bofors Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 SEC Persecutes Mark Cuban for Relationship with Loose Change Kurt Nimmo Infowars November 18, 2008 It’s a classic example of political persecution: a billionaire entrepreneur and owner of the Dallas Mavericks who financed an antiwar film and a landmark 9/11 documentary is the target of an SEC civil suit alleging insider trading. [Video: Bill O’Reilly tells neocon talk show hots Mike Gallagher that Cuban has no right to produce Loose Change.] So obvious and egregious is the persecution of Cuban, the New York Times wrote on November 17: “Did Mark Cuban, the Internet entrepreneur turned owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, and would-be buyer of the Chicago Cubs, violate insider trading laws in a particularly egregious fashion? Or is he the victim of a political hit job because he helped finance a movie that was scathingly critical of President Bush?” As the New York Times points out, Cuban may have been targeted not so much for his financing of Brian De Palma’s antiwar movie, Redacted, but rather for his involvement with another controversial film: Loose Change. ... Read more here: http://www.infowars.com/?p=6053 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generic George Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 SEC Persecutes Mark Cuban for Relationship with Loose ChangeKurt Nimmo Infowars November 18, 2008 It’s a classic example of political persecution: a billionaire entrepreneur and owner of the Dallas Mavericks who financed an antiwar film and a landmark 9/11 documentary is the target of an SEC civil suit alleging insider trading. [Video: Bill O’Reilly tells neocon talk show hots Mike Gallagher that Cuban has no right to produce Loose Change.] So obvious and egregious is the persecution of Cuban, the New York Times wrote on November 17: “Did Mark Cuban, the Internet entrepreneur turned owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, and would-be buyer of the Chicago Cubs, violate insider trading laws in a particularly egregious fashion? Or is he the victim of a political hit job because he helped finance a movie that was scathingly critical of President Bush?” As the New York Times points out, Cuban may have been targeted not so much for his financing of Brian De Palma’s antiwar movie, Redacted, but rather for his involvement with another controversial film: Loose Change. ... Read more here: http://www.infowars.com/?p=6053 Yes, clearly that's the only possible explanation. After all Martha Stewart's involvement in the 9/11 movement was why they went after her for insider trading. Everything does not revolve around your conspiracies. If they are ruthless enough to kill all the people on 9/11 and they wanted to shut him up or punish him, why is he still alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 Didn't we have this exact same thing a month before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InorganicMatter Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 No, the SEC is going after Mark Cuban because Mark Cuban broke the law. Although anything to crush Loose Change's nonsense is also a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groot Koos Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 I would like to comment, BUT, It got SticMAC banned so rather NOT!! Koos Didn't we have this exact same thing a month before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGJulius Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 How did you get SticMAC banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groot Koos Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 You didn't read properly....... "It got SticMAC banned...." Koos How did you get SticMAC banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted December 7, 2008 Share Posted December 7, 2008 I would like to comment,BUT, It got SticMAC banned so rather NOT!! Koos AFAIK, people get very rarely banned here. So he must have said something very wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts