http://www.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."

This has been confirmed by other sources. So have the other parts of this story.

So have the other parts of this story.

Strike that. I cannot confirm all of these "other parts," and it seems to me to be dishonest for me to claim that I can. Thus, I won't.

I'm just waiting to hear how it's okay for him to profit off Haliburton. The hypocrisy is classic.

I'm just waiting to hear how it's okay for him to profit off Haliburton. The hypocrisy is classic.

What makes it classic is that (1)he is a private citizen, (2)his documentary was derogatory concerning Halliburton (I do not know if the documentary was profitable or not), and (3)he owned stock in them. I presume he hoped that no one would know #3. If so, he presumed incorrectly.

This cracks me up. I recently ordered "Do As I Say (Not As I Do) : Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy" by Peter Schweizer. It is full of such interesting tidbits. Another good one is how Ted Kennedy is opposed to reforming inheritance taxes - and yet the Kennedy's have sheltered tens of millions in overseas trusts in order to avoid such taxes.

Lovely.

haha! liberals are stupid! therefore, liberal ideology must be stupid... therefore, mandatory prayer in school must be the right thing to do...?? :shrug:

Truthfully, we don't know the truth. it's possible to own stock in a corporation and not know it. Yap, most investors use brokers and give them the leeway to purchase stock on the spur of the moment.

Secondly, regardless if Moore owns stock in Haliburton, it's a conflict of interest between Cheney and a Governmental no-bid contract with Haliburton.

And thirdly, 2000 shares of stock in Haliburton is small peanuts compared to the 433,333 shares owned by Cheney.

What makes it classic is that (1)he is a private citizen,

Which means he can own or not own whatever he pleases, right?

(2)his documentary was derogatory concerning Halliburton (I do not know if the documentary was profitable or not), and (3)he owned stock in them.

So he owned stock in a company he made a critical documentary of, thereby potentially hurting his own investment. Stupid and confused perhaps, but hardly evidence of some sort of dark, evil conspiracy. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if has done something like turned his money over to a buddy from high school with a Series 7 license to manage, meaning he likely doesn't have a clue what he owns. I think you'd be on to something if you could prove he had shorted the stock, or purchased options presuming the stock would fall prior to films issuance. But this doesn't really seem to add up to much in my eyes. If anything, it means he isn't putting his personal financial position first.

And for the record, I've kind of soured on Moore over the past few months. The man is more blowhard that documentary filmmaker.

I presume he hoped that no one would know #3. If so, he presumed incorrectly.

Actually, what I'm wondering is how the hell his tax return is a matter of public record. That's what scares the crap out of me. Has he voluntarily released it? If not, somebody should land on the author of the book cited like in that link like a ton of bricks, and force them to 'fess up who released this information. And whoever released it should be sent for a long stay at their local federal penitentary. All they're glibly saying is "using IRS records," which is bull**** when the person cited is a private citizen. Can't do it without their consent. Cannot.

It's not 'his' stock. He has a charitable trust that uses the stock market to raise money. Thats why it is a matter of public record. Still quite hypocritical

"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.

And it goes on like that-none of these points argue effectively that the principles aren't good,they just underline hypocrisy-if a bad man has a good idea should we ignore him?

And it goes on like that-none of these points argue effectively that the principles aren't good,they just underline hypocrisy-if a bad man has a good idea should we ignore him?

Very nice Point

It's not 'his' stock. He has a charitable trust that uses the stock market to raise money. Thats why it is a matter of public record.

But then he's right in saying that he doesn't own any shares, assuming the trust is irrevocable. Which it would have to be to be a charity. And the link posted is flat out wrong when it says he owns "tens of thousands" of shares. He doesn't, or at any rate we have no evidence he does.

Still quite hypocritical

No more so than the distortion in the article, which flat out states something wrong. To recap:

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."

And it goes on like that-none of these points argue effectively that the principles aren't good,they just underline hypocrisy-if a bad man has a good idea should we ignore him?

If he's a bad man, he shouldn't be re-elected.

Secondly, regardless if Moore owns stock in Haliburton, it's a conflict of interest between Cheney and a Governmental no-bid contract with Haliburton.


ummm... wtf??? :eek7:

what the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

ummm... wtf??? :eek7:

what the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
Are you going to offer a argument to support your statement? Cos, if you can't, why would I bother.

Are you going to offer a argument to support your statement? Cos, if you can't, why would I bother.

I might as well be speaking chinese

Are you using some site that automatically generates debating come-backs? if so, please provide the link.

Fight fire with fire?

I might as well be speaking chinese

Are you using some site that automatically generates debating come-backs? if so, please provide the link.
This is a debate about Michael Moore and Halliburton, it hardly seems logical for you to imply that my post

originally posted by KachieMichelle
Truthfully, we don't know the truth. it's possible to own stock in a corporation and not know it. Yap, most investors use brokers and give them the leeway to purchase stock on the spur of the moment.

Secondly, regardless if Moore owns stock in Haliburton, it's a conflict of interest between Cheney and a Governmental no-bid contract with Haliburton.

And thirdly, 2000 shares of stock in Haliburton is small peanuts compared to the 433,333 shares owned by Cheney.

is irrelevant.

Cheney's involvement is Halliburton is well-documented and well-known. No one has ever (to my knowledge) tried to deny Cheney's ties to the company. They are completely irrelevent to this discussion.

Moore, on the other hand, has been a very outspoken critic of Halliburton, so it would be hypocritical for him to own stock in the company.

You're just trying to deflect the attention away from Moore.

if it's a post about Moore, then why bring up Cheney?

Does Cheney still own stock in Haliburton?

Cheney's involvement is Halliburton is well-documented and well-known. No one has ever (to my knowledge) tried to deny Cheney's ties to the company. They are completely irrelevent to this discussion.

Moore, on the other hand, has been a very outspoken critic of Halliburton, so it would be hypocritical for him to own stock in the company.

You're just trying to deflect the attention away from Moore.Not at all, I hold a few shares of stock in Exxon and I'm extremely upset that they posted 9.9 billion net profit in the last quarter. Especially since Exxon is able to make more profit buying refined oil from foreign markets than they could by building cleaner, expensive refineries and staffing them with employees demanding 15 to 30 dollars an hour. Not to mention, it requires no investment to import it. I'm very out-spoken about it.

...and yet you're profiting from it :scratch:

ideology might help you sleep at night, but it doesn't pay the bills.

if it's a post about Moore, then why bring up Cheney?

Does Cheney still own stock in Haliburton?

I think it's only stock options that were given to him as part of his separation package. He can't exercise them without first buying them at the option price.

...and yet you're profiting from it :scratch:

ideology might help you sleep at night, but it doesn't pay the bills.I still fail to see your logic? Are you suggesting that any time a CEO, Stock holder, employee questions the current direction of a corporation they should resign, sell, or quit instead of suggesting and supporting changes?

Does Cheney still own stock in Haliburton?
Cheney holds 433,333 shares of stock and receives a deferred salary. According to financial disclosure forms, he was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004.

link (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html)

And his payments are guaranteed - ie, not tied to the value of Halliburton stock.

But enough about Cheney.

Michael Moore is a Big Fat Hypocritical P-I-G.

So, hold on, he set up a charity which earns money from investments he probably doesn't know about, and people are losing respect for him over this?

Cheney holds 433,333 shares of stock and receives a deferred salary. According to financial disclosure forms, he was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004.

link (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html)

Let's be clear here. Those are stock OPTIONS. He doesn't receive any dividends from them, and he would have to buy them in order to exercise them in any way. He doesn't own stock in Halliburton.

And his payments are guaranteed - ie, not tied to the value of Halliburton stock.

But enough about Cheney.

Michael Moore is a Big Fat Hypocritical P-I-G.I don't see how you can call Moore a Big Fat Hypocritical P-I-G and excuse Cheney.

I'm having trouble with your logic. There is a conflict of interest between Cheney and Governmental no-bid contracts with Haliburton. Enough so that Cheney has pledged to donate his profits to charity in an attempt to reduce criticism.


