100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: President Bloomberg? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Thu 06/04/15 01:18 PM
|
|
http://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/newslinks/president-bloomberg-speculation-flies-of-possible-candidacy/
President Bloomberg? Speculation flies of possible candidacy http://www.guns.com/2015/06/04/president-bloomberg-speculation-flies-of-possible-candidacy/ Chris Eger for Guns.com reports: There is speculation in New York-based media outlets that prominent Democrats are seeking to entice former Mayor Michael Bloomberg into a bid for the White House in 2016. While there has been no word from the Bloomberg camp, the billionaire with hobbies that include funding gun control groups and political candidates has briefly flirted with running for the nation's highest office several times. As noted by Vanity Fair after Goodwin's article broke, rumors of a Bloomberg presidential run popped up in both 2007 and 2011. Gun rights advocates reading the tealeaves of a possible Bloomberg run see it as a defacto assault on the Second Amendment. I think the big motivation for Bloomberg wanting to be president is that he could spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to attack Second Amendment rights instead of the $50 million of his own money he is spending yearly, Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, told Guns.com Wednesday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/newslinks/president-bloomberg-speculation-flies-of-possible-candidacy/ President Bloomberg? Speculation flies of possible candidacy http://www.guns.com/2015/06/04/president-bloomberg-speculation-flies-of-possible-candidacy/ Chris Eger for Guns.com reports: There is speculation in New York-based media outlets that prominent Democrats are seeking to entice former Mayor Michael Bloomberg into a bid for the White House in 2016. While there has been no word from the Bloomberg camp, the billionaire with hobbies that include funding gun control groups and political candidates has briefly flirted with running for the nation's highest office several times. As noted by Vanity Fair after Goodwin's article broke, rumors of a Bloomberg presidential run popped up in both 2007 and 2011. Gun rights advocates reading the tealeaves of a possible Bloomberg run see it as a defacto assault on the Second Amendment. I think the big motivation for Bloomberg wanting to be president is that he could spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to attack Second Amendment rights instead of the $50 million of his own money he is spending yearly, Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, told Guns.com Wednesday. I'm sure he'd win in a landslide. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/newslinks/president-bloomberg-speculation-flies-of-possible-candidacy/ President Bloomberg? Speculation flies of possible candidacy http://www.guns.com/2015/06/04/president-bloomberg-speculation-flies-of-possible-candidacy/ Chris Eger for Guns.com reports: There is speculation in New York-based media outlets that prominent Democrats are seeking to entice former Mayor Michael Bloomberg into a bid for the White House in 2016. While there has been no word from the Bloomberg camp, the billionaire with hobbies that include funding gun control groups and political candidates has briefly flirted with running for the nation's highest office several times. As noted by Vanity Fair after Goodwin's article broke, rumors of a Bloomberg presidential run popped up in both 2007 and 2011. Gun rights advocates reading the tealeaves of a possible Bloomberg run see it as a defacto assault on the Second Amendment. I think the big motivation for Bloomberg wanting to be president is that he could spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to attack Second Amendment rights instead of the $50 million of his own money he is spending yearly, Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, told Guns.com Wednesday. I'm sure he'd win in a landslide.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There goes our 32oz fountain drinks.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There goes our 32oz fountain drinks..... Damit! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There goes our 32oz fountain drinks..... by Presidential Fiat!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's an "interesting" history.
NYC wasn't much interested in "Mayor" Bloomberg. In his campaign to be elected to the office of Mayor of NYC (a political dead-end) his advisors told Bloomberg how much he'd need to spend to get elected. They told him. He did it. And while I haven't confirmed it, one news report I caught of it indicated Bloomberg spent ~$37.oo per vote to obtain the office. And it seems, he might not have been that horrid a mayor. Would he be a good president? - good question - |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Get Chuck Norris in I say? Putin, would be crapping his boxer shorts if he got in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There goes our 32oz fountain drinks..... and the styrofoam cups they come in... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There goes our 32oz fountain drinks..... and the styrofoam cups they come in... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anybody and infact, anything will be better than Hillary and Obozo, hopefully
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anybody and infact, anything will be better than Hillary and Obozo, hopefully actually he would be about the same,and possibly more dictatorial! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anybody and infact, anything will be better than Hillary and Obozo, hopefully actually he would be about the same,and possibly more dictatorial! True ! Food police . He has major control issues, he even wanted to remove baby formula from the WIC program & said all mothers should breast feed. I'm surprised some lady hasn't shot him yet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bloomburg is one of the biggest douche bags ever. this guy doesnt understand what the word "free" means. he thinks every thing should be regulated. hes a fool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's silly to pretend Bloomberg is trying to "control".
What he says he's trying to do, and what he appears to be doing is promoting public health. If Bloomberg wants the maximum size Pepsi to go from 32 oz to 16 oz, all a restaurant diner need do is order two. For those drinking Pepsi at home, it can be purchased in any jumbo-sized container it's marketed in. The public health aspect: a) Both obesity, and diabetes are common among our population, particularly (ironically) among the poor. The statisticians determined that the health affects of this portion control measure would pay for itself in city services saved, due to reduced obesity and diabetes. While I enthusiastically share t8's libertarian leanings, I don't think Bloomberg's actual position is so persuasive that we have to lie or distort about it, just to make our position look better. I'm all for free will, Liberty, and all the rest of it. But the amount of refined sugar and or other harmful contents in these factory manufactured beverages is not natural. The human body isn't designed to handle it. I think either water, or even beer would be more healthful than soda-pop. b) Is it really any secret what these soda-pop marketers are doing? They addict pop drinkers, and then keep them buying these beverages that can mar an automobile's finish (you don't want it on your car paint, but you're willing to drink it by the liter?!). The history of this addiction is unmistakable. The original recipe for Coca-Cola included cocaine. OF COURSE those that drank it got addicted. So the "this guy doesnt understand what the word "free" means. he thinks every thing should be regulated" crowd said that's it: no more cocaine in soda-pop. So the product addiction engineers switched to substitutes like sugar and caffeine. And sales remain brisk. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's silly to pretend Bloomberg is trying to "control". What he says he's trying to do, and what he appears to be doing is promoting public health. If Bloomberg wants the maximum size Pepsi to go from 32 oz to 16 oz, all a restaurant diner need do is order two. For those drinking Pepsi at home, it can be purchased in any jumbo-sized container it's marketed in. The public health aspect: a) Both obesity, and diabetes are common among our population, particularly (ironically) among the poor. The statisticians determined that the health affects of this portion control measure would pay for itself in city services saved, due to reduced obesity and diabetes. While I enthusiastically share t8's libertarian leanings, I don't think Bloomberg's actual position is so persuasive that we have to lie or distort about it, just to make our position look better. I'm all for free will, Liberty, and all the rest of it. But the amount of refined sugar and or other harmful contents in these factory manufactured beverages is not natural. The human body isn't designed to handle it. I think either water, or even beer would be more healthful than soda-pop. b) Is it really any secret what these soda-pop marketers are doing? They addict pop drinkers, and then keep them buying these beverages that can mar an automobile's finish (you don't want it on your car paint, but you're willing to drink it by the liter?!). The history of this addiction is unmistakable. The original recipe for Coca-Cola included cocaine. OF COURSE those that drank it got addicted. So the "this guy doesnt understand what the word "free" means. he thinks every thing should be regulated" crowd said that's it: no more cocaine in soda-pop. So the product addiction engineers switched to substitutes like sugar and caffeine. And sales remain brisk. i see what you're saying, sugar is bad for you, some doctors have even went as far as to say it should be considered toxic. that being said if people want to drink a gallon of soda everyday, thats on them. its not so much about soda to me, its about control. if they start controlling dumb $h1t like that, whats going to be next? i used to drink soda all the time, till i figured out i wanted to be in better shape. i stopped drinking soda altogether and drink only spring water now with an occasional glass of iced tea. it just irritates me how government feels the need to try to control EVERYTHING. you only live once, if people want to drink soda all day o well. they will end up paying for it at some point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's silly to pretend Bloomberg is trying to "control". What he says he's trying to do, and what he appears to be doing is promoting public health. If Bloomberg wants the maximum size Pepsi to go from 32 oz to 16 oz, all a restaurant diner need do is order two. For those drinking Pepsi at home, it can be purchased in any jumbo-sized container it's marketed in. The public health aspect: a) Both obesity, and diabetes are common among our population, particularly (ironically) among the poor. The statisticians determined that the health affects of this portion control measure would pay for itself in city services saved, due to reduced obesity and diabetes. While I enthusiastically share t8's libertarian leanings, I don't think Bloomberg's actual position is so persuasive that we have to lie or distort about it, just to make our position look better. I'm all for free will, Liberty, and all the rest of it. But the amount of refined sugar and or other harmful contents in these factory manufactured beverages is not natural. The human body isn't designed to handle it. I think either water, or even beer would be more healthful than soda-pop. b) Is it really any secret what these soda-pop marketers are doing? They addict pop drinkers, and then keep them buying these beverages that can mar an automobile's finish (you don't want it on your car paint, but you're willing to drink it by the liter?!). The history of this addiction is unmistakable. The original recipe for Coca-Cola included cocaine. OF COURSE those that drank it got addicted. So the "this guy doesnt understand what the word "free" means. he thinks every thing should be regulated" crowd said that's it: no more cocaine in soda-pop. So the product addiction engineers switched to substitutes like sugar and caffeine. And sales remain brisk. Don't be fooled by this idiot! The father of "stop and frisk", a MAJOR offender/violator of the 2nd and 4th amendments! If you think the NSA is out of control now under Oblowme, under this clown the Gestapo would pale in comparison! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's silly to pretend Bloomberg is trying to "control". What he says he's trying to do, and what he appears to be doing is promoting public health. If Bloomberg wants the maximum size Pepsi to go from 32 oz to 16 oz, all a restaurant diner need do is order two. For those drinking Pepsi at home, it can be purchased in any jumbo-sized container it's marketed in. The public health aspect: a) Both obesity, and diabetes are common among our population, particularly (ironically) among the poor. The statisticians determined that the health affects of this portion control measure would pay for itself in city services saved, due to reduced obesity and diabetes. While I enthusiastically share t8's libertarian leanings, I don't think Bloomberg's actual position is so persuasive that we have to lie or distort about it, just to make our position look better. I'm all for free will, Liberty, and all the rest of it. But the amount of refined sugar and or other harmful contents in these factory manufactured beverages is not natural. The human body isn't designed to handle it. I think either water, or even beer would be more healthful than soda-pop. b) Is it really any secret what these soda-pop marketers are doing? They addict pop drinkers, and then keep them buying these beverages that can mar an automobile's finish (you don't want it on your car paint, but you're willing to drink it by the liter?!). The history of this addiction is unmistakable. The original recipe for Coca-Cola included cocaine. OF COURSE those that drank it got addicted. So the "this guy doesnt understand what the word "free" means. he thinks every thing should be regulated" crowd said that's it: no more cocaine in soda-pop. So the product addiction engineers switched to substitutes like sugar and caffeine. And sales remain brisk. Don't be fooled by this idiot! The father of "stop and frisk", a MAJOR offender/violator of the 2nd and 4th amendments! If you think the NSA is out of control now under Oblowme, under this clown the Gestapo would pale in comparison! once again i agree |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SS,
I respect your contribution. But as a literalist, I'm not in step with your approach. "Words mean things." Rush Limbaugh If all we can do to dismiss Bloomberg is to post lies about him, then he's probably a pretty good guy. I'd rather annihilate an opponent by speaking the truth, then giving him a pass by switching from topic to ad hom. "Don't be fooled by this idiot!" SS Bloomberg is a self-made $Billionaire. I don't think stupidity is his problem. "The father of "stop and frisk"" SS I don't think so. I thought "stop-&-frisk" was a staple of "New York's Finest" since the 1970's if not before. "If you think the NSA is out of control now under Oblowme, under this clown the Gestapo would pale in comparison!" SS I believe you believe that. I don't. I've been profiling people, including politicians for decades. I do get surprised once in a while. But usually I'm pretty close. But if you want an example of the "Gestapo" scenario you cite; can anyone come up with a better example than U.S. President Bush (younger)? His father, President Bush, was head of the CIA before he became VP, and then P. The sky did not fall. It was his son, Dubya, ran afoul of: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Thomas Jefferson to James Madison FISA, TSA, and a whole bunch of other matters of wire-tap, etc; new unprecedented ground in undermining the rights of U.S. citizens. I surely don't think portion control on corrosive beverages is as far out of line as Bush's "roving wire taps". Looks to me like you've put the bogus in boogeyman. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bloombergs still a douche. IMHO
|
|
|
|
|
