B-Man Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 ASTROTURF: March For Our Lives Raised Nearly All Funding from Secret Six-Figure Donations. The gun-control group responsible for a 2018 march on Washington, D.C. raised the vast majority of its funds from undisclosed donations over six figures, a recently-released tax document shows. The March For Our Lives Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization launched in the aftermath of the deadly 2018 shootings at Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, is bankrolled almost entirely by large donations in excess of $100,000. The group reported $17,879,150 in contributions and grants over the course of 2018, its first year of operations. 95 percent of those contributions came from 36 donations between $100,000 and $3,504,717—a grand total of $16,922,331. Some enterprising reporter want to ask Michael Bloomberg about this? .
Tiberius Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 43 minutes ago, B-Man said: ASTROTURF: March For Our Lives Raised Nearly All Funding from Secret Six-Figure Donations. The gun-control group responsible for a 2018 march on Washington, D.C. raised the vast majority of its funds from undisclosed donations over six figures, a recently-released tax document shows. The March For Our Lives Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization launched in the aftermath of the deadly 2018 shootings at Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, is bankrolled almost entirely by large donations in excess of $100,000. The group reported $17,879,150 in contributions and grants over the course of 2018, its first year of operations. 95 percent of those contributions came from 36 donations between $100,000 and $3,504,717—a grand total of $16,922,331. Some enterprising reporter want to ask Michael Bloomberg about this? . So?
LeviF Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 20 minutes ago, Tiberius said: So? It's more evidence that the movement to disarm the American people comes from a few "elites" trying to oppress many. Big money corrupts a lot of political causes, the pursuit to strip the American people of their natural rights is no exception. 1
3rdnlng Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: Is taking away a wife beaters guns a reason good enough reason to revolt? I'd say it isn't. It's obvious that you prefer a woman getting beaten to death in a long drawn out ordeal than a quick, merciful death by gunshot. Is that so you have more time for laughter?
Tiberius Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 1 hour ago, LeviF91 said: It's more evidence that the movement to disarm the American people comes from a few "elites" trying to oppress many. Big money corrupts a lot of political causes, the pursuit to strip the American people of their natural rights is no exception. Rich people can donate to whatever cause they want. Gun control isn't oppression, it's a public safety issue. Republicans screaming about big money in politics its pretty funny. Free speech! Right? 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: It's obvious that you prefer a woman getting beaten to death in a long drawn out ordeal than a quick, merciful death by gunshot. Is that so you have more time for laughter?
B-Man Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 VA Gun Owners On Red Alert As Legislative Session Begins.
LeviF Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Rich people can donate to whatever cause they want. Gun control isn't oppression, it's a public safety issue. Republicans screaming about big money in politics its pretty funny. Free speech! Right? Weren't you the one complaining about whataboutism in another thread? I didn't say rich people can't do what they want with their money, I said that big money corrupts, and when 1/6th of your funding comes from one person, that one person can dictate a lot about what you do. So the question is, why would someone who has $3M to throw around donate that money to the suppression of the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms, and what strings are they attaching to that $3M? And yes, disarming one's people is oppression. Any suppression of the natural rights is, by definition, oppression.
Foxx Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 10 minutes ago, Tiberius said: ... Gun control isn't oppression, it's a public safety issue. ... how's that working out for say... Chicago?
Tiberius Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 22 minutes ago, LeviF91 said: Weren't you the one complaining about whataboutism in another thread? I didn't say rich people can't do what they want with their money, I said that big money corrupts, and when 1/6th of your funding comes from one person, that one person can dictate a lot about what you do. So the question is, why would someone who has $3M to throw around donate that money to the suppression of the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms, and what strings are they attaching to that $3M? And yes, disarming one's people is oppression. Any suppression of the natural rights is, by definition, oppression. Free speech. He/she obviously cares about the issue, so they are speaking out (spending) on the issue. Again, so?
Tiberius Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 18 minutes ago, Foxx said: how's that working out for say... Chicago? I know, terrible
LeviF Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Free speech. He/she obviously cares about the issue, so they are speaking out (spending) on the issue. Again, so? Again, you miss the point. I haven't argued that it's not free speech, I'm arguing that this movement to strip people of their rights is supported largely by a small amount of very wealthy people. The question is, why do the uber-wealthy disproportionately support the disarming and trampling on the natural rights of the American people?
Tiberius Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, LeviF91 said: Again, you miss the point. I haven't argued that it's not free speech, I'm arguing that this movement to strip people of their rights is supported largely by a small amount of very wealthy people. The question is, why do the uber-wealthy disproportionately support the disarming and trampling on the natural rights of the American people? And the majority of voters, right? The voters elected this legislature and governor. I mean if you want to go down that road you have to admit things you don't want to, like the Russia influence campaign in 2016 elected Trump president. How much money would it equal to have your opponents email hacked, thousands and thousands of facebook and twitter ads and fake personalities, etc. You don't believe a foreign government with all its power could influence our electorate, do you? (Not a whataboutism, just a direct comparison)
LeviF Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, Tiberius said: And the majority of voters, right? The voters elected this legislature and governor. I mean if you want to go down that road you have to admit things you don't want to, like the Russia influence campaign in 2016 elected Trump president. How much money would it equal to have your opponents email hacked, thousands and thousands of facebook and twitter ads and fake personalities, etc. You don't believe a foreign government with all its power could influence our electorate, do you? (Not a whataboutism, just a direct comparison) As you point out, voters are influenced by lots of things. It's okay to think that things aren't right with our government on multiple fronts. But let's not pretend that there aren't multiple groups of people out to influence you. The voters (and electors) made Donald Trump president too. It's not A did this and B did that. It's A and B did this and then B and C did that. A and C are just different influences. I'm not conceding anything re: Russia and the reach of their influences one way or another in 2016 but it's useful to make a point. Why do A and C want to influence B (the voters) so much? What are they after? And, back to the thread, who does it benefit to strip Americans of their ability to exercise their natural right to armed resistance? I don't necessarily know the answers but I believe that the less the government impedes on my natural rights, the better. The natural right to armed resistance leaves a lot of options on the table, which was the reason the founders explicitly protected it.
Tiberius Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, LeviF91 said: As you point out, voters are influenced by lots of things. It's okay to think that things aren't right with our government on multiple fronts. But let's not pretend that there aren't multiple groups of people out to influence you. The voters (and electors) made Donald Trump president too. It's not A did this and B did that. It's A and B did this and then B and C did that. A and C are just different influences. I'm not conceding anything re: Russia and the reach of their influences one way or another in 2016 but it's useful to make a point. Why do A and C want to influence B (the voters) so much? What are they after? And, back to the thread, who does it benefit to strip Americans of their ability to exercise their natural right to armed resistance? I don't necessarily know the answers but I believe that the less the government impedes on my natural rights, the better. The natural right to armed resistance leaves a lot of options on the table, which was the reason the founders explicitly protected it. A president not interested in pushing a democratic foreign policy. 7 minutes ago, LeviF91 said: And, back to the thread, who does it benefit to strip Americans of their ability to exercise their natural right to armed resistance? I don't necessarily know the answers but I believe that the less the government impedes on my natural rights, the better. The natural right to armed resistance leaves a lot of options on the table, which was the reason the founders explicitly protected it. A lot, possibly a vast majority don't buy into the armed resistance argument. Voting is how we fight. And banning certain weapons, background checks, stopping wife beaters from having guns just makes sense to the majority of voters. Voting and making laws are natural rights, too.
Foxx Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: A president not interested in pushing a democratic foreign policy. ... help me out here... just what exactly is a, "democratic foreign policy"? TYIA also, voting and making laws are natural rights, yes. as long that is, as they do not abridge constitutional rights. Edited January 7, 2020 by Foxx
LeviF Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 11 minutes ago, Tiberius said: A lot, possibly a vast majority don't buy into the armed resistance argument. Voting is how we fight. And what happens when they take away your right to vote? What option do you have left if they've taken your every ability to resist? 1
bdutton Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 54 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Free speech. He/she obviously cares about the issue, so they are speaking out (spending) on the issue. Again, so? So you agree then that unlimited spending in politics is free speech as well. Good.
Tiberius Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 14 minutes ago, Foxx said: help me out here... just what exactly is a, "democratic foreign policy"? TYIA also, voting and making laws are natural rights, yes. as long that is, as they do not abridge constitutional rights. Our foreign policy since the end of WW2, spreading democracy. You do remember Reagan, right? 8 minutes ago, LeviF91 said: And what happens when they take away your right to vote? What option do you have left if they've taken your every ability to resist? Voting rights have, generally, been expanding in our country. Age, sex and race are all barriers than have fallen in the last century. Guns did not play a role in expanding those rights 4 minutes ago, bdutton said: So you agree then that unlimited spending in politics is free speech as well. Good. So you agree that the spending in Virginia on gun control efforts are free speech, right?
bdutton Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, Tiberius said: So you agree that the spending in Virginia on gun control efforts are free speech, right? Yep... from very few, very rich, anti constitutional, gun grabbers.
LeviF Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Voting rights have, generally, been expanding in our country. Age, sex and race are all barriers than have fallen in the last century. Guns did not play a role in expanding those rights The Black Panthers would like to have a word with you. In any case, you're missing the forest for the trees. Armed resistance is what gave us back the right to self-government that had been trampled on via tyranny.
Recommended Posts