"capitalism Is E V I L," .....says New Michael Moore Film

[Nilrem]

The ol' "I've made my bones, and think socialism for everyone else would be ideal for the world" hypocrisy.

Yes, to frame something for your-self in reality and think something opposite is ideal appears as hypocrisy, but not necessarily so. Take the Golden Rule formulated as an ethical reality that I have a right to just freedom ("make my bones"), and a social responsibility to work towards an idea of similar justice for others ("socialism" as ideal). Is there hypocrisy in this reality of self-interest becoming an ideality to work towards socially for others-interests?

[Nilrem]

Part of the problem is people themselves, not most. And, it's not a given that democracy dominates or that people have public choices (US party politics is case in point). The general movement away from democracy towards worldwide plutocracy indicates otherwise. However, believing the problems of capitalism are mostly due to the fact governments are controlled by big business is somewhat one-sided. Ever bigger governments as well as ever bigger businesses have a common denominator: controls of capitalists, desiring to get ever bigger. The control of government is indirectly through its debt and legislation partial to the general interest of values based on capital. The control of business is as shareholders and through management that can lobby legislators for the particular interests of capitalists. Capitalists, businesses, governments primarily revolves around plutocracy, not democracy, as far as I can see. Indeed, to reverse the movement from plutocracy towards democracy appears as part of a radical reformation of capitalism, which pertains to my previous post.

I agree that I've over-simplified this, and it goes much deeper than big busioness, but my main intention was to state that if people believe that they have a true choice about who sits in power in the government and that these "governments" are truly democratically elected, they are wrong and a bit naive in thinking that.

Good points. The intent is well taken. I think you're too generous with the point regarding "a bit naive"...

[Gary A]

There are morons on both sides. Moore happens to be a FAR left moron. It appears that these morons on both sides are able to make piles of money preaching their crap. Maybe I'm the moron and they are the gifted ones?

Maggie Thatcher said the socialism is a great system until the people with money run out of money. This is not a direct quote but I think it is close.

[Nilrem]

You know I've been travelling overseas all my life and one thing I always here from non Americans is "I know many Americans I like but I just can't stand or support america the country". I always tell them they have it backwards. In the most democratic nation on Earth, what the government does is a DIRECT reflection of the ignorance, greed and hatred of the populace.

"...most democratic nation on Earth..."

On what grounds? By what reasoning?

I believe that America once moved the most towards democracy; now see them moving towards plutocracy, the greatest the world has ever seen.

Ever been in their schools? Never see such a state of societal indoctrination, social engineering and subjective slavery. The land of free enslaved themselves; then the home of brave filled themselves with fear.

Yes, that's the point I've been making here for months and years. I think we only differ in our view inthat I think they chose this outcome through perceived selfish interest and that it could not have been imposed if that condition were not extant.

Yes, we're close in thought. But, why do you think they "chose this outcome"? In my mind, selfish interests (as opposed to reasonable self-interest) has a lot to do with subjective enslavement. With such mental enslavement people start from an emotional conclusion and see what they want to see: i.e. the furor now raging relative to US healthcare insurance. Seeing "death panels" and "pulling the plug on Grandma" is not a choice made; it's determined by emotional selfishness, a blindness, that what one "sees" is believed true because they believe it and selfishly cling to it.

[Groongthep]

"...most democratic nation on Earth..."

On what grounds? By what reasoning?

I believe that America once moved the most towards democracy; now see them moving towards plutocracy, the greatest the world has ever seen.

I guess you must have missed the results of last November's elections then. The Democrats, who tend to be far much less supportive of the wealthly defeated the pro-rich Republicans in both the Presidential race and the majority of Congressional races. That would indicate to most that the public schools are moving even farther away from plutocracy.

Ever been in their schools? Never see such a state of societal indoctrination, social engineering and subjective slavery. The land of free enslaved themselves; then the home of brave filled themselves with fear.

Absolute nonsense. Societal indoctrination, social engineering and subjective slavery huh? I wonder how the average American school stacks up against most Asian, Middle Eastern, and European schools in regards to indoctrination. US school have for years produced students with amongst the most innovative and imaginative ideas in the world. Yes, some are cookie cutter clones of bad teachers with religious or political agendas but the big majority are not.

American school districts are for the most part run independently. There is no "national curriculum". If the district is conservative the teaching in the schools tends to be conservative also. If the district is progressive the teaching tends to encourage much more critical thought. There are plenty of good schools out there which encourage students to think for themselves. If there weren't do you think that you would be seeing so much heated debate between Americans on such a wide range of issues on this forum? We haven't seen too much of any debate at all from Continental Europeans on divergent views of issues in their countries. That's why I suspect that their schools are cranking out students that simply agree with every view their teachers espouse. Either that or they are far too self-conscious of what others would think if they dared criticize one of their own countrymen. Bashing the big bad Americans is so much easier, fashionable and fun.

[lannarebirth]

You know I've been travelling overseas all my life and one thing I always here from non Americans is "I know many Americans I like but I just can't stand or support america the country". I always tell them they have it backwards. In the most democratic nation on Earth, what the government does is a DIRECT reflection of the ignorance, greed and hatred of the populace.

"...most democratic nation on Earth..."

On what grounds? By what reasoning?

I believe that America once moved the most towards democracy; now see them moving towards plutocracy, the greatest the world has ever seen.

Ever been in their schools? Never see such a state of societal indoctrination, social engineering and subjective slavery. The land of free enslaved themselves; then the home of brave filled themselves with fear.

Yes, that's the point I've been making here for months and years. I think we only differ in our view inthat I think they chose this outcome through perceived selfish interest and that it could not have been imposed if that condition were not extant.

Yes, we're close in thought. But, why do you think they "chose this outcome"? In my mind, selfish interests (as opposed to reasonable self-interest) has a lot to do with subjective enslavement. With such mental enslavement people start from an emotional conclusion and see what they want to see: i.e. the furor now raging relative to US healthcare insurance. Seeing "death panels" and "pulling the plug on Grandma" is not a choice made; it's determined by emotional selfishness, a blindness, that what one "sees" is believed true because they believe it and selfishly cling to it.

I didn't write that correctly. I meant to say they made the choices that created this outcome.

I don't watch the media but I can imagine what the debate might look like. Like all debates in America it will be devisive rather than an effort to build consensus. Democracy as practiced there is all about division. pit the young against the old, the poor against the rich, the gay against the straight, the religious against the ?, this race against that, that gender against the other. It's pretty ugly and I never saw how it could ever lead to good outcomes. The people just don't see themselves as all being in the same boat together. Some think they can win while others lose. Now it's expanding to a global scale. I just never could fathom it, so I gave up trying.

Edited September 8, 2009 by lannarebirth

[badge]

There are morons on both sides. Moore happens to be a FAR left moron. It appears that these morons on both sides are able to make piles of money preaching their crap. Maybe I'm the moron and they are the gifted ones?

Maggie Thatcher said the socialism is a great system until the people with money run out of money. This is not a direct quote but I think it is close.

Thats right; people are conservative until they're comfortable, then they concern themselves with the well being of others, until their money runs out... repeat

[RKASA]

An interesting thought.  Has anyone seen a non-capitalist country that builds fences to keep people out, seeing as they have so much to offer we could point all immigration problem toward them to solve it.

[LaoPo]

Capitalism: A Love Story, the film by Michael Moore received very positive comments and press in Venice, Italy.

There were even two Italian journalists with a large banner (very unusual in Venice) in the packed press room with the words: "Michael Moore: we love you".

The movie received a warm applause after it's premiere.

Michael Moore (free translation):

"I don't care if my film how the film touches you: if someone has to laugh, cry or starts thinking as long as people want to spend money on their free Friday evening to see my film. Than I did a good job."

Who further mentioned that his political message in the movie is of secondary importance: "The revolution I'm calling for has already started, on November 4 (2008, LP), with Obama" and "I hope that all of my movies have contributed to that process and hope they will continue to do so"

Excerpts from: De Telegraaf, the largest newspaper in The Netherlands - Art & Culture section

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Review from a capitalistic news source with a 3*** rating, out of four

Michael Moore’s Anti-Capitalist Attack Dazzles Italians: Review

Sept. 8 (Bloomberg) -- “Michael, we love you!”

