• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael Moore Threatens The Rich: Let's "Deal With It Nonviolently Now"

from Turtle

so Haymarket it is your learned position that you know more about American gun culture and the beliefs of those who are immersed in it than someone who has been a

1) collegiate All American

2) a national Junior champion

3) a two time America Cup winner

4) a NRA life member for 37 years

5) a NSSA all America 3X

6) a professional level skeet and archery judge

7) the general counsel for the largest 100% NRA gun club in the USA

8) a CCW instructor

9) someone who has 400+ hours of formal firearms self defense training

10) counsel for three retail firearms operations as well as a Title II manufacturer (machine guns)

11) a state lobbyist for a state Firearms organization

12) counsel for a major league county law enforcement organization

13) sponsored USPSA pistol shooter
Click to expand...


I would love to give you an honest answer but I have been strictly cautioned by the moderators here NOT to discuss you personally..... even if you open up that door. So I will decline your generous offer to criticize or discuss your own personal credentials.

It is enough to point out that your own standard of identifying someone by an NRA sticker on their vehicle as evidence that they hate Democrats is bogus and does not provide a true test. The State Representative I work for is an NRA member and has such identification as such. You would have judged him wrongly.
 
haymarket said:
from Turtle




I would love to give you an honest answer but I have been strictly cautioned by the moderators here NOT to discuss you personally..... even if you open up that door. So I will decline your generous offer to criticize or discuss your own personal credentials.

It is enough to point out that your own standard of identifying someone by an NRA sticker on their vehicle as evidence that they hate Democrats is bogus and does not provide a true test. The State Representative I work for is an NRA member and has such identification as such. You would have judged him wrongly.
Click to expand...

I will take that as a no then. Yes, there are many unionistas who support the NRA but vote dem. Some dems-like Dingell are very pro gun. HOwever, there has never been a pro gun Dem presidential ticket since Humphrey-in 1968 HHH was the better choice for gun owners over Nixon. Carter was anti gun, mondale was anti gun, Dukakis was extreme anti gun, Clinton and Gore were extreme anti gun, Gore was anti gun, Kerry was extreme anti gun, and Obama and biden were the most anti gun ticket in the history of the USA
 
TurtleDude said:
I will take that as a no then. Yes, there are many unionistas who support the NRA but vote dem. Some dems-like Dingell are very pro gun. HOwever, there has never been a pro gun Dem presidential ticket since Humphrey-in 1968 HHH was the better choice for gun owners over Nixon. Carter was anti gun, mondale was anti gun, Dukakis was extreme anti gun, Clinton and Gore were extreme anti gun, Gore was anti gun, Kerry was extreme anti gun, and Obama and biden were the most anti gun ticket in the history of the USA
Click to expand...

Irrelevant and immaterial to your boast that you can look at their car and identify their politics. You have been proved wrong.
 
haymarket said:
Irrelevant and immaterial to your boast that you can look at their car and identify their politics. You have been proved wrong.
Click to expand...

wrong, I noted I also talk to them as well and most of them had GOP NRA stickers. For example, I have a sticker on my car that says DEFEND FREEDOM VOTE PORTMAN-issued by the NRA. that is the sticker I am talking about

if someone has an NRA sticker with an IBEW or AFSCME sticker then I wouldn't think they are GOPers

If the NRA generally was neutral in elections then your masters like Schumer wouldn't push legislation designed to harass NRA members
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong, I noted I also talk to them as well and most of them had GOP NRA stickers. For example, I have a sticker on my car that says DEFEND FREEDOM VOTE PORTMAN-issued by the NRA. that is the sticker I am talking about

if someone has an NRA sticker with an IBEW or AFSCME sticker then I wouldn't think they are GOPers

If the NRA generally was neutral in elections then your masters like Schumer wouldn't push legislation designed to harass NRA members
Click to expand...

that is quite a bit different than your answer in post #67



when people have Impeach Obama or NRA stickers on their car I don't need a PhD to figure out they probably think Democrats generally suck
Click to expand...

In that post it was OR... now its a combination.

Glad to see you would not rely on a mere NRA sticker. Of course, that does not help you identify the vast majority of people who have no such bumper stickers or any other such ID on the exterior of their cars.
 
haymarket said:
that is quite a bit different than your answer in post #67





In that post it was OR... now its a combination.

Glad to see you would not rely on a mere NRA sticker. Of course, that does not help you identify the vast majority of people who have no such bumper stickers or any other such ID on the exterior of their cars.
Click to expand...

so again it is your belief that the gun culture mostly supports the party of gun bans and gun control?
 
TurtleDude said:
so again it is your belief that the gun culture mostly supports the party of gun bans and gun control?
Click to expand...

Could you rephrase that please so it is more direct and without any implications or ambiguities?

And what does this new question have to do with you changing your position on doing political detective work on cars?
 
haymarket said:
Could you rephrase that please so it is more direct and without any implications or ambiguities?

And what does this new question have to do with you changing your position on doing political detective work on cars?
Click to expand...

so it is your position that the majority of those who are part of the gun culture support the party of gun bans and gun control (the dems)?
 
TurtleDude said:
so it is your position that the majority of those who are part of the gun culture support the party of gun bans and gun control (the dems)?
Click to expand...

characterizing the Democratic party as the party of gun bans...... you have evidence like official party platform positions or statements to show that the party has taken this position?
 
I fail to see where a threat is issued. Referring to past rebellions and how they could relate to today's circumstances is hardly a threat to anyone. I think it was mostly a call for the greedy to be... well... less greedy.
 
haymarket said:
characterizing the Democratic party as the party of gun bans...... you have evidence like official party platform positions or statements to show that the party has taken this position?
Click to expand...

The NFA of 34-passed by the dems and signed into law by FDR-made fully automatic weapons essentially beyond the reach of working class people due to a 200 dollar fee that was a months 'wages' back then

1968 Gun control act-passed by dems signed into law by Johnson

1986 Hughes Amendment-attached as a poison pill to the McClure-Volker firearms protection act-its attachment was in violation of several parliamentary rules but George Mitchell pushed it through and Reagan singed the mostly pro gun bill thinking the Hughes Amendment was going to be stricken, This provision was a complete ban on automatic weapons made after May 19, 1986 and drove up the cost of pre ban weapons by thousands of dollars

The brady bill-passed by dems-signed into law by Clinton

The clinton gun ban-see above

yeah the dems are by far more the anti gun party. every major federal gun control law was dem sponsored, all but one signed into law by dem presidents. every dem on the supreme court has voted anti gun when they had the chance
 
TurtleDude said:
The NFA of 34-passed by the dems and signed into law by FDR-made fully automatic weapons essentially beyond the reach of working class people due to a 200 dollar fee that was a months 'wages' back then

1968 Gun control act-passed by dems signed into law by Johnson

1986 Hughes Amendment-attached as a poison pill to the McClure-Volker firearms protection act-its attachment was in violation of several parliamentary rules but George Mitchell pushed it through and Reagan singed the mostly pro gun bill thinking the Hughes Amendment was going to be stricken, This provision was a complete ban on automatic weapons made after May 19, 1986 and drove up the cost of pre ban weapons by thousands of dollars

The brady bill-passed by dems-signed into law by Clinton

The clinton gun ban-see above

yeah the dems are by far more the anti gun party. every major federal gun control law was dem sponsored, all but one signed into law by dem presidents. every dem on the supreme court has voted anti gun when they had the chance
Click to expand...

How does any of this prove that the Democratic Party is the party of banning guns? The term GUNS takes in every type of gun on the market. Even if one gun is made unavailable under law, that does not ban guns. The removal of one soft drink from the market does not equate to a ban on soft drinks.
 
haymarket said:
How does any of this prove that the Democratic Party is the party of banning guns? The term GUNS takes in every type of gun on the market. Even if one gun is made unavailable under law, that does not ban guns. The removal of one soft drink from the market does not equate to a ban on soft drinks.
Click to expand...

because the two gun bans passed in US history are dem bills

and gun bans in states are almost always dem legislation-like the turd Florio's bans in new jersey or the california bans authored by a dem attorney general. Chicago and DC had gun bans-dem dominated cities. gun bans are prevalent in Hawaii, Kalifornia, Connecticut, Mass, Illinois, NJ and NY. mainly dem states
 
TurtleDude said:
because the two gun bans passed in US history are dem bills

and gun bans in states are almost always dem legislation-like the turd Florio's bans in new jersey or the california bans authored by a dem attorney general. Chicago and DC had gun bans-dem dominated cities. gun bans are prevalent in Hawaii, Kalifornia, Connecticut, Mass, Illinois, NJ and NY. mainly dem states
Click to expand...

Guns have not been banned. They are available and legal.
 
haymarket said:
Guns have not been banned. They are available and legal.
Click to expand...

some guns are-some guns have been banned. Chicago and DC banned handguns

many styles of guns have on their boxes-NOT FOR SALE IN CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT etc
 
Where theres gun bans theres still lots of guns...NJ Cal and DC have no shortage of guns and crimes committed with guns.
 
Born Free said:
Upsideguy,

I looked at your chart, figure 1, and it's interesting how the wealth shifted from around 1980. I look back and wonder what happened and IMO it was the evolution of the tech age, take Microsoft for an example, it has created more wealth (millionaires) for more individuals than any company in the world. Now add on Apple, Oracle, E-Bay, Amazon, Dell, Sun Micro, and the like. Then add the Internet, GPS, Cell phones, and the like. And you end up with trillions in the hands of tech engineers and entrepreneurs leading the way changing how the world works. The tech industry has had an explosion in the last 40 yrs and it has changed our lives. Take this forum as an example. This wealth is not blue collar wealth, the Tech industry is not a steel mill or an auto assembly line. It is high tech stuff that is driven by some very smart engineers and forward thinking people. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Well, people made all the hardware that the engineers designed, just like during the manufacturing high water mark of American dominance. I would argue that the shift to cheaper overseas manufacturing allowed them to keep more profits, thus enriching themselves to the detriment of the American middle class. Bottom line is, this wealth needs to be more evenly distributed, as those in the upperclasses are simply holding on to too much wealth. Global markets prove it. You can't have a fabulously rich upper class and everyone else eating poop. The global economy won't take it.
 
Wait Michael Moore asked people to share their views and protest in a non violent way! Oh the humanity!
 
j-mac said:
If he want's everyone to pay their "fair share" then start with those that currently pay no federal income tax. According to AP fact check, this mindless claim is laughable.

Fact check: The wealthy already pay more taxes


j-mac
Click to expand...

Paying more doesn't mean it isn't fair. Frankly, those who benefit more should pay more. And wealthy do benefit more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom