Michael Moore Owns Haliburton Stock

[Hardrock69]

Love him or hate him, check this out....(I personally think he is a left-wing liberal fanatic nut-job, but I digress):

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47174


I don't own a single share of stock!" filmmaker Michael Moore proudly proclaimed.

He's right. He doesn't own a single share. He owns tens of thousands of shares – including nearly 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 of Sonoco, more than 4,000 of Best Foods, more than 3,000 of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 of Bank One and more than 2,000 of Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11."


If you want to see Moore's own signed Schedule D declaring his capital gains and losses where his stock ownership is listed, it's emblazoned on the cover of Peter Schweizer's new book, "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy."

And it's just one of the startling revelations by Schweizer, famous for his previous works, "Reagan's War" and "The Bushes."

Other examples:

* House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who proclaims her support for unions, yet the luxury resort, the vineyard and the restaurants she partly owns are strictly non-union. While she advocates tough new laws enforcing environmental regulations on the private sector, the exclusive country club she partly owns failed to comply with existing environmental regulations for the past eight years – including a failure to protect endangered species.

* Noam Chomsky has made a reputation for calling America a police state and branding the Pentagon "the most hideous institution on earth," yet his entire academic career, writes Schweizer, has been subsidized by the U.S. military.

* Barbra Streisand is another proponent of environmentalism, yet she drives an SUV, lives in a mansion and has a $22,000 annual water bill. In the past, she has driven to appointments in Beverly Hills in a motor home because of her aversion to using public bathrooms.

* Ralph Nader plays the role of the citizen avenger – the populist uninterested in wealth and materialism, pretending to live in a modest apartment. In fact, he lives in fancy homes registered in the names of his siblings.

This is not just a book of "gotcha" journalism, explains Schweizer. He says the dozens and dozens of examples of "liberal hypocrisy" he cites in his book "are of central importance in evaluating the validity and usefulness of liberal ideas."

"Using IRS records, court depositions, news reports, financial disclosures and their own statements, I sought to answer a particular question: Do these liberal leaders and activists practice what they preach?" he writes. "What I found was a stunning record of open and shameless hypocrisy. Those who champion the cause of organized labor had developed various methods to avoid paying union wages or shunned unions altogether.

"Those who believe that the rich need to pay more in taxes proved especially adept at avoiding taxes themselves. Critics of capitalism and corporate enterprise frequently invested in the very companies they denounced. Those who espouse strict environmental regulations worked vigorously to sidestep them when it came to their own businesses and properties. Those who advocate steep inheritance taxes to promote fairer income distribution hid their investments in trusts or exotic overseas locales to reduce their own tax liability. Those who are strong proponents of affirmative action rarely practiced it themselves, and some had abysmal records when it came to hiring minorities. Those who proclaim themselves champions of civil liberties when it comes to criminal or terrorist cases went to extraordinary lengths to curtail the civil liberties of others when they felt threatened or just inconvenienced. Advocates of gun control had no problem making sure that an arsenal of weapons was available to protect them from dangerous criminals."

[Hardrock69]

Here is another story with a few more relevations (yes I said RELE-VATIONS) from the book:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/1/162756.shtml

[ELVIS]

You might be salvagable afterall...


:elvis:

[Hardrock69]

I am not a liberal.

Nor am I a conservative.

I just want people in office who do not lie, cheat, steal or murder. The Bush Regime is incapable of fitting that description.

Guess I will be waiting for forever, huh?

:cool:

[ELVIS]

I was independant, middle of the road for the longest time...

I've slowly drifted to the right...

I am by no means thrilled with George Bush...

But the left is the danger zone...


:elvis:

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Guess I will be waiting for forever, huh?

:cool:

Anything's possible...

Regardless of who is in office, I truly believe this country has the blessings of God...


:elvis:

[Cathedral]

I'd like to say i care, but i didn't give Michael Moore a penny by seeing his films and i didn't give him any attention by ever taking him seriously.

He's a film maker, he acts like one, thinks like one, smells like one and has his closet full of things he don't want anyone knowing.
It was only a matter of time before something came along that blew his credibility all to hell.

The mistake was that he was percieved as a Liberal, which just made actually being a Liberal look really bad.
He's a reactionary, he needs publicity to sell his name and everyone fell for it.
It's the same thing as those who were, but aren't anymore, Bush supporters.
Sooner or later you see you have been taken for a ride and right now there are people all over the place making that revelation on a great many things economically and politically.

Moore is a loudmouth and owns stock in a company he makes money drawing attention to, hmmmmm, gee, even moore publicity.

My wife and I own stock in paper, man, lol.
Maybe I can make millions being a loudmouth about Moore?

Na, I wouldn't like being a celebrity, it's too intrusive a lifestyle for me.

[FORD]

Anybody stop to consider the following fact....

A shareholder is entitled to inside information on a company (budget reports, etc.) that an outsider simply can't get access to. Given the fact that investigative journalism and exposing corporate abuses is what Moore does for a living, what better way to get an inside picture of the company at the heart of BCE corruption?

Also, wouldn't really piss off Cheney to know that someone was making a profit from his no bid contracts - and then donating that money to progressive causes? ;)

[Cathedral]

Yeah i stopped, considered it, laughed like a mother fucker at the thought based on the number of share's he owns, then i began walking again concluding that what you propose is a shitty excuse to try and explain why he owns the stock in the first place.

You cannot feed the beast and then bitch about its eating habits.

[scamper]

Michael Moore is a fat money grubing piece of steaming shit. THE END

[Bubba]

Originally posted by scamper
Michael Moore is a fat money grubing piece of steaming shit. THE END

Wow, I'm not the only one who thinks this way....

[Hardrock69]

That is true.

But then, that is the point of that book.

Lotsa examples of people bitching about companies in public, while making money off those same companies.

:rolleyes:

I have been perceived as a liberal because I bash Bush and his pack of thieves and murderers so much.

Hey I trashed Uncle Bill a lot when he was in office, but then, we were not in Iraq at the time.


I will continue to trash Bush because A) That is his job, to be the poster boy of the U.S., attracting praise when he does well, and attracting the wrath of people when he is fucking up, which seems to be his specialty, and B) He is a dumbass loser who is only in office due to the machinations of Poppy.

Worthless Fuck.

It is Cheney who needs to get out of office. I have the feeling he is the one really running the show....

[diamondD]

Originally posted by FORD
Anybody stop to consider the following fact....

A shareholder is entitled to inside information on a company (budget reports, etc.) that an outsider simply can't get access to. Given the fact that investigative journalism and exposing corporate abuses is what Moore does for a living, what better way to get an inside picture of the company at the heart of BCE corruption?

Also, wouldn't really piss off Cheney to know that someone was making a profit from his no bid contracts - and then donating that money to progressive causes? ;)

Here's the fact:

Michael Moore is a money hungry hypocritical piece of shit who you'll defend no matter what to save face.

Would you defend him if I posted quotes of him slamming Howard Dean? I wonder which side you would take on that.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
Anybody stop to consider the following fact....

A shareholder is entitled to inside information on a company (budget reports, etc.) that an outsider simply can't get access to. Given the fact that investigative journalism and exposing corporate abuses is what Moore does for a living, what better way to get an inside picture of the company at the heart of BCE corruption?

Also, wouldn't really piss off Cheney to know that someone was making a profit from his no bid contracts - and then donating that money to progressive causes? ;)

Bill O'Reilly's answer to your answer...

'The spin (waving his hand around) stops right here.'

[Guitar Shark]

I don't even think he's right. If Halliburton is a publicly traded company then I think anyone -- including potential investors -- can access any of that information. It's public information.

Shareholders can attend shareholder meetings, so maybe that's a distinction.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Bill O'Reilly's answer to your answer...

'The spin (waving his hand around) stops right here.'

Every word out of Bill O' Lielly's mouth is spin.

[Warham]

Michael Moore is a cunt. A fat cunt who talks out of both sides of his mouth.

[FORD]

Originally posted by diamondD
Here's the fact:

Michael Moore is a money hungry hypocritical piece of shit who you'll defend no matter what to save face.

That's not a fact. It's your opinion. And you're wrong.

Would you defend him if I posted quotes of him slamming Howard Dean? I wonder which side you would take on that.

That, again, would be opinion. I can't recall Moore saying anything too inflammatory about Dr. Dean in the 2004 campaign, except maybe implying he wasn't "liberal enough".

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Rush Limbaugh is a cunt. A fat cunt who talks out of both sides of his mouth.

[Warham]

Michael Moore is just as eeeeeeevil as Dick Cheney.

They must do pagan sacrifices at the same place on Friday nights.

[Hardrock69]

Yeah while Dick Cheney fucks Moore in the ass.....

:D

[UGS]

Originally posted by FORD
A shareholder is entitled to inside information on a company (budget reports, etc.) that an outsider simply can't get access to. Given the fact that investigative journalism and exposing corporate abuses is what Moore does for a living, what better way to get an inside picture of the company at the heart of BCE corruption?


You don't need to own 2000 shares to be entitled to that information.

[diamondD]

Originally posted by FORD
That, again, would be opinion. I can't recall Moore saying anything too inflammatory about Dr. Dean in the 2004 campaign, except maybe implying he wasn't "liberal enough".

How am I wrong about him being a hypocrite FORD. He bought Haliburton stock because he knew it would make him more money. Why is my opinion more wrong than yours?

[BITEYOASS]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
That is true.

But then, that is the point of that book.

Lotsa examples of people bitching about companies in public, while making money off those same companies.

:rolleyes:

I have been perceived as a liberal because I bash Bush and his pack of thieves and murderers so much.

Hey I trashed Uncle Bill a lot when he was in office, but then, we were not in Iraq at the time.


I will continue to trash Bush because A) That is his job, to be the poster boy of the U.S., attracting praise when he does well, and attracting the wrath of people when he is fucking up, which seems to be his specialty, and B) He is a dumbass loser who is only in office due to the machinations of Poppy.

Worthless Fuck.

It is Cheney who needs to get out of office. I have the feeling he is the one really running the show....

AMEN! :D

[FORD]

Originally posted by diamondD
How am I wrong about him being a hypocrite FORD. He bought Haliburton stock because he knew it would make him more money. Why is my opinion more wrong than yours?

As I said, it's always possible that any money he makes from the allegedly owned shares (NewsHax and Fascist Nut Daily are notorious for getting their facts wrong) are donated to anti-war charities. If he was keeping such money for himself, then the issueof hypocrisy could be raised.

It would be ironic as Hell if Cheneyburton Inc actually ended up financing Moore's next movie despite themselves though, you have to admit. ;)

[diamondD]

You're just spinning and hoping. You just want to believe that money is going to charity. Give me an ounce of proof, not tons of theories. Otherwise, he's a hypocritical fuck. :rolleyes:

[UGS]

That's basically what Moby did. . .some car companies wanted his music for some ad etc etc. . .he didn't want to sell out, but they would have used the song anyway, so he took their money and donated it to organizations working against the auto industry. . .

That's just the jist of it, perhaps someone else knows more of the details than I do.

[diamondD]

That's different. Haliburton wasn't going to use anything of Michael Moore's. He BOUGHT their stock and profited from it.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by FORD
As I said, it's always possible that any money he makes from the allegedly owned shares (NewsHax and Fascist Nut Daily are notorious for getting their facts wrong) are donated to anti-war charities. If he was keeping such money for himself, then the issueof hypocrisy could be raised.

It would be ironic as Hell if Cheneyburton Inc actually ended up financing Moore's next movie despite themselves though, you have to admit. ;)

Spin cunt spin!

You can't have it BOTH ways!

[DrMaddVibe]

Filmmaker Michael Moore has made a career out of trashing corporations and said he doesn't own any stocks due to moral principle.

How then did author Peter Schweizer uncover IRS documents showing that Moore's very own foundation has bought stocks in some of America's largest corporations – including Halliburton, other defense contractors and some of the same companies he has attacked?

In his blockbuster new book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," Hoover Fellow Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. [Editor's Note: NewsMax has a free offer for "Do As I Say" – Go Here Now.]

But he reserves some of his sharpest barbs for Moore.

In his first documentary "Roger & Me," Moore skewered General Motors, Schweizer points out.

# In "The Big One," he went after Nike and PayDay candy bars.

# "Bowling for Columbine" was an attack on the American gun industry.

# Oil companies played a major role in "Fahrenheit 911."

# His upcoming film "Sicko" pillories drug companies and HMOs.

# On his television shows "TV Nation" and "The Awful Truth," he criticized HMOs and defense contractors.

He once said that major defense contractor Halliburton was run by a bunch of "thugs," and suggested that for every American killed in the Iraq war, "I would like Halliburton to slay one mid-level executive."

Publicly, Moore has claimed he wants no part of these companies and won't own stock.

In his book "Stupid White Men," he wrote: "I don't own a single share of stock."

He repeated the claim in a 1997 letter to the online magazine Salon, saying: "I don't own any stock."

Privately, however, he tells the IRS a different story, Schweizer discloses in his book.

The year that Moore claimed in "Stupid White Men" that he didn't own any stock, he told the IRS that a foundation totally controlled by Moore and his wife had more than $280,000 in corporate stock and nearly $100,000 in corporate bonds.

Over the past five years, Moore's holdings have "included such evil pharmaceutical and medical companies as Pfizer, Merck, Genzyme, Elan PLC, Eli Lilly, Becton Dickinson and Boston Scientific," writes Schweizer, whose earlier works include "The Bushes" and "Reagan's War."

"Moore's supposedly nonexistent portfolio also includes big bad energy giants like Sunoco, Noble Energy, Schlumberger, Williams Companies, Transocean Sedco Forex and Anadarko, all firms that 'deplete irreplaceable fossil fuels in the name of profit' as he put it in ‘Dude, Where's My Country?'

"And in perhaps the ultimate irony, he also has owned shares in Halliburton. According to IRS filings, Moore sold Halliburton for a 15 percent profit and bought shares in Noble, Ford, General Electric (another defense contractor), AOL Time Warner (evil corporate media) and McDonald's.

"Also on Moore's investment menu: defense contractors Honeywell, Boeing and Loral."

Does Moore share the stock proceeds of his "foundation" with charitable causes, you might ask?

Schweizer found that "for a man who by 2002 had a net worth in eight figures, he gave away a modest $36,000 through the foundation, much of it to his friends in the film business or tony cultural organizations that later provided him with venues to promote his books and film."

Moore's hypocrisy doesn't end with his financial holdings.

He has criticized the journalism industry and Hollywood for their lack of African-Americans in prominent positions, and in 1998 he said he personally wanted to hire minorities "who come from the working class."

In "Stupid White Men," he proclaimed his plans to "hire only black people."

But when Schweizer checked the senior credits for Moore's latest film "Fahrenheit 911," he found that of the movie's 14 producers, three editors, production manager and production coordinator, all 19 were white. So were all three cameramen and the two people who did the original music.

On "Bowling for Columbine," 13 of the 14 producers were white, as were the two executives in charge of production, the cameramen, the film editor and the music composer.

His show "TV Nation" had 13 producers, four film editors and 10 writers – but not a single African-American among them.

And as for Moore's insistence on portraying himself as "working class" and an "average Joe," Schweizer recounts this anecdote:

"When Moore flew to London to visit people at the BBC or promote a film, he took the Concorde and stayed at the Ritz. But he also allegedly booked a room at a cheap hotel down the street where he could meet with journalists and pose as a ‘man of humble circumstances.'"

That's hypocrisy with a capital H!

[UGS]

Originally posted by diamondD
That's different. Haliburton wasn't going to use anything of Michael Moore's. He BOUGHT their stock and profited from it.

Uh, Haliburton uses Michael Moore's (as well as every other shareholders') money to continue with their business interests . . .that's why companies issue shares

[diamondD]

Not only that, he lives in a town of 2500 in Michigan. Total black population? ZERO

[diamondD]

I know why companies issue shares. I know why I buy them. But it's not the same as saying Moby sold his rights because they were gonna use it anyway.

[UGS]

My mistake. . .I misread your post and thought you were replying to FORD's post, not the one about moby. . . .disregard my last post

[FORD]

So he buys pharmaceutical stocks at the very time he's planning a film about the pharmaceutical industry??

Yep.... as I said, he's doing research into their corporate practices, using methods that an outsider can't access.

Sounds like smart journalism to me. Something you FAUX fans wouldn't recognize :)

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
I am not a liberal.

Nor am I a conservative.

I just want people in office who do not lie, cheat, steal or murder. The Bush Regime is incapable of fitting that description.

Guess I will be waiting for forever, huh?

:cool:

according to that definition, in here you're a liberal :rolleyes:

what a radical idea!

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
So he buys pharmaceutical stocks at the very time he's planning a film about the pharmaceutical industry??

Yep.... as I said, he's doing research into their corporate practices, using methods that an outsider can't access.

Sounds like smart journalism to me. Something you FAUX fans wouldn't recognize :)

FORD, you spin more than Linda Blair's head did in the Exorcist.

[diamondD]

Never mind that he's stated he owns NO stocks. To admit that he lied about that would be to admit he's a hypocrite.

[Big Train]

I think in a way he is actually PROMOTING the stock he owns, by rallying against it. Maybe he thinks he can drive the share price down and scoop up a bunch at a steep discount.

The hypocrisy with him did not start here, nor will it end here.

Doing research? If that is research, it is pretty fucking stupid research. If he had any brains, he would have an anonymous individual OTHER than himself buy the stock, ask the questions etc. But maybe he is just making a useless stand....as usual.

[diamondD]

No, he's just profiting off the war and FORD can't bring himself to reality long enough to accept it.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
I am not a liberal.



Uh huh. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You are in denial.

Welcome to the Frontline..... where we all stick labels on one another.


You are hereby pegged as an "Uber-Socialist-lLberal of the First Magnitude."

Where your label proudly.


:killer: :cool:

[Hardrock69]

Where is my label proudly?

ODShowtime seems to think that liberals are the only creatures on Earth who want people in public office who obey the law, are not corrupt, and do not conspire to commit murder.

If that is true, this means that conservatives want corrupt murderers in public office.

If I were a liberal (according to your definitions Brian) I would be absolutely FOR Gun Control, and would favor tax hikes as well.

Nothing could be further from the truth.


It just gets down to the hypocritical thing.

Conservatives in political office are the same as televangelists and preachers.

They stand up in front of everyone and claim to be honest, moral, law-abiding citizens.

The truth is that not all of them are.

Consider also that when you have public officials in high office who cave in to the religious right, you have people who are not upholding the Constitution Of The United States, which has as one of it's cornerstones a separation of Church & State.

That is hypocrisy that affects large numbers of people.


Here is the true definition of "Liberal":

lib·er·al Audio pronunciation of "Liberal" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.


I guess I am one. I do not limit myself to authoritarion or orthodox attitudes, I am NOT close-minded, I am not a bigot, and am not living in the past.


Unlike the stereotypical "conservative" (read: Republican) who must therefore be categorized as limited in attitudes and beliefs, close-minded, racist and living in the past.

:D

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Where is my label proudly?

ODShowtime seems to think that liberals are the only creatures on Earth who want people in public office who obey the law, are not corrupt, and do not conspire to commit murder.

If that is true, this means that conservatives want corrupt murderers in public office.

If I were a liberal (according to your definitions Brian) I would be absolutely FOR Gun Control, and would favor tax hikes as well.

Nothing could be further from the truth.


It just gets down to the hypocritical thing.

Conservatives in political office are the same as televangelists and preachers.

They stand up in front of everyone and claim to be honest, moral, law-abiding citizens.

The truth is that not all of them are.

Consider also that when you have public officials in high office who cave in to the religious right, you have people who are not upholding the Constitution Of The United States, which has as one of it's cornerstones a separation of Church & State.

That is hypocrisy that affects large numbers of people.


Here is the true definition of "Liberal":

lib·er·al Audio pronunciation of "Liberal" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.


I guess I am one. I do not limit myself to authoritarion or orthodox attitudes, I am NOT close-minded, I am not a bigot, and am not living in the past.


Unlike the stereotypical "conservative" (read: Republican) who must therefore be categorized as limited in attitudes and beliefs, close-minded, racist and living in the past.

:D

You are close-minded and a bigot...you simply do not know it. That is probably the most dangerous comination of all.

Others, on the other hand, are at least willing to listen to the other side of the story. I could give examples of people on both sides of the political fence here on this board who have changed their minds in the course of a debate. You're too stubborn for that because you are always right. That's what possibly makes arguing with you the most fun....so many buttons to push..... :cool:

BTW - Our wonderful Constitution mentions NOTHING of a seperation of a church and state. Prove to me where it does.....and I'll prove to you where it does not. ;)

[Warham]

Hardrock,

You label us all the time, so why can't the street go both ways?

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
So he buys pharmaceutical stocks at the very time he's planning a film about the pharmaceutical industry??

Yep.... as I said, he's doing research into their corporate practices, using methods that an outsider can't access.

Sounds like smart journalism to me. Something you FAUX fans wouldn't recognize :)


"Research into their corporate practices" :rolleyes:

Dude, you sink to a new low almost daily...

BTW, you seriously need to consider the fact that people are posting political threads in other forums to avoid YOU...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
"Research into their corporate practices" :rolleyes:

Dude, you sink to a new low almost daily...

BTW, you seriously need to consider the fact that people are posting political threads in other forums to avoid YOU...

And you need to consider the fact that you are incapable of critical thinking. Which is the case with all Busheep.

That's supposedly another effect of that HAARP weather machine, ya know ;)

[Warham]

Michael Moore likes to make money off the suffering of others.

I don't know how anybody can applaud that.

[ELVIS]

Your thinking is critical allright...:D

[diamondD]

Originally posted by FORD
And you need to consider the fact that you are incapable of critical thinking. Which is the case with all Busheep.

That's supposedly another effect of that HAARP weather machine, ya know ;)

You forget that everyone in here that you have labelled as Bushsheep have at one time or another found a way to be critical of him. You can't even allow yourself to believe that Moore's stock ownership is exactly as it seems, so you make up theories and pass them off as facts. It just kills you to think you were wrong about him, even tho he's been caught in ANOTHER lie.


Noticed you couldn't even dare to comment on his words about Howard Dean. I knew that was one even you couldn't spin. ;)

[thome]

Hardrock you have posted some wakkadoo stuff but I have always found your writings understandable and maybe not my cup- o -tea
but balanced with some integrity and compassion.
I'm not down on the left or anyone just" Anti-American because they think It's More intellectual to be Anti- American" Those kinda people
are transparant and Nothing like you.Roth On!

Five



Ha !when i splel checked this -intellectual- was so misspelled Ford
would have dropped dead of a coronary reading it.Thats Irony.

[ELVIS]

Are you related to Millermoos ??

[thome]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Are you related to Millermoos ??

Is that to me?

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
Hardrock,

You label us all the time, so why can't the street go both ways?



It can.

Who says it cannot? What you guys want to call me does not matter at all.

Just don't call me late for supper.

:D

And Brucie, it is one thing to be "stubborn" as you put it, and quite another to be firm in my convictions.

At least I am not some wishy-washy motherfucker.

Yes I am always right when it comes to the Bush Crime Family.

Anyone who supports them, are supporting criminals, murderers and terrorists.

I am a Patriot of the highest caliber.

And Bush is destroying this country.

Period.

Anyone who denies that should be required to take a ride on your bus, and go live in Neo-Con Fantasy-Land, where they can get butt-raped by Bush Administration cabinet officials....

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=748554

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
Michael Moore likes to make money off the suffering of others.

I don't know how anybody can applaud that.

Yet you, Elvis and Brian Applaud The BCE all the time.

Moore did not cause several hundred thousand people to die needlessly did he?

[Cathedral]

He owns it for research reasons, fine, okie dokie...

But after the research was done why didn't he sell it off?
Ford, he owns more than 2,000 shares, way more than he needed to do his research, and he has had it for years while saying he owned "NO" stock...But the bottom line is that he has made money from the stock while bashing it from a soap box nobody should have been an audience to anyway.

He's an idiot with money who uses controversy to line his pockets, the prime example of a Capitalist.

The fact that he has it for "work" related purposes doesn't change the fact that he draws an "income" from it.
Like it or not, that is hypocracy, my brotha'.

[Warham]

Bush isn't destroying this country.

How many times over the years have we heard liberals over the years say Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush the Elder were destroying this country? Too many too count.

You sound hysterical, much like OD does most of the time.

I tell him Xanax works wonders. You might want to try it.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Yet you, Elvis and Brian Applaud The BCE all the time.

Moore did not cause several hundred thousand people to die needlessly did he?

Yeah, I applaud the BCE so much that I gave Bush a poor grade over the last year or so, but you conveniently missed that thread, didn't you?

Blah, blah, blah, that's all I hear.

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
Bush isn't destroying this country.

How many times over the years have we heard liberals over the years say Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush the Elder were destroying this country? Too many too count.

You sound hysterical, much like OD does most of the time.

I tell him Xanax works wonders. You might want to try it.


Hmmm...several hundred thousand troops in Iraq...

With no end in sight for their service....

Even if their enlistment is due to expire, the BCE creates new regulations that extend it indefinitely.


The BCE is spending 5 billion dollars a month on an unjustifiable war, based on lies (who the fuck cares who the liars were, Bush and his fellow inmates in the retard-chimp palace went to war based on them).

And you want to say Bush is not destroying the country.

Man....talk about delusional.

:rolleyes:

Ooo so you gave Chimp a poor grade. Yet you continue to trash those who do not support him at all.

Wow...I am impressed!

:D

[Hardrock69]

You need to STOP taking your Xanax...

:cool:

[thome]

Hardrock
All I have to say on a- Unjust War- is just name one thing Saddam
has done that doesn't justify the use of force.

If WMDs are not there, tell me if that is the only reason to not be
there.?

If we found WMDs would you and the people of your political type
say we are doing the rite thing?

Im not being silly, answer the last one if you please.I also will understand if you choose not to.thanks.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Hmmm...several hundred thousand troops in Iraq...

With no end in sight for their service....

Even if their enlistment is due to expire, the BCE creates new regulations that extend it indefinitely.


The BCE is spending 5 billion dollars a month on an unjustifiable war, based on lies (who the fuck cares who the liars were, Bush and his fellow inmates in the retard-chimp palace went to war based on them).

And you want to say Bush is not destroying the country.

Man....talk about delusional.

:rolleyes:

Ooo so you gave Chimp a poor grade. Yet you continue to trash those who do not support him at all.

Wow...I am impressed!

:D

I don't care if you disagree with Bush. Just don't be an idiot in the process. I've got relatives that disagree with Bush, but at least they are sensible.

You guys here sound wacked out when you bring all your BCE conspiracy bs to the table. I've never heard ONE person anywhere besides here mention the fictional BCE. Tone it down a bit, and maybe I'll take you seriously.

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You are close-minded and a bigot...you simply do not know it. That is probably the most dangerous comination of all.

Others, on the other hand, are at least willing to listen to the other side of the story.


Speak for yourself.

If not approving of criminals and murderers running this country is your definition of "bigotry" then YOUR definition of being a bigot fits.

However, that would be your definition, not the definition held by the other 6 billion people on this planet.

As for being close-minded, I at least am willing to listen to any side of the story that is reasonable, just and based on the facts.

The above attitude is one not shared by many conservatives, as being contented sheep, grazing in the pastures of Neo-Con Fantasy-Land, they ar eunwilling to pay attention to the facts.

They prefer to deny that the BCE could do any wrong, and refuse to listen to anything that could possibly invalidate their belief in the Almighty Chimp, The Great Lawgiver...

http://www.hermes-press.com/lawgiver.jpg



Originally posted by BigBadBrian
That's what possibly makes arguing with you the most fun....so many buttons to push..... :cool:

Why do you think I do not just cave in? I am not the only one around here with buttons that can be pushed...

:D



Originally posted by BigBadBrian


BTW - Our wonderful Constitution mentions NOTHING of a seperation of a church and state. Prove to me where it does.....and I'll prove to you where it does not. ;)

Time for your lesson on the Principles Of Constitutional Law.


It is true, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution.

There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact (like the Short Bus 3).

The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.

There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?

Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas. The right to a fair trial, for example, is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise. What the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says is:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

There is nothing there about a "fair trial," but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials: public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc. The Constitution does not specifically say that you have a right to a fair trial, but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thus, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair, the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional.

Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.

[Warham]

Looks like a cut and paste to me.

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
I don't care if you disagree with Bush. Just don't be an idiot in the process. I've got relatives that disagree with Bush, but at least they are sensible.

You guys here sound wacked out when you bring all your BCE conspiracy bs to the table. I've never heard ONE person anywhere besides here mention the fictional BCE. Tone it down a bit, and maybe I'll take you seriously.