Filmmaker Michael Moore is promoting his new movie “Capitalism: A Love Story” to the media at the Venice Film Festival. He is stopped in his tracks when an Italian female reporter unfurls a banner bearing those adoring words.

Moore is getting good press in Italy, where his movie had its world premiere. “Interessantissimo” (highly interesting), cheered the daily La Stampa, while Corriere della Sera gave it three stars out of four. La Repubblica devoted whole pages to the Michigan-born director, and reported that he had a double serving of spaghetti al pomodoro sent up to his hotel room.

The 55-year-old moviemaker has much to rant about these days, what with the September 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and the $700 billion taxpayer bailout of the financial system. In his two-hour documentary, we see him try to take an empty canvas bag into the heavily guarded headquarters of a bailed-out bank, declaring, “We’re here to get the money back for the American people.”

Yet Moore covers a lot more than just the Wall Street rescue, or “financial coup d’etat” as he calls it. His documentary is a wholesale indictment of capitalism: funny, gloomy and even a little preachy.

“Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil,” Moore lectures in the final voiceover. “You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that’s good for all people, and that something is called democracy.”

At the news conference, Moore said he had told his crew to consider this “the last film they let us make.” His aim, he said, was to “speak the words that need to be spoken,” and “raise the issues that need to be raised.”

Moore Echoes

What we get is a grab-bag, best-of-Michael-Moore compilation, with echoes of his other movies “Roger & Me” (1989), “Fahrenheit 9/11” (2004) and “Sicko” (2007).

“Capitalism” opens with heart-rending foreclosure scenes. A young black man watches as his lifelong home is boarded up. A white woman sobs as a short-sleeved sheriff appears with an eviction notice.

“This is capitalism,” says the Moore voiceover, “a system of taking and giving, mostly taking.”

Next, we meet a Florida-based man who works for a company called Condo Vultures. It deals with clients who buy foreclosed homes and sell them at a profit. The difference between him and a real vulture? “I don’t vomit on myself!” he cackles.

As Moore’s movie zooms out to show the many other pernicious aspects of capitalism, it loses focus.

Reagan’s Election

For historical context, he provides a short lesson in postwar economics that starts with a depiction of his comfortable 1950s childhood as an autoworker’s son and ends with the 1980 election of President Ronald Reagan.

“The country would now be run by a corporation,” says Moore, pointing out that Reagan’s Treasury secretary Donald Regan was previously the chairman and chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch & Co.

Moore then offers illustrations of capitalism’s worst excesses. A company running a juvenile home gets youths locked up for no good reason -- squabbling in a mall, mocking faculty on the Web -- so it can overcharge the state. Other companies collect hefty life-insurance payments on dead employees. Underpaid airline pilots live on food stamps, sell their plasma, and moonlight as dog walkers to make ends meet.

Moore shows how citizens are taking the matter into their own hands: through collective company ownership, through sit- ins, and through squatter action. He encourages them to do more.

Jesus Redubbed

In an openly religious section, he interviews a priest who calls capitalism “immoral, obscene, outrageous.” Jesus wouldn’t approve either, says Moore. He tries to prove it by redubbing an old movie and making Christ utter free-market messages such as: “He’ll have to pay out of pocket.”

“Somehow, I don’t think Jesus came to earth to ring the bell at the New York Stock Exchange,” Moore deadpans.

Not till the second half does Moore finally get down to what he has pitched his film to be: a lampooning of Wall Street. This section has an urgency that the others lack. It’s scathing, effective and hilarious.

Wall Street bankers are stopped on the street for a definition of derivatives. All are silent, except for one, who replies, “Don’t make any more movies!” A former Lehman Brothers executive and a Harvard University pundit are no better at explaining the financial instruments.

Goldman Sachs

Moore gives a blow-by-blow account of the bailout. He suggests that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s prior job as chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. led the administration to “use the taxpayers to bail out Goldman and other favored financial institutions.” (A spokesman for Goldman Sachs, contacted via e-mail, declined to comment on Moore’s statement.)

