Liberal Hypocrisy

Spectrum

Elite Poster
BGOL Investor
Thought this was interesting.


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."

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."
 
just thought i'd give this thread at least one reply before it was lost in oblivion.

i dont know about you, but i've been on BGOL long enough to know this thread is destined to fade awwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

one thing BGOL has taught me is without democrats black people would be swing from trees uncivilized still waiting for civil rights.
 
Greed said:
just thought i'd give this thread at least one reply before it was lost in oblivion.

i dont know about you, but i've been on BGOL long enough to know this thread is destined to fade awwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

one thing BGOL has taught me is without democrats black people would be swing from trees uncivilized still waiting for civil rights.


Unfunny thing about Democrats is they were started by Republicans cause they had too much power and needed the so called opposition. Even worse is the illimunati's historical connection to the republicans...But that wont stop this thread from fading awwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.
 
Worldnetdaily is a ridiculous extreme right wing web site know for reporting back in the 1990’s that Bill Clinton had an illegitimate black child. You relying on information from this source shows your credibility. Nevertheless. right wingers are continually seeking to justify their draconian, predatory and Darwinist economic practices. Michael Moore was totally right and vindicated in his assessment of Fahrenheit 9/11. Bush and his corrupt administration are being exposed for the murderous lies they have perpetrated! No amount of slurring or slamming so called liberals will diminish these hard truths!
 
thoughtone said:
Worldnetdaily is a ridiculous extreme right wing web site know for reporting back in the 1990’s that Bill Clinton had an illegitimate black child. You relying on information from this source shows your credibility. Nevertheless. right wingers are continually seeking to justify their draconian, predatory and Darwinist economic practices. Michael Moore was totally right and vindicated in his assessment of Fahrenheit 9/11. Bush and his corrupt administration are being exposed for the murderous lies they have perpetrated! No amount of slurring or slamming so called liberals will diminish these hard truths!
and this is what i call, "me being right."
 
thoughtone said:
Worldnetdaily is a ridiculous extreme right wing web site know for reporting back in the 1990’s that Bill Clinton had an illegitimate black child. You relying on information from this source shows your credibility. Nevertheless. right wingers are continually seeking to justify their draconian, predatory and Darwinist economic practices. Michael Moore was totally right and vindicated in his assessment of Fahrenheit 9/11. Bush and his corrupt administration are being exposed for the murderous lies they have perpetrated! No amount of slurring or slamming so called liberals will diminish these hard truths!
and this is a little something i call...."me being right."
 
thoughtone said:
Worldnetdaily is a ridiculous extreme right wing web site know for reporting back in the 1990’s that Bill Clinton had an illegitimate black child. You relying on information from this source shows your credibility. Nevertheless. right wingers are continually seeking to justify their draconian, predatory and Darwinist economic practices. Michael Moore was totally right and vindicated in his assessment of Fahrenheit 9/11. Bush and his corrupt administration are being exposed for the murderous lies they have perpetrated! No amount of slurring or slamming so called liberals will diminish these hard truths!

Who are you talking to: me? When did I ever say anything about the source being credible or providing undeniable proof. I said "This article is interesting". Never stated my opinion on it. Furthermore, this story isn't about the merit of Fahrenheit 9/11(which btw was full of so much spin it would make a knowledgable person dizzy..and some parts verifiable lies..movie was satire). However this article is about his possible hypocritical ways...nothing more, nothing less. How did this become a Bush debate...do all things lead back to Bush? This was about Moore and other hypocritical liberals.We can leave Bush for another debate.
 
eewwll said:
Who are you talking to: me? When did I ever say anything about the source being credible or providing undeniable proof. I said "This article is interesting". Never stated my opinion on it. Furthermore, this story isn't about the merit of Fahrenheit 9/11(which btw was full of so much spin it would make a knowledgable person dizzy..and some parts verifiable lies..movie was satire). However this article is about his possible hypocritical ways...nothing more, nothing less. How did this become a Bush debate...do all things lead back to Bush? This was about Moore and other hypocritical liberals.We can leave Bush for another debate.


Yes, you! You did start this thread.

