Michael Moore Owns Haliburton Stock

[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.



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...

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

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.



Have a nice weekend.

[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