Sign in to follow this  
Plenipotentiary Tom

Bloomberg'$ $peech

Recommended Posts

So you're AGAINST certain designs in a gun that actually HELP the shooter to control his/her firearm? Are you truly that fuking stupid?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're AGAINST certain designs in a gun that actually HELP the shooter to control his/her firearm? Are you truly that fuking stupid?.....

 

Ricky, Why do you ask rhetorical questions you already know the answer to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What is an AW?

 

 

Hi Saorsa. A childish question, that's what.

And a dead giveaway that a conversant may not be discussing in good faith.

 

 

An AW is a battle-designed "tool", designed to mow down humans efficiently.

Tom informed me yesterday that they are also the best tools to glue the social fabric together during the impending government breakdown, or you know, possible social disorder.

 

 

Due to the experience of the gutted "94 "ban", courts are now advised to make the definition of AW any gun which has one of certain features.

No use of the code word "cosmetic" changes that definition, or what an AW is.

 

 

 

assaultweapon_zpsb84abbc4.jpg

 

whatisanassaultweapon_zps44464355.jpeg

 

Hey Jo, are these "assault weapons" too?

 

 

How about this one, it has all the features:

 

kf5ac6.jpg

 

This one has two of your banned features and you said it only takes one to ban it an an AW:

 

0a4t-035088.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to the experience of the gutted "94 "ban", courts are now advised to make the definition of AW any gun which has one of certain features.

No use of the code word "cosmetic" changes that definition, or what an AW is.

 

 

 

assaultweapon_zpsb84abbc4.jpg

 

So according to your definition above, the following would be banned as well:

 

22-revolver-heritage.jpg

 

122p817gunmag1.jpg

 

SlingShot_L1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The slingshot. It's always fun until someone pokes an eye out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is a thread about 1-594, Tom. So I'll just toss in the actual local aftermath of 594.

 

After we got no-nonsense background checks,...

 

 

..

 

 

No, this is a thread about $peech.

 

Over here is a thread about the nonsense contained in 594, under which you can give a rifle to your nephew, but you can't loan one to your adult son. If there's anyone here qualified to explain how that is sensible, it's you, so please go over there and do it.

 

Tom,many of you links are misnomers. That link went to a thread called School Shooting in WA ST.

Background checks like 594 are not nonsense you foolish boy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With twelve Americans an hour getting shot in the USA, Bloomberg has been a champ, a modern hero IMO, to challenge the current proliferation of guns and gun laws. The pro - gun developments are $ponsored by extremists. Clearly, these new laws are defying decency and civilized behavior in several ways.

 

I don't know much about Bloomberg. If he has supported stop-and-frisk, I disagree with him on that.

 

...

 

Since you don't follow your hero Bloomberg as closely as you follow people like Alan Gura, I want to make sure you didn't miss this update. He not only has supported it, he continues speaking out in favor of that gun control tactic to this day.

 

A real hero. :rolleyes:

 

 

Noted control freak billionaire Bloomberg says legalizing marijuana is stupid, gun control needs to continue to target minorities, and parents could save the nanny state trouble by stopping and frisking their kids on the way out the door.

 

 

...When an audience member asked the 72-year-old Bloomberg about Colorado marijuana, he responded that it was a terrible idea, one that is hurting the developing minds of children. Though he admitted to smoking a joint in the 1960s, he said the drug is more accessible and more damaging today.

 

“What are we going to say in 10 years when we see all these kids whose IQs are 5 and 10 points lower than they would have been?” he asked. “I couldn’t feel more strongly about it, and my girlfriend says it’s no different than alcohol. It is different than alcohol. This is one of the stupider things that’s happening across our country.”

 

...

 

Bloomberg claimed that 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: male, minority and between the ages of 15 and 25. Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive, he said.

 

“These kids think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed,” Bloomberg said. “They just don’t have any long-term focus or anything. It’s a joke to have a gun. It’s a joke to pull a trigger.”

 

At one point, the former mayor brought up New York City’s stop-and-frisk practices, which gained national attention in 2011. Bloomberg said that during his last year in office, a minister at a Baptist church in Harlem invited him to speak.