That is your problem.

You deal with it.

You and many others try dismiss what we say as "conspiracy BS" as if it were some kind of delusional rantings.


Yet what I say here is factual.

"Fictional BCE".

Go stick your head back in the sand.


It is the Short Bus 3, blindly supporting the BCE who appear to be delusional.

I would not contiunally say that were it not true.

:D

[Hardrock69]

And Thome, I have never said that Saddamit was a kind and decent human being.

Ever.

Taking him out was a good thing, yes.

But despite his cruelty, he had not attacked us, he had not invaded (again) another country, and there were a lot of fabrications made by Chimp & Co. to justify our current situation.

I do not criticize our soldiers.

I only criticize the reasons why they are there.

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
Looks like a cut and paste to me.

Does that make it any less true?

No.

:rolleyes:

Have a nice weekend.

:cool:

[Warham]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
That is your problem.

You deal with it.

You and many others try dismiss what we say as "conspiracy BS" as if it were some kind of delusional rantings.


Yet what I say here is factual.

"Fictional BCE".

Go stick your head back in the sand.


It is the Short Bus 3, blindly supporting the BCE who appear to be delusional.

I would not contiunally say that were it not true.

:D

I call it like it is. It's delusional. I'm surprised you aren't suicidal, with all the depressing conspiracy shit you believe in. Hopefully you don't own a revolver.

Like I said, I posted a thread here a few weeks back voicing my disapproval of George W. Bush over the last six months, so you are not going to get away with saying I 'blindly support' anybody.

And I WILL put up a link if you keep it up...not like you aren't wrong already.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Are you related to Millermoos ??

Has to be. Maybe even an alias?

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Warham


I tell him Xanax works wonders. You might want to try it.

You would know. :D

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by thome


If we found WMDs would you and the people of your political type
say we are doing the rite thing?

Im not being silly, answer the last one if you please.I also will understand if you choose not to.thanks.

No, because lots of countries, including us, have WMD's. He did not threaten us, and we had no right to go to war with him just because we were angry about 911. He had nothing to do with that.

Was he a bad person? Yes. Is it better that he is no longer in power? Yes. Did we have any right to go and take him out of power, and was it any of our business?? No.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Warham
Looks like a cut and paste to me.

You're an idiot. What does that matter when it completely addresses the point? Why recreate the wheel? If someone else has written something that proves your arguement and is inline with your beliefs on a subject, is there some rule that says you have to rewrite it yourself???

You always change the subject when you are proven wrong.

Like you have never cut and pasted anything, huh?

[Warham]

Originally posted by Keeyth
You would know. :D

Actually, I do know.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Keeyth
You're an idiot. What does that matter when it completely addresses the point? Why recreate the wheel? If someone else has written something that proves your arguement and is inline with your beliefs on a subject, is there some rule that says you have to rewrite it yourself???

You always change the subject when you are proven wrong.

Like you have never cut and pasted anything, huh?

When somebody cuts and pastes here, we'd like a link. It's an unwritten rule, fool.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Cathedral
He owns it for research reasons, fine, okie dokie...

But after the research was done why didn't he sell it off?
Ford, he owns more than 2,000 shares, way more than he needed to do his research, and he has had it for years while saying he owned "NO" stock...But the bottom line is that he has made money from the stock while bashing it from a soap box nobody should have been an audience to anyway.

He's an idiot with money who uses controversy to line his pockets, the prime example of a Capitalist.

The fact that he has it for "work" related purposes doesn't change the fact that he draws an "income" from it.
Like it or not, that is hypocracy, my brotha'.

If he's keeping the money, perhaps.

But if he's donating it to progressive causes (which would really piss off the war profiteers) then he's using an evil entity to do good.

It's my understanding that the stock is owned by a foundation, which by very definition means the money is probably passing through to charities.

[thome]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
And Thome, I have never said that Saddamit was a kind and decent human being.

Ever.

Taking him out was a good thing, yes.

But despite his cruelty, he had not attacked us, he had not invaded (again) another country, and there were a lot of fabrications made by Chimp & Co. to justify our current situation.

I do not criticize our soldiers.

I only criticize the reasons why they are there.

I like your Take on this thanks for a solid answer.

I know all about political posturing. Its a game they play a very
dangerous and deadly game but in the end War has no good side
some kind of Democracy in the mid- east is going to snowball
like the Berlin Wall and thats what the insurgency is all about.

I can guarantee you the money men in power positions in the
Mid East are controlling this insurgency for their benefit and
that Koran and religiose Jihad and hatred of America is just a Front.

Has this occurred to anyone else

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Has to be. Maybe even an alias?

Newer posters haven't the slightest inclination of how sharp we can be around here...

They should at least attempt to alter their posting style when playing the alias game...

Punks...

I read somewhere the other day, millermoos claimed to be a female...

Whatever...

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Warham
When somebody cuts and pastes here, we'd like a link. It's an unwritten rule, fool.

Not necessary when it's just a partial, fool, especially if he is saying it as part of his own arguement.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
progressive causes

Define that for me...

Name a progressive cause or two...

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Newer posters haven't the slightest inclination of how sharp we can be around here...

They should at least attempt to alter their posting style when playing the alias game...

Punks...

I read somewhere the other day, millermoos claimed to be a female...

Whatever...

I saw that too. :cool:

[Warham]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Not necessary when it's just a partial, fool, especially if he is saying it as part of his own arguement.

That wasn't a partial. That was at least a page he posted. It's necessary.

[Keeyth]

A link is only necessary if you are trying to prove something is a real article or not. He was trying to make the point of the factual written text of the constitution, which can be verified anywhere.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Keeyth
A link is only necessary if you are trying to prove something is a real article or not. He was trying to make the point of the factual written text of the constitution, which can be verified anywhere.

I want to see if HIS sources are real.

[Keeyth]

It was a valid point he made, and you can't argue with it, so you're changing the subject as usual. Geez... ...so transparent.

[FORD]

Originally posted by thome


I can guarantee you the money men in power positions in the
Mid East are controlling this insurgency for their benefit and
that Koran and religiose Jihad and hatred of America is just a Front.

Has this occurred to anyone else

Actually, it has. And you may very well have the right idea. But the wrong suspects.

Islamic radicals from other countries can't possibly benefit from having US troops in Iraq, therefore there is no incentive for them to fuel an insurgency.

However, Mossad and the Likud Zionist-fascists benefit greatly from someone else's army fighting their wars for them.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by FORD
If he's keeping the money, perhaps.

But if he's donating it to progressive causes (which would really piss off the war profiteers) then he's using an evil entity to do good.

It's my understanding that the stock is owned by a foundation, which by very definition means the money is probably passing through to charities.

Schweizer found that "for a man who by 2002 had a net worth in eight figures, he gave away a modest $36,000 through the foundation, much of it to his friends in the film business or tony cultural organizations that later provided him with venues to promote his books and film."

And you could've read this before back on Page 1!!!!!:mad:

[FORD]

BTW, I would just like to remind the Busheep again that nobody other than World Nutcase Daily and NewsHax have heard of this fucking story, so as far as I'm concerned, it's fictional until proven otherwise.

Believe me, the corporate media would be like sharks in the water if they had anything verifiable against Michael Moore.

So far, it's just the Moonie media.........

[diamondD]

Bullshit. it's all over the place. Google it and try again.

[Big Train]

Spinning plates, spinning plates.

Let's recap:

Explanation 1. He is doing research...

Explanation 2. The story isn't legit....

Whats #3 going to be, that maybe Cheney "Planted" some BCE stock in his accounts?

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
And Thome, I have never said that Saddamit was a kind and decent human being.

Ever.

Taking him out was a good thing, yes.

But despite his cruelty, he had not attacked us, he had not invaded (again) another country, and there were a lot of fabrications made by Chimp & Co. to justify our current situation.

I do not criticize our soldiers.

I only criticize the reasons why they are there.

Technically speaking, Saddam was in violation of the cease fire agreement between Iraq and the US established in Gulf War I and was in black market business designed to by-pass UN Resolutions with some of our so called Allie's.
These little forgotten facts are a big deal to me, and the message of defiance Saddam put forth had to be dealt with as an example to the rest of the world.
But I as any other sensible human expected a plan to take down Baghdad, restore peace and order, then rebuild.

It seems the planning stopped just after taking down Baghdad was agreed upon because it has been a clusterfuck of the unexpected since day one after the fall.

In my opinion Bush didn't need to lie about anything because Saddam had used the weapons we accused him of having on his own people and his neighbors. It was never a question of "did" he have them, we all know he did at one time.
The problem is that the weapons we knew of most likely expired and were not replaced, then Saddam had to put up a front in order to make the world, especially his local neighboring enemies, believe he was still a viable threat.

I'm torn between two realities here,
I firmly believe we did the right thing by ending the rule of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
But on the other hand, I don't like the apparent fabrication used to bolster the case to invade the country, it wasn't necessary in my view because Saddam was already in violation of the cease fire agreement and two UN Resolutions.

[FORD]

Originally posted by diamondD
Bullshit. it's all over the place. Google it and try again.

Just because every right wing blogger in the trailer park has picked up the rumor doesn't make it any more legitimate.

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Technically speaking, Saddam was in violation of the cease fire agreement between Iraq and the US established in Gulf War I and was in black market business designed to by-pass UN Resolutions with some of our so called Allie's.
These little forgotten facts are a big deal to me, and the message of defiance Saddam put forth had to be dealt with as an example to the rest of the world.
But I as any other sensible human expected a plan to take down Baghdad, restore peace and order, then rebuild.

It seems the planning stopped just after taking down Baghdad was agreed upon because it has been a clusterfuck of the unexpected since day one after the fall.

In my opinion Bush didn't need to lie about anything because Saddam had used the weapons we accused him of having on his own people and his neighbors. It was never a question of "did" he have them, we all know he did at one time.
The problem is that the weapons we knew of most likely expired and were not replaced, then Saddam had to put up a front in order to make the world, especially his local neighboring enemies, believe he was still a viable threat.

I'm torn between two realities here,
I firmly believe we did the right thing by ending the rule of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
But on the other hand, I don't like the apparent fabrication used to bolster the case to invade the country, it wasn't necessary in my view because Saddam was already in violation of the cease fire agreement and two UN Resolutions.


Good points.

[diamondD]

Originally posted by FORD
Just because every right wing blogger in the trailer park has picked up the rumor doesn't make it any more legitimate.


Yeah, well if one of us questions your sources, we're just sheep then.



You're squirming FORD. You know there's a book out about this and you are trying to deflect away from that. The author was on FOX in the last couple of days. This is a legitimate story, no matter how much you don't want it to be.


Michael Moore is making money off of your fantasy BCE and you can't deal with it.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by FORD
BTW, I would just like to remind the Busheep again that nobody other than World Nutcase Daily and NewsHax have heard of this fucking story, so as far as I'm concerned, it's fictional until proven otherwise.

Believe me, the corporate media would be like sharks in the water if they had anything verifiable against Michael Moore.

So far, it's just the Moonie media.........


The "moonie" is YOU!

You're the one with the delusional fantasies.

Here's a taste of reality...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385513496/qid=1131197563/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4079912-4644755?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It is a book. Your "heroes" are sham artists that have been exposed as the charlatans they really are!

Deal with it abcdefg boy!

[DrMaddVibe]

http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780739322697

Prominent liberals support a whole litany of policies and principles: progressive taxes, affirmative action, greater regulation of corporations, raising the inheritance tax, strict environmental regulations, children’s rights, consumer rights, and more. But do they actually live by these beliefs? Peter Schweizer decided to investigate the private lives of politicians like the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, the Kennedys, and Ralph Nader; commentators Michael Moore, Al Franken, Noam Chomsky, and Cornel West; entertainers or philanthropists Barbra Streisand and George Soros. Using publicly-available real estate records, IRS returns, court depositions, and their own published statements, he sought to examine whether they lived by the principles they so forcefully advocate.

What he found was a long list of contradictions. Many of these proponents of organized labor had developed various methods to sidestep paying union wages or avoid employing unions altogether. They were also adept at avoiding taxes; invested heavily in corporations they had denounced; took advantage of foreign tax credits to use non-American labor overseas; espoused environmental causes while opposing those that might affect their own property rights; hid their investments in trusts to avoid paying estate tax; denounced oil companies but quietly owned them.

Schweizer’s conclusion is simple: liberalism in the end forces its adherents to become hypocrites. They adopt one pose in public, but when it comes to what matters most in their own lives–their property, their privacy, and their children--they jettison their liberal principles and adopt conservative ones. If these ideas don’t work for the very individuals who promote them, Schweizer asks, how can they work for the country?


From the Hardcover edition.

The Weekly Standard
"Peter Schweizer's Do As I Say (Not As I Do) is an entertaining exposure of the hypocrisy among some prominent liberals. In a series of 11 profiles on leftist icons from Noam Chomsky and Al Franken to Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, Schweizer reveals that the most vocal liberals do not practice what they preach."

[DrMaddVibe]

http://nationalreview.com/interrogatory/schweizer200510250827.asp

October 25, 2005, 8:27 a.m.
Moore Hypocrites Than True Believers?
Exposing the Do As I Say (Not As I Do) Left.

Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez

The mother of Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singer is lucky that her son is an hypocrite. Her son is a leading proponent of excising the undesirable — the imperfect via abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. The disabled would fall under there, also, sometimes, the elderly.




Peter Singer's mother has Alzheimer's.

Peter Schweizer reports in his new book Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy that "far from embracing his own moral ethic, Singer hired a group of health care workers to look after her."

Good for him, he can't even buy his own poison. (When your ideas are destructive, at least a little hypocrisy saves a life here and there, despite the widespread damage you may be doing.)

Singer isn't the only hypocrite on the Left. Hoover Institution fellow Schweizer exposes a handful of popular Lefty hypocrites in his new book. He recently talked to National Review Online editor Kathryn Lopez about his latest book and the Left's deficiencies.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Michael Moore makes money off oil and war? Why would he bother lying about owning stock? Is Peter Schweizer the only person who bothered checking?

Peter Schweizer:Michael Moore is constantly trying to prove his and the Left's moral superiority, so he says things about himself that are patently not true. He's pathological about it. How else to explain that he's loudly proclaimed no less than three times that he doesn't invest in the stock market because it's morally wrong while quietly picking up shares in a whole host of companies. A portfolio that includes Halliburton, Boeing, and HMOs doesn't fit the bill so he lies about it. I think he assumed that no one would poke around and investigate. When it comes to the MSM he was correct in making that assumption. He never responded to my questions. I'm dying to know how he explains away this one.

