View Single Post
Old 01-15-2007, 12:03 AM   #45
Windu Chi
@Windu Chi
Windu Chi's Avatar
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882

Originally Posted by Spider AL
You're wrong. My statement "Our governments are subsidised, elected and formed by heads of business" was effectively correct. Let's take the US as an example: In presidential elections, campaigns are expensive. Massively expensive. And it's a general rule that the best funded candidate will win. One single instance: many people (myself included) accurately predicted the result of the last US presidential election based solely on the fact that the Republican advertising budget was larger than that of the Democrats.

This requirement necessitates (directly or indirectly) corporate financial backing. Until 2002, corporate backing of candidates ran rampant, with so-called "soft money" (indirect, single use) donations easily circumventing upper limits on amounts of corporate backing. And as of 2003, despite legislation the year before to combat abuse, parties were still accepting soft money contributions at a local level even if they were not accepting them at a national level.

You may have forgotten the fact that in 1999, the presidential primaries were called by some analysts the "wealth primary" because of the huge amounts of cash that were raised by both front-runners. The Bush campaign had raised $37 million in hard-money private donations alone.

Without money, your candidacy cannot be advertised. It cannot be publicised. Your opponent cannot be as effectively defamed. Money is the defining factor in the contest to see which clique gains candidacy, and the defining factor in which candidate gains the presidency. End of story.

It is therefore axiomatic that those with money to spend will DIRECTLY exert a greater influence on the path of politics than the bulk of the population. Hence, the wealthy, the higher corporate echelons etcetera, will control the political fate of the nation, through their ability to promote the election of candidates whose policies match their wishes.

Heads of business don't have to phone say... Bush's handlers up every day and tell them what they want done. All they have to do is elect people who already want to appease them, and then the system is pretty much self-perpetuating.
Even though Spider is one of my adversaries, I agree with him, here.
It seem to be a lot of evidence that Big Business control the country(U.S.A) and the path of the paper.

Last edited by windu6; 01-15-2007 at 12:38 AM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: