Michael Moron Owned Haliburton

[alphamale]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...3/150518.shtml

[godfry n. glad]

Hey, dipshit...

That's how Moore and his compatriots access stockholder's meetings and corporate masturbatory materials, so they can keep an eye on the conspirators against the public interest (to paraphrase Adam Smith).

Note also that it is "his" foundation that has made these investments, not him. Vice President Cheney made over $9 million in profits this past year from his investment in Halliburton. Let's talk conflict of interest where it really counts.

[D. Scarlatti]

Can't you get over that Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict?

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Can't you get over that Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict?

????

[Al Terego]

Why is Rush so angry all the time?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by alphamale

????

Now this...this is irony.

Top conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh lauded the bestselling new book "Do As I Say, Not as I Do" by Peter Schweizer on Friday, recommending it to his audience as a must read.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Al Terego

Why is Rush so angry all the time?

Rush is angry because a poor liberal black woman accidently knocked him off his skateboard when he was 8 year old and when she tried to help him up, she was unable to lift his fat ass up off the ground and he had to sit there in tears until the Walmart maintenance guy got there with a forklift.

[alphamale]

Usually it takes at least 15 posts for the thread entropy to reach 100% here ...

[Al Terego]

Thread entropy, what is that supposed to mean?

[godfry n. glad]

I think he's trying to say that his threads die after about 15 posts. That's about right.... About 10 snide responses pointing out how stupid, retarded and misguided he is and his stupid, retarded and misguided responses to those responses. Then people get tired of even conversing with him.

His posts have very short shelf life, which is not surprising considering they are already degrading when posted.

[D. Scarlatti]

This one was brain-DOA.

[freemonkey]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

His posts have very short shelf life, which is not surprising considering they are already degrading when posted.

Except for the "Modern Art" thread, which had us at eachother's throats for days.

* sigh * those were some good times

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Al Terego

Why is Rush so angry all the time?

You'd be angry, too, if the liberals took away your OxyContin.

[Dingfod]

I used to work for W.R. Grace & Co. back in the 70s. I met J. Peter Grace and shook his wet fish of a hand. What a slimy weasel he was/is. Are all Fortune 500 CEOs that icky? Anyway, back then there was this little old woman that owned one share of W.R. Grace just so she could go to the annual stockholders meeting and ask questions of J. Peter and the board of directors about this and that, from the economy to pollution, from CEO and board compensation to minimum wage. She was a thorn in their side, but had the right, as a shareholder, to attend and ask questions. For that reason, stock ownership in corporations you despise can be a good thing.

[Godless Dave]

Newsmax is owned by Rev. Moon, Jesus Christ's younger brother.

[viscousmemories]

Newsmax didn't originate the claim, though. It came from a book called Do As I Say (Not As I DO) by Peter Schweizer. Here's a review I found at Amazon:

From Publishers Weekly

Working with a broadly inclusive pantheon of "the Left" that places Ralph Nader and Barbra Streisand on equal footing with Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, Schweizer (The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty) suggests that liberalism's heroes conduct their lives in ways that prove their philosophy to be "ultimately self-defeating, self-destructive, and unworkable." While acknowledging that conservatives can be high-profile hypocrites as well, Schweizer employs a double standard, arguing that "when conservatives betray their publicly stated principles, they harm only themselves and their families," but when liberals misbehave, they harm their principles first and foremost. Sometimes his research uncovers significant contradictions, as when Schweizer points out that Noam Chomsky, who tends to demonize the military establishment, wrote his first book, Syntactic Structures, with grants from the U.S. Army, the Air Force and the Office of Naval Research. But many of his charges are egregiously hyperbolic, as when he suggests that Cornel West is a "segregationist" because he bought a home in a largely Caucasian suburb. Schweizer clearly knows the limitations of his argument, since he backpedals from many of his most damning statements in his closing remarks. For all its revelations, in the end, this volume reads less like a critique of liberal philosophy than a catalogue of ammunition for ad hominem bloggers. (Oct. 25)

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[Sock Puppet]

Pointing out Chomsky's failings is like dynamiting fish in a barrel.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Sometimes his research uncovers significant contradictions, as when Schweizer points out that Noam Chomsky, who tends to demonize the military establishment, wrote his first book, Syntactic Structures, with grants from the U.S. Army, the Air Force and the Office of Naval Research.

The book that got published in 1957, some 10 years before he came to public note as a political activist?

Originally Posted by wikipedia

... he became one of the leading opponents of the Vietnam War with the publication of his essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" [2] in The New York Review of Books in 1967.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky

If that's an example of the sort of significant contradictions the book can come up with, I'm not terribly impressed.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

Pointing out Chomsky's failings is like dynamiting fish in a barrel.

What makes you say that, Sock? I'm familiar with some of his work, but no substantial criticisms. Granted I haven't spent any time looking for the latter, but I'm interested.

[Sock Puppet]

He's extremely intelligent, but I've read reports of him saying colossally stupid things, which is what I was getting at. I suppose I should post proof or retract, but it's been awhile since I bothered with Chomsky's political rants. Essentially, he likes to shoot off his mouth at every opportunity, whether he knows what he's talking about or not, and often resorts to strawman characterizations of his opposition. I'll see what I can scare up.

His true calling is linguistics, and I just wish he'd spend more time there than bloviating about politics. He gets credit for outlining the "deep structure" of aspect in the English language, but then again, English doesn't have much in the way of aspect (as opposed to, say, Russian). He's contributed much more than this to the field, of course, but AFAIK the "Chomsky Deep Structure" is what he's most noted for, at least in English grammar studies.

[Godless Dave]

Essentially, he likes to shoot off his mouth at every opportunity, whether he knows what he's talking about or not, and often resorts to strawman characterizations of his opposition.

Unfortunately that also describes some of his pronouncements on linguistics.

I've only read a few of his political writings, and my impression was he tends to oversimplify. He said something about WWII being purely a battle between empires over their third world colonies. Was that an important aspect of WWII? Oh yes. Was it the only aspect of WWII? Hell no.

He also describes the Vietnam War as the US invasion of Vietnam, which contains about 97% truth but is an oversimplification that misses important nuances.

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Unfortunately that also describes some of his pronouncements on linguistics.

That doesn't surprise me, I just wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt there. I mainly studied English grammar in college, and only dabbled in "real" linguistics.

I should've remembered this one: Chomsky published a poorly-edited book of cobbled-together interviews, speeches, rants, etc. in 2002, 9-11. I only skimmed through it, but most critics* agreed with my assessment, that he buries any validity to his arguments under an avalanche of wide-eyed hyperbole.


*That is, professional, or at least paid, critics. The readers on Amazon averaged 4 out of 5 stars.

[Godless Dave]

To be fair, linguistics is usually lumped with either social sciences or liberal arts, and an academic can't get noticed in those fields without making his findings sound as radical and counterintuitive as possible.

Chomsky did more than figure out the deep structure of the English language; he pretty much invented modern linguistics. His "language gene" idea may turn out to be bunk and the whole "deep structure" thing is another oversimplification, but he reinvented the field.

[viscousmemories]

My introduction to Chomsky was the film Manufacturing Consent, which I saw about 15 years ago and a couple times since. I found it really eye-opening in many different ways, but none that I can articulate at the moment. My roommate has the 9-11 book but I haven't read it. Plus I just remembered I posted here about a recent lecture he gave. I can't say I really understand the accusation that he engages in a lot of hyperbole based on the exposure I've had, but I could be remembering the hits and forgetting the misses and/or reading with rose-colored glasses. Specific examples would be cool.