With Moore we haven't established if he actually owns any stock in Haliburton or not. Though

It's not 'his' stock. He has a charitable trust that uses the stock market to raise money. Thats why it is a matter of public record. Still quite hypocriticalsounds likely. However, I cannot find the supposed Charity's mission, purpose, or financial assets listed anywhere. And as I tried to point out earlier, more than likely, Moore or the supposed Charity uses a broker that has carte blanche to buy and sell stock while Cheney clearly knew his holdings when he uttered "I have severed all financial ties to the company."

Either way, it's one thing to criticize an organization and yet another to profit or allow a no-bid contract to go to a company that you have ties with while holding a public office.

Can we clear this up? Dick Chaney, Bush, Stalin and/or Alexander the Great, the cost of tea and the rotation of the earth (et al.?) have absolutely nothing to do with this story.:)

This story is about Michael Moore and the foundation he founded (the Center for Alternative Media and Culture). Okay…

FROM THE ARTICLE I POSTED:
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."

We can also clear up the above. It is a lie. Period. Yes, I fell for it.

Actually, the Center for Alternative Media and Culture is a non-profit, tax-exempt corporation. It is a legal entity. It stands alone. It “owns 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."

Michael Moore signs the tax returns as an “officer or trustee.” To insinuate that he did not know what this “503” tax-exempt entity owned and sold stocks is utter lunacy, for he violated federal regulations by signing the return under “penalties of perjury” if he did not know the activities of the trust.

Is the above evidence that he is a hypocrite regarding stocks owned by an entity that is a “stand alone” legal entity that he controls? Judge ye. To me, Moore's statements are misleading, and I believe he knew that.

BTW, if you substituted “Bush” for “Moore” in this story, liberals would go completely bonkers, imho. Think about it.:)

BTW, if you substituted “Bush” for “Moore” in this story, liberals would go completely bonkers, imho. Think about it.

Moore is a private citizen. Bush is the President of the United States of America. The former represents himself. The latter is supposed to represent all of us. Big ****ing difference. Didn't take much thought to realize that.

Moore is a private citizen. Bush is the President of the United States of America. The former represents himself. The latter is supposed to represent all of us. Big ****ing difference. Didn't take much thought to realize that.

You are right. I am wrong.

If "Rush Limbaugh" was substituted for "Michael Moore" in this story, liberals would go bonkers, imo.

You are right. I am wrong.

If "Rush Limbaugh" was substituted for "Michael Moore" in this story, liberals would go bonkers, imo.

I disagree. Why? Very, very, very, very, very few liberals take Moore as a seriously reliable information source.

On the otherhand, Iv had several ditto head friends. And I believe the term dittohead says everything. They are both nearly perfect extremists--The only difference near as I can tell, is the fact that Liberals dont take such radical idealogy mindsets like Moores seriously, knowing theres always more to a scenario, whereas appearintly millions of conservatives happily digest everything Limbaugh says.

The fact is, Moore is pure entertainment with political twists--Kinda like watching The Manchurian Candidate, or movies of the such. It may be interesting and political, and hell every once in a while he may pose a good question, but I sure as **** dont believe everything he says. The opposite is true for Rush--He's political with an entertainment twist.

But in the end they are very similar people. The only difference is there background:

Moore came from a lower class background, living with his grandfather and father who didnt work and his mom who was a secretary at a local plant. He did very well in highschool and his local community as well as boyscoyts. He dropped out of college at 22. He sued for being fired for personal reasons, and obtained a settlment that funded his first film After voicing his political criticisms & reaching the top, to turn around and attempt to give to the lower classes. He is hypocritical clearly for still indulging in capitalism and wealth as much as those he critices.

Limbaugh came from a wealthy, influential background. His father got him into college, which he promptly flunked out of, which made him eligable for the army, which daddy got him out of. He then spent time on welfare while his second wife worked, gained about 50 pounds from sitting at home eating all day, and then had his dad get him a position in a radiostation formerly owned so he could turn around and critice welfare, drug users (which he was), people with no respect for marriage (while he was on his 3rd), people who think the rich are just given and dont earn (as he was given).

