The reason Foxy we all got that warning may well have been more than the fight such conversations bring.
If we do not inquire constantly into who rules us and how we are very foolish and lazy.
Runner highlights for me all that is wrong with religion, blind faith some one else will fix it.
In runners case the Truth we are alone and waiting for something that will never come has been lost.
Even here in this thread evidence has been shown we do defame those who think differently than us.
Obama is no ones man, no puppet, but in America if he comes up against the stake holders he will have to watch his back.
Those dreadful bonuses area symptom of a dreadful illness in American business.

I've seen 'W' Foxy. I thought it was a bit simplistic, but I guess that was inevitable. I don't think you can reduce it all to Christianity and a desire for paternal approval.
The film only depicted Bush's presidency until the 2004 election, which Stone assumed Bush would lose. I only give Bush credit for two things - being the first president to elevate african-americans to prominent positions, and the troop surge in Iraq (though the overall Iraq project was idiocy). This film didn't really highlight either of those.
I thought 'W' was OK and the main actor did a good job, but the acting of Condolezza Rice and a few others made me cringe.

I'm aware of middle eastern politics and Bush's 'axis of evil' (diplomatic idiocy rivalling Howard's anti-Obama comments) but simply because the US administration had a global plan, doesn't mean they were networked to such an extent.

I guess I bring this black to globalisation - what are the international groups which wield significant power?

The Catholic Church? OPEC? Al Qaeda? The White House? Given the financial crisis, will the influence of corporate entities wane? What about Chinese companies backed by the state, which have unprecedented liquidity at present and are buying while the buying's good? Are those arms of the government, or will they inevitably become capitalist corporate icebergs?

Do these groups work together? Who is the most powerful?

runner - heh. Your satire gives me such chuckles.

Foxy - Religion politics and... football? Evidently the three taboo subjects I was informed of are a little more risque!

Nevertheless, I also believe that they're among the most important subjects, so they can't be avoided if we're going to address our most significant issues.

"Conspiracy theory" is an abused term. The simple fact is that the powerful conspire against us regularly, but 99.99% of the time, it's human nature and the law of averages that dictate history. For example, if it weren't for an extraordinarily unlikely set of circumstances, in 2009 the Right would be laughing at the tinfoil hat loonies who believe that a US president would be so petty as to send agents to burgle the Watergate hotel. But it happened, just as other hidden machinations do to influence the turn of events. The lines are blurred. For example, it's highly improbable that the Bush administration engineered the 9/11 attacks, but it's clear from the aftermath that it almost certainly predicted them. Is not stopping a terrorist attack a conspiracy? Additionally, the role of religion in US politics is insidious, but hardly a global conspiracy. Google "the family" and then read runner's post above. It's obvious that some people will believe anything if it's wrapped in religion, which was Karl Rove's election strategy, but it's hardly global. Regardless of the efforts of the elite to make us serve their desires, secular democracy mostly delivers power to the populace, even though we have to accept compromise as part of the bargain.

"Conspiracy theory" is an abused term. The simple fact is that the powerful conspire against us regularly, but 99.99% of the time, it's human nature and the law of averages that dictate history.

For example, if it weren't for an extraordinarily unlikely set of circumstances, in 2009 the Right would be laughing at the tinfoil hat loonies who believe that a US president would be so petty as to send agents to burgle the Watergate hotel. But it happened, just as other hidden machinations do to influence the turn of events.

The lines are blurred. For example, it's highly improbable that the Bush administration engineered the 9/11 attacks, but it's clear from the aftermath that it almost certainly predicted them. Is not stopping a terrorist attack a conspiracy?

Additionally, the role of religion in US politics is insidious, but hardly a global conspiracy. Google "the family" and then read runner's post above. It's obvious that some people will believe anything if it's wrapped in religion, which was Karl Rove's election strategy, but it's hardly global.

Regardless of the efforts of the elite to make us serve their desires, secular democracy mostly delivers power to the populace, even though we have to accept compromise as part of the bargain.

Dear TRTL,

It's late and I'm tired - (just got home
from the theatre) - but I
thought I'd type a few words before I go.

Well, I guess I must be 'simple-minded.'

I got a different take from the movie 'W'
to you. My reaction was - 'only in America,'
could someone of the calibre of George W.
be elected President.

I found it rather frightening
the way those around him manipulated him, Cheney
I found especially scary. And the reasons for getting
involved in Iraq - oil, and more oil - was quite an
eye-opener.

Anyway, as for a 'global conspiracy?'

What do you know about the 'Trilateral Commission?'

I'll write more later - go to go.

Foxy, my apologies. I certainly didn't mean to imply fans of W were in any way simple minded, and in fact, many of the simplest films have the greatest impact. 'W' was ok and I give Oliver Stone props for tackling the subject.
I guess I don't believe Bush could possibly be as dumb as people make him out to be.
Sure, he was probably a stooge of those around him, but even if they did simply put a stooge in place, he'd still need a certain something to warrant such a position - I note in the film they mentioned that Bush was gifted with the common touch and rote memorisation.

It is because I loathe what his administration represented, that I must check myself in believing the worst of it. It's so easy to lose perception when assessing those with whom one disagrees.
(Mainly I was just ticked off by the godawful acting by the woman who played Condolezza Rice. Josh Brolin did a good job though).

It's late here and I haven't googled the trilateral commission but I'll check 'em out tomorrow.

I think Sancho says things pretty well... though I'm still curious as to people's thoughts on how significant the influences of the aforementioned international groups are. Are we due for some kind of de-facto capitalist one-world government that has an international multi-cultural face but a globalised nature? Or as Sancho points out, does fate ensure otherwise?