RE: Should Michael Moore Face ...

RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Should Michael Moore Face ...

A criminal investigation. He committed a felony.

4% (1)

Exile. He was fomenting insurection/sedition.

4% (1)

A firing squad. He's a traitor.

9% (2)

Nothing. What he did was "protected free speech".

33% (7)

A boycott of all his financial enterprises.

14% (3)

A medal ceremony for being such a patriot.

33% (7)

Total Votes : 21

(last vote on : 12/23/2016 6:16:37 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

WhoreMods -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/21/2016 5:49:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire Who the hells Michael Moore? No sarcasm this time I aint got a clue, and whats the naughty rascal been up to.... He's sort of a left-leaning Rush Limpdick but without the self-righteously whiney sense of entitlement and painkiller addiction. The lardy tool who did that Farenheit 9/11 film? (I think that's the one that got the most attention over here, though he also had that TV Nation programme that launched Louis Theroux's career: I doubt posterity will thank him for his having had a hand in that.)

Greta75 -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/21/2016 6:25:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire Who the hells Michael Moore? No sarcasm this time I aint got a clue, and whats the naughty rascal been up to.... Watch his Program, this was what made him popular. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kgjSANNVw I was quite a fan of The Awful Truth as a teen.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/21/2016 6:43:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 I suspect one of the electors might be hinting at the "unconstitutionality" of laws mandating the electors vote in a particular way. But, that's just it, the Constitution says the States get to decide. They might not like the rules in their State, but there isn't anything unConstitutional about it. And, voting for State rep's is the way to get that stuff changed.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/21/2016 6:45:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire Who the hells Michael Moore? No sarcasm this time I aint got a clue, and whats the naughty rascal been up to.... He's sort of a left-leaning Rush Limpdick but without the self-righteously whiney sense of entitlement and painkiller addiction. The lardy tool who did that Farenheit 9/11 film? (I think that's the one that got the most attention over here, though he also had that TV Nation programme that launched Louis Theroux's career: I doubt posterity will thank him for his having had a hand in that.) Left leaning?!?!?!? That's like saying the Atlantic Ocean is a bit wet.

Musicmystery -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/21/2016 7:30:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 I suspect one of the electors might be hinting at the "unconstitutionality" of laws mandating the electors vote in a particular way. But, that's just it, the Constitution says the States get to decide. They might not like the rules in their State, but there isn't anything unConstitutional about it. And, voting for State rep's is the way to get that stuff changed. But the states still have to work within the framework of US law and the Constitution. Or schools would still be segregated.

itsSIRtou -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/21/2016 2:59:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Michael Moore tweeted: quote: Republican electors - my offer remains: If u vote your conscience & u are fined 4 doing this, I will pay your fine. U should not be punished Traitor? Potential felon? Patriot? Michael He is an idiot who deserves no attention. well IMO that idiot published in 1 movie more facts than u have the entire time u've been on this site.... so by ur logic we should pay u even less attention. He has been proven to twist the facts in all of his movies. He is nothing more than a socialist propagandist. and other than content, where is that different than u? ....not a tidily bit.

bounty44 -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/21/2016 3:11:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 I suspect one of the electors might be hinting at the "unconstitutionality" of laws mandating the electors vote in a particular way. But, that's just it, the Constitution says the States get to decide. They might not like the rules in their State, but there isn't anything unConstitutional about it. And, voting for State rep's is the way to get that stuff changed. I meant to say "comrades" not "electors" yes, that's why I put the word {unconstitutionality} in quotes... however that said, I posted this elsewhere, there are 29 states presently where they are required by law to cast their vote according to the election results but in some of those states, the constitutionality of that requirement is indeed being challenged.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/21/2016 3:15:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire Who the hells Michael Moore? No sarcasm this time I aint got a clue, and whats the naughty rascal been up to.... He's sort of a left-leaning Rush Limpdick but without the self-righteously whiney sense of entitlement and painkiller addiction. The lardy tool who did that Farenheit 9/11 film? (I think that's the one that got the most attention over here, though he also had that TV Nation programme that launched Louis Theroux's career: I doubt posterity will thank him for his having had a hand in that.) Left leaning?!?!?!? That's like saying the Atlantic Ocean is a bit wet. LOL

SecondBestBoy -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/21/2016 4:46:31 PM)
Gotta love the humor of people supporting the puppet of a hostile foreign dictator talking about "treason" trials. That's just adorable.

Nnanji -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/21/2016 6:26:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SecondBestBoy Gotta love the humor of people supporting the puppet of a hostile foreign dictator talking about "treason" trials. That's just adorable. Sock? What do you think guys? Someone acting really stupid so nobody will know who's sock it is? Maybe it's one of mental patients voices that has finely wrestled control of the body.

BamaD -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/21/2016 6:34:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SecondBestBoy Gotta love the humor of people supporting the puppet of a hostile foreign dictator talking about "treason" trials. That's just adorable. Almost as funny as people assuming that someone is a puppet of a foreign dictator with no evidence.

