Debate mistake

[Swatopluk]

The problem is that that the US are not isolated. If the US economy would turn 3rd world*, it would destabilise the world economy maybe even worse than in the WEC of the late 1920ies. That does not necessarily mean that the world will repeat the general walk towards fascism and war but the suffering of the commoners would be immense. The actual banana republics may actually be the ones that can deal with that with the least difficulty.
In a way it's worse today than then. Then the totalitarian ideologies were not just camouflage for greed, they had 'higher' goals (however horrible) and some of the leading tycoons actually believed in more than just their own profits, politicians even more so. Today both the leading corporatists and their hireling politicians at best play kabouki or do not even bother with that. Hitler was a Nazi and Hugenberg really wanted the monarchy back not just because it helped their rise or bottom line. Find me something similar today.

*not that a banana republic model would be totally disapproved of by coporatists in the first place

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I'm not entirely sure, yes despots may have ideals (however twisted those may be) but the guys footing the bill do so for their own bottom lines regardless of the consequences.

I guess an equivalent question is if today's Murdoch is moving an ideology because it helps his bottom line or if he truly believes that the corporatist ethos is a 'fight worth losing money'.

[Swatopluk]

That's why I used Hugenberg as an example. He held the most powerful media empire in Germany at the time (originally newspapers but then he bought the UfA, i.e. the equivalent of the whole of Hollywood) and was the head of the DNVP, the leading old-conservative (=monarchist) party. There was no doubt that he was sincere in his political beliefs and that he used his empire to foster his political ideals not the other way around.
Murdoch on the other hand is imo a textbook case of 'vaterlandsloser Gesell' with no loyalty to anyone. He is into money and influence for his own sake. He found demagoguery to be a real seller and supports the Right because it is better at creating and maintaining the environment he can thrive in. He was 'pragmatic' enough to also stay on good terms with Obama when the otherwise demonized Dem was in the power position. He is able to take the longterm view and will not bet the whole house on one political current.
His viceroy at FOX, Roger Ailes, may be a different animal, far more willing to let personal politics interfere with the primary goal of making money.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Well, there's early voting in FL and we went with my wife to get that thing over with. We tried yesterday but there was a very long line, today we didn't  had to wait. The sad thing is that as it is there is a significant likelihood of RR* winning FL.

*I finally got why Romney chose Ryan as his mate: any subliminal reference to ol' Ronnie is always a plus... 

[Swatopluk]

Joss Whedon endorsed Romney - in a way
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/10/joss-whedon-romney-zombie-endorsement/

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Indeed-- Romney is practically a vampire already...


.... well, at the very least, he's a blood-sucking parasite.... right?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

That man is a hero! Zomney for president!