Let explain it mathematically:

BUSH=COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE=NEO CONSERVATIVE =RIGHT WING NUT=TRYING TO DISCREDIT THOSE WHO APPOSE THEM=IRAQ LIES=Michael Moore+Nancy Pelosi+Noam Chomsky+Barbra Streisand+Ralph Nader…

Spin is one thing, truth is another. If Moore was lying about anything in Fahrenheit 9/11, why hasn’t the right sued him? Again, seeing through your nefarious attempts to discredit your opponents, you ARE talking about your ideological icon George W. Bush!

Please point out where Moore was in error?
 
thoughtone said:
Yes, you! You did start this thread.

Let explain it mathematically:

BUSH=COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE=NEO CONSERVATIVE =RIGHT WING NUT=TRYING TO DISCREDIT THOSE WHO APPOSE THEM=IRAQ LIES=Michael Moore+Nancy Pelosi+Noam Chomsky+Barbra Streisand+Ralph Nader…

Spin is one thing, truth is another. If Moore was lying about anything in Fahrenheit 9/11, why hasn’t the right sued him? Again, seeing through your nefarious attempts to discredit your opponents, you ARE talking about your ideological icon George W. Bush!

Please point out where Moore was in error?

Listen. Get yourself together. First of all when I posted this thread, Bush or anyone else was the further thing from my mind. The irony is that I would like to see Bush out of office. However, someone like you, is so preoccupied with Republican/Democratic bullshit that you have to drag every statement into a Bush debate. Have you ever read any of Chomsky's work? I don't want to discuss Bush because this thread wasn't even remotely tied to Bush, but what would Bush have to gain by discrediting Barba Streisand? Nader isn't even influential enough to be a consideration anyway. Do you mean to say that Bush privately funded the book that this article was quoting? This article was in response to the book. You do realize how illogical and emotionally charged your rebuttles are?

In regards to mentioning Michael Moore's "movie" Fareignheit 9/11..I'm not going to highjack this thread...because it wasn't about that movie. However, if you start another thread, I will be more than happy to comment in your thread.


"Again, seeing through your nefarious attempts to discredit your opponents,"

Who are my opponents? Name them since I haven't.

"Yes, you! You did start this thread."


That is where you are wrong. I said simply "I thought the following interesting"
How the fuck did you assume all of that by me saying "interesting"? You know that is said about assuming?

Please point out where Moore was in error?

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Amongst many others. Even while watching the movie I immediately knew he was spinning numbers..especially about Saudi Arabia when the movie first began. He misrepresented the amount of investment that Saudi Arabia has in the United States by big of such a percentage is was laughable. For anyone understanding economics and especialy fiscal figures as related to foreign investment in the U.S. securities..you could only shake your head as such blatent Enron like overstatement. Moore is an obvious sensationalist..all of his movies have been that way. He has always been misleading with the way his mixes and matches figures.
 
Last edited:
eewwll said:
Listen. Get yourself together. First of all when I posted this thread, Bush or anyone else was the further thing from my mind. The irony is that I would like to see Bush out of office. However, someone like you, is so preoccupied with Republican/Democratic bullshit that you have to drag every statement into a Bush debate. Have you ever read any of Chomsky's work? I don't want to discuss Bush because this thread wasn't even remotely tied to Bush, but what would Bush have to gain by discrediting Barba Streisand? Nader isn't even influential enough to be a consideration anyway. Do you mean to say that Bush privately funded the book that this article was quoting? This article was in response to the book. You do realize how illogical and emotionally charged your rebuttles are?

In regards to mentioning Michael Moore's "movie" Fareignheit 9/11..I'm not going to highjack this thread...because it wasn't about that movie. However, if you start another thread, I will be more than happy to comment in your thread.


"Again, seeing through your nefarious attempts to discredit your opponents,"

Who are my opponents? Name them since I haven't.

"Yes, you! You did start this thread."


That is where you are wrong. I said simply "I thought the following interesting"
How the fuck did you assume all of that by me saying "interesting"? You know that is said about assuming?

Please point out where Moore was in error?

