Michael Moore Tells College Students ‘It Will Require A Rumble’ To Fix America

Originally posted by Gannicus

Last but not least, the definition of rumble:

dictionary.reference.com...

Slang . to have or take part in a street fight between or among teenage gangs: Rival gangs rumbled on Saturday afternoon.

I challenge you to show me "rumble" being used in a peaceful context. You're just spinning for your team. You're just as partisan as those you wag your finger at.

Actually, since Mr Moore said it will take "A rumble", it's obviously a noun, and you can't look at verb definitions.

a. Pervasive, widespread expression of unrest or dissatisfaction.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

reply to post by Gannicus


I'm sorry, but no one really listens to this buffoon.
Why give him any attention, he is a dolt that just happens to have a big mouth and a microphone.

Ignore him and he should go away.

reply to post by Gannicus

IF I go looking through your post history, am I going to find outrage over Republican, Sarah Palin or Bachman quotes? I'm guessing yes. Why haven't you posted this in the thread about Breitbart? Last but not least, the definition of rumble:

Go ahead, look. I usually stay out of politics and don't bash anyone ... except maybe Bachman, Beck, or Obama.

I had no idea there was a thread about "Breitbart" until you starting using it in every other sentence.

I challenge you to show me "rumble" being used in a peaceful context. You're just spinning for your team. You're just as partisan as those you wag your finger at.

*yawn*

I don't have a team. I don't care. They're all criminals and they've obviously confused you by simply pointing fingers in the opposite direction, when they're all standing next to each other.

Regardless, using Merriam-Webster:

Rumbling

1
: rumble
2
: general but unofficial talk or opinion often of dissatisfaction —usually used in plural

Oh my! You've turned this into an argument about semantics and intent. Are you Michael Moore? Did you use the term "rumble" to specifically refer to civil war? What?! You're not him?!?! You don't know! You're GUESSING?! There's NO way to know?! Oh my.

But you've convinced me! His intent was clear. It was violent!!! He REALLY meant holding a boxing match between Newt Gingrich and Barney Frank! Maybe he'll start off with a tag team of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman in the red corner vs. Hilary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi in the blue corner! All the proceeds will help fund Obama's 2012 campaign! That brilliant, evil bastard.

Yet, he JUST said to a cheering crowd that we need to "rumble" in this country. Who was the rival gang he was talking about rumbling with? Seriously, you must take all of us for idiots. Your spin falls flat to anyone with half a brain.

(For my REAL answer, see all of the above. 'Round and 'round we go!)

Well, since you know everything, it can only mean one thing; YOU'RE GOD! Holy crap!

Originally posted by Gannicus
www.mediaite.com...

During a talk to promote his new book, Here Comes Trouble, liberal firebreather Michael Moore told an audience of college students at Bunker Hill Community College to “reject this vision of America that has been thrust upon us,” and that to fix it “will require a rumble.”

Typical violent liberal calling for war. What do you expect? His president told his followers to "punish their enemies". It's pretty clear these people want a fight.

You might have heard about Andrew Breitbart saying something to the affect of, "We Have Guns, We Outnumber Liberals". Well, he said that in response to Moore and people like Jimmy Hoffa Jr. who told a crowd of Obama supporters, "lets take those sons of bitches out".

Reject this vision of America?

And replace it with WHAT? You, Michael Moore, are (T&C violations)!!!!!!
I took an oath to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies.

2 words.

Bring it.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Gannicus
Notice the difference between the replies int his thread and the replies in the Breitbart thread? The lefties try to rationalize Moore's comments, while attacking Breitbart as a crazed "right winger". Even though Breitbart's comments were in response to these comments.

Except the really bizarre thing is on this thread is the liberals in defending Moore seem to be advocating overthrowing the currently liberal government they helped put in power!

Is it out of naivete, hypocrisy, or the fact that the current administration didn't turn out to be as so-called progressive as they hoped it would be?

edit on 9/20/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)

The term beautiful irony comes to mind.

A liberal will never be happy until everyone thinks and acts as they do.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Gannicus
Notice the difference between the replies int his thread and the replies in the Breitbart thread? The lefties try to rationalize Moore's comments, while attacking Breitbart as a crazed "right winger". Even though Breitbart's comments were in response to these comments.

Except the really bizarre thing is on this thread is the liberals in defending Moore seem to be advocating overthrowing the currently liberal government they helped put in power!

Is it out of naivete, hypocrisy, or the fact that the current administration didn't turn out to be as so-called progressive as they hoped it would be?

edit on 9/20/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)

How is it any more liberal than it was when the conservatives were in? Everything Obama has tried to do that you would call "liberal" has failed due to the GOP presence in DC. Our government hasn't been any more or less "liberal" or "conservative" for many many many years. It's not hypocrisy to want to improve our nation, regardless of your left/right leaning.

Here we go again with the whole "Obama tried, but was stopped by the Republicans" nonsense.
I do believe that the Pres and both Houses were Dem controlled for how long?

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Gannicus
Notice the difference between the replies int his thread and the replies in the Breitbart thread? The lefties try to rationalize Moore's comments, while attacking Breitbart as a crazed "right winger". Even though Breitbart's comments were in response to these comments.

Except the really bizarre thing is on this thread is the liberals in defending Moore seem to be advocating overthrowing the currently liberal government they helped put in power!

Is it out of naivete, hypocrisy, or the fact that the current administration didn't turn out to be as so-called progressive as they hoped it would be?

edit on 9/20/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)

How is it any more liberal than it was when the conservatives were in? Everything Obama has tried to do that you would call "liberal" has failed due to the GOP presence in DC. Our government hasn't been any more or less "liberal" or "conservative" for many many many years. It's not hypocrisy to want to improve our nation, regardless of your left/right leaning.

Here we go again with the whole "Obama tried, but was stopped by the Republicans" nonsense.
I do believe that the Pres and both Houses were Dem controlled for how long?

You missed my point. My point is that for the last few administrations, the government has been the same in regards to left/right leaning. The only change has been in our spokesperson (president). Which means that to criticize the government is neither a "left" nor "right" thing to do no matter who is in office.

Therefore, it is not hypocrisy to want to change (whatever that means to everybody) government no matter how much of an anarchist, capitalist, socialist, or libritarian you are.

reply to post by Cuervo


Ok, when put in that frame, you are correct.

yea the multi millionaire moore

instigating people who cant think for themselves

use them to further his own agenda

and then sit back

let them do all the work

possible die

and then come back out of the shadows

and take credit

tried and true liberalism of america

Actually I would love for the looney left to grab there golf clubs and baseball bats and take to the streets. If enough of them do it to make a major nuisance, or maybe even a threat, maybe the Silent Majority will wake up and realize the biggest threat to America is from within. The looney left may then find out to most on the right gun control means being able to hit your target. And guns kill from a lot farther away than rocks and molotov cocktails.

Originally posted by wasco2
Actually I would love for the looney left to grab there golf clubs and baseball bats and take to the streets. If enough of them do it to make a major nuisance, or maybe even a threat, maybe the Silent Majority will wake up and realize the biggest threat to America is from within. The looney left may then find out to most on the right gun control means being able to hit your target. And guns kill from a lot farther away than rocks and molotov cocktails.

I don't get it. So you are saying that if fellow Americans started demonstrating against Wall Street and the government, the "silent majority" will come out and shoot them?! Who the hell's side are you on, the government's and bank's?

The msm has obviously done a number on you if you believe that the issue is truly about liberals and conservatives. I can expect this kind of thinking from people sitting in front of the television all day but not somebody with internet access.

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
It may not be a very popular truth, or one that's easy to swallow, but it's a truth nonetheless.

Conventional voting does no good. It's a proven fact at this point because we the people have no say in who runs for POTUS.

I don't think you understand HIS version of "truth"

Unfortunately he's not talking about "We the people", he's talking about only a portion of it

He's talking about a partisan rumble this idiot

Originally posted by Gannicus
Notice the difference between the replies int his thread and the replies in the Breitbart thread? The lefties try to rationalize Moore's comments, while attacking Breitbart as a crazed "right winger". Even though Breitbart's comments were in response to these comments.

2 people say words.. wow, how unique and rare!

Dont watch TV.. not sure what a Breitbart is.. sounds like a typical TV personality shill.

Moore is another turd floating on the media punchbowl.. yawn.

Be your own person 1st, don't follow leaders unless you're too weak to think for yourself. Ignore these people, and those like them.. their left Vs right fakeness is socially retarding.

BTW what Moors said was basically correct.. the people can't vote away the 2 party fascist stench.. if the DC mafia cant be voted out, and won't go away.. one option is to force their grip from our collective necks.

reply to post by wasco2


Do you see a doctor on that irony deficiency?

Let me walk you through it:
somebody posts a thread "Ohhhh.... Moore is calling for violence, he used the word "rumble"
Everybody is outraged, at the left using violent rethoric
You say "Let them rumble, I and my pals will shoot them"

As for "silent majority": DADT got repealed today.

its true, i wish it wasnt but it is, people have just been taking all this bull# for so lang it is all they know, someone need to throw the first punch

Why do you think Janet Napolitano is so worried about "domestic terrorism?"

Why do you think the police are now armed to the teeth, to a degree that would be impossible for civilians to overcome?

The current American government knows full well, of the degree to which it deserves to be violently overthrown. Revolution is overdue; it should have happened 20 years ago. That was why Waco happened; the government was scared of it back then.

Originally posted by beezzer

I took an oath to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies.

And what exactly have you done to these enemies that have stolen our jobs, our money, and our future? They arent hard to find.

Oh thats right, you did nothing, just like all the other internet loudmouths.

Originally posted by neo96
yea the multi millionaire moore

instigating people who cant think for themselves

use them to further his own agenda

and then sit back

let them do all the work

possible die

and then come back out of the shadows

and take credit

tried and true liberalism of america

Hit the nail and script right on the head.

In order to avoid death, physical force must not be used. Violence will only result in severe retaliation. If others start getting aggressive or violent, let them expose themselves and their true intentions. Clearly there will be "agent provocateurs" in place, so let them expose themselves! Let them stick out like a sore thumbs as they kick, scream, and break things like the babies that they really are.

Originally posted by Gannicus


These posts only ever arise in threads about liberals who incite violence. The supporters come out of the wood work to rationalize and legitimize the rhetoric. When its someone on the right, its completely different. For example:

And conservatives don't defend conservatives who use the same rhetoric?
You're all set in the false left-right paradigm and they are leading you to war against your brothers.

Originally posted by petrus4
Why do you think Janet Napolitano is so worried about "domestic terrorism?"

Why do you think the police are now armed to the teeth, to a degree that would be impossible for civilians to overcome?

The current American government knows full well, of the degree to which it deserves to be violently overthrown. Revolution is overdue; it should have happened 20 years ago. That was why Waco happened; the government was scared of it back then.

The constitution gives the government the right to defend against revolutions...