The View : Michael Moore on Lawrence O'Donnell (10-21)
Re: Michael Moore on Lawrence O'Donnell (10-21)
Reply |
Michael Moore-on, as in 'moron' if you missed it. Fat, unwashed slob and two- faced hypocrite who pretends to be a man of the people while sitting on his multi-millions. He keeps attacking the capitalistic system that made a fool like him a millionaire. Oh that he could go to Cuba and make the same amount of money, duh!
PS- it should be "in its limited release" not "it's limited release", your government education is showing again!
Could your posts get any sillier and worthless??
Facts are not liberals strong suit. Rhetoric is. Thomas Sowell
PS- it should be "in its limited release" not "it's limited release", your government education is showing again!
Could your posts get any sillier and worthless??
Facts are not liberals strong suit. Rhetoric is. Thomas Sowell
Re: Michael Moore on Lawrence O'Donnell (10-21)
Reply |
Michael Moore-on, as in 'moron' if you missed it. Fat, unwashed slob and two- faced hypocrite who pretends to be a man of the people while sitting on his multi-millions. He keeps attacking the capitalistic system that made a fool like him a millionaire. Oh that he could go to Cuba and make the same amount of money, duh!
PS- it should be "in its limited release" not "it's limited release", your government education is showing again!
Could your posts get any sillier and worthless??
"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16
Re: Michael Moore on Lawrence O'Donnell (10-21)
Reply |
Snoozing and "dreaming" that liberals actually make sense! Good idea. You couldn't possibly think that while awake!
Always appreciate the "intelligent" replies!!
Facts are not liberals strong suit. Rhetoric is. Thomas Sowell
Always appreciate the "intelligent" replies!!
Facts are not liberals strong suit. Rhetoric is. Thomas Sowell
Re: Michael Moore on Lawrence O'Donnell (10-21)
Reply |
How can there be an intelligent reply to your name-calling & grammar correction???? It is tiresome & a bit of a yawner.
Unwashed? Do you have smell-o-vision? I didn't notice any stains on his clothes.
He doesn't have to be poor & out-of-work to recognize & criticize the abuses of capitalism & not capitalism itself. He has a voice - are you denying him his 1st Amendment rights? Because you don't agree with his views, you don't think he has the right to them?
Many criticized Patricia Arquette when she spoke @ the Oscars about gender equality. Yes, she is successful, but that doesn't mean she should be so self-absorbed that she's not aware of what is going on around her. Buffet (who is richer than both Moore & Trump combined) has also spoken out on the inequality of the less fortunate. (And he is neither fat nor a slob)It's called empathy - ever hear of it?
Feel free to correct my grammar. I ain't that good at that grammar stuff - you're more better lol (can you explain how correcting grammar advances the discussion or are you just using it as a diverting tactic?)
Unwashed? Do you have smell-o-vision? I didn't notice any stains on his clothes.
He doesn't have to be poor & out-of-work to recognize & criticize the abuses of capitalism & not capitalism itself. He has a voice - are you denying him his 1st Amendment rights? Because you don't agree with his views, you don't think he has the right to them?
Many criticized Patricia Arquette when she spoke @ the Oscars about gender equality. Yes, she is successful, but that doesn't mean she should be so self-absorbed that she's not aware of what is going on around her. Buffet (who is richer than both Moore & Trump combined) has also spoken out on the inequality of the less fortunate. (And he is neither fat nor a slob)It's called empathy - ever hear of it?
Feel free to correct my grammar. I ain't that good at that grammar stuff - you're more better lol (can you explain how correcting grammar advances the discussion or are you just using it as a diverting tactic?)
Re: Michael Moore on Lawrence O'Donnell (10-21)
Reply |
Sorry if my name calling offends your delicate Democrat sensibilities. (NOT! LOL ) I could understand your annoyance if none of the lefty posters here did such awful things! If it wasn't for name calling, some posters would be hard put to post ANYTHING!
But since you asked..an "intelligent reply" to grammar correction would be , "Oh thanks, maybe I should spend more time studying the English language. We all need help sometime" Just a suggestion
Think carefully before you reply! I never said that Moore DOES NOT have a right to spout his opinion and make his (misleading) films. Just MY opinion here.
"Smell-o-vision"? LOL Just using my imagination. He LOOKS like an unwashed slob. He pretends to be some "working class guy" or his idea of what a working class person looks like. He HAS made millions biting the capitalistic hand that fees him. If you know something about him that I don't, e.g., that he donates a lot of his fortune to the "disadvantaged" instead of spending it on himself and his mansions, well then I'm sorry to accuse him of being a hypocrite.
Really, how in the world could I , just a little old private citizen, deny Michael Moore his first amendment right?? It's not like I am Hillary Clinton who is threatening to pack the court with her socialist appointees. I have no political power.
How come when someone on the left calls for gun control, no liberal accuses them of denying people their 2nd ammendment right? Yet if someone on the right dares TO critique a liberal, he or she is DENYING that person's right to free speech?
Empathy? Oh yeah, I heard of it. Not that I should blow my own horn, but our church just started its autumn food drive to fill its food pantry for the winter. I have two bags of groceries ready to go. Not that I am SUPER generous. But I do try to help where I can. Like most working class people who live around here, we don't have a lot extra, but we donate what we can. When you have millions like Moore and billions like Buffet and only "speak out", THAT is truly tiresome.
Well, sorry for the grammar correction. Sometimes my snark-o-meter works overtime. I should know better.
Facts are not liberals strong suit. Rhetoric is. Thomas Sowell
But since you asked..an "intelligent reply" to grammar correction would be , "Oh thanks, maybe I should spend more time studying the English language. We all need help sometime" Just a suggestion
Think carefully before you reply! I never said that Moore DOES NOT have a right to spout his opinion and make his (misleading) films. Just MY opinion here.
"Smell-o-vision"? LOL Just using my imagination. He LOOKS like an unwashed slob. He pretends to be some "working class guy" or his idea of what a working class person looks like. He HAS made millions biting the capitalistic hand that fees him. If you know something about him that I don't, e.g., that he donates a lot of his fortune to the "disadvantaged" instead of spending it on himself and his mansions, well then I'm sorry to accuse him of being a hypocrite.
Really, how in the world could I , just a little old private citizen, deny Michael Moore his first amendment right?? It's not like I am Hillary Clinton who is threatening to pack the court with her socialist appointees. I have no political power.
How come when someone on the left calls for gun control, no liberal accuses them of denying people their 2nd ammendment right? Yet if someone on the right dares TO critique a liberal, he or she is DENYING that person's right to free speech?
Empathy? Oh yeah, I heard of it. Not that I should blow my own horn, but our church just started its autumn food drive to fill its food pantry for the winter. I have two bags of groceries ready to go. Not that I am SUPER generous. But I do try to help where I can. Like most working class people who live around here, we don't have a lot extra, but we donate what we can. When you have millions like Moore and billions like Buffet and only "speak out", THAT is truly tiresome.
Well, sorry for the grammar correction. Sometimes my snark-o-meter works overtime. I should know better.
Facts are not liberals strong suit. Rhetoric is. Thomas Sowell
Re: Michael Moore on Lawrence O'Donnell (10-21)
Reply |
Not that I should blow my own horn
Why stop now? Unlike you, I think the right & good things should be expected, not praised.
"Smell-o-vision"? LOL Just using my imagination.
Not your imagination, but your prejudice. You are prejudging Moore on his appearance.
I have no idea how much money Moore has given to causes (Buffet has given $3 billion, just this year), but he has brought attention to many causes, which is more than money can buy.
Free speech has not changed since the FF, but guns have. I view the Constitution as a living thing, growing with the people. As guns & population have changed, so should the Constitution. And no - I don't want to ban all guns.
BTW -
He HAS made millions biting the capitalistic hand that fees him.
A typo? You don't proof-read, but expect us to do so?? People in glass houses . . . .
Re: Michael Moore on Lawrence O'Donnell (10-21)
Reply |
BTW -
He HAS made millions biting the capitalistic hand that fees him.
A typo? You don't proof-read, but expect us to do so?? People in glass houses . . . .
Re: Michael Moore on Lawrence O'Donnell (10-21)
Reply |
A typowell, mea culpa. I DO proof read, but some things get by me too. I'll bet that typo made your day. (Eye will tri too makke sum moore) Don't be so humorless.
Pre-judging Moore? Not really. I rented several of his documentaries years ago such as Bowling for Columbine. I thought he had some worthwhile things to say. It was years later when I read all about his wealth, his houses, his first class lifestyle while dressing like a third world victim, that I came to realize that his image is carefully crafted stagecraft to make him look like the "common man." He strikes me as phony.
Right and good things "should be expected and not praised." Well, I can get onboard with that, up to a point. If that's true then why are the Clintons PRAISED and feted for their "Foundation" which is funded by money GIVEN to them and not EARNED? People seeking access and favors give them cash and somehow the Clintons are the soul of generosity and goodness? The left praises THEM! They fairly trip over themselves to sing their praises.
The working class people around here are proportionately WAAAY more generous than those two.
The Constitution as a living, growing document. AAAAARRRGHHH1 That is a typical liberal response. You have been sold a bill of goods by politicians who want to chip away at your freedoms, bit by bit, and you are giving them the chisel!
As the super smart economist Dr. Walter E. Williams loves to say, "Would you play poker with me if the rules were LIVING? Maybe my two pair beat your four Kings."
The Constitution is there to protect US from an out of control government. It's not there for liberals to use it to enforce their ideology when they can't get the people to vote for it! Do a little reading on the subject. I recommend Dr. Williams.
Facts are not liberals strong suit. Rhetoric is. Thomas Sowell
Pre-judging Moore? Not really. I rented several of his documentaries years ago such as Bowling for Columbine. I thought he had some worthwhile things to say. It was years later when I read all about his wealth, his houses, his first class lifestyle while dressing like a third world victim, that I came to realize that his image is carefully crafted stagecraft to make him look like the "common man." He strikes me as phony.
Right and good things "should be expected and not praised." Well, I can get onboard with that, up to a point. If that's true then why are the Clintons PRAISED and feted for their "Foundation" which is funded by money GIVEN to them and not EARNED? People seeking access and favors give them cash and somehow the Clintons are the soul of generosity and goodness? The left praises THEM! They fairly trip over themselves to sing their praises.
The working class people around here are proportionately WAAAY more generous than those two.
The Constitution as a living, growing document. AAAAARRRGHHH1 That is a typical liberal response. You have been sold a bill of goods by politicians who want to chip away at your freedoms, bit by bit, and you are giving them the chisel!
As the super smart economist Dr. Walter E. Williams loves to say, "Would you play poker with me if the rules were LIVING? Maybe my two pair beat your four Kings."
The Constitution is there to protect US from an out of control government. It's not there for liberals to use it to enforce their ideology when they can't get the people to vote for it! Do a little reading on the subject. I recommend Dr. Williams.
Facts are not liberals strong suit. Rhetoric is. Thomas Sowell
Re: Michael Moore on Lawrence O'Donnell (10-21)
Reply |
Always appreciate the "intelligent" replies!!
Sorry, cupcake. I think I made it quite clear to you a few weeks ago that you are not one I choose to engage in any 'intelligent conversation' with on this forum. You're just not worth my time. So try to move on
"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16
Re: Michael Moore on Lawrence O'Donnell (10-21)
Reply |
Can we at least agree they have bastardized both amendments?
How come when someone on the left calls for gun control, no liberal accuses them of denying people their 2nd ammendment right? Yet if someone on the right dares TO critique a liberal, he or she is DENYING that person's right to free speech?
Re: Michael Moore on Lawrence O'Donnell (10-21)
Reply |
Unwashed? Do you have smell-o-vision? I didn't notice any stains on his clothes.
Show of handswho believes personal hygiene is high on Michael Moore's list of priorities?
*scanning the room*
No one? Yeah, that's what I thought.
You could cook a package of bacon with the amount of grease in his hair.
Re: Michael Moore on Lawrence O'Donnell (10-21)
Reply |
Michael Moore was a guest on Lawrence O'Donnell's show
As was evidenced by the six people who actually watch Lawrence O'Donnell.
It is, indeed, a shame that he didn't die in that car accident two years ago.
Michael Moore on Lawrence O'Donnell (10-21)
One very important thing he kept emphasizing (and he made it clear Bernie was his first choice) - every Democrat must go out and vote. The election is still two weeks away, and the worst thing which could happen is Trump winning only because Dems will stay home, confident that Hillary has won.
As he said: Don't go to the polls alone - a group of four or five should go (no matter your candidate) and get to the polls and vote! (Especially in the swing states).
He mentioned the more loathsome a Republican candidate is, the more loyal their supporters are - and they go out and vote the loathsome candidate in. (He brought the attention to Nixon winning twice, Reagan winning twice and Dubya winning twice).
Very smart guy - made a lot of sense of what he was saying; don't assume she's going to win without the votes!!!
"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16