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Amongst many others. Even while watching the movie I immediately knew he was spinning numbers..especially about Saudi Arabia when the movie first began. He misrepresented the amount of investment that Saudi Arabia has in the United States by big of such a percentage is was laughable. For anyone understanding economics and especialy fiscal figures as related to foreign investment in the U.S. securities..you could only shake your head as such blatent Enron like overstatement. Moore is an obvious sensationalist..all of his movies have been that way. He has always been misleading with the way his mixes and matches figures.

Amongst many others. Even while watching the movie I immediately knew he was spinning numbers..especially about Saudi Arabia when the movie first began. He misrepresented the amount of investment that Saudi Arabia has in the United States by big of such a percentage is was laughable. For anyone understanding economics and especialy fiscal figures as related to foreign investment in the U.S. securities..you could only shake your head as such blatent Enron like overstatement. Moore is an obvious sensationalist..all of his movies have been that way. He has always been misleading with the way his mixes and matches figures


Yea, yea, Chomsky the Anarchist. Again Dave Kopel = National Review. As I stated, concider the source!
 
thoughtone said:
Again Dave Kopel = National Review. As I stated, concider the source!
how funny that if someone used this same logic against you about michael moore then they are just a black republican neo con. consider the fact not the source. the source is just spinning the fact, but that doesnt change THE FACT.

i was wondering why you couldnt see moore's hypocrisy...you cant see past your own 1st.
 
Greed said:
how funny that if someone used this same logic against you about michael moore then they are just a black republican neo con. consider the fact not the source. the source is just spinning the fact, but that doesnt change THE FACT.

i was wondering why you couldnt see moore's hypocrisy...you cant see past your own 1st.

Exactly,

I love the way he avoided providing a rebuttle against the "facts" that were in that page. It doesn't matter who states a fact. 1 + 1= 2 regardless of the political views of the person who stated it. You asked for points that clearly illustrate where Moore went wrong;however, when provided with them you didn't even read them. Are you allergic to facts?

Good diagnosis Greed...it would be ironic if he noticed Moore's hypocrisy considering his own.
 
Greed said:
how funny that if someone used this same logic against you about michael moore then they are just a black republican neo con. consider the fact not the source. the source is just spinning the fact, but that doesnt change THE FACT.

i was wondering why you couldnt see moore's hypocrisy...you cant see past your own 1st.



The FACT is Bush lied about the war. The 911 commission said so, but the National Review had a different spin. I guess you consider the National Review equal. Do you think Libby's indictment was a Moore spin? When his trial takes place, if the stone walling stops from the White House, you will see how much spin Moore used.

This logic is typical Neo Con. It’s like the so called debate over evolution verse creationism. The right takes creationism as a valid postulate and tries to compare it against science. Points of view are one thing, facts prove themselves in the end!
 
the 9-11 commission report said that huh?

yea, ummmmm i'm going to go out on a limb and bet you never read a word of that report.

and you're angry.
 
eewwll said:
Listen. Get yourself together. First of all when I posted this thread, Bush or anyone else was the further thing from my mind. The irony is that I would like to see Bush out of office. However, someone like you, is so preoccupied with Republican/Democratic bullshit that you have to drag every statement into a Bush debate. Have you ever read any of Chomsky's work? I don't want to discuss Bush because this thread wasn't even remotely tied to Bush, but what would Bush have to gain by discrediting Barba Streisand? Nader isn't even influential enough to be a consideration anyway. Do you mean to say that Bush privately funded the book that this article was quoting? This article was in response to the book. You do realize how illogical and emotionally charged your rebuttles are?

In regards to mentioning Michael Moore's "movie" Fareignheit 9/11..I'm not going to highjack this thread...because it wasn't about that movie. However, if you start another thread, I will be more than happy to comment in your thread.


"Again, seeing through your nefarious attempts to discredit your opponents,"

Who are my opponents? Name them since I haven't.

"Yes, you! You did start this thread."


That is where you are wrong. I said simply "I thought the following interesting"
How the fuck did you assume all of that by me saying "interesting"? You know that is said about assuming?

Please point out where Moore was in error?

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Amongst many others. Even while watching the movie I immediately knew he was spinning numbers..especially about Saudi Arabia when the movie first began. He misrepresented the amount of investment that Saudi Arabia has in the United States by big of such a percentage is was laughable. For anyone understanding economics and especialy fiscal figures as related to foreign investment in the U.S. securities..you could only shake your head as such blatent Enron like overstatement. Moore is an obvious sensationalist..all of his movies have been that way. He has always been misleading with the way his mixes and matches figures.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Saudi’s have $860 billion dollars invested in America.
• “Over the next twenty-five years, roughly eighty-five thousand ‘high-net-worth’ Saudis invested a staggering $860 billion in American companies – an average of more than $10 million a person and a sum that is roughly equivalent to the gross domestic product of Spain.” Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud, (Scribner: New York, 2004).
• “Allan Gerson, an attorney who represents about 3,600 family members of victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks … said he is not suing the Saudi government, but he is pursuing ‘Saudi interests’ in the United States he estimated totaled about $860 billion.” “ $113 Million in Terrorism Funds Frozen,” CNN, November 20, 2002.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: In terms of investments on Wall Street, $860 billion is “roughly six or seven percent of America.”
• “With a total market capitalization exceeding $12 trillion, the NYSE Composite represents approximately 82 percent of the total U.S. market cap.” New York Stock Exchange News Release, “NYSE to Reintroduce Composite Index,” January 2, 2003. ($860 billion is about 7 percent of $12 trillion.)
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Citigroup, AOL TimeWarner have big Saudi investors.
• “His name is Alwaleed bin Talal. His grandfather was Saudi Arabia's founding monarch. With huge stakes in companies ranging from Citigroup Inc. to the Four Seasons luxury hotel chain, he is one of the richest men on the planet....Last year, Forbes magazine ranked Alwaleed the fifth-richest man in the world, with a net worth of nearly $18 billion. His Kingdom Holding Co. spans four continents. Over the years, he has acquired major stakes in companies such as Apple Computer Inc., AOL Time Warner Inc., News Corp. and Saks Inc., parent of retailer Saks Fifth Avenue .” Richard Verrier, “Disney's Animated Investor; An Ostentatious Saudi Billionaire Prince Who Helped Bail Out the Company's Paris Resort in the Mid-'90s is Being Courted to Do So Again,” Los Angeles Times, January 26, 2004.
• “Carlyle’s first major transaction with the Saudis took place in 1991 when Fred Malek steered Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, a flamboyant 35-year-old Saudi multibillionaire, to the firm for a deal that would enable him to become the largest individual shareholder in Citicorp.” Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud, (Scribner: New York, 2004).
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “I read where the Saudis have a trillion dollars in our banks, their money.”
• “Others have said the investment is even more, as much as a trillion dollars on deposit in U.S. banks – an agreement worked out in the early 1980s by the Reagan administration, in yet another effort to get the Saudis to off-set the US budget deficit. The Saudis hold another trillion dollars or so in the US stock market.” Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil, p. 60, (Crown Publishers: New York, 2003).


http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=20


He says they're facts, with reference.
 
The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy reports that worldwide Saudi investment approximated $700 billion – a figure much lower than Unger alleges the Saudi government to have invested in the U.S. (Tanya C. Hsu, Institute For Research: Middle Eastern Policy, “The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment,” www.irmep.org, Accessed 07/11/04)
 
Greed said:
The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy reports that worldwide Saudi investment approximated $700 billion – a figure much lower than Unger alleges the Saudi government to have invested in the U.S. (Tanya C. Hsu, Institute For Research: Middle Eastern Policy, “The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment,” www.irmep.org, Accessed 07/11/04)

My dad told me once that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

"In February 2003, total worldwide Saudi investment, including investment in the United States and Europe, was conservatively estimated at U.S. $700 billion."

found above the pie chart below.

World wide has to be more than $700 billion.

Who's spinning now!


<iframe name="bgol" style="border:0px red" width=800 height=1000 src="http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters/SAF_Essay_22.htm"></iframe>
 
thoughtone said:
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Saudi’s have $860 billion dollars invested in America.
• “Over the next twenty-five years, roughly eighty-five thousand ‘high-net-worth’ Saudis invested a staggering $860 billion in American companies – an average of more than $10 million a person and a sum that is roughly equivalent to the gross domestic product of Spain.” Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud, (Scribner: New York, 2004).
• “Allan Gerson, an attorney who represents about 3,600 family members of victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks … said he is not suing the Saudi government, but he is pursuing ‘Saudi interests’ in the United States he estimated totaled about $860 billion.” “ $113 Million in Terrorism Funds Frozen,” CNN, November 20, 2002.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: In terms of investments on Wall Street, $860 billion is “roughly six or seven percent of America.”

eewwll's response

See now I will expose why Michael Moore is MISLEADING to people uneducated about economics. Thank you for making this easy because I will use your own data againstyou . Do you know what 6 to 8 percent of AMERICA would be? what that statement implied..he didn't say 8 percent of nasdaq..he said of AMERICA. First of all in 2004. Total net U.S. securites totalled 33 Trillion which would make that number closer to 2 percent. However, he said AMERICA..not just securities and he said that deliberately..As a percentage of AMERICA the true percentage would equate less than .3 percent. See he has spun the worlds intentionally..not only inflated the percentage but deliberately saying AMERICA as opposed to a stock exchange to the uninformed and ignorant would be alarmed. That is what a spinner does..they use slippery figures out of context. Obviously you were taken in by it. However, to some who understand the equities market and their relationship to Gross National Assets, I could easily see through his spinning and knew he was playing for effect

• “With a total market capitalization exceeding $12 trillion, the NYSE Composite represents approximately 82 percent of the total U.S. market cap.” New York Stock Exchange News Release, “NYSE to Reintroduce Composite Index,” January 2, 2003. ($860 billion is about 7 percent of $12 trillion.)
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Citigroup, AOL TimeWarner have big Saudi investors.
• “His name is Alwaleed bin Talal. His grandfather was Saudi Arabia's founding monarch. With huge stakes in companies ranging from Citigroup Inc. to the Four Seasons luxury hotel chain, he is one of the richest men on the planet....Last year, Forbes magazine ranked Alwaleed the fifth-richest man in the world, with a net worth of nearly $18 billion. His Kingdom Holding Co. spans four continents. Over the years, he has acquired major stakes in companies such as Apple Computer Inc., AOL Time Warner Inc., News Corp. and Saks Inc., parent of retailer Saks Fifth Avenue .” Richard Verrier, “Disney's Animated Investor; An Ostentatious Saudi Billionaire Prince Who Helped Bail Out the Company's Paris Resort in the Mid-'90s is Being Courted to Do So Again,” Los Angeles Times, January 26, 2004.
• “Carlyle’s first major transaction with the Saudis took place in 1991 when Fred Malek steered Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, a flamboyant 35-year-old Saudi multibillionaire, to the firm for a deal that would enable him to become the largest individual shareholder in Citicorp.” Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud, (Scribner: New York, 2004).
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “I read where the Saudis have a trillion dollars in our banks, their money.”

eewwll's

Where is the evidence to support this statement that the Saudis also have trillions in our banks? This is hearsay..not facts.

• “Others have said the investment is even more, as much as a trillion dollars on deposit in U.S. banks – an agreement worked out in the early 1980s by the Reagan administration, in yet another effort to get the Saudis to off-set the US budget deficit. The Saudis hold another trillion dollars or so in the US stock market.” Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil, p. 60, (Crown Publishers: New York, 2003).


eewwll's response
Who are OTHERS and how can he substatiate this statement? Again, this is hearsay and speculation..hardly connvincing evidence.


http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=20


He says they're facts, with reference.


Your answers are above. Do a search for U.S. securities and their value to verify my figures as they are all based on 2004 data. Also, do a search to determine Total U.S. Assets..not just stock market..private wealth, real estate, private companies, etc... that 858 Billion is drop in a very large bucket and insignificant. You obviously were taken in by his spinning. That is why I don't like Moore because he feeds on people who don't understand the entities in which he references. So he easily manipulates you into believing his information is factual despite the FACT that his allegations are meritless and out of context.
 
Last edited:
thoughtone said:
My dad told me once that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

"In February 2003, total worldwide Saudi investment, including investment in the United States and Europe, was conservatively estimated at U.S. $700 billion."

found above the pie chart below.

World wide has to be more than $700 billion.

Who's spinning now!
YOU'RE spinning now and you're very not smart to say the least.