Lopez: Where did you get the idea for Do As I Say...? Did you just know the line of inquiry would be productive or did something fall into your lap?

Schweizer: I got tired of having discussions and arguments with people on the Left who operate on the assumption that they possess the moral high ground. They're not greedy, they're the only ones who truly care about the poor, minorities, you name it. Knowing quite a few people on the Left I knew that wasn't true. So I started poking around — looking at tax returns, IRS filings, court documents, etc. Frankly, it's amazing how easy it was to find examples of lefties being completely hypocritical.

Lopez: Given the hypocrisy you expose on this front, please tell me Nancy Pelosi at least isn't a Wal-Mart basher.

Schweizer: Nancy Pelosi bashes everyone who doesn't allow unions to call the shots. Everyone that is except herself. It's takes an amazing amount of gall to accept the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Unions while using non-UFW workers on your Napa Valley Vineyard. It takes the same to praise the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union and take massive sums of money from them all the while keeping them out of your Hotel and chain of restaurants. But again, I think Pelosi correctly assumes that no one in the media will challenge her on this.

Lopez: I'm all for having a little legitimate fun with liberals. But doesn't revealing Barbra Streisand's water bill feel a little like going through her garbage? Actually: Did you have to go through her or anyone else's garbage? Where did you get this stuff?

Schweizer: I didn't go through Bab's trash. All the info in the book was obtained legally and ethically. Streisand's annual water bill of $22,000 to keep her lawn green is relevant because she made it relevant: She's constantly lecturing ordinary Americans about the need to cut back on our consumerist culture. Maybe if she turns off the taps she'll have some legitimate grounds for making the claims she does. As Kermit the Frog said, it's not easy being green.

Lopez: Um and the Clinton's underwear? Though the Clinton's claiming $4 per pair of used underwear among their charitable contributions does seem like it is begging for a New York Post cover.

I suppose there was not blue dresses. Something like that would make a lot more on ebay.

Schweizer: Ah, yes, the Clintons, who profess to pay the maximum amount on their taxes every year because it's the right thing to do. The Clintons are simply amazing in their ability to lecture Americans about their need to pay more taxes while at the same time finding lucrative tax shelters and taking outrageous tax deductions. Again, the media gives them a free pass.

Lopez: What else about the Clintons do you want to hand over to RNC op research before 2008?

Schweizer: I think their record of greed, jilting poor people out of their money, and their avarice are a sight to behold. Let people see how they have made their money over the last couple of decades and it speaks for itself.

Lopez: Tell me the great hypocrisy of that greatest of all public intellectuals according to one recent depressing survey: Noam Chomsky.

Schweizer: Noam Chomsky thinks he's the Moses of this age and even those on the Left who don't agree with him on everything accept his moral authority. But Chomsky is a socialist who practices capitalism, and an anti-militarist who has made millions off of Pentagon contracts. Wonder what his followers would think of that? Then there is his constant lecturing about "tax gimmicks" and "tax shelters" that "the rich" use to avoid paying their "fair share." He must have forgotten about that when he set up his tax shelter.

Lopez: And he wasn't a lot of fun when you got in touch with him, was he?

Schweizer: I give credit to Chomsky for responding to my questions. His excuses were something to behold. No wonder he teaches linguistics. It's amazing how he twists his words. By the way, he said it was okay to criticize other rich people for setting up trusts and setting one up himself. After all, he explained, he's been fighting for poor people his whole life.

Lopez: Did anyone ever take Al Franken seriously anyway? Why shouldn't anyone?

Schweizer: I'm not sure that most people take Franken seriously, but the media most assuredly does. He professes to be more than a comedian. He claims to be a political analyst and apparently wants to be a U.S. senator. (His former writing partner says he really wants to be president. Yikes!) His vicious attacks against conservatives as racists are not meant to be funny. He really does think that we're bigots. So questions about his absolutely abysmal record when it comes to hiring minorities should be exposed. (For those who want a hint, less than one percent of his employees have been black. That's a worse record than Bob Jones University, which Franken claims is "racist.")

Lopez: So he lies you say? At heart, he's a comedian. Does it really matter?

Schweizer: Yes it does matter. Among the liberal/Left base, they see Franken as some sort of prophet who speaks the truth. And again, the media gives him a free pass. I caught him on The Late Show with David Letterman last Friday. They chuckled a bit and Franken went on to explain his twisted and distorted view of the world. He wasn't challenged on anything he said.

Lopez: About Franken, he wanted to fight our Rich Lowry. You nervous now that your book is out?

Schweizer: I tried to get Franken to answer my questions. I wanted him to explain some of the outrageous comments he made a few years ago about disliking homosexuals and the fact that he was glad one had been killed. (Imagine if a conservative had said that?) And I wanted to ask him why he considered conservatives and Republicans racist because they hired so few blacks when he had such a horrible record himself. Alas, he never responded.

About the Lowry-Franken fight: Rich is too classy to take him up on it but I wish he had. He could have taken him easy.

Lopez: Any Lefties you checked into who came out with flying non-hypocritical colors worth lauding for at least practicing what they preach?

Schweizer: I really thought that Ralph Nader would be that man. He lives a monk-like existence and tends to shun the material things in life. But then I discovered that he fired some of his employees for trying to form a union and I realized he wouldn't fit the bill. I'm still looking....

Lopez: Another say-something-nice question: Is there anyone on the Left you admire? Or are you a hater?

Schweizer: I don't admire the ideas of the Left but there are some individuals that I think demonstrated integrity and honesty. Senator Paul Wellstone — say what you will about him, but he seemed to at least try to live a life somewhat consistent with his principles.

Lopez: Were you depressed or invigorated by the big wigs of the Left's hypocrisy?

Schweizer: Invigorated. It's another reminder that the ideas the left want to impose on the rest of us are so fundamentally bad that they don't even try to live by them. At the end of the day, when all the fun is done, I hope people view this as a book about ideas and the failure of liberal/Left ideas. They don't work for the leading lights of the Left. How could they possibly work for our country?

Lopez: One overarching kinda question: We all have our moments of hypocrisy. That we don't practice what we preach doesn't make what we preach any less valid. People are human, etc. Is there something about your book that is somewhat fundamentally unfair?

Schweizer: Yes, we are all hypocrites and I talk about that in the book. But liberal hypocrisy and conservative hypocrisy are quite different on two accounts. First, you hear about conservative hypocrisy all the time. A pro-family congressman caught in an extramarital affair, a minister caught in the same. This stuff is exposed by the media all the time. The leaders of the liberal-Left get a complete pass on their hypocrisy. Second, and this is even more important, the consequences of liberal hypocrisy are different than for the conservative variety. When conservatives abandon their principles and become hypocrites, they end up hurting themselves and their families. Conservative principles are like guard rails on a winding road. They are irritating but fundamentally good for you. Liberal hypocrisy is the opposite. When the liberal-left abandon their principles and become hypocrites, they actually improve their lives. Their kids end up in better schools, they have more money, and their families are more content. Their ideas are truly that bad.

Lopez: Is there something about the book that sums something up philosophically about the Left?

Schweizer: After researching the book I really truly believe that the leading lights of the Left — Moore, Franken, Clinton, Pelosi, Kennedy, etc. — really honestly don't believe what they are selling us. Their own experiences teach them that their ideas don't work.

