<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: No Dessert For Trump</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?feed=rss2&#038;p=22728" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22728</link>
	<description>Creative Discussions, Inspiring Thoughts, Fun Adventures, Love &#38; Laughter, Peaceful Travel, Hip Fashions, Cool People, Gastronomic Pleasures,  Exotic Indulgences, Groovy Music, and more!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:26:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rachel</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22728#comment-126803</link>
		<dc:creator>Rachel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:25:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22728#comment-126803</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Trina#23, you nailed it. All I need to add is those sites are censored to protect the egos of those gun rabid males. They get to malign, insult or demean women at will. But if you attempt to link big guns with tiny penises your comment will be censored.

Can&#039;t insult the length of the physical member of their sex. But they can insult the size of your brain or intelligence. 

Why can&#039;t women make the connection of penis size to the size or number of guns men have.  I tried to say that the fire power of the gun chosen is indirectly proportional to the size of the male penis and I was censored for being inflammatory without a plausible connection to reality. 

Really? You think the censor was male? You think?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trina#23, you nailed it. All I need to add is those sites are censored to protect the egos of those gun rabid males. They get to malign, insult or demean women at will. But if you attempt to link big guns with tiny penises your comment will be censored.</p>
<p>Can&#8217;t insult the length of the physical member of their sex. But they can insult the size of your brain or intelligence. </p>
<p>Why can&#8217;t women make the connection of penis size to the size or number of guns men have.  I tried to say that the fire power of the gun chosen is indirectly proportional to the size of the male penis and I was censored for being inflammatory without a plausible connection to reality. </p>
<p>Really? You think the censor was male? You think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Helena</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22728#comment-126802</link>
		<dc:creator>Helena</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:18:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22728#comment-126802</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Johanna#24, Lady you of what you speak about. My husband, brothers and friends are pure gun enthusiasts. They live, breathe and gush about their 2nd Amendment rights. 

Yet, what they really know one can put on the head of the proverbial pin. I&#039;m a constitutional law professor. Most of my relatives and friends are professional stock brokers or well positioned business execs. 

We have the usual assortment of lawyers, doctors and computer specialists. Their common thread is they are gun nuts and white. Most would lose control of their biological functions if found alone in the company of any group of OTWs. 

But get them together with their guns and they will conquer the world and rid it of the evil influence of the violent OTW to protect their women folk and their children. 

Never mind they are the greatest threat to their women folk and children. They vote in those politicians that limit female equality in pay, health, or any other issue. 

I guess one could say I am part of the problem since I sit silently among this tirade of racism, sexism and gun madness.  Yes, I do. But Michelle, when I go to the polls, I never vote for the republican. Yes I am a registered republican. 

Oh and yes, big guns and small penises are a match made to spec.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Johanna#24, Lady you of what you speak about. My husband, brothers and friends are pure gun enthusiasts. They live, breathe and gush about their 2nd Amendment rights. </p>
<p>Yet, what they really know one can put on the head of the proverbial pin. I&#8217;m a constitutional law professor. Most of my relatives and friends are professional stock brokers or well positioned business execs. </p>
<p>We have the usual assortment of lawyers, doctors and computer specialists. Their common thread is they are gun nuts and white. Most would lose control of their biological functions if found alone in the company of any group of OTWs. </p>
<p>But get them together with their guns and they will conquer the world and rid it of the evil influence of the violent OTW to protect their women folk and their children. </p>
<p>Never mind they are the greatest threat to their women folk and children. They vote in those politicians that limit female equality in pay, health, or any other issue. </p>
<p>I guess one could say I am part of the problem since I sit silently among this tirade of racism, sexism and gun madness.  Yes, I do. But Michelle, when I go to the polls, I never vote for the republican. Yes I am a registered republican. </p>
<p>Oh and yes, big guns and small penises are a match made to spec.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Johanna</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22728#comment-126801</link>
		<dc:creator>Johanna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:06:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22728#comment-126801</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Trina#23, you are more right than you will ever know. My husband belongs to a gun club. Those who own assault rifles usually own more than one type. 

I sense the competition between them when they discuss the fire power of their penis extensions. Each trying to out man the other with their hints to their greater expertise in the field of fire power. 