 

“While I’m sitting there waiting for him to introduce me, he said to his congregation, ‘You know, if every one of you stopped and frisked your kid before they went out at night, the mayor wouldn’t have to do it,’” Bloomberg said. “And so I knew I was going to be okay with that audience.”

 

The sad part is, he means well and will not stop. He really thinks drug prohibition creates a safer environment than legalization. He really believes further attempts to disarm inner city residents will help. And he really believes, probably correctly, that policies like stop and frisk are necessary if a war on guns or drugs is to be at all effective.

 

In his view, the Mayor really does "have to" stop and frisk people and we should all accept this for the greater good.

 

I don't.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked inner city drug gangs for a bit. We kinda found little direct connection between the drug war on the streets and tough or lax enforcement 95% of the time. The two can be quite detached, nearly unrelated. Does it account for mucho blame for gun violence? Meh. Gang interactions account for 12%-18% of homicides; better progress will be made in pro-active hearts and minds elsewhere.

 

Bloomberg could use a latte sit-down with Tom Ray. Seriously. But what Tom Ray may gain, when reflecting the Bloomberg violations in play, is that gun damage pushed Bloomie to it. And that SA Gun Club groupthink drove me in Bloomberg's direction. You may be your own, unregulated problems.

 

I don't care for your background check position, Badgeless One, so I kinda go all tsk tsk about Bloomberg's shakedowns.

Bad on both of us.

I don't like Jeff's cavalier marketing plan down at Wal-Mart, so I say screw AW's...

See how that works?

 

*************************

 

Tom, I once read your Hickenlooper thread for hours, but happened to enjoy it backwards. WIth Wofsey stoking you, you got all extra-lofty, and quite outraged. You were holding court, on a roll, very good libbie stuff. FINALLY I came to the heinous crimes of the Governor, and it was, well, fluff. My own mainstream views, as a matter of fact.

 

Your extended villification, IIRC, was over Gov. H's slight of the CO State Patrol delegate, which had been more or less sent from the NRA/SAF. (The Gov. brushed them off after they showed up to say their piece). Your prolonged rant was about, ahem, "lying" to the press by minimizing the no-show/insult, "lies" which defeated your hyperolic "rights"... to LCM's???...(claims which BTW are unsupported in Heller).

 

And you had gone ballistic. I was stunned with the similarities to Rod Serlings' The Twilight Zone...a light went on in my brain and I knew then how you must truly loathe my ass.

 

Your content in our debates has been disappointing so far.

But I expect you will have scores of court decisions to rub in my face, soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked inner city drug gangs for a bit. We kinda found little direct connection between the drug war on the streets and tough or lax enforcement 95% of the time. The two can be quite detached, nearly unrelated. Does it account for mucho blame for gun violence? Meh. Gang interactions account for 12%-18% of homicides; better progress will be made in pro-active hearts and minds elsewhere.

 

Bloomberg could use a latte sit-down with Tom Ray. Seriously. But what Tom Ray may gain, when reflecting the Bloomberg violations in play, is that gun damage pushed Bloomie to it. And that SA Gun Club groupthink drove me in Bloomberg's direction. You may be your own, unregulated problems.

 

I don't care for your background check position, Badgeless One, so I kinda go all tsk tsk about Bloomberg's shakedowns.

Bad on both of us.

I don't like Jeff's cavalier marketing plan down at Wal-Mart, so I say screw AW's...

See how that works?

 

*************************

 

Tom, I once read your Hickenlooper thread for hours, but happened to enjoy it backwards. WIth Wofsey stoking you, you got all extra-lofty, and quite outraged. You were holding court, on a roll, very good libbie stuff. FINALLY I came to the heinous crimes of the Governor, and it was, well, fluff. My own mainstream views, as a matter of fact.

 

Your extended villification, IIRC, was over Gov. H's slight of the CO State Patrol delegate, which had been more or less sent from the NRA/SAF. (The Gov. brushed them off after they showed up to say their piece). Your prolonged rant was about, ahem, "lying" to the press by minimizing the no-show/insult, "lies" which defeated your hyperolic "rights"... to LCM's???...(claims which BTW are unsupported in Heller).

