron paul - that's if you want to call them major candidates).

the major u.s. lobbyists, naturally, put their own selfish needs (military, pharma, israel, energy, banking) above the interest of the american people.

[bud]

i'm not surprised to see bob running away when faced with facts.

[Rue]

President Franklin D. Roosevelt vs. Gov. Thomas E. Dewey in 1944

Lol you mean that communist FDR? You actually like my second favourite President next to Truman? Lol. Some Republican you are. Say now you know who was a very big spender. Hint he had Alzheimer's and dyed his hair while he was in office and had a wife who looked like a big prune.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Rue

[bush_cheney2004]

Lol you mean that communist FDR? You actually like my second favourite President next to Truman? Lol. Some Republican you are. Next you will say something nice about Wilson. Let's both stop at Einsehower.

Your post makes no sense in the context of the question posed. The 1944 American presidential election is an example of smaller campaign funding defeating a larger opponent.

[Rue]

I honestly dont know what the fuck youre talking about.

All that retarded mumbo jumbo. I didnt say anything about conspiracy theories.

More retarded bullshit. I never said a WORD about Israel shaping US policy.

Wow. That was probably the most sophisticated level of debate I have heard in a while.

Well Dre now that you made clear what level of awareness you are at, how about you shut the bathroom door....and try keep the moaning down.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Rue

[Rue]

imagined influence.

it took you just one sentence to oppose the truth.

You know how silly that sounds? Are you the messiah?

What you now have a monopoly on the truth?

Lol.

Dang but there are a lot of diddlers on this board now.

Never seen so many people in love with their right hand.

[Rue]

Your post makes no sense in the context of the question posed. The 1944 American presidential election is an example of smaller campaign funding defeating a larger opponent.

Its not supposed to it was a joke. J O K E. HEE HEE. Ho. Ho. Hah hah.

O.k. its time someone give this board a very large enema.

Bend over all of you.

note: that was a figurative expression not meant to be taken literally. Oleg put that water hose down!

Edited February 9, 2011 by Rue

[bud]

take your meds and get more sleep. it may help your situation.

[Rue]

my point is that unless you spend enough money on your campaigns and the elections, then you will have no shot at becoming president. since 1944 (i haven't really checked to see if you're right, but lets say that you are), every single president has out spent his opponents. in order to spend, you need to have the money. in order to have the money, you have to do as you're told by those giving you the money.

despite obama's grassroots fundraising, most of the money he received were from lobbyists. this goes for pretty much all the other major candidates in the past elections (except for maybe ross perot and ron paul - that's if you want to call them major candidates).

the major u.s. lobbyists, naturally, put their own selfish needs (military, pharma, israel, energy, banking) above the interest of the american people.

You have just described the majority of political systems all over the world? So what is your point that politics is about political interest groups that seek to influence politicians?

Those of us from the Oleg Bach school of philosophy figured out long ago all politicians are equally for sale. Therein lies the absurdity Oleg often talks of

on this board and I laugh at along with him and have decided to use in a campaign to get him elected to office. There is an absurdity surely in thinking politicians that exist anywhere are not influenced by self-interestthat will come their way

if they support certain views. That is what politics is about.

So the US is not unique in that sense other then it does not hide it. As well Obama won his election by in fact getting non lobby votes by utilizing the internet to incite the highest turn out of Americans ever including young Americans and Americans of all colours and ethnicities. It was a genuinely democratic vote using popular opinion and not lobby interests. To also be accurate there is very little substantial difference in the foreign policies of McCain and Obama. Obama is not as radical as some state and McCain was not as extreme as many stated. Both are middle of the road politicians who fully respected the power and role of the establishment in their country. Neither expected to blow up anything. Both got to where they were by being middle of the roaders. McCain was no stranger to reaching out to Democrats and Obama to republicans. That is the American way, negotiating to somewhere just right of the centre or as they spell it center.

There is an irony however when we look at third world countries and belittle them for their rampant coruption but then call the people who bribe our governments, lobbyists in the first world. There is a fine line between a lobbyist on Capital Hill and some shmo in India paying off his government official to get a driver's license.

Bush-Chaney has never denied the American democratic system is not influenced by lobbyists nor would I about Canada. Its a fact. We openly register them and try put ceilings on how much they can contribute and of course they find ways around that.

In Canada to stay in power you play to the Quebecois and minority groups of one kind or another. We all know it. We saw the Liberals do it for years to stay in power then the Tories do it. Now we see Harper genuinely playing to his right wing Christian support base. He doesn't hide it. Neither do our other leaders hide their pandering. Kind of hard to miss.

The point though is not all lobby groups are the military industrial ones or the oil ones or the pharmaceutical ones although those three certainly are the biggest. The greatest one in the use is the National Rifle Association which is fueled by a basic fundamental belief in the right to arms a political ideology. Another of the largest and most influential groups lobbies on behalf of seniors. The Red Cross And various medical charities have great power too.The largest nation lobby groups are the United Kingdom, China, Taiwan and Japan.

AIPAC which is given much credit for its mythical influence doesn't have as much as you would think. When it is able to influence foreign policy it is only because it lines up with sufficient military industrial lobby interests that precede it in power and influence. Its strategy is top try get Israeli foreign policy to match and conform to the military lobby's interests not the other way around. It wishes it had the power some think it does.

In fact ironically support for Israel comes from Christian groups and gentiles in the U.S. not Jewish Americans. Such people vote for Israel for many reasons and one would think one of the reasons would be they might work for a company related to one of the lobby interests or its just genuine or a bit of both but there is nothing sinister about it. People openly demand of their politicians certain things and in this day and age of polls, internet and tweet, they can connect and hold their politicians accountable far better then they could in the past.

The military industrial lobby network by the way is no sinister secret conspiracy. Its blatant and in the open and it has such power because it employs so many people and therefore through these people pays so much taxes and renders votes.

Eisenhower knew after WW2 that the military industrial complex that grew to win the war for the US would continue and become so big it would become permanent and he feared it would have an unhealthy impact on political will. Whether it does or not I leave to others but what I am saying is your comments about the US are meaningless-they can describe any nation including the state monopoly run China with layer upon layer of corrupt kick backs and politicians on the take.

If I may refer to my guru Oleg, I would state the entire world's political systems are based on some form of prostitution. The only thing we are really talking about is how much we pay to get our interest supported not whether we have to pay it.

We know the primary function of politicians is screwing someone and finding themselves hard to swallow.

There take that analogy and run with it.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Rue

[WIP]

You have just described the majority of political systems all over the world? So what is your point that politics is about political interest groups that seek to influence politicians?

I'll give you one point of concern: there is a hell of a lot more money involved in running for office (even in Canada, judging by Conservative pre-campaign advertising) than there was years ago. The politicians are owned by their corporate benefactors, and if the majority of people are disappointed by how their chosen candidate acts after assuming office, the joke is on them! Reforming politics cannot get off the ground until something is done about taking back some of the extraordinary advantages that corporations have gained in recent decades. The political system works by everyone having an equal vote, whereas the business system gives the majority of votes to whoever owns the majority of shares; these two systems are naturally at odds with each other, and allowing corporations to grow in size, wealth, and legal rights, has dramatically degraded the wealth and rights of the average citizen.

So the US is not unique in that sense other then it does not hide it. As well Obama won his election by in fact getting non lobby votes by utilizing the internet to incite the highest turn out of Americans ever including young Americans and Americans of all colours and ethnicities. It was a genuinely democratic vote using popular opinion and not lobby interests.

Let's see if he's able to pull it off again! Right now, the progressive left in the United States is badly divided between those who decided early that Obama was a sellout....Thom Hartmann and Cenk Uygur, come to mind, and there has been a steady trickle of disillusioned leftwing pundits and bloggers over the last two years, vs. the professional left, which would consist of Center For American Progress, Daily Kos, some liberal radio hosts like Stephanie Miller etc. who are still telling their people that they must remain steadfast, even as their candidate is cutting home-heating subsidies to the poor, because liberals must unite behind the best of two bad options. Let's see how many young people are burning up the internet this time around! There is a rumour that the Obama Campaign is going to try to raise an unprecedented one billion dollars for 2012. That explains the continued sucking up to corporate interests and bashing the poor; but if Obama is re-elected in 2012, it will likely be because of the increasing incompetency and divisions on the right, rather than any real grassroots campaign to keep Obama in Office.

In fact ironically support for Israel comes from Christian groups and gentiles in the U.S. not Jewish Americans. Such people vote for Israel for many reasons and one would think one of the reasons would be they might work for a company related to one of the lobby interests or its just genuine or a bit of both but there is nothing sinister about it.

You know, you really ought to pay attention to why the most aggressive Christian Evangelicals...who believe everyone who is not "saved" through the blood of Jesus Christ goes to hell....and that includes Jews, would have so much concern, and want to do so much for Israel. These Christian Zionists have done a lot of the bankrolling for building new settlements on the West Bank and other occupied territories. I can think of one reason, and one reason only why there is even such a thing as a Christian Zionist Movement: they believe that an aggressive Israel is fulfilling Bible Prophecy. But, to fulfill all of the prophecy, Israel has to be invaded during the End Times and have one third of its population killed...I guess this presumes that the two thirds survivors convert to Christianity when Jesus all of a sudden appears! Personally, these are not the kind of allies I would want having too much influence over what's going on in my country!

Many Israeli liberals and moderates point out the Christian Right as a major stumbling block to any attempt to reach a peace agreement, since they support the most radical Israeli groups and Likud politicians like Netanyahu, are deliberately playing to them to keep sending money and keep leaning on the U.S. Government to support whatever policies the Israeli Government comes up with.

Eisenhower knew after WW2 that the military industrial complex that grew to win the war for the US would continue and become so big it would become permanent and he feared it would have an unhealthy impact on political will. Whether it does or not I leave to others but what I am saying is your comments about the US are meaningless-they can describe any nation including the state monopoly run China with layer upon layer of corrupt kick backs and politicians on the take.

One thing we have to be concerned about in Canada, is that our economic and foreign policy is tied up with U.S. Policy, and the empire-building that Eisenhower warned against is reaching the point of collapse. Many empires in the past have collapsed under an unsustainable debtload, the United States looks like it will soon join the club....and where does this leave Canada?