Musicmystery -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/21/2016 6:37:28 PM)
Assumption and evidence for aren't interchangeable. Goes beyond assumption here.

Musicmystery -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/21/2016 9:11:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire Who the hells Michael Moore? No sarcasm this time I aint got a clue, and whats the naughty rascal been up to.... He's sort of a left-leaning Rush Limpdick but without the self-righteously whiney sense of entitlement and painkiller addiction. The lardy tool who did that Farenheit 9/11 film? (I think that's the one that got the most attention over here, though he also had that TV Nation programme that launched Louis Theroux's career: I doubt posterity will thank him for his having had a hand in that.) Rush Limbaugh makes stupid one liners. Michael Moore makes (yes, left-leaning) documentaries. Huge difference in talent, if not political fervor.

WhoreMods -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/22/2016 8:50:19 AM)
Very true, but I always get the impression that for many of the rightards in here, he's a media leftist and so regardless of the actual quality (or otherwise) of his work, and so is analogous to their own braying talking heads. It's a specious comparison, but I suppose when the best your own side has as a spokesman is Ann Coulter minimising the fact that there's a leftist talking head who's won film awards is a survival mechanism.

Musicmystery -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/22/2016 10:48:12 AM)
Well there's no question he's "leftist."

WhoreMods -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/22/2016 12:30:37 PM)
I don't think I questioned that?

igor2003 -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/22/2016 12:43:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 If it is wrong for Moore to offer to pay fines for people because that is attempting to influence their decision, then threatening to fine the person if he doesn't vote your way is just as wrong because it is still trying to influence their decision. Goose - gander, pot - kettle etc. It's not the same, igor. The laws (of most states) state that Electors have to vote according to the popular vote in that state. That's the rule. If you break the rule, there are (or may be, as it seems faithless electors haven't always been punished for breaking the rule) consequences. In most states, Electors are, pretty much, just rubberstampers. What Michael Moore did was quite different. All that being said, Moore didn't try to bribe people to vote for his candidate. What he did was offer to accept their consequences if they felt compelled to violate the rules. This wouldn't result in financial benefits to the Elector if he changes his vote. The elector would be no better off than if he didn't follow the rules. I don't think Moore didn't anything illegal. Regardless of state laws, if a person is threatened with being fined for not voting the way other people (or the state) wants him to it is still a means of making that person vote a certain way, and as such is just as wrong (or right) as Moore offering to pay said fines. If people were supposed to not be allowed to vote some other way, then what, exactly, is the purpose of using electors to do the voting? It seems it would be much easier to simply convert the votes of the citizens into electoral votes without going through the middle man (the electors). If there are enough citizen votes to elect an elector, and if that elector is not allowed to vote some other way, then what the hell is the point? Just turn the citizen votes into electoral votes.

Edwird -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/22/2016 1:19:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: SecondBestBoy Gotta love the humor of people supporting the puppet of a hostile foreign dictator talking about "treason" trials. That's just adorable. Sock? What do you think guys? Someone acting really stupid so nobody will know who's sock it is? Maybe it's one of mental patients voices that has finely wrestled control of the body. Whether finely or coarsely, or regardless how good or not he/she is at wrestling, somebody finally pointed out that some half of the political US have wrested control of what is to be considered as fact or not. Oh, and in English we use the apostrophe before the s for the singular possessive/genitive case, after the s in the plural, as in "one of mental patient's voices," for one example, or "yet another of Nnanji's rendered hallucinations," for another.

Edwird -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/22/2016 1:52:22 PM)
Sorry, I didn't mean to go all grammar fascist on everybody, there. But that "finely wrestled" thing just cracked me up.

Musicmystery -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/22/2016 2:36:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 If it is wrong for Moore to offer to pay fines for people because that is attempting to influence their decision, then threatening to fine the person if he doesn't vote your way is just as wrong because it is still trying to influence their decision. Goose - gander, pot - kettle etc. It's not the same, igor. The laws (of most states) state that Electors have to vote according to the popular vote in that state. That's the rule. If you break the rule, there are (or may be, as it seems faithless electors haven't always been punished for breaking the rule) consequences. In most states, Electors are, pretty much, just rubberstampers. What Michael Moore did was quite different. All that being said, Moore didn't try to bribe people to vote for his candidate. What he did was offer to accept their consequences if they felt compelled to violate the rules. This wouldn't result in financial benefits to the Elector if he changes his vote. The elector would be no better off than if he didn't follow the rules. I don't think Moore didn't anything illegal. Regardless of state laws, if a person is threatened with being fined for not voting the way other people (or the state) wants him to it is still a means of making that person vote a certain way, and as such is just as wrong (or right) as Moore offering to pay said fines. If people were supposed to not be allowed to vote some other way, then what, exactly, is the purpose of using electors to do the voting? It seems it would be much easier to simply convert the votes of the citizens into electoral votes without going through the middle man (the electors). If there are enough citizen votes to elect an elector, and if that elector is not allowed to vote some other way, then what the hell is the point? Just turn the citizen votes into electoral votes. This.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.1728516