"In February 2003, total worldwide Saudi investment, including investment in the United States and Europe, was conservatively estimated at U.S. $700 billion."

thats your selected quote and you couldnt even read it.

you're so sad. your cited pie chart says the US hold 60% of the $700B is just over $400B.

is it me or is $400B still smaller than $800B.

WTF are you clinging to onethought.
 
Hello everyone. I have been under the weather of late. When someone questions my intelligence, especially those who claim to be intelligent, I set out to expose them for who they are. Rubber stamps!

When I was presented the figures of $400 billions by eewwll and he used the source of Dave Kopel, the conservative National Review writer which was so far from the figures liberal Michael Moore sited, all I could do was to delve further. I wondered what agenda root source of the Michael Moore’s figures derived from. So I contacted his source, Craig Unger, who has a contact email on his web site, quite easy to find. Here is my first correspondence to him:

"Dear Mr. Unger,
In the movie FAHRENHEIT 9/11, Michael Moore mentioned that the Saudi’s have $860 billion dollars invested in America. On his web site for the movie he sited that he got this fact from your book House of Bush/House of Saudi. Tanya C. Hsu in her article “The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment” states that the Saudi investment in the US is about $400 billion (http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters/SAF_Essay_22.htm).
Can you clarify the discrepancy between the two figures and where you base your figures from?"


During the waiting period, I searched for the source of Mr. Kopel’s figures. It turns out that they are from a Tanya C. Hsu. Finding her email contact was more difficult. After searching her name on the net, the only Tanya C. Hsu I found wrote for something called the Saudi-American Forum. I have no idea what that was. Tanya C. Hsu also had several articles and poems on the net pining for Saudi and American cooperation. I finally found her contact and this is my letter to her:

"Dear Tanya C. Hsu,
In your essay "The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment" on the Saudi-American Forum, you site that the Saudi investment in the US was $400 billion (http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters/SAF_Essay_22.htm). Craig Unger in his book, House of Bush/House of Saudi, states that Saudi investment in the US is $860 billion, a figure Michael Moore uses in his movie FAHRENHEIT 9/11 ( http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=20). Where did you get this figure and why the discrepancy?"


Within 24 hours, I received a response from Mr. Unger.

"There have been a wide number of figures published on the subject. My figures came from Alan Gerson, an attorney representing the families of 9/11 victims in a suit against the Saudis.

Having looked at Ms. Tsu paper, it is unclear to me whether she is talking about the Saudi government alone or whether she is including private Saudi investors-- many of whom have many billions of dollars invested in the market.

In addition, it is worth remembering that the stock market itself fluctuates enormously.

Best,
Craig Unger"


No too long after I received Mr. Unger’s response, I receive Ms. Tsu’s response:

"I got my numbers from hard core research. I am a political researcher and analyst, not journalist or movie maker. Whilst at the Institute of Research: Middle East Policy, this report was commissioned. Irmep worked to compile the figures, and the work from staff was submitted to me, and the Director, for review and inclusion if deemed credible.

We were paid as experts to be reliable, not fanciful.

It meets a personal agenda for Mr. Unger and Mr. Moore to exaggerate those numbers considerably. In academics we do not do that.

Tanya C. Hsu"


Ms. Tsu’s tone was extremely defensive and shrill. As if her data was compiled after the fact. Both Unger and Tsu posed more questions, so I sent follow up letters:


"Mr. Unger,
Thank you for the prompt reply to my email. Not knowing which statistics to believe, would you not agree that attorney, Alan Gerson’s numbers would meet a personal agenda to exaggerate those numbers? Many right wing pundits have said that your figures are erroneous. I question their agenda. My nature is to question all sides of an argument before I form an opinion. Why did you use these figures, if as you stated, there were “a wide number of figures published on the subject“. Again thank you for valuable time."


Mr. Unger quickly responded with:

"I've seen figures as high as a trillion dollars (from the CIA) and I chose to use one that had been used on CNN in what I deemed to be responsible way. Frankly, I have no reason to believe that Alan Gerson (or your source, for that matter) was promoting a personal agenda because I saw figures in the same range used by the Saudis themselves.

