MaggieMae
Reality bits
- Apr 3, 2009
- 24,043
- 1,635
- 48
Another sterling pointless from a liberoidal.
Michale Suckass Moore was hypocritically criticising all things America while cravenly profiting off of the work of one of the companies which he and his libtarded ilk focused on with the most vetriolic dishonesty.
By contrast, Vice President Cheney was deriving no material benefits from that same company while he WAS serving our Republic.
Mental libtardation appears to be uncurable.
So I guess you really DON'T believe in freedom of speech? Michael Moore could say, write, or dance around any fucking thing he wanted. Dick Cheney was a classic example of a dictator-in-training by avoiding the obvious ethical problems with his very CLOSE affiliation with Halliburton, not to mention his cozy relationship with Antoine Scalia during a time when the USSC had taken up the case of his SECRET energy task force. Both were inyourface conflicts of interest.
You lose, genius. But keep it up. I find you a challenge, since I can factually refute just about any "defense" you can claim about Cheney.
lol... Kos and the DU play real loose with their "factual" rebuttal of anytihng.
You should search elsewhere for your "facts".
I've never visited DailyKos in my life and don't even know what "DU" means. Nice try, though. I have my own collection of sourced facts. But on that note, I shall let you or whassisname have the last word since that seems to be of utmost importance to people obviously still grasping at straws.