Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Reason 787 Why Mike Bloomberg Can Kiss My Sweet Patoot


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#1 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,320 posts

Posted 25 March 2013 - 03:34 PM

"You can't keep the tides from coming in," the mayor remarked when asked about drones on his weekly radio show. "We're going to have more visibility and less privacy. I just don't see how you could stop that."

 

But I see how you could, you fascist weenie.

 

http://www.nypost.co...Z39uSvzv9Ful25H



#2 Shake Yer Bones

Shake Yer Bones
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,443 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 04:24 PM

His departure from office would be a step in the right direction. 



#3 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 26 March 2013 - 05:54 PM

His departure from office would be a step in the right direction. 

 

Why?

 

NYers will only elect another 3 term Mayor and face many of the same problems (Koch, Giuliani, Bllomberg).



#4 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 06:05 PM

I get heartburn every time I see that name



#5 Feck

Feck
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,761 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:24 PM

http://www.silive.co...#incart_m-rpt-2

 

a drinking buddy of mine is on the right.

 

12483855-large.jpg



#6 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,320 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 04:01 PM

http://www.silive.co...#incart_m-rpt-2

 

a drinking buddy of mine is on the right.

 

12483855-large.jpg

 

 

:clap:



#7 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,609 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 19 October 2013 - 03:17 PM

I'm not for Bloomberg, don't know much about his. I know some of you will see these as bad things, but I see at least some good in all of them...Was just reading the current (Oct 21) Time and they claim...

 

...He's spend 100 million of his money on anti-smoking campaigns around the world. That is will save more lives (whatever that exactly means) than anything else. That adult smoking in NY has decreased at twice the rate of the US and that life expectancy in New York has gone up 3 years in one decade.

...Has spent $100 million on genetically modifying a mosquito in the hopes of eliminating malaria.

...Given $100 million to stamp out Polio in Nigeria

 

...Given money to support candidates in support candidates in favor of gun control. 

 

...He supports (financially / politically) Planned Parenthood

...He supports (financially / politically)  passing gar-marriage referendums (I believe that means in favor of allowing gay marriage.)

 

...Is trying to find solutions to being non-partisan redistricting to more states -- to reverse gerrymandering.


Again, I don't know a whole lot about him. And some of what I know seems to be overstepping by the goverment into personal choice. But it does seem he comes down on the right side of many things -- and puts his money there.



#8 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:23 PM

I'm not for Bloomberg, don't know much about his. I know some of you will see these as bad things, but I see at least some good in all of them...Was just reading the current (Oct 21) Time and they claim...

 

...He's spend 100 million of his money on anti-smoking campaigns around the world. That is will save more lives (whatever that exactly means) than anything else. That adult smoking in NY has decreased at twice the rate of the US and that life expectancy in New York has gone up 3 years in one decade.

...Has spent $100 million on genetically modifying a mosquito in the hopes of eliminating malaria.

...Given $100 million to stamp out Polio in Nigeria

 

...Given money to support candidates in support candidates in favor of gun control. 

 

...He supports (financially / politically) Planned Parenthood

...He supports (financially / politically)  passing gar-marriage referendums (I believe that means in favor of allowing gay marriage.)

 

...Is trying to find solutions to being non-partisan redistricting to more states -- to reverse gerrymandering.


Again, I don't know a whole lot about him. And some of what I know seems to be overstepping by the goverment into personal choice. But it does seem he comes down on the right side of many things -- and puts his money there.

 

 

He is a Billionaire, he more than enough money to help people in need.

 

How he runs a city is completely different.



#9 jnjn

jnjn
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,934 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:06 PM

He is a Billionaire, he more than enough money to help people in need.

 

How he runs a city is completely different.

 

a lot of people have more than enough money to help those in need & yet choose not to.

he's also declined a salary & instead does the job for $1.00 annually



#10 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:13 PM

a lot of people have more than enough money to help those in need & yet choose not to.

he's also declined a salary & instead does the job for $1.00 annually

 

 

Yes a lot do, but people in the public eye do so more than others.

 

There are quite a few execs of Huge corporations who take a $1 salary.

For example 

 

Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was Governor of California

Meg Whitman - HP

John Mackey - Whole Foods

Sergey Brin - Google
Larry Ellison - Oracle Corporation
Mark Zuckerberg - Facebook


#11 jnjn

jnjn
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,934 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:20 PM

Yes a lot do, but people in the public eye do so more than others.

 

There are quite a few execs of Huge corporations who take a $1 salary.

For example 

 

Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was Governor of California

Meg Whitman - HP

John Mackey - Whole Foods

Sergey Brin - Google
Larry Ellison - Oracle Corporation
Mark Zuckerberg - Facebook

 

except for schwarzenegger, don't some of those people have stock shares or some other compensation from those companies?  i don't see that as the same thing



#12 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:29 PM

except for schwarzenegger, don't some of those people have stock shares or some other compensation from those companies?  i don't see that as the same thing

 

 

Bloomberg is also worth A LOT money and still has stock in Bloomberg.  He still gets paid from other sources.

 

I also don't understand your point.  I was a NYC resident and I too vited for him in 2002 or 2004 I forget now but because he financed his own election and the $1 salary.  

 

That wins elections.  

 

But his work in NYC since being elected is awful.  



#13 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,609 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:32 PM

He is a Billionaire, he [has] more than enough money to help people in need. 

 

What's that got to do with it?

Regardless of that other wealthy people do, this one person is choosing to give his wealth when he doesn't have to. Agree or disagree with his choices of how to make things better -- he is trying. And look at what he chooses to give to. It ain't just his college alma matter or some other rich-white-person cause. It's polio, malaria, planned parenthood, gay rights. Seems to me like not only is he giving of himself -- the fortune he made but also giving to some good causes.

 

How he runs a city is completely different.

 

So what is it that people don't like about him & how he ran New York?  -- I'm really asking here. I have not followed Bloomberg much as all and don't live in NY or NYC, so I really don't know.

The only thing mentioned in this thread so far is that he made a quote about privacy. He didn't even say (in the quoted quoted) that privacy isn't important -- he only said that he does not see how to [run a city] without there being less privacy [while in public spaces]"  ~ Parts in brackets is what I'm assuming he was talking about -- though I could be wrong.

Again, I'm not for or against Bloomberg. I'm just saying, he doesn't seem too bad. If you think he is...educate me as to why.

 



#14 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,609 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:37 PM

Bloomberg is also worth A LOT money and still has stock in Bloomberg.  He still gets paid from other sources.

 

I also don't understand your point.  I was a NYC resident and I too vited for him in 2002 or 2004 I forget now but because he financed his own election and the $1 salary.  

 

That wins elections.  

 

But his work in NYC since being elected is awful.  


I see jnjn's point. Not taking a salary from a company that you still get other compensation from is different than not taking any salary from a public office job. Just because one "has" money, does not make their largess of not taking a salary (or their philanthropy) meaningless.

 

More important to me, would you care to say what was awful about how he ran NYC?  Maybe you're right. I just don't know. Thanks.



#15 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:41 PM

What's that got to do with it?

Regardless of that other wealthy people do, this one person is choosing to give his wealth when he doesn't have to. Agree or disagree with his choices of how to make things better -- he is trying. And look at what he chooses to give to. It ain't just his college alma matter or some other rich-white-person cause. It's polio, malaria, planned parenthood, gay rights. Seems to me like not only is he giving of himself -- the fortune he made but also giving to some good causes.

 

 

My point is does it change how you feel about someone in politics because they did nice stuff with their money.

 

There are loads of examples of people who are kind with their money.

 

 

So what is it that people don't like about him & how he ran New York?  -- I'm really asking here. I have not followed Bloomberg much as all and don't live in NY or NYC, so I really don't know.

The only thing mentioned in this thread so far is that he made a quote about privacy. He didn't even say (in the quoted quoted) that privacy isn't important -- he only said that he does not see how to [run a city] without there being less privacy [while in public spaces]"  ~ Parts in brackets is what I'm assuming he was talking about -- though I could be wrong.

Again, I'm not for or against Bloomberg. I'm just saying, he doesn't seem too bad. If you think he is...educate me as to why.

 

Not being a resident of NYC since 2005 I decline to comment on specifics.  

 

But the Soda Tax, and Stop and Frisk are a good place to start.



#16 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:41 PM

I see jnjn's point. Not taking a salary from a company that you still get other compensation from is different than not taking any salary from a public office job. Just because one "has" money, does not make their largess of not taking a salary (or their philanthropy) meaningless.

 

More important to me, would you care to say what was awful about how he ran NYC?  Maybe you're right. I just don't know. Thanks.

 

 

My point is he used the $1 salary to get elected.  



#17 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:42 PM

Also, do we forget he also has stock options in Bloomberg?



#18 jnjn

jnjn
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,934 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:12 PM

Bloomberg is also worth A LOT money and still has stock in Bloomberg.  He still gets paid from other sources.

 

I also don't understand your point.  I was a NYC resident and I too vited for him in 2002 or 2004 I forget now but because he financed his own election and the $1 salary.  

 

That wins elections.  

 

But his work in NYC since being elected is awful.  

my point is that just because one has a lot of money doesn't mean they MUST do good with it & not everyone with a lot of money would forgo a salary from a public service job.  i think that says something about a persons' character...there are a lot of very wealthy people out there that are still greedy as all hell & have no problem taking every single dollar they could possibly get their hands on.  bloomberg doesn't strike me as that.

 

i wouldn't call his work in nyc awful by any means...the health initiatives alone have made huge improvements in quality of life for many ny'ers & crime as continued to go down.  as far as anything else i'm not sure so hate as you like :lol:



#19 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,609 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:18 PM

So, you dislike Bloomberg because he gave away his money, because he took no government salary, and because how he ran the city was "awful" -- but you decline to comment on how it was awful. Okay, anyone besides CA want to say why Bloomberg is bad?
 

 

Stop & Frisk: From my limited knowledge of this, I agree it may violate constitutional rights and certainly is used inequitably as regards race and economic class.


Soda Tax: Not a big fan of this. Also not totally opposed. Open for debate.



PS: We have the word "racist" for those discriminating based on race and "sexist" for discrimination based on sex. What's the corresponding word for people or policies that discriminate based on social class? 



#20 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 20,258 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:20 PM


PS: We have the word "racist" for those discriminating based on race and "sexist" for discrimination based on sex. What's the corresponding word for people or policies that discriminate based on social class? 

 

 

elitist



#21 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 20,258 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:21 PM

my point is that just because one has a lot of money doesn't mean they MUST do good with it & not everyone with a lot of money would forgo a salary from a public service job.  i think that says something about a persons' character...there are a lot of very wealthy people out there that are still greedy as all hell & have no problem taking every single dollar they could possibly get their hands on.  bloomberg doesn't strike me as that.

 

i wouldn't call his work in nyc awful by any means...the health initiatives alone have made huge improvements in quality of life for many ny'ers & crime as continued to go down.  as far as anything else i'm not sure so hate as you like :lol:

 

 

 

Does he wear nice shoes?



#22 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:24 PM

All i know is I'm really hoping that the majority of Plebs vote for Lhota. He has some great ideas adn a lot of experience with running this city. But it's going to be a struggle since de Blasio has pulled out the "tax the rich" dog whistle to blow. Even though de Blasio has no experience and further, was actually removed from what little experience he has because he is devisive. He's a slimy one, so im pretty sure thats who we'll get.



#23 jnjn

jnjn
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,934 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:32 PM

Does he wear nice shoes?

 

i've never had a good look at them, but when i do i'll be sure to let everyboardie know! :lol:

 

 

"Billionaire businessman has worn only two pairs of work shoes for the past 10 years."

 

http://www.mnn.com/l...inable-footwear



#24 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:37 PM

So, you dislike Bloomberg because he gave away his money, because he took no government salary, and because how he ran the city was "awful" -- but you decline to comment on how it was awful. Okay, anyone besides CA want to say why Bloomberg is bad?

 

Who said I disliked him for giving away his money.  I am just stating that many rich people give their money to charities or get their feet dirty.  Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it isn't happeneing. Why make a big deal about this guy.



#25 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:38 PM

i've never had a good look at them, but when i do i'll be sure to let everyboardie know! :lol:

 

 

"Billionaire businessman has worn only two pairs of work shoes for the past 10 years."