Speaking from my experience with my husband, tiny penis wonders just about covers them.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trina#23, you are more right than you will ever know. My husband belongs to a gun club. Those who own assault rifles usually own more than one type. </p>
<p>I sense the competition between them when they discuss the fire power of their penis extensions. Each trying to out man the other with their hints to their greater expertise in the field of fire power. </p>
<p>Speaking from my experience with my husband, tiny penis wonders just about covers them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trina</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22728#comment-126800</link>
		<dc:creator>Trina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:49:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22728#comment-126800</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The thing about men who need this type of gun to feel manly is that they will use any type of argument to justify owning one. 

If you check out the comment sites of articles written to denounce the ownership of assault rifles. The men will come out in droves to disparage anyone who says the weapon should be banned, especially vitriolic is there attack upon a woman. 

Why? Because it is the woman they need the gun to impress.  Most of these men believe they are sexually inadequate to meet a woman&#039;s needs. So they either find an external object that they believe will impress her or they put her down as being a slut, whore, or etc because she appears to need more sexually than they can provide. 

They talk among themselves with great gusto about their willingness to use their assault rifles or have them &quot;pried from the cold dead hands.&quot; 

Totally silly, inane boasts. Most would shit their pants if someone shot at them. They are the mass murderers who quickly attempt to give up when they run out of ammo or shoot themselves rather that face the consequences of their action. 

Tiny penises wonders each and every one.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The thing about men who need this type of gun to feel manly is that they will use any type of argument to justify owning one. </p>
<p>If you check out the comment sites of articles written to denounce the ownership of assault rifles. The men will come out in droves to disparage anyone who says the weapon should be banned, especially vitriolic is there attack upon a woman. </p>
<p>Why? Because it is the woman they need the gun to impress.  Most of these men believe they are sexually inadequate to meet a woman&#8217;s needs. So they either find an external object that they believe will impress her or they put her down as being a slut, whore, or etc because she appears to need more sexually than they can provide. </p>
<p>They talk among themselves with great gusto about their willingness to use their assault rifles or have them &#8220;pried from the cold dead hands.&#8221; </p>
<p>Totally silly, inane boasts. Most would shit their pants if someone shot at them. They are the mass murderers who quickly attempt to give up when they run out of ammo or shoot themselves rather that face the consequences of their action. </p>
<p>Tiny penises wonders each and every one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ruth/AF</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22728#comment-126798</link>
		<dc:creator>Ruth/AF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:06:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=22728#comment-126798</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The media is often much more subjective when they report the new about democrats than they are about the republicans. They give the republicans a pass on the lies and bullshit they float because they know it is basically white america&#039;s point of view or the bullshit is intended to foster a narrative whites are content with. 

Less you call me conspiratorial, here is what I mean: Take this article by the Republic: 
------------------------------------
Within hours of the deadliest shooting in U.S. history, leading politicians on both sides of the aisle turned the tragedy into a political issue.

On Sunday, after the slaughter of 49 people in an Orlando gay nightclub, Donald Trump said President Obama should resign and Hillary Clinton should withdraw from the presidential race.

His reason? The two refused to use the term &quot;radical Islamic terrorism,&quot; he claimed.

Trump also redoubled his call for a ban on Muslims entering the United States and said the country should be very restrictive in accepting refugees from the Middle East.

In a speech Monday, Clinton said Trump&#039;s argument about the term &quot;radical Islamic terrorism&quot; is irrelevant, adding &quot;Whether you call it radical jihadism, radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing. I&#039;m happy to say either.&quot;

However, Democrats weren&#039;t above politicizing the issue, either.

Democratic senators said Monday that they will take up legislation that would ban gun sales to suspected terrorists.

“How many more people have to die at the hands of a terrorist with a gun before the Senate acts?” the oft-grandstanding Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “I hope and pray the answer is none.”
----------------------------------------

Whether or not a person uses the term &quot;radical Islamic terrorism&quot; is irrelevant because it will not or could not effect what happened. Neither would banning Muslims from entering the United States since the killer was an American citizen. 

However, when it came to criticizing the Dems it became subjective because it was their opinion that the dems taking up legislation that would ban gun sales to suspected terrorist is political. 

Just because it takes a political action to produce a solution to a national problem doesn&#039;t necessarily make it political.  For certain if the killer could not have purchased an assault rifle, he would not have been able to kill as many people as he did with a hand gun.  So outlawing the ownership of assault weapons would prevent, terrorists, and other crazies from using one to kill a huge number of people with a gun. 

Then there was the objective fact concerning Sen. Chuck Schumer D-N.Y. who presented this question; “How many more people have to die at the hands of a terrorist with a gun before the Senate acts?” the oft-grandstanding Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “I hope and pray the answer is none.”

Notice the subjective inclusion of &quot;the oft-grandstanding Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.&quot;  How is it &quot;grandstanding&quot; to ask the obvious question that something be done about the access to killing machines like assault rifles?

Who cares what the killer&#039;s motive is if you prevent him from using the killing machine (in this case an assault rifle) he needs to complete the act.  Americans lives depend on their hired Congress doing that.

Is it too much to ask that rather than a moment of silence for the dead, they take that moment to come up with a compromise that will remove assault weapons from the list of guns a citizen can legally purchase? 

If not, we will continue to have those meaningless &quot;moments of silence.&quot; On the other hand enacting a law that outlaws the ownership, and selling of assault will prevent a killer from using one to do what happened in Orlando.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The media is often much more subjective when they report the new about democrats than they are about the republicans. They give the republicans a pass on the lies and bullshit they float because they know it is basically white america&#8217;s point of view or the bullshit is intended to foster a narrative whites are content with. </p>
<p>Less you call me conspiratorial, here is what I mean: Take this article by the Republic:<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<br />
Within hours of the deadliest shooting in U.S. history, leading politicians on both sides of the aisle turned the tragedy into a political issue.</p>
<p>On Sunday, after the slaughter of 49 people in an Orlando gay nightclub, Donald Trump said President Obama should resign and Hillary Clinton should withdraw from the presidential race.</p>
<p>His reason? The two refused to use the term &#8220;radical Islamic terrorism,&#8221; he claimed.</p>
<p>Trump also redoubled his call for a ban on Muslims entering the United States and said the country should be very restrictive in accepting refugees from the Middle East.</p>
<p>In a speech Monday, Clinton said Trump&#8217;s argument about the term &#8220;radical Islamic terrorism&#8221; is irrelevant, adding &#8220;Whether you call it radical jihadism, radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing. I&#8217;m happy to say either.&#8221;</p>
<p>However, Democrats weren&#8217;t above politicizing the issue, either.</p>
<p>Democratic senators said Monday that they will take up legislation that would ban gun sales to suspected terrorists.</p>
<p>“How many more people have to die at the hands of a terrorist with a gun before the Senate acts?” the oft-grandstanding Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “I hope and pray the answer is none.”<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-</p>
<p>Whether or not a person uses the term &#8220;radical Islamic terrorism&#8221; is irrelevant because it will not or could not effect what happened. Neither would banning Muslims from entering the United States since the killer was an American citizen. </p>
<p>However, when it came to criticizing the Dems it became subjective because it was their opinion that the dems taking up legislation that would ban gun sales to suspected terrorist is political. </p>
<p>Just because it takes a political action to produce a solution to a national problem doesn&#8217;t necessarily make it political.  For certain if the killer could not have purchased an assault rifle, he would not have been able to kill as many people as he did with a hand gun.  So outlawing the ownership of assault weapons would prevent, terrorists, and other crazies from using one to kill a huge number of people with a gun. </p>
<p>Then there was the objective fact concerning Sen. Chuck Schumer D-N.Y. who presented this question; “How many more people have to die at the hands of a terrorist with a gun before the Senate acts?” the oft-grandstanding Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “I hope and pray the answer is none.”</p>
<p>Notice the subjective inclusion of &#8220;the oft-grandstanding Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.&#8221;  How is it &#8220;grandstanding&#8221; to ask the obvious question that something be done about the access to killing machines like assault rifles?</p>
<p>Who cares what the killer&#8217;s motive is if you prevent him from using the killing machine (in this case an assault rifle) he needs to complete the act.  Americans lives depend on their hired Congress doing that.</p>
<p>Is it too much to ask that rather than a moment of silence for the dead, they take that moment to come up with a compromise that will remove assault weapons from the list of guns a citizen can legally purchase? </p>
<p>If not, we will continue to have those meaningless &#8220;moments of silence.&#8221; On the other hand enacting a law that outlaws the ownership, and selling of assault will prevent a killer from using one to do what happened in Orlando.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