I disagree. Why? Very, very, very, very, very few liberals take Moore as a seriously reliable information source.


Yeah, right. If they didn't, he wouldn't be getting all those awards for his "documentaries".


On the otherhand, Iv had several ditto head friends. And I believe the term dittohead says everything. They are both nearly perfect extremists--The only difference near as I can tell, is the fact that Liberals dont take such radical idealogy mindsets like Moores seriously, knowing theres always more to a scenario, whereas appearintly millions of conservatives happily digest everything Limbaugh says.


If they know there's always more to a scenario, why do they latch on to only the information that agrees with their world view, and refuse to acknowledge they don't have the whole picture?


The fact is, Moore is pure entertainment with political twists--Kinda like watching The Manchurian Candidate, or movies of the such. It may be interesting and political, and hell every once in a while he may pose a good question, but I sure as **** dont believe everything he says. The opposite is true for Rush--He's political with an entertainment twist.


What work of Moore's can be classified as pure entertainment?


But in the end they are very similar people. The only difference is there background:

Moore came from a lower class background, living with his grandfather and father who didnt work and his mom who was a secretary at a local plant. He did very well in highschool and his local community as well as boyscoyts. He dropped out of college at 22. He sued for being fired for personal reasons, and obtained a settlment that funded his first film After voicing his political criticisms & reaching the top, to turn around and attempt to give to the lower classes. He is hypocritical clearly for still indulging in capitalism and wealth as much as those he critices.


Correction. Moore came from a middle class area, and his father worked for General Motors.


Limbaugh came from a wealthy, influential background. His father got him into college, which he promptly flunked out of, which made him eligable for the army, which daddy got him out of. He then spent time on welfare while his second wife worked, gained about 50 pounds from sitting at home eating all day, and then had his dad get him a position in a radiostation formerly owned so he could turn around and critice welfare, drug users (which he was), people with no respect for marriage (while he was on his 3rd), people who think the rich are just given and dont earn (as he was given).

Rush spent years living on a very small income, to the point he had to charge groceries on a credit card to make it until pay day. What wealth was he given? He's earned what he now has. His personal track record as a husband is lousy. So what? A lot of famous people are creeps in person.

Yeah, right. If they didn't, he wouldn't be getting all those awards for his "documentaries".

Are you kidding me? They'r highly, highly entertaining well done films. Just as Limbaugh does an excellent job mocking liberals using bull**** logic, Moore does it with film.

And they are actually most easily classified Docudrama, but its far easy to classify as documentary.


If they know there's always more to a scenario, why do they latch on to only the information that agrees with their world view, and refuse to acknowledge they don't have the whole picture?

No one ever has the whole picture? Thats a liberal idea in itself hadit.



What work of Moore's can be classified as pure entertainment?

Bowling for columbine? F-9/11? Books he's written?



Correction. Moore came from a middle class area, and his father worked for General Motors.

Indeed. His entire family worked there untill it was downsized.



Rush spent years living on a very small income, to the point he had to charge groceries on a credit card to make it until pay day. What wealth was he given? He's earned what he now has. His personal track record as a husband is lousy. So what? A lot of famous people are creeps in person.

He was on welfare for months, because daddy refused to simply give him money at his age. He comes from a wealthy background, with a very, very influental father. He had every opportunity imaginable.

SwiftSloth - you said: "He (Moore) is hypocritical clearly for still indulging in capitalism and wealth as much as those he critices."

I believe what you stated is what KillZone was attempting to generate a discussion about. Well done.

SwiftSloth - you said: "He (Moore) is hypocritical clearly for still indulging in capitalism and wealth as much as those he critices."

I believe what you stated is what KillZone was attempting to generate a discussion about. Well done.

I wasnt responding to his original post, but yes. I think everyone knows Moore is a hypocrite.

He was on welfare for months, because daddy refused to simply give him money at his age. He comes from a wealthy background, with a very, very influental father. He had every opportunity imaginable.

Sounds like he had a wise father, and Rush learned well from his experience.