Michael Moore Owns Halliburton

Apparently not, considering so many people defend him.

You're right. Dissent is so forbidden nobody villifies Bush at all.

Propaganda full of lies and half-truths is benificial to noone. In this case, the ends do not justify the means.

Once again, it is not unique to the Right.

Moore merely capitalized on a growing wave of anti-Bush sentiment. I disagree with many of Bush's policies, but it was his own actions that caused this hatred, not some second-rate documentary calling him Satan.

Look, my point here isn't to Moore-bash. I could care less about people's opinion of him - it hardly reflects on me or the political opinions he holds (many of which I agree with). It's just that I believe that deifying anybody (the way the Left does with Moore, and the Right does with others such as Reagan) presents far more dangers than villifying anybody.

Apologies for that coming out all awkwardly like an ass-first baby... It's late.

 

you said he spreads truth......


if he spreads truth, legitmate truth then what he does with his free time is his business....


not like he's my role model, he's already fat, ugly, unclean and obnoxious....


IF he's a hypocrite then he is, that's his business, if he's not, good for him, he'd be the only person on earth who wasn't to some extent.....

 

Mynameiskc,

Apologies for the belated response as I have been preoccupied.

First before I directly respond I would like to make clear that I am open to questioning in general and that in the case of Moore's stock I am very interested to understand more about this since I believe that Moore has provided important and useful exposure of actual and possible corporate and political corruption.

I also believe that it is important that we in a healthful, balanced, manner avoid destructive 'mob mentality' but instead stick to the facts; and especially do so in forming hypotheses about what may have occurred in any particular situation. And that we should, in a morally sound and legitimate manner, allow for healing and learning; my experience has shown me that, often, even 'the toughest' of us reject this out of hidden fear. In my view it appears wise, no matter the apparent difficulty, that we should be brave in acknowledging truth and allowing, where it is available, for those who have erred including ourselves to learn and to heal. This mindset will make for, psychologically, the stronger stance; both in battle and in peace.

you write,

I believe that it is important to not copout to corruption and the idea that we cannot do better, and that we cannot learn. We can learn, we can be honest, and we can do better. There is hope for great improvement of our country and of our world. The above statements are easily laughed off by many, as if because of difficulty that we should give up; permenantly settle for less; acquiesce to engaging in corruption, accept and participate in foolish and ignorant activity. We have much to learn from everyone, we should stick to the truth in each situation; and, where we don't know have the courage to say that "we do not know" and continue forward in a healthy manner; Ultimately, this is 'our hope' for a better future.


Mynameiskc, you wrote,

and in response I wrote,

to whcih you responded,

In my first response to you I focused on the word "anyway" which implies that you had (have) other reasons to believe that Moore is a hypocrite.

you wrote,

I am asking what made you believe that Moore is "a bit of a hypocrite anyway ?" Can you a provide specific substantial example as to why you think that Moore is a hypocrite [anyway] ?

parsing, you write,

It does require justification, by my view, because of the implications of your statement in the context that it was presented; however, you have clarified it in the above statement.

I am interested to see what all the facts are including Moore's statements about this issue. It is, in my view, important; possibly not as important as other issues that involve political and corporate corruption, but this issue is significant in terms of a need for finding the truth.


Peace,

David


.

 

LOL!!!

I can say that for Moore. Moore is propaganda just as much as these "conservatives" are spewing propaganda.

Maybe YOU need to check your facts.

He owns thousands of stocks, all he needs is one to get into these meetings.

Your own argument is bias and full of propaganda.

 

Moore wants more..^

 

I am sure Moore has heard about this guy, his article, and his book, yet moore has not even mentioned or tried to dispute this claim about his thousands of stocks, he has not even tried to reedeem himself by saying "oh yes, I need that minimum amount of stocks to attend stockholder meetings, all the money i make from them goes to charity anyway, etc. etc", this to me, makes it seem like he has something to hide.

 

Exactly, he opens his big fat mouth on everything else. But, he does not mention one thing about this. He does not come out and say the reason he bought those stocks. He's not coming out with his agenda as to what he is doing with them, cause we all know there is an agenda at play.

 

I was just commenting on your spelling [it is worse than mine].. Though you are right.

 

lol yeah i know...i fixed it...

 

LOL...you're spewing your own propaganda there.

Don't forget he also called for the outing of Saddam, sound familiar ?

He also dropped bombs on Iraq trying to revert some attention from his PERJURY case.

 

HAHAHAHA...gilligan got owned...LOL!

But, you know what they say.

If you can't attack the message, attack the messanger.

Isn't that right Skip ?

 

to aknowledge the problem is to confirm it, to ignore the problem is to confirm it....



ever ask if he just owns some mutual funds?

 

I don't think he is shy about it. In F9/11 didn't he even film himself at shareholder meetings?

 

gilligan you douche, i was JUST going to put whats in your sig as my sig!!! I know where you got it!

 

I totally fucking second that emotion!!! He's on our side.
Please don't believe everything "the right" says.

 

LOL...it's public records...

And, as far as not beleiving everything "the right" says, can go the same way for "the left" as they are just as unreliable with thier information as "the right."

 

I'll watch conservative productions about the government, just like I will liberal.
But what I wont do is watch a movie bashing a person who made a movie about the government.
That's just getting a little out of hand.

Edit: BTW, Gilligan, get that huge-ass picture off the page, sheesh....

 

Everyone knows that anything on a TV or movie screen is edited. I don't need a 2-hour Moore bashing movie to tell me that.

I don't remember Moore bashing Heston. NRA-bashing isn't Heston bashing. And he was interviewed in Bowling for Combine, which was about violence in America, not the gov't (and not in F/911). And if Moore was bashing Heston then journalists that end up getting their interviewees all riled up are just bashing them too, right?

I'm not going to go into this step-by-step refutation of Moore's films, I don't care enough about them or remember them well enough.

I'm just saying I don't need to watch a flick bashing Moore's flick to make sure I am not taking what Moore says as gospel. It's all just acinine. If you want the gov't displayed in a better light make a movie about the gov't, not a movie bashing the guy who didn't make the gov't look rosey.

If you want to see films on both sides then watch films from people on both sides (like two different films about the gov't from different political perspectives), not a film from a liberal about the gov't, and then a film from a conservative bashing the liberal that bashed the gov't. That's just silly.