Skip to comments.Michael Moore Threatens The Rich: Let's "Deal With It Nonviolently Now" (or violently later)
Posted on 09/23/2011 6:12:56 AM PDT by DCBryan1Edited on 09/23/2011 6:56:36 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
I hope you and your commie-trash rent-a-mob decide to bring it...
did that communist windbag give away all his money? if not then he’s surely one of the “evil” rich.
Dear Michale Moron,
Better check your bank account grifter.
YOU, Michale Moore, ARE one of "the rich".
Your head would look splendid on pike Mikey.
Exactly...if the Communists ever took power, they will come after Michael Moore first, once he is no longer of any use to them, they will get rid of him, along with all of the other ‘useful idiots.’
Bleeding Kansas ... Fort Sumter ...
LOL! Save your ammo and make him walk up a flight of stairs.
I like your idea better!
‘Michael Moore Threatens The Rich: Let’s “Deal With It Nonviolently Now” (or violently later)”
Now how sweet that would be......unfortunately fat boy Michael Moore would find some hole to hide in as he is such a RAT.
Yes, there are.
The difference is that those voices on the "Right" are generally anonymous and confined to internet forum posts and backwater blogs. The Left, however, is proud to trot out their name brand bombthrowers like Moore in the MSM and encourage them to fling sparks at the powderkeg.
As with Harpers Ferry and Sarajevo 1914, these people have absolutely no idea of the depth of bloodshed they're in for once it starts and what freedom (should it still exist) will look like once it stops. These people have no clue of the horror that is neighbor killing neighbor. They think the depredations of Men At War are limited to "those people" on the other side of the planet.
What they advocate has no other logical end outside of acre upon acre of corpses.
I’d like to invite M.M. to go shooting with me sometime...
He is very much welcome to go downrange and setup my targets...
Just noticed your tagline. Very true it would seem.
Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins.
Isn’t he a Fat Belt in Kabuki, (s)
He wants to draw attention away from the fact that he’s one of the rich.
Modern war is an abstraction to the population now. Those who want it expect it either harmless or amusing a la the cinematic experience. Vietnam introduced the concept of war as TV entertainment, minimizing human cost to the general population.
Those living who knew war are passing. WWII was the last war with pervasive effect on the nation, at minimum via shortages and war-focused industry.
The US “Civil War” was the most bloody, yet still was tempered (*cough*) by the clarity of geographic division. The Mason-Dixon line pretty much clarified who was on which side who wasn’t.
The US Revolutionary War was similar insofar as “us” and “them” was pretty clear. The dividing line was several thousand miles wide (aka “the pond”).
My point, boosting yours: we have never seen anything akin to true civil war, a la Sarajevo, where both sides are thoroughly mixed together, neighbor v. neighbor, where _anyone_ could be an opposing combatant. In a twist, methinks this is why the fight hasn’t broken out yet: nobody knows who to “go after”, nor has an imperative to.
Hey, theyre still trying to do that under the radar of course.
Now we know why
(Well, we always knew that..)
SOme of us patriots know who to go after.....just sayin'.
Skip the preliminaries and let’s go to the main event.
The Left, since the 1960s, has pushed this "violent revolution" rhetoric. Some times it is louder, some times it is quieter but it is always there.
The Right merely refuses to be intimated by the Left's thuggish behavior. They say "Ok then bring it" calling the Progressive Fascists bombastic bluff.
Freedom has always requires those who love it to be willing to respond with greater violence to those who want to take freedom from others.
The USA's whole history rests on that willingness of average US Citizens to violently oppose, when necessary, authoritarian forces both external or internal.
To try, as you do, to create a fraudulent moral equivalence between the two sides is nonsense. One side, and only one side, the Political Left, is the aggressor here.
Also, your understanding of both the US Revolution and the US Civil war is very superficial. Both wars had large areas where the fighting was "neighbor vrs neighbor" with no clear cut geographic divides between the combatants. For example, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and most of the South in the Revolution. East Tennessee, Kentucky and virtually the whole area west of the Mississippi south of Iowa during the Civil War.
In fact, during large parts of both the Revolution and the Civil War, a regions loyalty had more to do with who had the most soldiers in the immediate neighborhood then anything else.
Actually, you are not quite correct on the Revolutionary war. There were torries and patriots and it was hard to tell them apart. The torry was equivalent to a spy who would work against the patriots every chance they got. So there was a lot of fighting going on in which the enemy lines were not clearly defined. I will agree however if Bozo and they boys succeed in starting an armed conflict(which I think they want)it will be difficult to tell who is who. I suppose we could do something along the lines of the French revolution and wear certain colors to confirm if we are conservatives or not.
They have no idea what ‘wealth’ is. If it were money, Zimbabwe would be #1.
Seemed the ‘Progressives’ didn’t notice what happened in Greece. The Rich left the country. ‘Capital’ does not stay where it is not treated well.