 

http://www.mnn.com/l...inable-footwear

 

 

I saw this story.  He does get his shoes resoled quite often though.



#26 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:40 PM

PS: We have the word "racist" for those discriminating based on race and "sexist" for discrimination based on sex. What's the corresponding word for people or policies that discriminate based on social class? 

 

The correlation to this comment is "stop and Frisk".

 

The word is arse hole.



#27 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:46 PM

Also, Bloomberg ran for Mayor originally because he had/has aspirations of running for president (see Giuliani).  That $1 salary was well thought out from his initial election.



#28 Shake Yer Bones

Shake Yer Bones
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,443 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:48 PM

Bloomberg is the poster child for nanny state government. There's a fine line between governing and interfering with private lives, and he's crossed that line many times. It creates a state of dependence for the populace and in my view, that is never a good thing when the people start to depend heavily on the government. 



#29 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:49 PM

Almost 50% of the entire US populaiton relies on one govt. program or another. The takers are soon to outnumber the taken froms.



#30 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:52 PM

Almost 50% of the entire US populaiton relies on one govt. program or another. The takers are soon to outnumber the taken froms.

 

I will add to Shake your bones comments with my previous ones.

 

If he runs for president, wouldn't he perpetuate the dependence on the state/country.



#31 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:54 PM

Also see this thread for more Bloomberg bashing from before last years election:

 

http://www.gathering...3-lolbloomberg/



#32 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:54 PM

Absolutely. And he'd probably do everything in his "power" to diminsh the 2nd A.

 

But i dont think he'll be running for president. I believe Cuomo is the favored LOLberal for that in NY.



#33 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:59 PM

Absolutely. And he'd probably do everything in his "power" to diminsh the 2nd A.

 

But i dont think he'll be running for president. I believe Cuomo is the favored LOLberal for that in NY.

 

 

Yeah, climate not right for him to run on many counts.



#34 jnjn

jnjn
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,934 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 04:01 PM

I will add to Shake your bones comments with my previous ones.

 

If he runs for president, wouldn't he perpetuate the dependence on the state/country.

he's too old & anti gun to have any shot at the presidency



#35 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 04:03 PM

He's so anti-gun he has gun-toting protection around him.

 

:lmao:



#36 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 October 2013 - 04:03 PM

he's too old & anti gun to have any shot at the presidency

 

I was talking about when he originally ran for Mayor, his original goal was president.



#37 jnjn

jnjn
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,934 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 04:16 PM

He's so anti-gun he has gun-toting protection around him.

 

:lmao:

 

:funny1:



#38 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,609 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 21 October 2013 - 04:17 PM

Who said I disliked him for giving away his money.  I am just stating that many rich people give their money to charities or get their feet dirty.  Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it isn't happeneing. Why make a big deal about this guy.


I'm not talking about his money. I think it's great he is philanthropic with is, regardless of how much he can afford it. You think what you want.

Why make a big deal? Well, Tim started the thread -- so ask him. As for me, when someone is put down and I don't understand why -- I get curious. Besides, he's one of the richest people on the planet (like #13 or so) and is very active politically and philanthropically. He will surely be having impact on issues & policies for many years to come. I'd like to form a better understanding of him that I have now.
 

 

 

The correlation to this comment is "stop and Frisk".

 

Huh?

 

 

 

The word is arse hole.


No. It really isn't.

 

 

 

Also, Bloomberg ran for Mayor originally because he had/has aspirations of running for president (see Giuliani).  That $1 salary was well thought out from his initial election.


Fair enough. I still don't see that as a bad thing. This is one of those there is no way for the guy to win. If he's worth billions and take a salary, he's a jerk for that. If he's worth billions and doesn't take a salary, he's a conniving jerk for that. ~ I'm seeing this a lot with some people -- they just want to bitch and complain but no matter what, there is no solution they will like. 

 

 

 

 

Bloomberg is the poster child for nanny state government. There's a fine line between governing and interfering with private lives, and he's crossed that line many times. It creates a state of dependence for the populace and in my view, that is never a good thing when the people start to depend heavily on the government. 

 

Again, making a claim but with no details. You post what you want -- but I'm not hating on the guy just because others do. 

 

 

 

Almost 50% of the entire US population relies on one govt. program or another. The takers are soon to outnumber the taken froms.

 

Probably more when you factor in corporations that rely on it -- and corporations employ people and make the products they buy. ~ I think government can be good or bad. I think there are things that government can do in a positive way to help people. I would have no problem if 100% of the population took part in (relied on) one government program or another. It's not the percentage that matters, it's the details that make it good or bad.

 

 

 

If he runs for president, wouldn't he perpetuate the dependence on the state/country.


Maybe. But there is little evidence for it in this thread. 
 

 

 

...he'd probably do everything in his "power" to diminish the 2nd A.

 

Fine with me.



#39 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,609 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 21 October 2013 - 04:19 PM

He's so anti-gun he has gun-toting protection around him.

 

:lmao:

 

Mildly humorous but in no way a contradiction or example of hypocrisy.   



#40 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 04:22 PM

Mildly humorous but in no way a contradiction or example of hypocrisy.   

 

Oh, i beg to differ.



#41 jnjn

jnjn
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,934 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 04:32 PM

I was talking about when he originally ran for Mayor, his original goal was president.

 

i honestly don't know, but you may be right.  there's been a lot of talk about him running after this third term as mayor & that's what i was referring to.



#42 Shake Yer Bones

Shake Yer Bones
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,443 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 04:44 PM

I didn't offer details because I assumed his proposals and ideas were well-known already. His attempts to control guns, sugary drinks, cigarettes, trans-fats, charge people a 'congestion tax' to drive their cars and force restaurants to post calorie counters on their menus are just a few of the things that make him champion nanny.

 

It's commendable that he apparently is concerned with the health of people, and it's great that he donates so much of his money to the charities of his choice. But his attempts to legislate daily living is an example of why he is so despised. He wants to rob people of their basic choices in life. It comes off as he thinks we're too stupid and we need him to make choices for us. I find that highly offensive. 

 

The sooner he and his ilk are away from us, the better.

 

 

..... Again, making a claim but with no details. You post what you want -- but I'm not hating on the guy just because others do. 


#43 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,609 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 21 October 2013 - 04:58 PM

I didn't offer details because I assumed his proposals and ideas were well-known already. His attempts to control guns, sugary drinks, cigarettes, trans-fats, charge people a 'congestion tax' to drive their cars and force restaurants to post calorie counters on their menus are just a few of the things that make him champion nanny.

 

It's commendable that he apparently is concerned with the health of people, and it's great that he donates so much of his money to the charities of his choice. But his attempts to legislate daily living is an example of why he is so despised. He wants to rob people of their basic choices in life. It comes off as he thinks we're too stupid and we need him to make choices for us. I find that highly offensive. 

 

The sooner he and his ilk are away from us, the better.


Thanks. I had some knowledge of what he has been doing, but mostly has not paid attention to that. 

Guns: I have no problem with him wanting to control those, especially in a city where there is no hunting. Not wanting to turn this thread into a gun debate, just saying that gun in a city are usually used to hurt others. Whatever your arguments for/against, they are in a different category than sugary drinks.

Sugary Drinks: Mixed feelings, depending on exactly the rules/laws/taxes/places. Limiting / eliminating them in schools for example I'm for. Educating people about the dangers I'm for. Minimal tax to support some education (about this issue) I might be okay with.

Cigarettes: Mixed feelings. People should be able to be in public (government)  places without secondhand smoke dangers & inconveniences. Banning in bars and such: In some ways it's up to the owners & patrons. Still, when you see a stat like, "That adult smoking in NY has decreased at twice the rate of the US and that life expectancy in New York has gone up 3 years in one decade." -- I've got to at lest stop and reconsider. 

Trans-Fats & Calorie counts. I think restaurants should be required to make reasonable efforts to let people know these things. Limiting them, same as above.

Congestion Tax: Don't know how this works. If people drive in the city and there are more vehicles than the streets can accommodate, is charging people for that use a bad/wrong thing? 


Again, still not saying I like these policies or Bloomberg, just taking a deeper look/think.



#44 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 October 2013 - 05:01 PM

Thanks. I had some knowledge of what he has been doing, but mostly has not paid attention to that. 

Guns: I have no problem with him wanting to control those, especially in a city where there is no hunting. Not wanting to turn this thread into a gun debate, just saying that gun in a city are usually used to hurt others. Whatever your arguments for/against, they are in a different category than sugary drinks.

Sugary Drinks: Mixed feelings, depending on exactly the rules/laws/taxes/places. Limiting / eliminating them in schools for example I'm for. Educating people about the dangers I'm for. Minimal tax to support some education (about this issue) I might be okay with.

Cigarettes: Mixed feelings. People should be able to be in public (government)  places without secondhand smoke dangers & inconveniences. Banning in bars and such: In some ways it's up to the owners & patrons. Still, when you see a stat like, "That adult smoking in NY has decreased at twice the rate of the US and that life expectancy in New York has gone up 3 years in one decade." -- I've got to at lest stop and reconsider. 

Trans-Fats & Calorie counts. I think restaurants should be required to make reasonable efforts to let people know these things. Limiting them, same as above.

Congestion Tax: Don't know how this works. If people drive in the city and there are more vehicles than the streets can accommodate, is charging people for that use a bad/wrong thing? 


Again, still not saying I like these policies or Bloomberg, just taking a deeper look/think.

 

 

your deeper looks imply you are for a larger goverment, and for them to be involved in many aspects of your life.

 

All of these things require further government regulations.



#45 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 05:04 PM


Guns: I have no problem with him wanting to control those, especially in a city where there is no hunting. Not wanting to turn this thread into a gun debate, just saying that gun in a city are usually used to hurt others. Whatever your arguments for/against, they are in a different category than sugary drinks.
 

 

 

Not wanting to turn this into a debate either but you should read up on his position to this.  His anti-gun support reaches much deeper and further than NYC.

 

If you mean harm others by protecting yourself, I agree.



#46 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,320 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 05:12 PM

Mildly humorous but in no way a...example of hypocrisy.   


Really?

Because someone who wants to deny average citizens the ability to protect themselves, yet is fine with having armed personnel to protect him strikes me as both elitist and wildly hypocritical.



#47 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,320 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 05:15 PM

Not only that, it's pretty much the textbook rationale for Amendment II having been added to the Constitution...



#48 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,609 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 21 October 2013 - 07:32 PM


Really?

Because someone who wants to deny average citizens the ability to protect themselves, yet is fine with having armed personnel to protect him strikes me as both elitist and wildly hypocritical.


Really. 
* I'll bet all the armed guards and all the guns surrounding him are background checked & registered.
* The guys grading him are not going to be drunk or raging upset or robbing banks or doing other crimes while protecting him. (At end of shift, they are citizens again)
* People have to play by the rules as the are not at they are fighting for them to be. 

Does Bloomberg actually fight to "deny average citizens the ability to protect themselves" or does he ask for stricter regulations, checks, etc?



#49 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,436 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 October 2013 - 07:37 PM


Really. 
* I'll bet all the armed guards and all the guns surrounding him are background checked & registered.
* The guys grading him are not going to be drunk or raging upset or robbing banks or doing other crimes while protecting him. (At end of shift, they are citizens again)
* People have to play by the rules as the are not at they are fighting for them to be. 

Does Bloomberg actually fight to "deny average citizens the ability to protect themselves" or does he ask for stricter regulations, checks, etc?

 

So he is for more government rules and regulations, and by defending these positions like above I stated, you to must be for this.

 

 

The rub, that is the biggest reason why we are where we are today, too much government involvement in our daily lives.



#50 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,609 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 21 October 2013 - 07:39 PM

Not wanting to turn this into a debate either but you should read up on his position to this.  His anti-gun support reaches much deeper and further than NYC.

 

I only said "especially" in a city. Meaning that regulation against hunting rifles is a different thing. It he trying to outlaw guns used for hunting?

 

 

If you mean harm others by protecting yourself, I agree.

 

I mean that some crazy drinking a sugary drink is not going to harm you pretty much no matter how he does it; but him having a gun and shooting you does. One of the most widely accepted roles of government it to protect our rights. We regularly and properly regulate things that could harm or kill other people -- because after you're dead, it's too late: Cars, Chemicals, Pollution, Drinking & Driving. Guns are different than soda & cigarettes.