Remember, the methodology used by your source is extremely unclear and is much, much lower than other estimates I've seen. Remember also that the markets fluctuate enormously and, finally, that in the last two years the Saudis have conspicuously taken considerable amounts out of the US market.

Finally, the larger point is simply that at a minimum addition, the Saudis had hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. and had become a huge force in the US markets.

As it is, my book had over a thousand footnotes and time and space considerations make it difficult to explain each of many thousand decisions like this to the reader."


He sited his source as CNN. It was traceable. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/20/seized.assests/ I too have seen Saudi investment figures as high as $1 trillion. Mr. Unger’s figure were midway.

My final follow up to Ms. Tsu:

"Thank you for your prompt reply to my email. I agree, there are some that have a vested interest in presenting a point of view by portraying statistics one way or another. When you say Saudi investment, do you include the Saudi government alone or do you including private Saudi investors. Also, you mention you were paid as experts. Who did you do your research for?"

Tanya C. Tsu has yet to respond to my final letter.

eewwll chose to minimize the entire movie FAHRENHEIT 9/11 on some selective statistic by a bias reporter. After this minor research, I tend to belive the CNN figures rather than the Tanya C. Tsu's figures since she does not site what are the root of her sources are. Evidentially critical thinking is not required for conservatives! Now what other statisic are questional in FAHRENHEIT 9/11.
 
Good work.

However, I posted data independent of a reporter.

I'm going to give you the same response as I have before:

Your answers are above. Do a search for U.S. securities and their value to verify my figures as they are all based on 2004 data. Also, do a search to determine Total U.S. Assets..not just stock market..private wealth, real estate, private companies, etc... that 858 Billion is drop in a very large bucket and insignificant. You obviously were taken in by his spinning. That is why I don't like Moore because he feeds on people who don't understand the entities in which he references. So he easily manipulates you into believing his information is factual despite the FACT that his allegations are meritless and out of context.

Also, you still haven't posted anything that verifies trillions...you are posting hearsay. Don't you know the difference between hearsay and facts? DO a FUCKING search for U.S. aggegate wealth and determine the percentage that is owned by Saudi dollars. Some of you really lack reading comprehension skills. Your long posted and citing of those back and forth emails was pointless. Do a simple google search and pull out your calculator. And then you have the nerve to mention "critical thinking"

That misleading bit of information is one of many ways that Moore spun and mispresented data

Do you understand that even if it was 1 trillion dollars, which it wasn't..but even if it were...that still represents well less than .5 percent of U.S. assets and not the 6percent the Moore implied when he said the saudis own 6 percent of "America". To people that don't understand economics or have no understand how stock markets operate, the differences between public vs private wealth...Moore misrepresented the data to create a red flag for a situation that does not exist...as if the saudi's owns an alarming percantage of country which in fact it doesn't. If anyone holds a significant portion of our debt..it is China..especially with our ever expanding trade deficit with them.

You simply don't know what you are talking about in regards to this situation..you don't understand economics. That is why you went back and forth and wasted all that time emailing and asking for the wrong data. You didn't verify the correct premise. Again, Do a search for U.S. Aggregate assets..then use your number for Saudi holding..do the math. It's pretty simple.

You didn't prove anything..under than another point I made..that the trillion dollar plus statement can't be verified. There is no emperical data to support it.

It's funny though that you thought you were dropping something... :lol:

WFT is wrong with you man.? You aren't connecting these simple dots. This is 5 grade mathematics man. The numbers don't even remotely add up with your inflated numbers(which you still haven't verified).

Here is Moore's statement. The Saud's own 6 percent of America. So you need to do the following:
A quick lesson in determing percentages:

Learning to calculate percentages is not that difficult.The term percent comes from Latin and means "for every hundred". So when you hear a statistic such as "10% of all people are left-handed" that means, for every hundred people, 10 are left-handed.

You need to do the following:

1. Find the total aggregate assets of the U.S.
2. Find the total Saudi Investments in the U.S.
3. Using this formula:
(amount ÷ total) × 100 = percentage

Then come back with your answer Einstein Jr. I already know it.
 
Last edited:
am i the only one that notices onethought has a problem?

this is like when he accused me of being conservative and stated it as fact in one post, then 2 post later asked me if it was true.

now he stated the michael moore spin is true then 3 days later make an effort to find out if it was true.

onethought, dont you have your steps in the wrong order.

i know you'll never identify and correct the deficiencies in logic because you're arguing from emotions, but to anyone else that can see what i see i'm LHOH.
 
Greed said:
am i the only one that notices onethought has a problem?

this is like when he accused me of being conservative and stated it as fact in one post, then 2 post later asked me if it was true.

now he stated the michael moore spin is true then 3 days later make an effort to find out if it was true.

onethought, dont you have your steps in the wrong order.

i know you'll never identify and correct the deficiencies in logic because you're arguing from emotions, but to anyone else that can see what i see i'm LHOH.

You aren't the only one that notices it. This is the problem. There always two issues when someone is having a problem..one is easier to deal with than the other.

1. when someone makes a simple mistake because they used the wrong data set or knowledge base, there is no problem as long as he can identify it an correct it.

BUT.

2. When someone has an error in one's LOGIC, you can't use the same logic to correct it. The problem isn't just the topic at hand..the problem is his logic. Even showing him the correct way answer to this isn't going to help him. It's the equivalent of putting good gas in a broken down car..it won'[t make it run better...you need to fix the car.

He doesn't understand how to
1. create a premise
2. support it with an analysis.
3. use supportive emperical data or logic
4. draw a conclusion.
 
Last edited:
You haven't said anything! What makes the data you find on the internet superior to what either author has? I have contacted real people. At least one has given me a source. Your information no matter the conclusion is just you opinion. Just like the pre war data the Bush administration will not release voluntarily, conservative data is always created from ideological points of view. Are you economists?
 
thoughtone said:
You haven't said anything! What makes the data you find on the internet superior to what either author has? I have contacted real people. At least one has given me a source. Your information no matter the conclusion is just you opinion. Just like the pre war data the Bush administration will not release voluntarily, conservative data is always created from ideological points of view. Are you economists?

I will retype the next step for you again.

You need to do the following:

1. Find the total aggregate assets of the U.S.
2. Find the total Saudi Investments in the U.S.
3. Using this formula:
(amount ÷ total) × 100 = percentage

Then come back with your answer Einstein Jr. I already know it.

It's not an opinion or an ideological point. These are just facts point blank.The information is out there. Do the math and come back for your tutoring in Econ 101. You didn't provide any "DATA". You provided email correspondence with no direct cites to confirmed studies,etc...and which was also irrelevant because you still don't get the point. Moore used those number of out context..he equated an aggregate number and only based that percentage on ONE stock exchange and equated that number with the entire wealth of the U.S. when he said "The Saudi's own 6 percent of the U.S." He purposedly said it that way. He knew it wasn't the truth when he said it..he only said it that way to create an "effect". You just don't know what you are talking about. Follow the steps I mentioned and come back with your answer.
 
Last edited:
"Worldnetdaily is a ridiculous extreme right wing web site know for reporting back in the 1990’s that Bill Clinton had an illegitimate black child."

So you feel you need to defend the actions of your favorite slave master by posting this example of right wing bias? WTF? I'm trying to get the credibility question. You say World Net Daily reported this? How did they report this? As established fact or as a comment made by someone? There is a difference.

-VG
 
thoughtone said:
You methodology is your methodology. Like I said, you have disproved nothing!

The PROOF is in the math. Get our your damn calculator and you will get the percentages. I want you to disprove it yourself as I already know the answer. I'm not even asking you to take my word for it. Do the math and you will get the answer. Stay in denial all you want. If you want the truth, get the figures and do the math and come to your own conclusion.
 
BUMPED from the archives. I enjoyed re-reading the posts in this thread.
 
Last edited:
The original post is probably all bullshit. The point in it about Pelosi's employees is a half truth at best. Her employees are not Union, that has nothing to do with supporting unions. Unions themselves aren't supposed to have anything against "non-union" labor, unless the workers are paid less than the "competative" wage and other compensation. When you see union guys protesting a work site for using non-union labor, the real point is that the workers are not getting the competative wage as set forth by the union. In Pelosi's case her employees get better wages and benefits than the Union offers. She goes above and beyond the standard set by the Union, which is not a problem for anyone except right-wing lunatics.
 
Back
Top