Clinton lost Michigan voters because of rigged primary; Michael Moore

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...
It's premature to discuss such draconian steps as life in prison for the first offense of using a gun to commit a crime.

How about if we study the problem first?
 
Last edited:
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's from Moore's handbook. Unless some alt-right asshole hacked him?

You already know I'm not alt-right and agree for different reasons, which are similar to yours because I'm not a pimky commie who reads selected verses from Stalin's book of prayers before I go to bed each night, yet nothing like how an alt-right thinks. So why do you keep calling me alt-right? (Rhetorical)

I'm not whining about Moore, you are. I only originally said even though I don't like him on the beach issue we're in agreement. You're the one who asked why and I answered. This isn't the first time you've done that and afterward said why are you telling.

Just like emoji show emotion if the question is totally rhetorical you should ask, "why are you so odd?"(rhetorical)

https://www.facebook.com/mmflint/posts/10154778028796857
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
~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
Click to expand...
All the facts point to the reason Bernie lost was because he failed to convince black and Hispanic voters that he'd be a good leader for the addressing issues that affect them.

The only group that voted in a majority for Bernie were white males. Blacks, Hispanics and women all gave Clinton the majority of the vote. Explain this asymmetry in votes for Bernie using your "it was rigged" theory.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
That's from Moore's handbook. Unless some alt-right asshole hacked him?

You already know I'm not alt-right and agree for different reasons, which are similar to yours because I'm not a pimky commie who reads selected verses from Stalin's book of prayers before I go to bed each night, yet nothing like how an alt-right thinks. So why do you keep calling me alt-right? (Rhetorical)

I'm not whining about Moore, you are. I only originally said even though I don't like him on the beach issue we're in agreement. You're the one who asked why and I answered. This isn't the first time you've done that and afterward said why are you telling.

Just like emoji show emotion if the question is totally rhetorical you should ask, "why are you so odd?"(rhetorical)

https://www.facebook.com/mmflint/posts/10154778028796857
Click to expand...
Did you even read the link you provided. That message explicitly says guns can be owned by individuals.


"allows individuals to use guns for sport and gathering food, and guarantees everyone the right to be free of, and protected from, gun violence (i.e., the public’s safety comes ahead of an individual’s right to own and fire a gun)."

Whiner.
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
It's premature to discuss such draconian steps as life in prison for the first offense of using a gun to commit a crime.

How about if we study the problem first?
Click to expand...
How about you stop calling me alt-right, my fine people who drive into victims at a rally I've never attended in my life, and that I'm using white privledge I don't have? Then we can discuss stuff without getting into a pissing match.
 
PrometheanLeaf

PrometheanLeaf

Well-Known Member
Got to fix society and the humans in it...guns do what they are designed to do, and inanimate objects don't kill people.

When we discuss guns as an issue, I'm not sure either side really is honest about the root cause. People suck, and fixing that is what is complicated.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
How about you stop calling me alt-right, my fine people who drive into victims at a rally I've never attended in my life, and that I'm using white privledge I don't have? Then we can discuss stuff without getting into a pissing match.
Click to expand...
You deflect and whine again. I call you alt.right because you quote from their own stated agenda. You are the one who talks about how black people are poor because they are shiftless and lazy, for example. You should stop whining about my accurate characterization of your beliefs. Stop denying it alt.right white boy, nobody believes you are Buddhist or Asian.

Regarding your "lock them up for life if they use a gun in a crime", suggestion. What's wrong with studying the problem so that we can implement an informed solution. You'd rather just go off on a draconian "toss them in jail and throw away the key" solution without caring if it's the best one. I don't think that would be best for our society but I could get behind the idea if it we understood why it was necessary and that good information indicates it was the best solution.

Canada has very low rates of gun homicides without those sentencing guidelines. Why don't we look at their system and learn from it?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
PrometheanLeaf said:
Got to fix society and the humans in it...guns do what they are designed to do, and inanimate objects don't kill people.

When we discuss guns as an issue, I'm not sure either side really is honest about the root cause. People suck, and fixing that is what is complicated.
Click to expand...
Countries with societies and economies like ours have gun control laws and they have very low rates of gun homicides compared to ours. People in those societies aren't suffering because they can't own an armory of assault rifles. This isn't something that requires a total make-over of people and society.
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Did you even read the link you provided. That message explicitly says guns can be owned by individuals.


"allows individuals to use guns for sport and gathering food, and guarantees everyone the right to be free of, and protected from, gun violence (i.e., the public’s safety comes ahead of an individual’s right to own and fire a gun)."

Whiner.
Click to expand...
Only if you choose the incel life after getting into a relationship with some psycho who later "developed" a new gun hatred.

Learn to read.

This is called the exclusive or. "Would you like soup or salad." You can have either one, but not both, when a waiter asks.

He's also a sexist asshole by only including men. Women do domestic violence too.

"Although the behaviors of women who use force and men who batter are essentially the same, the reason behind those behaviors is fundamentally different, and thus, must be addressed differently.

While violence, for any reason, is unacceptable and inexcusable, the approach used to address violent behaviors in a men’s group would be useless if used to address a woman who uses force."


https://www.chooseabr.com/2016/05/16/women-taking-domestic-violence-classes/

"men, 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). " Michael Moore, hypocritical male bashing sexist scumbag who thinks acting beta will get him more pussy but it's because his cheese burger eating fat white privledged one half of one percent $50 million net worth is the reason and if he were as poor as the toothless rednecks he makes fun of, the women he does get now would laugh at him hysterically!
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
PrometheanLeaf said:
I guess I just care about the violent crime numbers more than the gun crime numbers. Don't mind me.
Click to expand...
Then you're stupid.

The majority of victims survive violent assaults.

The vast majority of gun violence victims die.

The only difference between life and death in the majority of violent crimes is the gun.

The gun comes into play, many people die.

The gun never comes into play, the vast majority live.

So if you don't care about guns, you don't care about life.

It's that simple.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
Only if you choose the incel life after getting into a relationship with some psycho who later "developed" a new gun hatred.

Learn to read.

This is called the exclusive or. "Would you like soup or salad." You can have either one, but not both, when a waiter asks.

He's also a sexist asshole by only including men. Women do domestic violence too.

"Although the behaviors of women who use force and men who batter are essentially the same, the reason behind those behaviors is fundamentally different, and thus, must be addressed differently.

While violence, for any reason, is unacceptable and inexcusable, the approach used to address violent behaviors in a men’s group would be useless if used to address a woman who uses force."


https://www.chooseabr.com/2016/05/16/women-taking-domestic-violence-classes/

"men, 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). " Michael Moore, hypocritical male bashing sexist scumbag who thinks acting beta will get him more pussy but it's because his cheese burger eating fat white privledged one half of one percent $50 million net worth is the reason and if he were as poor as the toothless rednecks he makes fun of, the women he does get now would laugh at him hysterically!
Click to expand...
I read your post where you said Moore was on record of wanting all guns banned from the public and the link you provided said nothing of the sort. So, you are either stupid or lying. I choose liar.

Regarding violence against women, guns are part of the problem of domestic violence and there is no reason why a woman should justifiably fear for her life because she is breaking up with a violent menacing gun toting asshole. If a man commits violence on a woman his right to own a gun should be forfeit. To be pc about it, I'd reword my statement as: If a person commits violence upon a partner their right to own a gun should be forfeit", but we all know it's the violent men that are doing the real harm and menacing here.

Are you a member of the men's rights movement? Sounds like it.
 
PrometheanLeaf

PrometheanLeaf

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
Then you're stupid.

The majority of victims survive violent assaults.

The vast majority of gun violence victims die.

The only difference between life and death in the majority of violent crimes is the gun.

The gun comes into play, many people die.

The gun never comes into play, the vast majority live.

So if you don't care about guns, you don't care about life.

It's that simple.
Click to expand...
So my caring about rape, as an example, is stupid? Or just that part about wanting the world to have less violence in general?

I'm not sure why you are projecting your hate on me. But yeah, have a good day. :clap: Imma go smoke. You probably should too.
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
Rape is a horrible crime. Just awful.

Of course they have my heart felt sympathy.

But you know who else I care about? The innocent kids that get shot to death in droves for simply going to school.

But you don't give a damn about them. They're just innocent kids that got blown to fucking ribbons.
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I read your post where you said Moore was on record of wanting all guns banned from the public and the link you provided said nothing of the sort. So, you are either stupid or lying. I choose liar.

Regarding violence against women, guns are part of the problem of domestic violence and there is no reason why a woman should justifiably fear for her life because she is breaking up with a violent menacing gun toting asshole. If a man commits violence on a woman his right to own a gun should be forfeit. To be pc about it, I'd reword my statement as: If a person commits violence upon a partner their right to own a gun should be forfeit", but we all know it's the violent men that are doing the real harm and menacing here.

Are you a member of the men's rights movement? Sounds like it.
Click to expand...
No I said:

". 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." Because all a woman has to say, "he made me nervous and he is a psycho, so he'll hurt other women, maybe with a gun next time." Without any proof because men are too dangerous and only a previous women with him can see through his lies!

If I didn't make myself clear enough, I'm sorry, it's a stoner forum and it's hard AF to index finger thumb tap on a virtual keyboard only 3 lines visiable at a time. Again I humbly apologise for that. So here it goes, hopefully clearer, when I already said that's not what I meant. Sigh.....

A women who's totally smoking hot sees a man who's a gun nut and famous/celebrity/sports star/politician/etc target. She says she'll rock his world after she gets a rock on her finger. Typically 99.99% of gun nuts are also lead by their dick. So that guy is pretty much SOL from ever owning a gun if Moore had his way. Being a slave to your dick shouldn't become a gun disqualification.

But if some raging beta boy decides he'll act all macho for Ann Coulter, she's lucky Moore is such a cool guy to even conserva-bitches.

I'm an egalitarian. That means I'm for women's rights movement, men's right movements, gay rights movements, it movements, and non/asexual movents. But none should have an unfair advantage if part of any group. That includes race, religion, and political movements like vegans, meat eaters, pro-life, or pro-choice. Everyone deserves to have their voice heard, even if they don't conform to PC Principal's thought police code of ethics.

There's that one saying, "I may not agree with what you believe, but I'll defend your right to have those moronic views just as much as I defend my moronic views." I believe that 100%.
 
PrometheanLeaf

PrometheanLeaf

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
Rape is a horrible crime. Just awful.

Of course they have my heart felt sympathy.

But you know who else I care about? The innocent kids that get shot to death in droves for simply going to school.

But you don't give a damn about them. They're just innocent kids that got blown to fucking ribbons.
Click to expand...
I believe the only thing I really meant to state was, the root issue of the problem was humans, and how they interact with each other. And I wad trying to elude that that was an even more complicated matter to fix, but if in reality was fixed so would the gun issue.

But I will try to expand on my view so we dont have a misunderstanding about where I am coming from at the very least; and we can both move on from this with a less aggressive note.

I believe the following.

- Weapons are not inherently bad in any form. They are amazing technology that we as humans should be proud of.

- People having general access to any and all forms of weapons is always going to end badly.

-The outlieing scope of power a weapon gives an individual, has will preportionately increase the outlieing scope of choices an individual has.

-Society has a duty to limit the amount of damage an individual can do. Most firearms fall into this category.

- 1. Narrowing the individuals who can own a weapon, and the amount of power a lawful weapon has, is utterly necessary. What ranges of risk management is needed, and fair is the issue. The argument over this is also what stalls any resolution that is anything but laughable.


-2. None of this would matter if we could fix the things about people's lives that drive them to violence. I'm depressed about this one today, so I probably sound angsty. I still think I'm correct on this point; but sad we can't accomplish a real balance.



Edit: Also, ONE question. Do you really believe, from what I've said in my previous posts, that I don't care about children's deaths? Seems like the wrong approach mate.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
No I said:

". 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." Because all a woman has to say, "he made me nervous and he is a psycho, so he'll hurt other women, maybe with a gun next time." Without any proof because men are too dangerous and only a previous women with him can see through his lies!

If I didn't make myself clear enough, I'm sorry, it's a stoner forum and it's hard AF to index finger thumb tap on a virtual keyboard only 3 lines visiable at a time. Again I humbly apologise for that. So here it goes, hopefully clearer, when I already said that's not what I meant. Sigh.....

A women who's totally smoking hot sees a man who's a gun nut and famous/celebrity/sports star/politician/etc target. She says she'll rock his world after she gets a rock on her finger. Typically 99.99% of gun nuts are also lead by their dick. So that guy is pretty much SOL from ever owning a gun if Moore had his way. Being a slave to your dick shouldn't become a gun disqualification.

But if some raging beta boy decides he'll act all macho for Ann Coulter, she's lucky Moore is such a cool guy to even conserva-bitches.

I'm an egalitarian. That means I'm for women's rights movement, men's right movements, gay rights movements, it movements, and non/asexual movents. But none should have an unfair advantage if part of any group. That includes race, religion, and political movements like vegans, meat eaters, pro-life, or pro-choice. Everyone deserves to have their voice heard, even if they don't conform to PC Principal's thought police code of ethics.

There's that one saying, "I may not agree with what you believe, but I'll defend your right to have those moronic views just as much as I defend my moronic views." I believe that 100%.
Click to expand...
Interesting how you stay away from facts and voice a made up paranoid scenario. No, there isn't a large number of women out there just thirsting to get close enough to a man so she can deny him his right to own a gun. That's just crazy bonkers stuff. Men's rights movement is founded on that crazy fear.

The facts are the rates of gun violence against women by the guy are horrendous. Your made up scenario has this pure male being preyed upon the the evil woman.

I'm egalitarian too. Just not the same weird paranoid alt.right white man kind of paranoid.

Regarding your denial that you claimed Moore wants to ban all guns. Too funny (and stupid) that you left out some telling words:
To my claim that "nobody is seriously discussing banning guns, you replied: "Moore is actually that wacky." Pardon me for reading what you write.
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
You said flat out that you don't care about gun crime numbers.

You've been scrambling to change your story after I pointed out how fucking stupid that statement was ever since.

Next time, think before you post. You're obviously nowhere near as bright as you think you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top