Here, the facts and figures speak for themselves, and Moore has a field day rolling them off. In the final scene, we see him sticking a long yellow strip of tape on a row of Wall Street security barriers. It reads: “CRIME SCENE DO NOT CROSS.”

“Capitalism: A Love Story” once again shows Moore as a talented pamphleteer and a voice in American democracy. Only, the film runs on too long, and tries to be too many things at once. Moore’s best movies are single-issue ones, like “Sicko” (on health care) and “Bowling for Columbine” (about gun laws). Too bad this one didn’t make Wall Street the sole theme.

Rating: ***.

What the Stars Mean:

**** Excellent

*** Good

** Average

* Poor

(No stars) Worthless

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...d=aH_GyxKHLxhU#

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Michael Moore Debuts 'Capitalism: A Love Story'

September 07, 2009 by Mark Whittington*

Making Money by Attacking the Making of Money

Michael Moore, the rotund documentary polemicist whose films include Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko, has premiered his latest left wing epic at the Venice Film Festival. It is called Capitalism: A Love Story.

Michael Moore has concluded that capitalism is evil, capitalism must be overthrown, and has a made a movie that will likely net him millions of dollars telling us why these things are so. By all accounts, Capitalism: A Love Story has all of the classic Michael Moore tricks; the out of context sob stories, the artfully edited scenes, the publicity stunts, and the utterly clueless analysis, such as it is. Most if not all of the horrors Michael Moore depicts are the result of big companies collaborating with government.

Mind, Michael Moore has morphed from a celebrated auteur, to an outrageous propagandist, to a kind of cinematic joke. And his films, while generating a lot of praise in the politically correct circles and a lot of money for Michael Moore, have not actually effected any social change. In fact, they have tended to have the opposite effect.

Bowling for Columbine, an assault against the private ownership of fire arms, has led to more laws protecting that ownership, including a recent Supreme Court decision overturning Washington D.C. draconian gun control laws.

Fahrenheit 9/11 was followed by the reelection of George W. Bush and the current consensus on fighting the War on Terror.

The aftermath of Sicko is playing itself out. The current revolt against Obamacare suggests the defeat of government run health care proposals. Even in Canada, a quiet kind of privatization is occurring.

So what will happen with Capitalism: A Love Story? If the pattern of every other one of Michael Moore's films holds true, it will premier with a big splash and impressive box office. Then, likely when Barack Obama is replaced in 2012 by Sarah Palin, free market capitalism with reign supreme, with a flat tax, the privatization of Social Security, school vouchers, and other capitalistic innovations.

In any case, Michael Moore makes a very unlikely Lenin, by all accounts living the lifestyle of the rich and famous, abusing the help, and behaving with all the entitlement mentality of a Roman Senator. Michael Moore would be the first person to be horrified if the proposals suggested by Capitalism: A Love Story were ever to be enacted. The last thing Michael Moore wants to do is to give all his money to the poor and work for the Ministry of Documentary Film Making at minimum wage.

But that's not the point of Michael Moore's films. The purpose of any film is to put as many posteriors in seats as possible in order to generate money for the people who make them. And Michael Moore has served his own purpose indeed.

Source: "Capitalism is evil," says new Michael Moore film, Mike Collett-White, Reuters, September 6th, 2009

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2...=true&cat=2

ATTENTION NOTE:

In the link, above, there's an ad (within the article) and when clicked on it, it shows an ad by the Scientology Church. I'm not very familiar with their position in the US so I questioned myself: what does this ad doing there; Is it coincidental ?

* Mark R. Whittington is a writer residing in Houston, Texas. He is the author of The Last Moonwalker, Children of Apollo and Nocturne. He has written numerous articles, some for the Washington Post, USA Today, the LA Times, and the Houston Chronicle.

LaoPo

[RKASA]

Are you going to flood the tread with Moore 

[LaoPo]

Comment from The Washington Post:

Reuters

Tuesday, September 8, 2009; 6:12 AM

Michael Moore's "Capitalism" economical with facts

VENICE (Hollywood Reporter) - Twenty years after "Roger & Me" introduced Michael Moore to the world as a politically engaged documentary maker with a strong knack for showmanship, "Capitalism: A Love Story" sums up his disgust with corporate America and its devastating effect on the lives of ordinary people. Ending on the notes of the "Internationale" as Moore theatrically encircles New York banks with crime scene tape, the film launches a call for socialism via a popular uprising against the evils of capitalism and free enterprise. Although it's less focused than "Sicko" or "Fahrenheit 9/11," this competition entry is a typical Moore oeuvre: funny, often over the top and of dubious documentation, but with strongly made points that leave viewers much to ponder and debate after they walk out of the theater.

The American director, Michael Moore and his wife, pose for photographers on the red carpet before the screening of his film: "Capitalism: A Love Story" submitted in the competitionduring the 66th Venice Film Festival in Venice, Italy, 06 September 2009. EPA/CLAUDIO ONORATI

Photo from: Monsters & Critics: "In Pictures: 'Venice Film Festival Premieres and Photocalls' " with 36 photos from the premiere in Venice.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/f...-and-Photocalls

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Are you going to flood the tread with Moore 

...just wait until Moore arrives in Bangkok, from Venice

On a more serious note: I think the comment by The Washington Post is the best so far.....Moore certainly reaches a large audience and make people think and discuss, whether one is pro or contra his views.

LaoPo

[skipvice]

Oh please, Enough already

[LaoPo]

Oh please, Enough already

..you didn't even pay for a ticket yet; how can you say "enough" ?

LaoPo

[teatree]

Do people really take Michael Moore seriously? He would like to think of himself as a probing investigative journalist, but in fact he's just another cog in the mainstream media facade. Although he's a big fat man, his stories are actually pretty lightweight with numerous gaps in the information he presents and too often factually wrong. He sensationalizes all he touches and never lets the true facts interfere with the development of a story. I think the worst piece of crap he's ever done was the one about 9/11 -- let's avoid the real issues and focus on a bunch of superficial crap. The man's a phony!

Saying that, capitalism IN ITS PRESENT FORM does have problems, but that's mostly due to the fact that governments are controlled by big business. If Moore actually goes into this with some real depth, then maybe he's got a film worth watching, but it would be the first time ever that he actually dug deep and took a chance of upsetting anybody of importance and power.

Totally agree. Moore, wittingly or not, is a gate keeper who directs the herd away from the real issues.

[TerraPosse]

Well, since democracy has been around (though with long periods of its absence) since the antique Greek city states and therefore long before the onset of capitalism, it would be fair to predict that the end of capitalism would not be the end for democracy.

Is Capitalism evil?  If you compare to what it replaced i.e. Feudalism than that answer would be no.  But looking forward it sure is. And that Capitalism isn't going to be the be all and end all of societal development can be taken as a given.  When and by what it will be replaced is anyones guess but to see that it will happen one only has to look at our history.

Can Capitalism be reformed?  Now, that is an oxymoron if ever there was one.  Can a system that is inherently based on the exploitation of the many by the few be made 'fair'?  You stop that exploitation and it'll be fair sure enough and that is what we call then Socialism. 

One can try and cover and gloss over the cracks to make it appear fair and transparent but that doesn't make it so.  Watching (and reading) 'The Corporation' and (presumably) MM new documentary make it probably easier to understand and digest that the Anglo-American form of capitalism is just as vociferous in it's greed than the capitalism during the industrial revolution.  Karl Marx's analysis of capitalism as written in 'Das Kapital' still stands, although it is one tough and inaccessible read, and so too does his conclusion that it cannot be reformed or made into a 'fairer' society but will have to be replaced by a new form of society.

Those of the Neo-Con's and their sympathizers that will now have foam at their mouths, rest assured, even in my eternal optimism can't I see any of this happening during our lifetime. 

[RKASA]

Well, since democracy has been around (though with long periods of its absence) since the antique Greek city states and therefore long before the onset of capitalism, it would be fair to predict that the end of capitalism would not be the end for democracy.

Is Capitalism evil?  If you compare to what it replaced i.e. Feudalism than that answer would be no.  But looking forward it sure is. And that Capitalism isn't going to be the be all and end all of societal development can be taken as a given.  When and by what it will be replaced is anyones guess but to see that it will happen one only has to look at our history.

Can Capitalism be reformed?  Now, that is an oxymoron if ever there was one.  Can a system that is inherently based on the exploitation of the many by the few be made 'fair'?  You stop that exploitation and it'll be fair sure enough and that is what we call then Socialism. 

One can try and cover and gloss over the cracks to make it appear fair and transparent but that doesn't make it so.  Watching (and reading) 'The Corporation' and (presumably) MM new documentary make it probably easier to understand and digest that the Anglo-American form of capitalism is just as vociferous in it's greed than the capitalism during the industrial revolution.  Karl Marx's analysis of capitalism as written in 'Das Kapital' still stands, although it is one tough and inaccessible read, and so too does his conclusion that it cannot be reformed or made into a 'fairer' society but will have to be replaced by a new form of society.

Those of the Neo-Con's and their sympathizers that will now have foam at their mouths, rest assured, even in my eternal optimism can't I see any of this happening during our lifetime. 

Little Utopian world of happy artisans free of greed and cared for by the loving state.  Only exist in the movies and books.  Exploitation is a tired and over used phrase, it used to be called,  having a job. 

[Chunkton]

Lets clear up a few issues:

The US was established as a republic, not a democracy DELIBERATELY, it was believed that a democracy was an already proved failed system. You Americans out there, go and finally learn your own history.

The founding fathers warned strenuously against ever allowing bankers power, as they would destroy the republic. This was ignored. The Federal Reserve that was convincingly brought in in 1913 is owned and operated by private banks and it controls the economy for the benefit of who? Maybe the banker/owners? Many US presidents and the founding fathers warned against bankers.

A free market economy is not capitalism. A free market is not perverted and manipulated by privately owned certral banks (BOE is another one owed by I believe Rothschild), it also should have a gold backed currency to protect it's value and thus the savings of the population.

Moore is largely right, however Obama brings nothing new to the table, just serves the same banker interests as Bush etc. He has set a socialist fascist agenda, he is not about change in any way, shape or form.

The Republic was setup with a constitution deliberately to stop perversions that has lately been ignored by vested and powerful interests as inconvenient.

A free market works, due to the Financial Crisis instigated by the privately owned central banks creating bubbles for their own benefit or through stupidity, the free market is being equated with capitalism and neo-liberalism where they are not the same thing.

[lannarebirth]

I think we've entered a "Financialism" economy. This guy explains it pretty well.

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/162115-t...rket-capitalism

[Nilrem]

"...most democratic nation on Earth..."

On what grounds? By what reasoning?

I believe that America once moved the most towards democracy; now see them moving towards plutocracy, the greatest the world has ever seen.

I guess you must have missed the results of last November's elections then. The Democrats, who tend to be far much less supportive of the wealthly defeated the pro-rich Republicans in both the Presidential race and the majority of Congressional races. That would indicate to most that the public schools are moving even farther away from plutocracy.

Yes, the Democrats are less supportive and the Republicans more supportive of the rich. You prove my point with bipartisan support for the rich in America. Evidence of how the partisan parties support the people and include the poor, any movement towards being more democratic would help to counter the evidence of world headed towards a plutocracy, lead by the US.

And, the connection between public schools and plutocracy is...?

Ever been in their schools? Never see such a state of societal indoctrination, social engineering and subjective slavery. The land of free enslaved themselves; then the home of brave filled themselves with fear.

Absolute nonsense. Societal indoctrination, social engineering and subjective slavery huh? I wonder how the average American school stacks up against most Asian, Middle Eastern, and European schools in regards to indoctrination. US school have for years produced students with amongst the most innovative and imaginative ideas in the world. Yes, some are cookie cutter clones of bad teachers with religious or political agendas but the big majority are not.

American school districts are for the most part run independently. There is no "national curriculum". If the district is conservative the teaching in the schools tends to be conservative also. If the district is progressive the teaching tends to encourage much more critical thought. There are plenty of good schools out there which encourage students to think for themselves. If there weren't do you think that you would be seeing so much heated debate between Americans on such a wide range of issues on this forum? We haven't seen too much of any debate at all from Continental Europeans on divergent views of issues in their countries. That's why I suspect that their schools are cranking out students that simply agree with every view their teachers espouse. Either that or they are far too self-conscious of what others would think if they dared criticize one of their own countrymen. Bashing the big bad Americans is so much easier, fashionable and fun.

Sorry, I shouldn't "bash big bad America", But yes, you are an easy target and i love to bully bullies. Just read that US soldiers invaded a Swedish hospital in Afghanistan pursuing a patient who they felt had knowledge of the Taliban. This is another precedent for the US breaching Geneva Conventions. Anyone know if the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have respected this international law up to know? If not, I bet they breach it now too: NATO hospitals and allies in any hospital will become targets.

Still, my hyperbole relative to indoctrination is not "absolute nonsense" as you say. I'll post a separate thread on this theme once I research a possible tie to Thailand.

[sokal]

"...most democratic nation on Earth..."

On what grounds? By what reasoning?

I believe that America once moved the most towards democracy; now see them moving towards plutocracy, the greatest the world has ever seen.

I guess you must have missed the results of last November's elections then. The Democrats, who tend to be far much less supportive of the wealthly defeated the pro-rich Republicans in both the Presidential race and the majority of Congressional races. That would indicate to most that the public schools are moving even farther away from plutocracy.

Yes, the Democrats are less supportive and the Republicans more supportive of the rich. You prove my point with bipartisan support for the rich in America. Evidence of how the partisan parties support the people and include the poor, any movement towards being more democratic would help to counter the evidence of world headed towards a plutocracy, lead by the US.

And, the connection between public schools and plutocracy is...?

Ever been in their schools? Never see such a state of societal indoctrination, social engineering and subjective slavery. The land of free enslaved themselves; then the home of brave filled themselves with fear.

Absolute nonsense. Societal indoctrination, social engineering and subjective slavery huh? I wonder how the average American school stacks up against most Asian, Middle Eastern, and European schools in regards to indoctrination. US school have for years produced students with amongst the most innovative and imaginative ideas in the world. Yes, some are cookie cutter clones of bad teachers with religious or political agendas but the big majority are not.

American school districts are for the most part run independently. There is no "national curriculum". If the district is conservative the teaching in the schools tends to be conservative also. If the district is progressive the teaching tends to encourage much more critical thought. There are plenty of good schools out there which encourage students to think for themselves. If there weren't do you think that you would be seeing so much heated debate between Americans on such a wide range of issues on this forum? We haven't seen too much of any debate at all from Continental Europeans on divergent views of issues in their countries. That's why I suspect that their schools are cranking out students that simply agree with every view their teachers espouse. Either that or they are far too self-conscious of what others would think if they dared criticize one of their own countrymen. Bashing the big bad Americans is so much easier, fashionable and fun.

Sorry, I shouldn't "bash big bad America", But yes, you are an easy target and i love to bully bullies. Just read that US soldiers invaded a Swedish hospital in Afghanistan pursuing a patient who they felt had knowledge of the Taliban. This is another precedent for the US breaching Geneva Conventions. Anyone know if the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have respected this international law up to know? If not, I bet they breach it now too: NATO hospitals and allies in any hospital will become targets.

Still, my hyperbole relative to indoctrination is not "absolute nonsense" as you say. I'll post a separate thread on this theme once I research a possible tie to Thailand.

Geneva conventions do not cover non territorial terrorists. You are a radical, pure and simple. The only thing standing between the world and chaos is the US military.

[flying]

The only thing standing between the world and chaos is the US military.

Normally I agree with many of your posts but.....

I am sad to say the US using the Military is the chaos in the world at this time.

They have breached that which they swore to uphold in so many ways it is shameful.

The US military has become the biggest bully in the world.

They now have almost equal parts of young with stupid as an excuse soldiers & mercenaries (blackwater)doing the dirty work. They are operating well beyond the constitution & the declaration of independence. They have become that which at one time they sought to escape.

I could see in the not too distant future they becoming the enemy of the people & the principles they swore to protect.

Ironic that they will use what they term the Patriot Act to accomplish these deeds.

Edited September 9, 2009 by flying

[Naam]

The only thing standing between the world and chaos is the US military.

Normally I agree with many of your posts but.....

I am sad to say the US using the Military is the chaos in the world at this time.

They have breached that which they swore to uphold in so many ways it is shameful.

The US military has become the biggest bully in the world.

They now have almost equal parts of young with stupid as an excuse soldiers & mercenaries (blackwater)doing the dirty work. They are operating well beyond the constitution & the declaration of independence. They have become that which at one time they sought to escape.

I could see in the not too distant future they becoming the enemy of the people & the principles they swore to protect.

Ironic that they will use what they term the Patriot Act to accomplish these deeds.

Flying i think you are barking up the wrong tree. the U.S. military follows orders. the orders are concocted by a certain circle which has its own agenda and then sanctioned verbally or with a signature by a figurehead which sits in the White House. as simple as that.

Sokal, i hope you are arriving in Thailand soon and find (quoting you: "an uncurrupted girlfriend") which keeps you busy. that way we don't have to read too many of your "intelligent" comments.

[flying]

Flying i think you are barking up the wrong tree. the U.S. military follows orders. the orders are concocted by a certain circle which has its own agenda and then sanctioned verbally or with a signature by a figurehead which sits in the White House. as simple as that.

Agreed ....you are 100% correct. Which is why I said ironically these deeds are done under what is called the Patriot Act <sic>

Yet replace "He" in our Declaration Of Independence with the person you mention & it is quite applicable to the current situation.......

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

Edited September 9, 2009 by flying

[Nilrem]

Geneva conventions do not cover non territorial terrorists. You are a radical, pure and simple. The only thing standing between the world and chaos is the US military.

I believe Geneva conventions cover military forced intrusion into hospitals, though that is beside the point if the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have adhered to the principle and the US has broken it.

Yes, I'm a radical, but not so pure and quite complex. While you imply "radical" negatively; it has a positive connation of going to the root of a problem.

Like a previous post on this thread claiming my post was "absolute nonsense", he posed an emotional reaction as critical thinking. Your "only thing" likewise is a universal that should not be so easily flung out in a critique, since one positive point collapses the argument. And, it usually exposes someone as an emotional reactionary.

Nonetheless, the opposite appears true: US military following orders may be the main thing standing between the world and chaos: i.e. perpetuating perpetual war; nuclear first strike option, etc. Ironically, the following orders argument was used against the Nazis in the Neuremburg trials to convict them of crimes against humanity.

[Naam]

Nonetheless, the opposite appears true: US military following orders may be the main thing standing between the world and chaos: i.e. perpetuating perpetual war; nuclear first strike option, etc. Ironically, the following orders argument was used against the Nazis in the Neuremburg trials to convict them of crimes against humanity.

the victorious one writes, interpretes and executes his laws as he deems fit. if using the Nürnberg yardstick on crimes politicians and soldiers have committed since WW II we would need hundreds of The Hague Criminal Courts and these courts would be busy for decades to come.

[rijb]

Micheal Moore is fat

And American.

Every yard has weeds.

[Nilrem]

Nonetheless, the opposite appears true: US military following orders may be the main thing standing between the world and chaos: i.e. perpetuating perpetual war; nuclear first strike option, etc. Ironically, the following orders argument was used against the Nazis in the Neuremburg trials to convict them of crimes against humanity.

the victorious one writes, interpretes and executes his laws as he deems fit. if using the Nürnberg yardstick on crimes politicians and soldiers have committed since WW II we would need hundreds of The Hague Criminal Courts and these courts would be busy for decades to come.

Moving the irony to hypocrisy with regress excuses crimes against humanity and is apologetics for pragmatic short term gain – and in fact, goes against really moving towards a just principle for humanity.