Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2011 22:01:24 GMT -6
I watched one of the most despicable, propagandistic shows I've ever seen in tonight's episode of Harry's Law (which had previously been one of my favorite TV shows). The show gave one of the most disgusting and disingenuous set of justifications for "free trade" I've ever heard.
It labelled free trade opponents as racists, bigots, and totalitarianists.
It accused them as being un-American. Really.
The show started out with the star of the show, Harriet Corn, being pulled over by the local police for driving her foreign-made Mercedes into a small Ohio town that had banned imported vehicles. The fine was $1,000, which Harriet refused to pay. Instead, she chose to fight the case in court.
Though one could sympathize with her initially, on the grounds of not being aware of the law, her opposition became more spurious as the show continued.
In court, she made her opening argument against infringements of her freedom to purchase what she wanted, and on alleged Constitutional violations (none of which really held any water).
Then her opposing counsel made a seemingly better argument about the need to protect American jobs. And he seemed to strengthen his arguments when questioning the town's mayor, who was the author of the 'no-foreign-cars' ordinance. The mayor's response was even better still, which brought the jury to it's feet with an applause.
But the town attorney and the mayor made only moderately good arguments, which (conveniently) omitted a lot of stronger points--including economic points, historical points, and even Constitutional points.
And they made no mention of replacement of American labor with essentially slave labor, nor did they mention the fact that many foreign workers make as little as 50¢/hour. These arguments, of course, would have made the town's case much too strong for the show's underlying message. So those arguments were never made by the town attorney.
Essentially, NBC's writers put in just enough good points to make it look like a semi-good effort, but not enough to overwhelm the pro-free traitor position championed by Harriet Corn. Even more disingenuously, though the anti-free trade arguments were emotionally charged, they were factually weak. This made them easier to dismiss on cross-examination by Harriet-the-Globalist Corn.
Harriet accused the town and its ordinance of being "protectionist."
She then falsely claimed that "no economist" would agree with them about their anti-free trade position. (I guess she'd never heard of Paul Craig Roberts, Ravi Batra, Peter Moricci, or Pat Choate.)
Harriet subtly accused free traitors' opponents of racism, bigotry, and totalitarianism. Harry made her nauseating case in favor of free trade based on...."Principles."
Principles?? Principles my ass!
The only "principle" involved is greed.
Harriet claimed that opposition to imports violated the basic "principles" of our Constitution, and of what the founding fathers fought for. Such opposition violated her rights as a consumer to buy anything she wanted.
I guess she was unaware that, from its outset, this country has strongly advocated Tariffs on foreign imports to protect domestic industry. It's actually one of the powers specifically given to Congress.
Harriet made the completely false claim that other countries would put up barriers and that it would destroy our economy. And conveniently, this outright lie went unchallenged by her opposition.
She made the argument that we were becoming a less "inclusive" society because we were opposing imports. This, too, went unchallenged--including both the non-applicability of the principle to imports, and that this "less inclusiveness" is demonstrably wrong.
Needless to say, no mention was made that no other country on this planet accepts more immigrants than does the US. (Because this would've undermined her race-bating argument that we're becoming less "inclusive.")
Worse still, after Harriet's counter-argument, there was essentially no rebuttal by the town's attorney. (I guess he was overwhelmed by Harriet's arguments--about what an ignorant, bigoted, intolerant racist he really was.)
What convenient writing, done by NBC's assholy Globalist, free-traitor management.
I won't be watching Harry's law again. That's unfortunate for me, because it had previously been one of my favorite shows.
Though Harriet (played by Kathy Bates) had been portrayed as someone who sticks up for the downtrodden, on tonight's show she became just another Corporate shill--a facilitator and defender of greedy multinational free traitors.
And she did it under the guise of defending our "principles", and fighting the good fight against "racism," "bigotry," and "intolerance."
What a bunch of B.S.
I'm not watching the show "Harry's Law" again, nor will I ever watch a show that Kathy Bates is in.
Both are just instruments of our pro-globalist, financier-dominated plutocracy.
It labelled free trade opponents as racists, bigots, and totalitarianists.
It accused them as being un-American. Really.
The show started out with the star of the show, Harriet Corn, being pulled over by the local police for driving her foreign-made Mercedes into a small Ohio town that had banned imported vehicles. The fine was $1,000, which Harriet refused to pay. Instead, she chose to fight the case in court.
Though one could sympathize with her initially, on the grounds of not being aware of the law, her opposition became more spurious as the show continued.
In court, she made her opening argument against infringements of her freedom to purchase what she wanted, and on alleged Constitutional violations (none of which really held any water).
Then her opposing counsel made a seemingly better argument about the need to protect American jobs. And he seemed to strengthen his arguments when questioning the town's mayor, who was the author of the 'no-foreign-cars' ordinance. The mayor's response was even better still, which brought the jury to it's feet with an applause.
But the town attorney and the mayor made only moderately good arguments, which (conveniently) omitted a lot of stronger points--including economic points, historical points, and even Constitutional points.
And they made no mention of replacement of American labor with essentially slave labor, nor did they mention the fact that many foreign workers make as little as 50¢/hour. These arguments, of course, would have made the town's case much too strong for the show's underlying message. So those arguments were never made by the town attorney.
Essentially, NBC's writers put in just enough good points to make it look like a semi-good effort, but not enough to overwhelm the pro-free traitor position championed by Harriet Corn. Even more disingenuously, though the anti-free trade arguments were emotionally charged, they were factually weak. This made them easier to dismiss on cross-examination by Harriet-the-Globalist Corn.
Harriet accused the town and its ordinance of being "protectionist."
She then falsely claimed that "no economist" would agree with them about their anti-free trade position. (I guess she'd never heard of Paul Craig Roberts, Ravi Batra, Peter Moricci, or Pat Choate.)
Harriet subtly accused free traitors' opponents of racism, bigotry, and totalitarianism. Harry made her nauseating case in favor of free trade based on...."Principles."
Principles?? Principles my ass!
The only "principle" involved is greed.
Harriet claimed that opposition to imports violated the basic "principles" of our Constitution, and of what the founding fathers fought for. Such opposition violated her rights as a consumer to buy anything she wanted.
I guess she was unaware that, from its outset, this country has strongly advocated Tariffs on foreign imports to protect domestic industry. It's actually one of the powers specifically given to Congress.
Harriet made the completely false claim that other countries would put up barriers and that it would destroy our economy. And conveniently, this outright lie went unchallenged by her opposition.
She made the argument that we were becoming a less "inclusive" society because we were opposing imports. This, too, went unchallenged--including both the non-applicability of the principle to imports, and that this "less inclusiveness" is demonstrably wrong.
Needless to say, no mention was made that no other country on this planet accepts more immigrants than does the US. (Because this would've undermined her race-bating argument that we're becoming less "inclusive.")
Worse still, after Harriet's counter-argument, there was essentially no rebuttal by the town's attorney. (I guess he was overwhelmed by Harriet's arguments--about what an ignorant, bigoted, intolerant racist he really was.)
What convenient writing, done by NBC's assholy Globalist, free-traitor management.
I won't be watching Harry's law again. That's unfortunate for me, because it had previously been one of my favorite shows.
Though Harriet (played by Kathy Bates) had been portrayed as someone who sticks up for the downtrodden, on tonight's show she became just another Corporate shill--a facilitator and defender of greedy multinational free traitors.
And she did it under the guise of defending our "principles", and fighting the good fight against "racism," "bigotry," and "intolerance."
What a bunch of B.S.
I'm not watching the show "Harry's Law" again, nor will I ever watch a show that Kathy Bates is in.
Both are just instruments of our pro-globalist, financier-dominated plutocracy.