Clint: "Michael Moore & I actually have a lot in common..."
- Thread starter C. H. Luke
- Start date
- Status
Nehemiah Scudder
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Messages
- 391
He was mayor of Carmel by the Sea.
But I don't know what party.
But I don't know what party.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
I'll bet MM is just smart enough not to try it.
Anyway, how is this a threat on his life? He didn't say, "I'm going to kill you." He said, "If you ever show up at my door with a camera..." this is what the result will be. More like a fair warning.
Go Clint!
Kinsman
Member
Best response yet:
DRZinn
Member
Link to the article, PLEASE!
Gordon Fink
Member
Do a little research next time.
~G. Fink
Molon Labe
Member
Hkmp5sd
Member
Looks like I have something in common with Eastwood. I wouldn't mind shooting Michael Moore either.
C'mon folks. While I'd have loved to have been there to see it and a great line and WE would love it if it were a real threat, I'd bet next year's salary that Mr. Eastwood was making a joke based on Moore's ambush interview filmmaking technique and not a personal "I *&^ing hate that *&^er and will kill him if he shows up on my property" threat. The type of joke you make at your birthday party when you're brother-in-law, that everyone knows breaks everything he touches, volunteers to help you install the new running lights on your car. "Matt, if you show up here with that toolbox of your's I'll kill you".
While I'd have loved to have been there to see it and a great line and WE would love it if it were a real threat, I'd bet next year's salary that Mr. Eastwood was making a joke based on Moore's ambush interview filmmaking technique and not a personal "I *&^ing hate that *&^er and will kill him if he shows up on my property" threat. The type of joke you make at your birthday party when you're brother-in-law, that everyone knows breaks everything he touches, volunteers to help you install the new running lights on your car. "Matt, if you show up here with that toolbox of your's I'll kill you".Molon Labe
Member
Dude, we can get shutdown for statements like that. Be careful what you say. This is a public forum, afterall.
Hkmp5sd
Member
Please note the smilie at the end of the phrase. This indicates the comment is made in jest, much like Clint Eastwood's comment.
How ironic the fact that you all treasure the second amendment in order to preserve personal liberty, expression, and life; but not of a person you disagree with.
The line has been crossed, comments like this do a disservice to gun rights supporters by merely perpetuating the stereotype that the gun lobby lacks tact and tolerance.
The line has been crossed, comments like this do a disservice to gun rights supporters by merely perpetuating the stereotype that the gun lobby lacks tact and tolerance.
Nathaniel Firethorn
Member
Shooting's too good for him. Exile him to Camden, PRNJ, where he can commune more closely with the downtrodden proletariat. 
Oh, and since it's in PRNJ and he hasn't (AFAIK) had an affair with the governor, his security guards had better be unarmed.
- pdmoderator
Oh, and since it's in PRNJ and he hasn't (AFAIK) had an affair with the governor, his security guards had better be unarmed.
- pdmoderator
Last edited:
River Wraith
Member
Tolerance. Right. You forgot to mention diversity and "for the children."
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
bbaerst, from a philosophical standpoint, you're correct.
Trouble is, we've been fighting in the old "frog in the pot" deal, with a slow erosion of rights. This has prevented any sort of outright war.
My question is, what's the difference between losing one's rights in one swell foop, vs. losing them slowly, over a long period of time?
The Michael Moores will happily lie in order to take away a natural right of any/all human beings, that of autonomous self defense. Because this taking is done via a slow process, must we then be tolerant? At what point does one say, "Enough!"? After it's too late? After the right is gone?
I don't really have an answer, beyond continuing the political process. I do know that my own frustration in years--nay, decades--of fighting for my rights has made me sympathetic to those who would try other means.
I don't allow my emotions to rule my actions. However, when I run across a rights-denying liar my emotional response calls for medication via a twelve-gauge enema. Since I happen to also feel that this is socially unacceptable, I refrain...
, Art
Trouble is, we've been fighting in the old "frog in the pot" deal, with a slow erosion of rights. This has prevented any sort of outright war.
My question is, what's the difference between losing one's rights in one swell foop, vs. losing them slowly, over a long period of time?
The Michael Moores will happily lie in order to take away a natural right of any/all human beings, that of autonomous self defense. Because this taking is done via a slow process, must we then be tolerant? At what point does one say, "Enough!"? After it's too late? After the right is gone?
I don't really have an answer, beyond continuing the political process. I do know that my own frustration in years--nay, decades--of fighting for my rights has made me sympathetic to those who would try other means.
I don't allow my emotions to rule my actions. However, when I run across a rights-denying liar my emotional response calls for medication via a twelve-gauge enema. Since I happen to also feel that this is socially unacceptable, I refrain...
, ArtHungSquirrel
Member
Such comments make our cause that much more difficult. I know I'm stepping on some toes, but I have a few words for Clint, none of which are appropriate. 
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Yeah, HungSquirrel, he could just as easily have made some association with "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". Or, "Hey, Mike, you remember the shower scene in "Psycho"?
Art
Or, "Hey, Mike, you remember the shower scene in "Psycho"?Art
- Status