LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 12-16-2017, 11:23 AM   #61
sidzen
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2014
Location: Inland PNW
Distribution: Salix Puppy Siduction
Posts: 149

Rep: Reputation: Disabled

All say now, "Hail King Trump!"
 
Old 12-16-2017, 12:18 PM   #62
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,803
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadicalDreamer View Post
[...] I'd like American traitors register. Kushner and Flynn should be punished under the Logan Act. Bush and Obama should be tried for war crimes. There are people in the Obama administration who should be charged under anti-terror laws. The Israel lobby should register. The other domestic lobbies and individuals who lobby for foreign powers should register. That is all. I think the whole Russia-gate thing is silly. A few thousand dollars in social media decided the US election is an absurd argument that the anti-Trump faction is peddling.
You simply can't arrest an entire Government, present and past, especially not under a law that is 118 years old and that has been revised exactly once. There was no telecommunications in 1799. You're never going to reach back and try an American President for "war crimes," either. If you want "the Israeli" lobby to register, you'd have to register anyone and everyone who is not on American soil and who is willing to spend money concerning American politics. (And wouldn't we be expected to register with every other country on Earth?) These notions might feel warm-and-fuzzy but they're just not realistic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RadicalDreamer View Post
North Korea would be destroyed if it attacked the United States. The US already killed 10% of North Korea's population via firebombing. The nukes are a deterrent because the US is regime change happy and its deals don't seem to survive. If the US attacks North Korea first there will be another Korean war where China and the US fight again. If the US fails to get China to act then North Korea is going to stay nuclear I think. The price for China for not acting is that its neighbors are going to become more militarily equipped to challenge its regional ambitions. Japan is already seriously considering changing its peace constitution. There is interest in South Korea for Korean reunification. I too would very much like North Korea to denuclearize.
It might surprise you that China was just about the first negotiators to show up, followed very quickly by Russia. The United States is there, too. We must bear firmly in mind that we are dealing with psychopaths, not any sort of legitimate regime that represents, say, "the People of North Korea." Because no one until now would actually confront the situation there, it turned into a festering pool of pus, and a very small group of very, very dangerous men found themselves in control of it. These men don't care if they start World War III, and neither do they care how many of their own people would perish. But, the World has seen tyrants like this many times before. There are alternatives to war. Never underestimate the power of United Nations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RadicalDreamer View Post
I've heard a former CIA consultant by the name of Chalmers Johnson in a talk about a decade ago saying that he was aware of a cabal of senior US military officers considering a military coup if there was war with Iran. He says the US has an "Empire of Bases." So far Trump hasn't gone all the way on Iran.
We haven't had a coup d'etat in this country since John F. Kennedy was blown-away by his successor, and that didn't go too well for anyone concerned. We elect Presidents around here, and we can throw them out of office, too, sending them to a "comfortable retirement of utter disgrace," but nevertheless sending them home alive. After all, Donald Trump became famous for that line: "Yer fired!" I'm quite sure that he knows full well that the same thing could happen to him.

We don't rule our country using guns and sticks and stones, and it is dead-wrong IMHO to make any such threats no matter how "couched" the language might be. If you're not doing your job, to the continued satisfaction of the people who hired you to do it, you can be fired.

It might sound strange, also, for me to point out that "Donald Trump didn't have to step up." He certainly didn't need the money ... so far as I know, he isn't taking his paycheck ... and he had no prior political career. He stepped up because he apparently wanted to make a difference. The office of POTUS grinds-up young men and spits-out old men. And yet, he stuck his neck out, campaigned for the position, and won it, fair and square. He hasn't been sitting on his roses, since. In so many ways, "this man is completely unprecedented," and yet I predict that he will be the first of many. I didn't elect him, and I don't understand him, but I am driven to respect him. I really do think that a sea-change occurred in American politics, here at the cusp of the 21st Century, and that this Officeholder will re-define the Office. In a great many ways, and in barely a year, he has already done so.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-16-2017 at 12:26 PM.
 
Old 12-16-2017, 01:14 PM   #63
RadicalDreamer
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2016
Location: USA
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 549

Rep: Reputation: 247Reputation: 247Reputation: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
You simply can't arrest an entire Government, present and past, especially not under a law that is 118 years old and that has been revised exactly once. There was no telecommunications in 1799. You're never going to reach back and try an American President for "war crimes," either. If you want "the Israeli" lobby to register, you'd have to register anyone and everyone who is not on American soil and who is willing to spend money concerning American politics. (And wouldn't we be expected to register with every other country on Earth?) These notions might feel warm-and-fuzzy but they're just not realistic.
Its better than going to war for them. People who work for a foreign government should register. Flynn registered. He works for Turkey which is another country that steals American nuclear technology. Maybe Mueller will find them in violation of the Logan Act.

Quote:
Brewster Jennings and Associates, the CIA cover company of Valerie Plame Wilson, was very close to penetrating the Beyaz Enerji ring, known to the CIA as part of a major nuclear black market operation involving key players in Turkey, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, and the former Soviet Central Asian states. According to CIA sources, the ring also involved a key ATC ally in Washington the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a group that provided important access to top U.S. political leaders for Turkish military and industrial chiefs.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/harut...t_b_31113.html

Quote:
During the Reagan years, Assistant Secretary Defense for International Security Policy Richard Perle and his deputy Douglas Feith were the leading advocates in the Pentagon and at NATO headquarters of closer military ties with Turkey, and between Turkey and Israel.

After leaving the Pentagon, Feith established a law firm in Israel, and International Advisors Inc. (IAI) in the U.S., which was until at least 1995 a registered foreign agent for the government of Turkey.
http://original.antiwar.com/prather/...ster-jennings/

Its amusing today that Turkey is openly hostile to Israel and the United States. At least Douglas Feith registered as a foreign agent for Turkey eventually. I don't think he has for Israel yet. He pumped out the lies to justify the Iraq war with Israel (but not with Mossad) and the Iraqi opposition. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa

Quote:
It might surprise you that China was just about the first negotiators to show up, followed very quickly by Russia. The United States is there, too. We must bear firmly in mind that we are dealing with psychopaths, not any sort of legitimate regime that represents, say, "the People of North Korea." Because no one until now would actually confront the situation there, it turned into a festering pool of pus, and a very small group of very, very dangerous men found themselves in control of it. These men don't care if they start World War III, and neither do they care how many of their own people would perish. But, the World has seen tyrants like this many times before. There are alternatives to war. Never underestimate the power of United Nations.
Whose fault that there is a psychopath ruling North Korea? *Looks over at China and Russia*

China gave North Korea a war guarantee if it is attacked first. North Korea will at least get a first nuclear strike according to China. If China was serious they would go in and remove the nukes with their huge army. I have little faith in the United Nations to achieve anything. I hope they come through. I hope you are right about China and Russia.


Quote:
We haven't had a coup d'etat in this country since John F. Kennedy was blown-away by his successor, and that didn't go too well for anyone concerned. We elect Presidents around here, and we can throw them out of office, too, sending them to a "comfortable retirement of utter disgrace," but nevertheless sending them home alive. After all, Donald Trump became famous for that line: "Yer fired!" I'm quite sure that he knows full well that the same thing could happen to him.

We don't rule our country using guns and sticks and stones, and it is dead-wrong IMHO to make any such threats no matter how "couched" the language might be. If you're not doing your job, to the continued satisfaction of the people who hired you to do it, you can be fired.

It might sound strange, also, for me to point out that "Donald Trump didn't have to step up." He certainly didn't need the money ... so far as I know, he isn't taking his paycheck ... and he had no prior political career. He stepped up because he apparently wanted to make a difference. The office of POTUS grinds-up young men and spits-out old men. And yet, he stuck his neck out, campaigned for the position, and won it, fair and square. He hasn't been sitting on his roses, since. In so many ways, "this man is completely unprecedented," and yet I predict that he will be the first of many. I didn't elect him, and I don't understand him, but I am driven to respect him.
If Fox News, Netanyahu, and Pat Buchanan had a baby. Trump would be that contradictory baby. It is refreshing to have an oligarch rather than a puppet of oligarchs like Hillary Clinton even though he does things for his peers which harm the US. I'm worried we will lose Tillerson who is interested in using diplomacy instead of militarism.

There is a coup against Trump underway. The coup supporters say that 17 intelligence agencies agreed that Russia meddled in the US election. Actually it was hand picked members from 3 agencies by the Obama administration: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/a-...ies-falsehood/

There are people who dislike everything about Trump that know that the Obama administration was out to set him up because they haven't given us proof.

Chalmers Johnson figured that the military wouldn't do a coup. They'll get nice jobs in the private sector after leaving government. He said instead of a military coup the US will go bankrupt. I'm hoping for a soft landing.

Who did you vote for? Gary Johnson, Jill Stein? Vermin Supreme? He was real big on ponies and he was more real than the puppets paraded before us during the election.
 
Old 12-17-2017, 01:24 PM   #64
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Walsall, England, UK
Posts: 2,029
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084
Regarding the BBC: It's not simply "state owned" and certainly not "state TV". It's not 'that simple'. It's quite often the thorn in the side of the current regime. It has been accused of being "leftist" by successive Conservative governments and sporting too many right wing types by Labour.

It's far from perfect, but when it comes to so called "Independent Television", a public company subject to the whims of shareholders (many of these global multinationals and/or dubious financiers), it's the lesser of two evils at least.

The year before the 2010 General Election, the Cameron led Conservative party secured the support of (Murdoch) News Corporation on one particular condition, among others, that it would deny the BBC any increase in the licence fee (to boost News Corps SKY TV). The deal was of course struck and quite predictably the leading Murdoch "red top" tabloid switched allegiance back to the Tory party.

When a state's so called "independent" or "commercial" media is in the hands of such people it's not really so different to state media, just not so in your face. When that media becomes a global 'news' empire, it could be argued that it threatens sovereignty. But despite all this, for some it's not OK for Russia to have a news broadcast in the US...

Last edited by cynwulf; 12-17-2017 at 01:26 PM.
 
Old 12-17-2017, 05:05 PM   #65
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,554

Rep: Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514
There is a difference between "State Owned" and "Shareholder Supported". Corporations may have to answer for fails to stockholders but it is exceedingly rare that shareholders heavily influence policy. Most corporations love the concept - "It is easier/smarter to ask for forgiveness than permission".
 
Old 12-18-2017, 03:12 AM   #66
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Walsall, England, UK
Posts: 2,029
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084
So major shareholders of a given public company have no influence, either direct or indirect...?
 
Old 12-18-2017, 08:11 AM   #67
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,554

Rep: Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
So major shareholders of a given public company have no influence, either direct or indirect...?
Not "none"... just "little". It certainly varies from company to company but shareholders rarely agree among themselves so The Board of Directors treat them as a block, a nebulous entity, and figure they will be kept happy (and relatively silent) as long as dividends rise and beyond that are very jealous of their administrative power and don't wish to share that with anyone.
 
Old 12-18-2017, 08:41 AM   #68
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Walsall, England, UK
Posts: 2,029
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084
I would argue that major shareholders exert considerably more influence than you'd imagine. Voting powers are just one aspect, but they also can use their stake as leverage, i.e. acquiring shares which just fall short of a controlling interest.
 
Old 12-18-2017, 02:35 PM   #69
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,554

Rep: Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
I would argue that major shareholders exert considerably more influence than you'd imagine. Voting powers are just one aspect, but they also can use their stake as leverage, i.e. acquiring shares which just fall short of a controlling interest.
Even if that were so in some cases, that doen't rule out that there is still a difference between "State Owned" and "Shareholder Supported". Additionally, while nobody has direct experience with all corporations, mine is real, if limited, and not "imagine"d. I have been an officer on a Board of Directors and I've met with several Boards and many more officers of corporations. These are most often "alpha males" and a few alpha females (sometimes even more ruthless) and they have a few things in common and most common is lust for control. Underlings are commonly brushed off with "need to know" litanies, kept in the dark, and fed what they want to hear to keep them docile and quiet. In most cases, as long as they are making money, most underlings, including shareholders are happy with that arrangement. It's only when performance falls short that someone's head must fall. Even then it is usually some sacrificial scapegoat and business-as-usual contimues.
 
Old 12-19-2017, 04:04 AM   #70
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Walsall, England, UK
Posts: 2,029
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084
Someone holding a major stake in a public company, often sits on the board, or has a controlling interest or just falls short of a controlling interest. This may be an individual or a rep from a company which holds a stake.

I don't think whether either of us has served on a board is relevant to the discussion at hand. I would say that we disagree as to whether major shareholders exert influence over the direction of the organisation - in particular media organisations.

Leaving the interests of stakeholders aside for now: Do you agree that media corporations can also still have a political bias/agenda? Or in your opinion, is it only state controlled media which is biased/influenced?
 
Old 12-19-2017, 12:25 PM   #71
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,803
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082Reputation: 3082
I think that we are right-now seeing "the last gasp of fifty-year old attitudes," held by seventy- and eighty-year old men (and women) who are still in power in the US Congress." Most importantly, they take it for granted that the USA is "an empire," and that every other country in the world should pay obeisance to them. (I guess they haven't figured out that both China and Russia, say, have multi-thousand year histories, and in comparison to these the USA is a kid not too far beyond diapers.)

Other nations throughout the world are looking at them strangely: "The world has moved on. Don't they get it yet?"

Unless and until the USA imposes term limits on all elected offices (and judgeships, and justices), these fossilized war-hawk attitudes will continue until the fossils who hold them are finally reaped by Father Time. But, it really shouldn't be this way.

(For instance: "sorry to let you know, but World War II didn't end in the East because of your precious atomic bombs. It ended because Russia declared war and announced that it would be invading the home islands from the west... a very short distance across one small stretch of water ... within ten days.")

The Cold War is Over. So is World War II. There is no more "USSR."

"There is no 'American empire." There is no Hegemony. USA is neither the oldest, nor the richest, nor the baddest, nor the morally-superior nation in this world-wide community. While this nation is powerful, it is not all-powerful. The biggest thing holding my country back right now, IMHO, is those worn-out, cocky attitudes. Diplomats from many other nations are speaking patiently in response to America – and, they're making perfect sense. Why not try it their way?

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-19-2017 at 03:06 PM.
 
Old 12-19-2017, 03:02 PM   #72
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,554

Rep: Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514Reputation: 1514
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
Someone holding a major stake in a public company, often sits on the board, or has a controlling interest or just falls short of a controlling interest. This may be an individual or a rep from a company which holds a stake.

I don't think whether either of us has served on a board is relevant to the discussion at hand. I would say that we disagree as to whether major shareholders exert influence over the direction of the organisation - in particular media organisations.

Leaving the interests of stakeholders aside for now: Do you agree that media corporations can also still have a political bias/agenda? Or in your opinion, is it only state controlled media which is biased/influenced?
Is that a loaded question? Of course media, as all organizations do, have agendas or at least a general "bent". First and foremost, being corporations and mainly concerned with Profit, IMHO the term "Liberal Media" is an oxymoron. They are corporate and by nature conservative and only vary in degree, somewhat mitigated by those who were attracted to actual Journalism instead of propaganda. Some corporations and their boards are very focused and single-minded but many are wide-ranging and diffuse. However they are all subject to Supply and Demand ... and survival.

Bottom Line - One can't just assume State Owned and Shareholder Supported are equivalent.
 
Old 12-19-2017, 03:55 PM   #73
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Walsall, England, UK
Posts: 2,029
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084Reputation: 1084
It was a few questions.

I did not use the term "equivalent". I used the phrase "When a state's so called "independent" or "commercial" media is in the hands of such people it's not really so different to state media". The conditional "such people" and "not so different", are far away from a simple "equivalent".

You seem to have read my post as "state media and public media are the same". That's not the point I was trying to make.

I suggest reading up on News Corp, particularly in the UK and about it's reps popping in and out of the back door of Number 10. It's not just biased media, it's about people with vested interests in multiple public companies, some media, some investment, etc sitting on various boards and holding shares.

Then there's London Evening Standard, former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osbourne, Blackrock and Uber... lots of pies and fingers.

But anyway "agree to disagree" is fine by me...
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[US-Politics] This has gone way too far ... sundialsvcs General 25 01-21-2017 09:57 PM
Sending package to USA - how does it work inside USA? Skyer General 21 06-09-2012 01:47 PM
LXer: FOSS: time to stop the navel-gazing LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 09-27-2008 07:10 PM
politics mepisismydistro General 1 08-20-2007 02:37 AM
politics gordonb007 General 22 03-01-2004 05:03 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:46 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration