Michael Moore has done it again.

Here's a video from Michael Moore, you know that fat film maker that gets grants from US to make films breading hate and discontent. Thought you all might like to see it. Because it made my neck hairs stand up.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/michael-moore-people-own-guns-because-theyre-fearful-racists/

Michael Moore is a fear-mongering, race-baiting, politically devisive shill for John soros and the NWO. His "films" are laugnably bad, his "research" is somewhere a few steps down the "credibility ladder" from the works of Leni rRefenstahl, and he is a self-hating, rage-filled, brain-damaged fascist who is just masquerading as a crypto-leftist...

I'd feel sorry for him, if he wasn't taking such obvious joy in spreading his particular brand of hatred, lies, and intellectual dishonesty.

Shame on Rachael Maddow for giving him airtime, and shame on Mr. Moore for using the blood of six innocent citizens (one of them being a little 9 year old girl!) to paint his bloody propaganda across the TV screens of America. Shameful. Disgusting. Depraves.

Mr. Moores sociopathic opportunism knows no shame, and the fact that he would even offer a single comment on this event--before the bodies are even in the ground--is distasteful, disrespectful, and disingenuous...

And Ms.Maddow is really starting to show HER true colors, by catering to scumbags like Michael Moore and Mark Potok. So Rachael, how does all that blood and FUD feel when you're dancing around in it?

Disgusting... Sickening... I find the media's treatment of this entire story--from the "right" and the "left" to be distasteful and opportunistic.

I'm ready to start looking for a new planet--this one is full of idiots and sociopaths...

Michael is all over the map and bouncing off the walls with his manufactured stats - 500 home invasions a year, in 1/3 of those the victims were killed with guns taken in the home invasion. Pure unadulterated BS and that is supposed to demonstrate a racial bias How?

Michael Moore is a product of garbage in resulting in garbage out.

Statistically, there are over 8,000 home invasions per day in
North America
http://www.lockjawsecurity.com/pdf/LockBumpingFactSheet.pdf

And he defines the meaning of hypocrisy. Like most of his ilk.

Whaddya say now Michael?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144921,00.html

I thought about Michael Moore's claim, and I decided that, quite honestly, on the rare occasions when I imagine "tactical scenarios", the bad guys are always white. I think it's because I'm white and therefore this is the default.

Then again, I'm not a racist, in the sense that I attribute no aspect of what may be viewed as negative qualities of any man to the genes which control his skin color, or any other external physical characteristics.

I pay no more attention to that morbidly obese pathological liar than I do to a wino screaming at a garbage can on Euclid Ave.

marshaul said:

Then again, I'm not a racist, in the sense that I attribute no aspect of what may be viewed as negative qualities of any man to the genes which control his skin color, or any other external physical characteristics.

Click to expand...

Do you attribute negative qualities in-part to genes?



Michael Moore is nothing more than a Maddow, Hannity fat-head. Michael Moore is not a left-wing problem, his type is a left and right wing problem.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Do you attribute negative qualities in-part to genes?

Click to expand...

Certainly. There is undoubtably some genetic basis for inherent intelligence. And I consider stupidity to be a negative quality.

However, it is very unlikely that those genes have anything intrinsically to do with the genes that are responsible for the characteristics by which we determine "race", those characteristics being essentially physical ones.

Certain population groups may have tendencies to certain traits, in the way that folks in Africa tend to have black skin, but, as personality traits are, generally, intrinsically independent to the genes which make up physical appearance, any apparent correlation between race and what may be viewed as negative traits is unlikely to be a function of race itself. This makes using race as a predictor of just about any non-physical trait impossible.

All this goes without saying. My point was really just that, while I may display a certain cultural elitism, I believe the ideas which define racism to be scientifically untrue, and thus it probably ought to come as no surprise that my imaginary bogeymen are as white as I. Well, no surprise to anyone who isn't Moore.

Incidentally, I hope for Moore's sake that the claim isn't projection on his part.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Michael Moore is nothing more than a Maddow, Hannity fat-head. Michael Moore is not a left-wing problem, his type is a left and right wing problem.

Click to expand...

Very astute.

marshaul said:

Certainly. There is undoubtably some genetic basis for inherent intelligence. And I consider stupidity to be a negative quality.

However, it is very unlikely that those genes have anything intrinsically to do with the genes that are responsible for the characteristics by which we determine "race", those characteristics being essentially physical ones.

Certain population groups may have tendencies to certain traits, in the way that folks in Africa tend to have black skin, but, as personality traits are, generally, intrinsically independent to the genes which make up physical appearance, any apparent correlation between race and what may be viewed as negative traits is unlikely to be a function of race itself. This makes using race as a predictor of just about any non-physical trait impossible.

All this goes without saying. My point was really just that, while I may display a certain cultural elitism, I believe the ideas which define racism to be scientifically untrue, and thus it probably ought to come as no surprise that my imaginary bogeymen are as white as I. Well, no surprise to anyone who isn't Moore.



Very astute.

Click to expand...

I agree, skin color in of itself does not have anything to do with genetic predisposition. But a genetic marker none-the-less.

Allow me to explain:

When slavery existed in America, I am talking actual slaver, as in, the black was property just like cattle, there was breeding of black that had occurred. If you were the owner of a plantation, what you would want is for your slaves to be more physically sound. In order to have a physically sound slave, you would breed that slave with another slave with the same physiological makeup, or something close to that. The weak slaves would likely not be bred, and the strong slaves would be bred. What you end up with, after generation of breeding, is a human being that is genetically more alpha-type. The same outcome would occur, and is used when breeding all sorts of animals, dogs, cats, cattle, etc. You take the strongest bull and you breed it with as many female as you can in order to propagate a physiologically stronger human, in order to be a slave that can last many harsh years working in the fields.

The downside to breeding for brawn v. brain is that the brain (intelligence) is affected. The human that you have bred for brawn is not as intellectually sound.

I am in no way saying that blacks are not intellectually sound. But, I will point out FBI statistics which have many black men who are violent criminals. Is this a sociological issue, very much so...but it is also a breeding issue IMO. I believe that the past 130+ years that breeding has stopped has allowed for the black to regain the intellectual aspect of breeding to a certain extent. This is one of those deeply taboo things that we do not talk about in America. The first sign of or utterance of what I have posted is typically met with an accusation of being racist.

If pointing out historical realities is racist, than I am a big time racist

Well, such discussion really isn't on-topic as to this thread.

While, as I mentioned, certain groups may have tendencies to certain traits, and due to historical reasons there may be a correlation between one trait and another, the inherent independence of one trait from the other makes either trait a terrible, useless, predictor for the other.

To put it another way, let's say that you could isolate a bloodline of former slaves, and point out that the bloodline was bred for specific traits. Well, sure, all those slaves may be black. But, there are black people from Africa who have evolved spontaneously, rather than having been bred, and it is unlikely they will be radically different in non-phyiscal capability compared to say, folks from Europe (collectively speaking). Consequently, if you use "being black" as a predictor for whatever trait the above hypothetical group of slaves were bred for, you will find your predictions are very poor indeed. The only valid predictor is "a member of that group of slaves and their descendants", a history not shared by all black people.

Generally, I think that the overwhelming majority of societal problems among certain groups which are commonly attributed to racial differences are fundamentally cultural.

For example, I would point out that belonging, or attempting to belong, to the so-called "urban culture" is a much better predictor for gang behavior, drug dealing, thuggery, etc, than is belonging to any race.

Man, where's a good sized pulmonary emboli when you need one.:banghead: what a maroon.

"The majority of these guns are owned by people who live in safe areas of town." - Michael Moore.

Even when he makes sense he still just can't quite connect the dots, can he? Most of us learned cause and effect at a very young age. The expression, don't put the cart before the horse," comes to mind, but he's probably just as convinced that horses are good at pushing as he is that gun ownership rates follow low crime rates.

(shrugs)

In case he's listening, I moved where I did in part because it is safer on this edge of my city. I carry a firearm to help keep things that way. If everyone here in town carried, 90% of the criminals would either go back to wherever they originated, or they'd wise up and take pains towards making an honest living.

We're taking dibs....

..as to how long your post lasts. No, don't get me wrong - it's simply genetics 101, but don't think that we're not still breeding ourselves, as we are, all of us, every time we pick a mate and choose to have kids.

Couple of things:

1. My ancestors were farmers, so even though I'm the runt of the litter, I'm strong as an ox. I used to park in tight spaces by lifting the back end of my car.

2. I can still have kids, but one's enough, and he's a handful as it is!

3. I am financially doing ok, so I'm not too shabby above the neckline, either, but I do need to take more steps to whittle down my waistline, Lol!

What I'm getting at is that survival is as much a mental game as it is a physical one. Elephants and whales are dozens and thousands of times stronger than we are, but they're not exactly on the winning side of life these days. Meanwhile, most insects can outbreed us six ways to Sunday, and last time I checked, there was a mild, but noticeable, yet negative correllation between affluence and the number of children.

However, that's not exactly our greatest advantage as human beings. Nor, for that matter, is it necessarily our brains, although from the point of view that we can store and teach our knowledge to others, we're unparalleled in the animal kingdom.

Actually, it's our stomachs. More than just about any other animal, our diets are among the most far-ranging of them all. Things that would kill most mammals are commonly found in our pantries and our refrigerators, something which, judging by his looks, Mr. Moore knows all too well.

marshaul said:

SNIP Certainly. There is undoubtably some genetic basis for inherent intelligence.

Click to expand...

What!?!?! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaugh!!

Betrayal! Treason! Disinformation!

You understand that comment plays right into the hands of the eugenicists and psychiatrists?!

Of course, the former were interested in a master race, and not just for the Nazi's. "Ethnic cleansing" follows right along with this idea.

And, the latter would just love to have this believed. They've been trying for years to convince us that man is just an animal. Starting about 1870 or so with Wilhelm Wundt, who just up and declared it, without any genuine scientific research.

It all adds up to dehumanizing, which is just a justification for rights violations. Devalue people, then it becomes OK to drug them or oppress them or kill them. No point in having rights or freedom if you are just a collection of chemicals. Your very thoughts are nothing more than the random firing of chemicals stimulated by the environment. Why, next we should be recognizing the "rights" of rocks!

Michael Moore is a sensationalizing drama-queen.

Nothing "Moore" needs to be said.

slowfiveoh said:

Michael Moore is a sensationalizing drama-queen.

Nothing "Moore" needs to be said.

Click to expand...

and LESS said by MOORE would be better! LOL

I'll give up my gun when this country gains a history of zero violence and the cops no longer carry theirs.

On another point even if Moor's bs statistic of 500 home invasions a year was true, who wants to take a chance on being one of those 500.

JoeSparky said:

and LESS said by MOORE would be better! LOL

Click to expand...

Here lies Lester Moore,
shot to death with a .44,
No Les, no more.

KevlarCowboy said:

I'll give up my gun when this country gains a history of zero violence and the cops no longer carry theirs.

On another point even if Moor's bs statistic of 500 home invasions a year was true, who wants to take a chance on being one of those 500.

Click to expand...

Over 700+ in one city in 2005
http://articles.philly.com/2010-10-...vasion-robberies-home-invasions-crime-victims