Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Kerry: A Disloyal Liar

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by themuffinman
    Sen. Miller: Kerry a National Security Threat

    In the most scathing attack yet against Sen. John Kerry delivered by one of his peers, Sen. Zell Miller warned yesterday that the likely Democratic presidential nominee would be a threat to U.S. national security if elected.

    Reacting to claims by Kerry ally Sen. Ted Kennedy that "Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under U.S. management," Miller told radio host Sean Hannity:

    "Those twin Senators from Massachusetts are the co-chairmen of the handwringers of America - the HWA. And they continued to bash this country.

    "Both of them," Miller said, "voted against every major weapons system that won the Cold War. And Sen. Kerry has made it very clear that his national security policy is to vacillate and retreat and hand over the leadership to the United Nations."

    The Georgia Democrat warned that the prospect of Kerry's election posed such a serious threat to U.S. national security that it could ultimately cost the U.S. its freedom.

    "Here's a man who says he's against outsourcing, and yet he wants to outsource our foreign policy - that's the most dangerous outsourcing of all," Miller charged.

    He then added, "This man wants to be the leader of the Free World? Free for how long?"
    We have already outsourced our foreign policy, to multi-national corporations, thats why we are in Iraq!

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by porsteamboy
      We have already outsourced our foreign policy, to multi-national corporations, thats why we are in Iraq!
      Hmmm. Mr Miller needs some perspective. Even if Kerry becomes less unilateral than Bush. He will still be answerable to the US people. Unless of course he is planning on forming a dictatorship.
      at

      Comment


      • #48
        Since Mr Moore is being discussed, here is something rather interesting from an Indian newspaper.

        [QUOTE]Rise of left-wing capitalism
        SWAMINOMICS/SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR

        [ SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2004 12:00:23 AM ]

        Capitalists make millions of out filthy commerce, while their left-wing critics starve, right? Wrong. We are witnessing a new phenomenon, the rise of left-wing capitalism. The prize example of this is Michael Moore's latest film Fahrenheit 9/11.

        A famous American leftist, Moore has lampooned corporations and right-wing politicians for over a decade. But he is no starving artiste.

        Fahrenheit 9/11 has already grossed close to $150 million, and may ultimately earn over $300 million taking into account DVD sales and TV broadcast rights.

        Since the film, a documentary, cost very little to make, it may end up as one of the most profitable films in history, beating Disney and MGM extravaganzas hollow. Left-wing capitalism has become a money-spinner.

        Moore started his film career with Roger and Me in 1989. The film was about his attempts to talk to General Motors' chief Roger Smith about the closure of a car factory.

        It was immediately hailed as a classic left-wing critique, of not merely General Motors but the whole heartless capitalist system. Viewers queued up to watch the agonies of a city where the main employer had closed down.

        The film made Moore not just famous but rich. Moore intended the film to be anti-capitalist. Yet, the capitalist system immediately embraced it, and made anti-capitalism part of itself. This revealed a startling truth: attacking big business is big business.

        Now, many leftists claim that capitalists conspire to shut out critics and cover up corporate crimes. This is often the case.

        Yet Moore's success shows that the very opposite can also happen. Capitalists are so amoral that they will happily make money out of criticism of themselves.

        Ultimately, capitalism is driven not by capitalists but by consumers. Some cozy cartels can indeed milk consumers for a time. But in competitive conditions, capitalists can make money only by giving consumers what they want.

        And since consumers want anti-capitalist themes, anti-capitalist films and books have become a money-spinning part of capitalism itself.

        Moore's anti-capitalist millions are hardly unique. With the end of the Cold War, authors and film-makers no longer have communist arch-villains against whom heroes can do battle.

        And so they have begun replacing the Soviet Union by corporations.

        Consider John le Carre's book, The Constant Gardener. For decades, le Carre made millions from tales of the dirty tricks of Soviet spies.

        But with the end of the Cold War, he replaced Soviet spies with drug multinationals as the villains of The Constant Gardener.

        Even more striking is the recent Hollywood hit, The Manchurian Candidate. This is based on the 1958 book of the same name, which was converted into a film in 1962.

        The book and the 1962 film were about American soldiers in the Korean war who were captured, brainwashed, and converted into mind-controlled agents of the Soviet Union to kill an American presidential candidate.

        However, in the latest 2004 remake of the film, the brainwashing and mind-controlling is no longer done by the Soviet Union but by a multinational corporation called Man-churian Global!

        Making money out of anti-capitalist themes is standard practice in Hollywood. Erin Brokovich, the 2000 hit that won Julia Roberts an Oscar, was about two lawyers exposing how an energy company, PG&E, had covered up its contamination of water that caused sickness and cancer in thousands of people.

        Michael Douglas won an Oscar for his role as speculator Gordon Gecko in the 1987 film Wall Street. His famous one-liner in the film was: "Greed is good".

        The Insider (2000) was about the attempt of a big tobacco company to abort a TV programme revealing that the company had misled the public about the hazards of smoking. All these left-wing films made millions.

        What lessons flow from the rise of left-wing capitalism? First, that capitalists can indeed be a dubious lot, and the public knows it. That is why authors and film-makers can make millions out of capitalist-bashing.

        Second, those who expose evil capitalists are in fact serving capitalism, not overthrowing it. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, remarked that businessmen rarely gather anywhere without trying to find some way of milking consumers.

        Yet, Adam Smith demonstrated, although capitalists are a lousy lot, capitalism is a good system.

        When capitalists are obliged to compete, they end up serving the public good, something that they never intended to. But this in turn requires a vigilant public and effective state that checks corporate collusion and wrong-doing.

        Michael Moore thinks he is opposing capitalism. In fact he is doing an excellent job of policing, and hence of strengthening capitalism. Though ostensibly a critic, he is an intrinsic, valuable part of capitalism.

        That is why capitalist America has made him a multi-millionaire. May I invite Indian leftists to join the party?

        http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...how/863816.cms


        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

        HAKUNA MATATA

        Comment


        • #49
          Moore isn't anti-capitalist.

          He has always struck me as a capitalist and a successful one. His films are not about capitalism being wrong, they are about the lack of accountability within corporate structures.

          There is some "bleeding heart" stuff that is a bit anachonistic. Roger and Me was about the fact that failed business strategies don't hurt the board of big corporations, they hurt the worker. The board has golden handcuffs, golden parachutes etc. Their remuneration is such that they are insulated form the decisions they make. Their contract structures are such that when they do screw up they don't suffer, they in effect get paid off early on their contracts.

          Its easy to say that if you criticise the effects of our current implementation of capitalism you must be against capitalism. That isn't what Moore films are about (ignoring the war themes for a moment) - he is big fan of capitalism, of companies working in local towns, making products and services. What he also wants is that when a local car worker loses his job and gets evicted due to someone elses decisions, the CEO should face the same risk and his films are about the fact that the supposed gurus on the board don't even have the balls to talk to people about it (such as the scene in the film regarding the shareholders meeting.

          Its aboutt he fact that local leaders can be all high and mighty about "hand outs" and "welfare" and then go and give millions to corporations in tax breaks etc to be squandered on bad business plans.

          Well, that is until he decided to make films about the war - but i give him credit for still basing the human stories in his home town.
          at

          Comment


          • #50
            Trooth

            I never wrotet that story.

            I was just giving the idea how chaps act left wing and then reap the harvest of capitalism!


            "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

            I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

            HAKUNA MATATA

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by ChrisF202
              I say we invite him to the forum, that way we can bash him and prove him wrong left and right. I can see myself dicussing his lies from Farenhight 911 with him and him calling me a right wing nut.
              Please tell me more about his lies from Fahrenheit 911.
              No matter how the next war ends, the following one will be fought with sticks and stones.
              (Albert Einstein)

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Ray
                Trooth

                I never wrotet that story.

                I was just giving the idea how chaps act left wing and then reap the harvest of capitalism!
                Indeed, but i think the article is based on a flawed premise.
                at

                Comment


                • #53
                  Big deal..

                  Ehy is it so important if John Kerry was in the war? War is not good. Its bad. War does not make heroes og great leaders. In war, you KILL PEOPLE! How can that affect how good you are as a president??
                  I don't get you americans :)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by porsteamboy
                    We have already outsourced our foreign policy, to multi-national corporations, thats why we are in Iraq!
                    Prove it...
                    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                    I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally Posted by porsteamboy
                      We have already outsourced our foreign policy, to multi-national corporations, thats why we are in Iraq!


                      Prove it...
                      __________________
                      We spend billions to protect and support one of the most tyrannical governments on Earth -- Saudi Arabia -- for purely economic reasons -- oil. The leftist version of US foreign policy is just as flawed as the conservative version. The truth stands somewhere in the middle.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Prodigal Son
                        We spend billions to protect and support one of the most tyrannical governments on Earth -- Saudi Arabia -- for purely economic reasons -- oil. The leftist version of US foreign policy is just as flawed as the conservative version. The truth stands somewhere in the middle.
                        And that proves it?
                        No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                        I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                        even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                        He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X