Lopez: So I can't stand Michael Moore anyway. I really don't need any more anger aimed in his direction. Ditto with some others who get chapters in your book. Why should I read your book anyway? How might a Michael Moore fan get something out of Do As I Say...?

Schweizer: All I would ask a Michael Moore fan do is look at the facts. Moore professes to hate capitalism ("the last evil empire" he's called it) but practices it in spades. Moore condemns people for their racism and claims to support and practice affirmative action, but has a lousy record of hiring minorities. He outsources post-production film work to Canada so he can pay non-union wages. I could go on and on. I would ask his fans: is this really a sincere person?

Lopez: You always seem to have projects going on. What's next for you?

Schweizer: Right now I'm working to promote the book. I have some ideas for future projects but nothing set in stone. I wrote a novel with Cap Weinberger that came out a couple of months ago called Chain of Command. Cap is a class act and I enjoyed writing fiction. Maybe another novel at some point. We'll see.

Lopez: What's the funniest story you learned while compiling the book?

Schweizer: It has to be one about Michael Moore. In his books Michael Moore goes on and on about the fact that Americans are racist because they live in white neighborhoods. It's an example of latent segregationist attitudes in his mind. When I checked the demographics on Michael Moore's residence I burst out laughing. Michael Moore lives in a town of 2,500 in Michigan. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there is not a single black person in the entire town.

Lopez: Do you like any Streisand songs?

I've lately been partial to "You Don't Bring Me Flowers." It makes me think of the president's relationship with conservatives of late. (Don't judge me for my weirdness.)

Schweizer: Yes, that song does seem fitting these days. Streisand has a pretty voice but I don't really listen to her. Not because of politics, but I like something with a strong beat.

Lopez: One more before we go: Can't you just be happy for Gloria Steinem, man?

Schweizer: I am happy for Gloria Steinem. She finally found her man. My question is why couldn't she just be happy for other women who got married? A classic example of Do As I Say, Not As I Do.

[Romeo Delight]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Anything's possible...

Regardless of who is in office, I truly believe this country has the blessings of God...


:elvis:

see comments in next post (dupe)

[thome]

Islamic radicals from other countries can't possibly benefit from having US troops in Iraq, therefore there is no incentive for them to fuel an insurgency



Ford it must be ME what Im trying to say is The leaders of the Mid East countries Don't Want Democracy and Freedom in the Mid-East.

They have ruled with fear of the Koran and lied and hip-motised their
people for so long .They want The US out because WE represent
Individual Rites to Religion and Speach and Money.
The People would no longer be Blinded by the Lies of the Iatolla
and other FUK HEADS that live off the backs of their people.

While the people sadly starved to death saddam built ten billion
dollars worth of Mansions and the people PRAISED his holy
fuked -ness.Thats the SICKNESS I'M NOT DOWN WITH.

sorry for the type...

[Romeo Delight]

Originally posted by DavidFlamma
This attitude is what scares the rest of the world

You aren't serious are you?

I think the US is a great country, but do you really think God has a preference for US foreign and domestic policy?

It's crazy talk, nothing more

Sounds vaugely familiar...

[FORD]

Peter Schweizer is a Hoover Institute neocon TOOL. Here's his bio from their site.....


Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. A former consultant to NBC News, he also served as a member of the Ultraterrorism Study Group at the U.S. government's Sandia National Laboratory.

His books have been translated into eleven languages. His most recent work is Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (Doubleday, October 2005). Other books include The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty (Doubleday, 2004/Anchor, 2005), which the New York Times called "the best" of the books on the Bush family, and Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph over Communism(Doubleday, 2002/Anchor 2003). "A rousing and compelling case that Reagan's personal and political odyssey...was central to bringing down the 'evil empire,'" said the Los Angeles Times in its review.

Oh Geezy fucking Pete :rolleyes: How can ANYONE accuse this son of a bitch of objectivity


His first novel, Chain of Command (coauthored with Caspar Weinberger), was released by Simon and Schuster in June 2005. Publisher's Weekly, in a starred review, called it a "debut political thriller crackling with a chilling authenticity and riveting dirty dealing...Weinberger and Schweizer have delivered a superbly paced, tightly plowed winner."

He is coeditor of The Reagan Presidency: Assessing the Man and His Legacy (Rowman and Littlefield, 2005) and editor of The Fall of the Wall: Reassessing the Cause and Consequences of the Collapse of Communism (Hoover Press, 2000). He is currently coediting a volume of conservative speeches for Texas A&M University Press.

Peter is executive producer of In the Face of Evil, an epic documentary based on his book Reagan's War. The New York Post declared it "the must-see movie of the season...disturbing and deeply moving." Winner of the 2004 Liberty Film Festival, the movie is now available on DVD.

All neocon propaganda, all the time. The Leni Riefenstahl of the BCE, perhaps?


His written work has appeared in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Review, Foreign Affairs, and elsewhere. He has spoken before dozens of corporate audiences including those at Amoco, Arthur Anderson, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, as well as numerous student groups including Young America's Foundation, University of Virginia, and Florida State University.

So there you have it.... A PNAC tool with a long resume of neocon propaganda and an associate of known criminals.

Yep, sounds exactly like the type of asshole a Busheep would believe ;)

[Warham]

This thread reminds me of a classic one hit wonder from the 80's...

You spin me right round, baby
right round like a record, baby
Right round round round
You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round

[DrMaddVibe]

It's fun to see ford's panties twist in a bunch.

Dance to the spin!

[Nickdfresh]

So who here actually saw FARENHEIT 911?:)

Just checking since everybody knows so fucking much aboot Mikey MOORE and are so full of opinions about him.

Have we sucked our opinions out of some writer's, who may be making completely nefarious claims, cock?

Let's see, he portrayed BUSH as an incompetent, clueless jack-off tainted with corruption, pandering to the profeteering anti-New DEAL special interests, and tied to sleaze mongers...

So, how was he wrong?

[Hardrock69]

He wasn't.

Though he irritates the crap out of me, he was one guy who dared to try to show the public a lot of stuff the Neo-Cons would much rather have kept hidden in their closet.

[diamondD]

*Editing double post*

[diamondD]

If Michael Moore refutes it, and offers proof, fair enough. This is in the mainstream media and it's up to him now to offer any explanation he can.


Typical shoot the messenger because you don't like the message spin going on right now.

[FORD]

Since when is NewsHax "Mainstream media?"

[ELVIS]

It certainly is compared to Air Anonymous...


:elvis:

[Nickdfresh]

There are a whole stream of these "shocking revelations" books coming out. Sort of like the one featuring Hillary CLINTON in which the author was exposed as a complete bullshit artist, making things up and getting almost every major fact wrong...

I'll post the MP3 from "Air America" if you want...

[Nickdfresh]

Here's an example:

Ed KLEIN gets owned on Air America Part 1. (http://play.rbn.com/?url=airam/airam/demand/TheAlFrankenShow/blog/klein1.mp3&proto=rtsp)

Ed Klein gets owned Part 2. (http://play.rbn.com/?url=airam/airam/demand/TheAlFrankenShow/blog/klein2.mp3&proto=rtsp)

[FORD]

Basically, any book from Regnery Publishing (founded by a white supremacist) you can automatically assume to be 100% lies and propaganda.