1
   

Surprise! Politicians profiting from war.

 
 
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 06:48 pm
"SOURCE"
The saddest thing is not politicians profiteering from war but politicians who profit from war and stake their presidential bid on an anti-war stance(John Kerry). And then to really get the hypocrisy across, he's the top investor.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 856 • Replies: 17
No top replies

 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 04:06 pm
You are not correct sir.
You are not correct in the sense of the title of this thead.
John Kerry had not looted, butchered, raped, tortured, lied as politician..
The pot should not brand the kettle black.
Throw not stones while you relax your life in a glass house..
I await your verbal venoms.
Rama
0 Replies
 
jasonrest
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 07:25 pm
Ramafuchs wrote:
You are not correct sir.
You are not correct in the sense of the title of this thead.
John Kerry had not looted, butchered, raped, tortured, lied as politician..
The pot should not brand the kettle black.
Throw not stones while you relax your life in a glass house..
I await your verbal venoms.
Rama


I have no verbal venom, only a confused look.
I don't have a glass house. wouldn't want one either.
Why are you mentioning crimes that I made no mention of?
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 06:29 pm
Am I confused? sir
Should i retrace my above views? sir.

Be as you are.
Cool but not cold.

The fact is this.

American politicians are the corporate sponserd innocents..
Your views are not that of mine

Sorry.
Rama
0 Replies
 
jasonrest
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 07:00 pm
Shocked
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 07:20 pm
This thread is overflowing with potential.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 07:22 pm
From the article, "Not all the firms deal in arms or military equipment. Some make soft drinks or medical supplies and military contracts represent a small fraction of their revenues." We should make the distinction between the kind of war racketeering Halliburton and Cheney are guilty of in Iraq and those investing in Johnson & Johnson and Coca Cola. But yes this war is profitable to corporate fascists on both sides of the aisle. Real campaign finance reform that took corporate lobbying power out campaigns could lead to change. Public financing of campaigns would allow many more people a chance to run for office.
0 Replies
 
jasonrest
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 07:37 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
From the article, "Not all the firms deal in arms or military equipment. Some make soft drinks or medical supplies and military contracts represent a small fraction of their revenues." We should make the distinction between the kind of war racketeering Halliburton and Cheney are guilty of in Iraq and those investing in Johnson & Johnson and Coca Cola. But yes this war is profitable to corporate fascists on both sides of the aisle. Real campaign finance reform that took corporate lobbying power out campaigns could lead to change. Public financing of campaigns would allow many more people a chance to run for office.


True and well said but, there has been distinctions made.
With regard to earlier statements, the article was specific as to Mr. Kerry's investments and they were not in soft drinks.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 07:45 pm
jasonrest, well I aint here to defend Kerry. And I do believe Congress is full of war profiteers. But the article is not specific in what companies Kerry is invested in. I know he sells a lot of ketchup. I dont how much he's invested in arms manufacturers. I know like Hillary he voted to authorize the war.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 07:59 pm
Not all are well informed to chat in A2K
But some invest their energy, experience and time to learn from others.
One is Blueflame and the other is my poorself.
Rama
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 09:22 pm
jasonrest wrote:
blueflame1 wrote:
From the article, "Not all the firms deal in arms or military equipment. Some make soft drinks or medical supplies and military contracts represent a small fraction of their revenues." We should make the distinction between the kind of war racketeering Halliburton and Cheney are guilty of in Iraq and those investing in Johnson & Johnson and Coca Cola. But yes this war is profitable to corporate fascists on both sides of the aisle. Real campaign finance reform that took corporate lobbying power out campaigns could lead to change. Public financing of campaigns would allow many more people a chance to run for office.


True and well said but, there has been distinctions made.
With regard to earlier statements, the article was specific as to Mr. Kerry's investments and they were not in soft drinks.

Really? What were Kerry's investments in? I see nothing specific in the article.

The article makes 2 statements that show Kerry's investments can NOT be mainly in weapons.

Quote:
Senator John Kerry, the Democrat from Massachusetts who staked his 2004 presidential bid in part on his opposition to the war, tops the list of investors. His holdings in firms with Pentagon contracts of at least five million dollars stood at between 28.9 million dollars and 38.2 million dollars as of Dec. 31, 2006. Kerry sits on the Senate foreign relations panel.


Quote:
Members of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees held 3.0 million - 5.1 million dollars in companies specialising in weapons and other exclusively military goods and services, it added.
0 Replies
 
jasonrest
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2008 01:52 am
parados wrote:
jasonrest wrote:
blueflame1 wrote:
From the article, "Not all the firms deal in arms or military equipment. Some make soft drinks or medical supplies and military contracts represent a small fraction of their revenues." We should make the distinction between the kind of war racketeering Halliburton and Cheney are guilty of in Iraq and those investing in Johnson & Johnson and Coca Cola. But yes this war is profitable to corporate fascists on both sides of the aisle. Real campaign finance reform that took corporate lobbying power out campaigns could lead to change. Public financing of campaigns would allow many more people a chance to run for office.


True and well said but, there has been distinctions made.
With regard to earlier statements, the article was specific as to Mr. Kerry's investments and they were not in soft drinks.

Really? What were Kerry's investments in? I see nothing specific in the article.

The article makes 2 statements that show Kerry's investments can NOT be mainly in weapons.

Quote:
Senator John Kerry, the Democrat from Massachusetts who staked his 2004 presidential bid in part on his opposition to the war, tops the list of investors. His holdings in firms with Pentagon contracts of at least five million dollars stood at between 28.9 million dollars and 38.2 million dollars as of Dec. 31, 2006. Kerry sits on the Senate foreign relations panel.


Quote:
Members of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees held 3.0 million - 5.1 million dollars in companies specialising in weapons and other exclusively military goods and services, it added.


Kerry had holdings in firms with pentagon contracts...
0 Replies
 
jasonrest
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2008 02:01 am
Admittedly, it does not specify but is the benefit of the doubt fitting here. I guess my hatred of corrupt politicians caused me to see something that wasn't there. But surely you would expect someone that has their money invested in something or someone would have knowledge as to its progression, its current endeavors as well as future ones; it's decline or incline and why it would go either which way.

I believe there is another article...
but again, I stand corrected.
0 Replies
 
jasonrest
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2008 02:10 am
The same man that has a special responsibility of war oversight is the same man that tops investments in DOD contracts.

That does not strike me as coincidental and whether the investments were in big bombs or laffy taffys, I'm sure one was aware of their potential, regarding their military endorsements.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2008 06:48 am
Coca Cola has pentagon contracts
General Electric has pentagon contracts
Heinz Ketchup probably has pentagon contracts.


I'm sure I own companies with pentagon contracts because the pentagon is one of the biggest government purchasers of computers, food, office supplies, fuel, vehicles etc.

Read the entire article and try to understand it before you make an idiot of yourself by making claims that are in no way supported by the article itself. Do you understand the two quotes I posted.

Even if Kerry is the ONLY Senator on the 2 committees with investments in companies specializing in weapons he would still only have 10% of his investments in weapons and war making companies. But we KNOW for a fact that Kerry is NOT the only Senator on the 2 committees with those investments because there would be no reason to list 2 committees since Kerry is only on the Foreign relations committee. There is no benefit of the doubt needed. One only needs to read the article with an unbiased eye to see that Kerry can NOT own a stock in a lot of war making companies.
0 Replies
 
jasonrest
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2008 12:37 pm
parados wrote:
Coca Cola has pentagon contracts
General Electric has pentagon contracts
Heinz Ketchup probably has pentagon contracts.


I'm sure I own companies with pentagon contracts because the pentagon is one of the biggest government purchasers of computers, food, office supplies, fuel, vehicles etc.

Read the entire article and try to understand it before you make an idiot of yourself by making claims that are in no way supported by the article itself. Do you understand the two quotes I posted.

Even if Kerry is the ONLY Senator on the 2 committees with investments in companies specializing in weapons he would still only have 10% of his investments in weapons and war making companies. But we KNOW for a fact that Kerry is NOT the only Senator on the 2 committees with those investments because there would be no reason to list 2 committees since Kerry is only on the Foreign relations committee. There is no benefit of the doubt needed. One only needs to read the article with an unbiased eye to see that Kerry can NOT own a stock in a lot of war making companies.


After I reread your post, you can reread mine.
I have since admitted a bias concerning the article, but I also am not naive enough to think these investors are not aware of their potential, and with whom that potential lies.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2008 05:43 pm
You don't get it, do you?

GE owns CBS and makes light bulbs but also contracts with the military. The military contracts make up a small amount of GE's business.
Microsoft has contracts with the military but the military contracts make up a small amount of MSFT's business. Who even thinks about the military when they think of MSFT?
3M has contracts with the military but it makes up a small amount of 3M's business. Mention 3M and everyone thinks of Scotch tape but who would know that 3M has an aerospace and aircraft division that markets to the military?
Honeywell has military contracts but again it is a small amount of the Honeywell's business.
Northwest Airlines has had military contracts. (Not all soldiers are moved by military planes. They contract it out.)

Just because someone owns a stock that might have a contract with the military doesn't mean they knew or expected large profits from the military contract.

For all you or I know without doing the research WalMart could have military contracts. Shell Oil could have military contracts. State Farm could have military contracts to provide reduced car insurance to military personnel.

Your argument jason completely ignores the reality of which companies have military contracts as you leap on the ones that are easy to spot while ignoring those that no one would ever think of. The "potential" of huge profits or a profit that even effects the bottom lines of the above companies are unlikely. If A company makes 1% of it's earnings or less from the military are you really going to tell us that people buy that stock because of the potential profit from the military?
0 Replies
 
jasonrest
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 03:36 pm
I actually do understand your point and it's validity.

However, I am not buying into the idea that this is all just a serendipitous occurrence with surprised looks from those invested in the very same field as the ones they oversee. Furthermore, those in positions to serve the public especially one who submits his bid to be this country's leader, need to be conscious of the people, places and things they associate themselves with and the implications it would have upon their person.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Surprise! Politicians profiting from war.
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 01:17:31