Obviously the Majestic Twelve, or the chair of Alluminati society. Together they control the wolrd. THEY are the most powerful people in the world, and you don't even kno wwho they are.
Obviously the Majestic Twelve, or the chair of Alluminati society. Together they control the wolrd. THEY are the most powerful people in the world, and you don't even kno wwho they are.
c++->visualc++->directx->opengl->c++;
(it should be realized my posts are all in a light hearted manner. And should not be taken offense to.)
The only person who has more power than yourself is one that you let overpower you.
"Don't you know you're just another brick in the wall?"
Donald Trump
.sect signature
me duh, get back to admiring, peasant.
This is a very interesting and open ended topic for discussion i must admit. I do see that there could be a single most powerfull person in the world, but what would happen if such a person was to hold the full majority in the scheme of things, would not a potential revolution occur in the masses (and lesser powerful figures) banding together to form a greater whole to reduce the overwhelming power such a figure could hold?
Its just a question because for someone to hold so much power would they not have to encompass a diverse range of portfolios some including political office economic environment media and technology?
Is it possible for such one peson to dominate the various areas to such an extent that they actually could hold such an awe inspiring hold on the power of the world?
I just thought id throw a few more possibilities into the mix as i currently see that even the American president (as much power as he does hold) even has to answer to oversight parties and then the masses.
Please continue this on as im taking notes and planning world domination(what a sad world it would be then)
(Oh its just a discussion dont worry i have enough trouble at home to deal with. How could i hold a position of power my g/f is on my case again)
sorry guys but definately not george bush. America is a democracy with a senate and some other house and george bush doesnt have absolute power. He is controlled by party politics and campaign funders like any other democratic politician. And if your anything like aus and uk if the house doesnt like his attitude they can vote no-confidence.
The leader of china ( whoever he is ) I would say maybe, being a socialist country he may have absolute power.
Otherwise in the 1st world, the Murdocks control the media. They could get anyone they want elected in australia or USA. I'd say that gives them a bit of power.
>>china vs us
lets just say i d want to be on the sidelines
EDIT: maybe the wife of the leader of china???
"Assumptions are the mother of all **** ups!"
Well, it certainly depends on how you define power. Bush has the power to topple governments if the majority approves.
A terrorist has the power to kill you no matter who may or may not approve.
In other words: "I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons, Colonel. I'm terrified of the man who only wants one."
Power is relative. My hairdresser probably has more power over my daily life than Mr. Bush. But then, actions of my hairdresser will hopefully not kill people.
You could also argue that the most powerful man ( or woman ) is someone who is not dependant on others. As noone has power over them, they must be the most powerful. Which would again favor fanatics who don't care if they live or die.
There probably is no "most powerful" being, as everyone can be killed by anyone else in a matter of seconds given the right circumstances. Power means avoiding those circumstances.
hth
-nv
She was so Blonde, she spent 20 minutes looking at the orange juice can because it said "Concentrate."
When in doubt, read the FAQ.
Then ask a smart question.
You guys realize that Bush can send troops wherever he wants without Congress's authorization, right? He only needs authorization to go to war. Except for this war in Iraq, that hasn't happened since WW2. Korea and Vietnam were both fought without Congress's approval.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
Exactly. The ability to send troops anywhere in the world cannot make someone the most powerful person.Originally Posted by nvoigt
Hey Govt, what is the point of declaring war then? I can understand why the president has that power, but if you can send this much power to wherever you want, who needs to actually declare war? Are there limitations to what you can do unless you declare war?
There is a difference between sending troops to another country and telling those troops to shoot.
Jane Fonda. i'd bet she's got to be in the top 5, if not first! i mean, she has some major brainwashing powers. how many people do you know can make people believe pieces of their body will dissappear by walking up some steps? yeah, you know i'm right.
P.S if you by chance DO NOT KNOW(shame on you) who Jana Fonda is. check this:
http://www.collagevideo.com/Fonda/fonda.asp
Technically there are supposed to be, but in practice, that doesn't seem to happen IRL.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
I find it interesting how everyone equates power with the ability to do harm. Sending troops. Causing a stock market crash. Autocratic power in a socialist state. The power to deal death and misery is an illusion as that is easy. History has proved that many can make a person's life worse. How hard is it to pick up a gun and shoot someone. Does that really give you power over life and death? Hardly. Death is inevitable. Causing death is simply being a member of life.
And the ability to command troops is another illusion of power. An individual like Bush is granted power by the obedience of many. This power doesn't belong to one man, but to a nation as many people working together have power by default.
So what about individual power, then. That's what this is about. I submit that real power is the power to affect positive change by the will of one. To me, Ghandi represents this.
When in doubt, empty your magazine - Murphy's Laws Of Combat #7
Many would say that's exactly what Bush is doing, although with not as peaceful methods.
