Clinton lost Michigan voters because of rigged primary; Michael Moore

Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I watched it. He didn't say that anywhere in that vid.

Thanks for posting something that was not propaganda, by the way.
Click to expand...
~4:30

You guys still deny the primary was rigged at all, at your own detriment. The entire rest of the world acknowledges the primary was rigged. That's one of the reasons Clinton lost Michigan, as Moore says, and why she lost the election
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
I don't like Michael Moore but I do like this.

Because of his whining this beach is now open to non-residents too. So sometimes whining does pay off.

 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
What has Michael Moore done to earn your dislike?
Click to expand...
He's 100% opposite what I believe, fundamentally. His first question is something done is for the common good. My question is, if done, does that violate anyone. If no one is harmed, and that person can sustain it, then more power too them.

Where I differ with a capitalist libertarian is they think if they can buy it, even if they have no use for it, but some one else does need it. If your only reason is to be a dick because you can, that's wrong. But that's how fucked in the head Ayn Rand cultists like Paul Ryan are.

Life is a risk. I don't agree with Moore that because something has the potential for abuse, we ban it.

Like his stance in gun control.

I agree there's no need for fully automatic, but as fast as you can pull the trigger is ok. You shouldn't be labeled pre-crime. Only those who break laws for guns should get punished. Because of the awesome power for potential abuse guns can do, any actual crime involving a gun should have a mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole. The person should also be forced to do hard physical labor in jail for the rest of their life too.

That might seem harsh, but if you know that's what happens, you will figure out another way to do crimes if you're so inclined. To engrain it into their skull they also in full orange outfit go to elementary to high school lecture and show a video of their life for violating America's trust of using a gun for exploiting their felloe human beings.

Those are just a few things I don't like Moore over. Which doesn't mean I don't agree with many of the same outcomea he's also against. I just don't want to be condidered scum because of potential, and if treated with respect I'll gladly give respect back.

I give everyone respect until I find out you want to subjugate against me because you fear what I might do. Some things require more proof, like you can't automatically drive a car without taking a test showing your fitness. But at the same time banning a Dodge Demon because some asshole with a few screws loose drives it into people, doesn't mean you ban it for all.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
He's 100% opposite what I believe, fundamentally. His first question is something done is for the common good. My question is, if done, does that violate anyone. If no one is harmed, and that person can sustain it, then more power too them.

Where I differ with a capitalist libertarian is they think if they can buy it, even if they have no use for it, but some one else does need it. If your only reason is to be a dick because you can, that's wrong. But that's how fucked in the head Ayn Rand cultists like Paul Ryan are.

Life is a risk. I don't agree with Moore that because something has the potential for abuse, we ban it.

Like his stance in gun control.

I agree there's no need for fully automatic, but as fast as you can pull the trigger is ok. You shouldn't be labeled pre-crime. Only those who break laws for guns should get punished. Because of the awesome power for potential abuse guns can do, any actual crime involving a gun should have a mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole. The person should also be forced to do hard physical labor in jail for the rest of their life too.

That might seem harsh, but if you know that's what happens, you will figure out another way to do crimes if you're so inclined. To engrain it into their skull they also in full orange outfit go to elementary to high school lecture and show a video of their life for violating America's trust of using a gun for exploiting their felloe human beings.

Those are just a few things I don't like Moore over. Which doesn't mean I don't agree with many of the same outcomea he's also against. I just don't want to be condidered scum because of potential, and if treated with respect I'll gladly give respect back.

I give everyone respect until I find out you want to subjugate against me because you fear what I might do. Some things require more proof, like you can't automatically drive a car without taking a test showing your fitness. But at the same time banning a Dodge Demon because some asshole with a few screws loose drives it into people, doesn't mean you ban it for all.
Click to expand...
No one likes you
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
To be fair: it was clearly shown that rigging/bias was suggested. There is no evidence however that it was actually followed through with.

It's why most of the DNC leadership were all canned.
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
No one likes you
Click to expand...
No one much likes you and you went against a gentleman's agreement by getting those you made the agreement with banned. Yet here you are. In the real world unless you're someone with the money and influence like Trump, that doesn't happen in the non-pixel world.

But you prove you'd do exactly like Trump but for your own selfish reasons if given the opportunity. I wouldn't. Everyone, even you deserves the chance to change their ways.

I may lack proper tact, but it's not my intent to cause anyone actual harm. But with you, I'm not so sure. Your ideal world scares the hell out of me. Way more than even Fogdog who I know is well intentioned, but goes a bit overboard.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
No one much likes you and you went against a gentleman's agreement by getting those you made the agreement with banned. Yet here you are. In the real world unless you're someone with the money and influence like Trump, that doesn't happen in the non-pixel world.

But you prove you'd do exactly like Trump but for your own selfish reasons if given the opportunity. I wouldn't. Everyone, even you deserves the chance to change their ways.

I may lack proper tact, but it's not my intent to cause anyone actual harm. But with you, I'm not so sure. Your ideal world scares the hell out of me. Way more than even Fogdog who I know is well intentioned, but goes a bit overboard.
Click to expand...
Racist Sock puppet says what?
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
Racist Sock puppet says what?
Click to expand...
Your avatar says otherwise. You use the opposite race to "prove" some delusional personal political point. But it's ok if the intention behind your racism is well meaning. Like how racist southerners said they were doing their black slaves a favor, because they're like a wild animal who's been in captivity for too long and has lost the ability to fend for themselves. They really did use that excuse to rationalize their hatred and thought it would actually fool anyone.

Sadly there are people fooled by you.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
Your avatar says otherwise. You use the opposite race to "prove" some delusional personal political point. But it's ok if the intention behind your racism is well meaning. Like how racist southerners said they were doing their black slaves a favor, because they're like a wild animal who's been in captivity for too long and has lost the ability to fend for themselves. They really did use that excuse to rationalize their hatred and thought it would actually fool anyone.

Sadly there are people fooled by you.
Click to expand...
Dumbfuck nazi says what?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
He's 100% opposite what I believe, fundamentally. His first question is something done is for the common good. My question is, if done, does that violate anyone. If no one is harmed, and that person can sustain it, then more power too them.

Where I differ with a capitalist libertarian is they think if they can buy it, even if they have no use for it, but some one else does need it. If your only reason is to be a dick because you can, that's wrong. But that's how fucked in the head Ayn Rand cultists like Paul Ryan are.

Life is a risk. I don't agree with Moore that because something has the potential for abuse, we ban it.

Like his stance in gun control.

I agree there's no need for fully automatic, but as fast as you can pull the trigger is ok. You shouldn't be labeled pre-crime. Only those who break laws for guns should get punished. Because of the awesome power for potential abuse guns can do, any actual crime involving a gun should have a mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole. The person should also be forced to do hard physical labor in jail for the rest of their life too.

That might seem harsh, but if you know that's what happens, you will figure out another way to do crimes if you're so inclined. To engrain it into their skull they also in full orange outfit go to elementary to high school lecture and show a video of their life for violating America's trust of using a gun for exploiting their felloe human beings.

Those are just a few things I don't like Moore over. Which doesn't mean I don't agree with many of the same outcomea he's also against. I just don't want to be condidered scum because of potential, and if treated with respect I'll gladly give respect back.

I give everyone respect until I find out you want to subjugate against me because you fear what I might do. Some things require more proof, like you can't automatically drive a car without taking a test showing your fitness. But at the same time banning a Dodge Demon because some asshole with a few screws loose drives it into people, doesn't mean you ban it for all.
Click to expand...
Regarding gun control laws. Nobody is seriously talking about banning guns. Gun nuts are the only ones saying that in order to enrage the weaker minded wimps who hug their guns tightly because it makes them feel safer. Say whatever philosophy you ineptly believe, there is no good reason why the people of the US should experience 5 or 6 times higher homicide rates than anywhere else in the world. If gun owners don't want gun control laws imposed upon them, then they should take ownership for cutting gun murder rates themselves. The 60% majority of households who don't own guns are beginning to assert themselves. I think gun owners would be the best group to decide how to bring the murder rate down but your kind are just resisting the idea altogether. Eventually, the 60% will decide how to do it. When we do, too bad that your kind are unhappy. It's your own fault for not taking action proactively.

There is no proposal introduced in Congress that would take guns away from a peaceful person who stores his gun properly, uses his gun in a safe manner and fires it at a range or uses it for hunting. Also, I'm perfectly fine with gun owners using them to commit suicide. I'd like to see guns put to more of that use. The most reasonable proposals I've seen are:

extended time to conduct background checks, at least one month
funding background checks adequately,
require gun owners to register in a national registry all firearms both in private and public possession,
make the penalty for owning an unregistered gun such a high penalty that criminals won't carry them.
tracking sales of firearms.
eliminating loopholes from registering and tracking sales including private sales, banning some types of guns,
limiting clip sizes for semiautomatics,
limiting the number of shells that can be loaded into a shotgun,
restricting ownership from violent or mentally ill people, taking guns away from spouse abusers,
taking guns away from people convicted of violent crimes.
Probably others. Canada's laws are pretty good and I'd like to see the US model our gun control laws using them as a model.
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Regarding gun control laws. Nobody is seriously talking about banning guns. Gun nuts are the only ones saying that in order to enrage the weaker minded wimps who hug their guns tightly because it makes them feel safer. Say whatever philosophy you ineptly believe, there is no good reason why the people of the US should experience 5 or 6 times higher homicide rates than anywhere else in the world. If gun owners don't want gun control laws imposed upon them, then they should take ownership for cutting gun murder rates themselves. The 60% majority of households who don't own guns are beginning to assert themselves. I think gun owners would be the best group to decide how to bring the murder rate down but your kind are just resisting the idea altogether. Eventually, the 60% will decide how to do it. When we do, too bad that your kind are unhappy. It's your own fault for not taking action proactively.

There is no proposal introduced in Congress that would take guns away from a peaceful person who stores his gun properly, uses his gun in a safe manner and fires it at a range or uses it for hunting. Also, I'm perfectly fine with gun owners using them to commit suicide. I'd like to see guns put to more of that use. The most reasonable proposals I've seen are:

extended time to conduct background checks, at least one month
funding background checks adequately,
require gun owners to register in a national registry all firearms both in private and public possession,
make the penalty for owning an unregistered gun such a high penalty that criminals won't carry them.
tracking sales of firearms.
eliminating loopholes from registering and tracking sales including private sales, banning some types of guns,
limiting clip sizes for semiautomatics,
limiting the number of shells that can be loaded into a shotgun,
restricting ownership from violent or mentally ill people, taking guns away from spouse abusers,
taking guns away from people convicted of violent crimes.
Probably others. Canada's laws are pretty good and I'd like to see the US model our gun control laws using them as a model.
Click to expand...
Moore is actually that wacky. He wants to ban guns for all celebrities. If some crazy woman doesn't like guns from a celebrity she can lie about being pro-gun. Under Moore's batshit law he'd be SOL from ever owning a gun again.

I'm not saying you're that extreme but he just fuels the fire why they despise you. For both sides the most extreme ruin the cause.

, "in order for a man to purchase a gun, he must first get a waiver from his current wife, plus his most recent ex-wife, or any woman with whom he is currently in a relationship (if he’s gay, he must get the waiver from his male spouse/partner)," Moore wrote.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
Moore is actually that wacky. He wants to ban guns for all celebrities. If some crazy woman doesn't like guns from a celebrity she can lie about being pro-gun. Under Moore's batshit law he'd be SOL from ever owning a gun again.

I'm not saying you're that extreme but he just fuels the fire why they despise you. For both sides the most extreme ruin the cause.

, "in order for a man to purchase a gun, he must first get a waiver from his current wife, plus his most recent ex-wife, or any woman with whom he is currently in a relationship (if he’s gay, he must get the waiver from his male spouse/partner)," Moore wrote.
Click to expand...
Moore did not seriously propose banning all guns from private ownership. You are quoting from your alt.right handbook again.

The objective Moore and everybody else advocating gun controls is reducing gun homicides in the US to the levels in other well developed nations. Let's talk about how to do that instead of making up inflammatory false statements about banning all guns as a political tactic to enable the sale of yet more guns. That said, we understand that restricting gun ownership to keep them out of unqualified people's hands and banning the sales of certain firearms isn't the answer by itself. These actions are proposed without good understanding of how well they further us towards the objective of reducing gun homicides. Until now, Republicans and the gun nut lobby prevented the Center for Disease Control from doing research into factors behind gun violence in the US. Those restrictions have been lifted but no funding is apparent. How about if we adequately fund research into how to accomplish this goal so that our lawmakers have good reasons for the laws they enact to improve the situation?

The NRA and gun nut nation oppose even studying how to reduce gun deaths. You say I should care what they think?

Oh, and Moore suggested one alternative for removing guns from the hands of domestic partner abusers. It's not bad. Instead of whining about what Moore said, how about suggesting a better alternative that meets the objective of removing guns from the hands of domestic partner abusers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top