Yet Al Gore has massive stock in oil and Michael Moore has stock in Haliburton.Is this called a gee..,DOUBLE STANDARD?Oh I get it,do as I say not as I do,is that it?
2006-12-05 07:24:39 · 22 answers · asked by halfbright 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Is that why Clinton attacked Iraq?He gave Haliburton the contracts in Iraq.Not Bush.
2006-12-05 07:41:36 · update #1
Shhhh... who in the liberal media cheated and let that information out??? They had to find something... if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with...............
2006-12-05 07:27:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 7⤋
No one cares if a person owns stock until that person is in a postion of power and can affect the stock price. This is called a conflict of interest. If you think having the power to affect laws in a way that could help, or hurt a certain stock isn't a conflict, or at least a little suspicious, then I put it to you that you are very naive about politics in general.
Since you used the "libs" generalization, lets try to put it to you in a way that Rush might....say Ted Kennedy was President. OK, now that your head's stopped spinning, now say that President Ted (who all good dittoheads know is heir to a bootlegging fortune) started giving liquor companies huge tax cuts, and no bid contracts to supply the White House with "urgently needed libations". You, dear dittohead, would be screaming about "conflict of interest" and "Kennedy's helping his buddies in the liqour industry make huge profits". (sound familiar yet?) Cheney gave Haliburton backdoor sweetheart deals and Haliburton has repaid his "kindness" by "losing" over a billion dollars in Iraq. No, I don't mean "losing" as investing in unprofitable ventures.... I mean "losing" as in "oops, sorry but we don't know where the money went". I suppose we should just all shut up about it and continue to let corporations and Shrubco rob the government (and by extention, us) blind. By the way, I don't seem to remember Gore ever starting any wars to give a boost to Haliburton's bottom line, and neither do I remember all those pro-Haliburton commercials and documentaries Moore has made to help out the company in it's time of need. Please tell us how Gore and Moore have helped Haliburton out as much as Shrubco has.
2006-12-05 08:19:21 · answer #2 · answered by BarronVonUnderbeiht 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because when those in power have strong ties to big business they make decision based on what would be good for that industry and their income and not what would benefit the nation as a whole. Al Gore and Micheal Moore may have stock in oil. However, they aren't serving as a board members and making governemntal decision that will significantly increase their own wealth while hindering the economy. Its an ethical conflict of interest and those things make libs cry.
2006-12-05 07:35:36 · answer #3 · answered by WriterChic 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Exactly, girl. You have that right.
And how come Michael Moore blamed Bush for sending all of the 72 pounds of Plutonium up on the Casini when in actuality, it was Bill Clinton?
And not that it would matter, because Plutonium was the only viable option for long lasting battery power, but since Plutonium is more of an issue with Dems, he decided to blame it on Bush rather than to give Clinton the tag.
2006-12-05 07:28:11 · answer #4 · answered by Jade 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Al Gore and Michael Moore are not elected and serving in the White House. Its called war-profittering. And when the President refuses to listen to reason, one must begin to suspect that war-profittering may be a serious reason why, and deserves an investigation, in my opinion.
2006-12-05 07:30:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
I guess they havent learned about biting the hand the feeds you. Heck I work for Halliburton and I own stock too, does that make me bad? But I guess I have to talk badly about the Republicans for it to be ok with being loaded and rich - the Liberals wont bother me if I put up that smoke screen.
2006-12-05 07:32:14 · answer #6 · answered by Baghdad Pete ! 4 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Neither Al Gore or Michael Moore are in government.
Wouldn't you prefer it if your leaders led the country for everyones benefit rather than for the benefit of the companies they hold stock in?
2006-12-05 07:28:03 · answer #7 · answered by dazzerukuk 2 · 4⤊ 5⤋
It is a violation of criminal law for a senior government official to have an undeclared interest in any investment, and a crime to have any investment that may constitute a conflict of interest.
Al Gore does not work for the US Government. Neither does Michael Moore.
2006-12-05 07:27:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 5⤋
come back when your meds kick in angel till then go sit at the kids table and play with your dolls...christ how can someone be so gullible
2006-12-05 07:44:26 · answer #9 · answered by Unfrozen Caveman 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Michael Moore cashed in his Halliburton stock and bought 30,000 Big Macs, which he ate in one sitting. -jk-
2006-12-05 07:28:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
Because people in the administration, by law, should have their stocks in a blind trust so it does not affect their policy decisions.
2006-12-05 07:27:38 · answer #11 · answered by capu 5 · 6⤊ 3⤋