 

And you had gone ballistic. I was stunned with the similarities to Rod Serlings' The Twilight Zone...a light went on in my brain and I knew then how you must truly loathe my ass.

 

Your content in our debates has been disappointing so far.

But I expect you will have scores of court decisions to rub in my face, soon enough.

 

"Gun damage" didn't push other politicians to stop and frisk policies, and as I have pointed out, many cities have managed to bring down crime rates without such policies. Quit making lame excuses for behavior you said you oppose.

 

Speaking of which... I was pissed at Hickenlooper for two different lies, detailed in this post and this one.

 

Your mainstream view may be that he ignored one delegate from the State Patrol, but what actually happened was that he ignored the representative from the state's Sheriffs and implausibly claimed he did not know they objected to the law he was signing. Reporters knew, but he didn't. He never said he ignored them because they were sent by the NRA.

 

He also lied about the fact that he found time to talk to Bloomberg about the law, but not the sheriffs.

 

Obviously, lying about his actions being a slap at the NRA doesn't bother you and I guess his lies about the law he signed don't either. Sorry to see that those views are mainstream enough that he's still in office, but I still don't see the appeal of a lying Governor who can't be bothered to pay attention to law enforcement when signing a bill of great concern to them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys - please, trim JoCal's posts - I am tired of the emotional pleas that are completely deviod of reason. I've got 2 guys on my ignore list - and one of 'em might come off soon. This guy is simply pissing up a rope and thinking that the backsplash is a drought ending rain sent from heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I worked inner city drug gangs for a bit. We kinda found little direct connection between the drug war on the streets and tough or lax enforcement 95% of the time. The two can be quite detached, nearly unrelated. Does it account for mucho blame for gun violence? Meh. Gang interactions account for 12%-18% of homicides; better progress will be made in pro-active hearts and minds elsewhere.

 

Bloomberg could use a latte sit-down with Tom Ray. Seriously. But what Tom Ray may gain, when reflecting the Bloomberg violations in play, is that gun damage pushed Bloomie to it. And that SA Gun Club groupthink drove me in Bloomberg's direction. You may be your own, unregulated problems.

 

I don't care for your background check position, Badgeless One, so I kinda go all tsk tsk about Bloomberg's shakedowns.

Bad on both of us.

I don't like Jeff's cavalier marketing plan down at Wal-Mart, so I say screw AW's...

See how that works?

 

*************************

 

Tom, I once read your Hickenlooper thread for hours, but happened to enjoy it backwards. WIth Wofsey stoking you, you got all extra-lofty, and quite outraged. You were holding court, on a roll, very good libbie stuff. FINALLY I came to the heinous crimes of the Governor, and it was, well, fluff. My own mainstream views, as a matter of fact.

 

Your extended villification, IIRC, was over Gov. H's slight of the CO State Patrol delegate, which had been more or less sent from the NRA/SAF. (The Gov. brushed them off after they showed up to say their piece). Your prolonged rant was about, ahem, "lying" to the press by minimizing the no-show/insult, "lies" which defeated your hyperolic "rights"... to LCM's???...(claims which BTW are unsupported in Heller).

 

And you had gone ballistic. I was stunned with the similarities to Rod Serlings' The Twilight Zone...a light went on in my brain and I knew then how you must truly loathe my ass.

 

Your content in our debates has been disappointing so far.

But I expect you will have scores of court decisions to rub in my face, soon enough.

 

"Gun damage" didn't push other politicians to stop and frisk policies, NY was like Chicago is 30 yrs ago; bad and as I have pointed out, many cities have managed to bring down crime rates without such policies. Quit making lame excuses for behavior you said you oppose.

 

Speaking of which... I was pissed at Hickenlooper for two different lies, detailed in this post and this one.

 

Your mainstream view may be that he ignored one delegate from the State Patrol, but what actually happened was that he ignored the representative from the state's Sheriffs and implausibly claimed he did not know they objected to the law he was signing. Reporters knew, but he didn't. He never said he ignored them because they were sent by the NRA.

 

He also lied about the fact that he found time to talk to Bloomberg about the law, but not the sheriffs.

 

Obviously, lying about his actions being a slap at the NRA doesn't bother you and I guess his lies about the law he signed don't either. Sorry to see that those views are mainstream enough that he's still in office, but I still don't see the appeal of a lying Governor who can't be bothered to pay attention to law enforcement when signing a bill of great concern to them.

 

 

 

Well, you're sounding hi-tone again, about the lies of others. You find lies unacceptable with Hickenlooper, yet you have a series of credibility issues in play.

 

You might retract this stuff, for example:

 

Tom, five "No such ban" quotes

Example 1

Tom Ray on 24 August 2013, said:

“ The CDC flagrantly violated the NRA ban on research.” (they are able to get away with this

because that (research) "ban" does not exist outside the left wing noise machine)

Example 2.

Tom Ray, on 06 Sept 2014 - 13:04, said:

You can knock off the nonsense about how Congress cut research funding. They didn't.

Example 3.

Tom Ray, Post 244, 9-year old kills Uzi instructor thread

(the CDC's mandate to avoid study is being discussed)

It's (meaning the mandate for research prevention) is just backlash from using tax money to fund political propaganda. "Researchers" who object to that are most likely advocates.

Example 4

1-22-'15

Tom Ray, on 22 Jan 2015 - 12:10, said:

There is no such ban, which is why the CDC did the study Obama requested. The one the author claims that gun nutz don't understand.

Example 5,

Tom Ray, on 22 Jan 2015 - 12:10, said:

Presidential orders can't reverse funding bans imposed by Congress. There was no need to, since no research funding ban was imposed by Congress. The only thing banned was using taxpayer money for political advocacy.

 

You need a source for that crap, mate. Here is John Lott agreeing with you. (He has similar credibility issues to yours.)

 

I have added an eight source to seven other sources which dispute you on post 641.

It is the gracious present account of the agency which was molested...by a pattern of ignorance.

From the IOM/CDC 2013 Priorities for Research:

 

Source #8 for gun violence public-fund research ban: IOM/CDC 2013

(Note: the CDC was the specific victim of the pattern of the funding freeze, which was expanded just before Sandy Hook)

Impact of Existing Federal Restrictions on Firearm Violence Research

There are many legal and responsible uses for guns; an individual’s right to own and possess guns was established in the U.S. Constitution and affirmed in the 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller15 and McDonald v. City of Chicago.16 However, the scarcity of research on firearm-related violence limits policy makers’ ability to propose evidence-based policies that reduce injuries and deaths and maximize safety while recognizing Second Amendment rights. Since the 1960s, a number of state and federal laws and regulations have been enacted that restrict government’s ability to collect and share information about gun sales, ownership, and possession, which has limited data collection and collation relevant to firearm violence prevention research. Among these are the amendments to the Gun Control Act of 1968,17 which prohibits the federal government from establishing an electronic database of the names of gun purchasers and requires gun dealers to conduct annual inventories of their firearms.

In addition to the restrictions on certain kinds of data collection, congressional action in 1996 effectively halted all firearm-related injury research at the CDC by prohibiting the use of federal funding “to advocate or promote gun control.”18 In 2011, Congress enacted similar restrictions affecting the entire U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.19 The net result was an overall reduction in firearm violence research (Kellermann and Rivara, 2013). As a result, the past 20 years have witnessed diminished progress in understanding the causes and effects of firearm violence.

 

 

 

And then there was this intentional mis-quotation of an ER Doctor, who took hundreds of pics of straw buyers at gun shows in 19 states.

(IMO, you have no credible soap-box to stand on, Tom Ray.)ManondikeTomscredibility_zps39935104.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not one damn thing either wrong or illegal about PP gun sales and transfers......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by jocal505. View it anyway?

 

 

 

Ahhhhh, bliss. I waited far too long to do this.

 

I need a favor from the 1 or 2 of you left who are not ignoring him yet..... let me know when the wheels start to come off so I can watch. I love a good slo mo train wreck. In the meantime, I will get back to enjoying some peace and quiet again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys - please, trim JoCal's posts - I am tired of the emotional pleas that are completely deviod of reason. I've got 2 guys on my ignore list - and one of 'em might come off soon. This guy is simply pissing up a rope and thinking that the backsplash is a drought ending rain sent from heaven.

 

My views, demonstrably based on study conclusions, are not "devoid of reason."

For any one of you to go this direction is to dis my freedom of speech, on Sailing Anarchy.

To display your true feelings about honest discussion. To promote ignorance of earnest discovery. To violate the Bill of Rights you taught me to respect profoundly.

 

 

 

By the way, I think that Guy should do some reading, and just come back to debate the facts I have presented.

Same for Tom Ray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations, you have successfully put the biggest blabbering idiot of Sailing Anarchy on ignore. Please cherish your most fuktastic achievement and the ensuing blissful peace.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by jocal505. View it anyway?

 

 

 

Ahhhhh, bliss. I waited far too long to do this.

 

I need a favor from the 1 or 2 of you left who are not ignoring him yet..... let me know when the wheels start to come off so I can watch. I love a good slo mo train wreck. In the meantime, I will get back to enjoying some peace and quiet again.

 

 

At this point, Jeff has chosen to ignore an anarchist who can articulate and document the current social science knowledge on the subject of U.S. gun violence.

I am sad to see it. On the other hand, he was not discussing in good faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Guys - please, trim JoCal's posts - I am tired of the emotional pleas that are completely deviod of reason. I've got 2 guys on my ignore list - and one of 'em might come off soon. This guy is simply pissing up a rope and thinking that the backsplash is a drought ending rain sent from heaven.

 

My views, demonstrably based on study conclusions, are not "devoid of reason."

For any one of you to go this direction is to dis my freedom of speech, on Sailing Anarchy.

To display your true feelings about honest discussion. To promote ignorance of earnest discovery. To violate the Bill of Rights you taught me to respect profoundly.

 

 

 

I see that jojo is about as knowledgeable about the constitution and the BoR as woffers is. Neither one seems to know what the constitution actually means or how it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Guys - please, trim JoCal's posts - I am tired of the emotional pleas that are completely deviod of reason. I've got 2 guys on my ignore list - and one of 'em might come off soon. This guy is simply pissing up a rope and thinking that the backsplash is a drought ending rain sent from heaven.

 

My views, demonstrably based on study conclusions, are not "devoid of reason."

For any one of you to go this direction is to dis my freedom of speech, on Sailing Anarchy.

To display your true feelings about honest discussion. To promote ignorance of earnest discovery. To violate the Bill of Rights you taught me to respect profoundly.

 

 

 

I see that jojo is about as knowledgeable about the constitution and the BoR as woffers is. Neither one seems to know what the constitution actually means or how it works.

 

 

Not interested in legal or corporate technicalities here.

This topic (runaway gun violence) needs discussin', and the discussions have been driven out of your trade magazines.

This is an extremely serious issue. 130,437 people are shot in the United States in a year (figures for 2012).

That's 357 a day. But extremists have drowned out the moderate voices of gun mag editors and gunowners...

 

If they are technically not in legal violation a hundred ways, they are still as guilty as sin for not having healthy discussion. Period.

Within our SA PA community, Jeff, your repeated calls to not heed my research info works exactly the same way.

 

You can be an impressive writer, Jeff. You display a fine mind on non-gun subjects, too. But your moves don't back up your fine concepts.

Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys - please, trim JoCal's posts - I am tired of the emotional pleas that are completely deviod of reason. I've got 2 guys on my ignore list - and one of 'em might come off soon. This guy is simply pissing up a rope and thinking that the backsplash is a drought ending rain sent from heaven.

Who is the other one? Oh PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE let it be me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Guys - please, trim JoCal's posts - I am tired of the emotional pleas that are completely deviod of reason. I've got 2 guys on my ignore list - and one of 'em might come off soon. This guy is simply pissing up a rope and thinking that the backsplash is a drought ending rain sent from heaven.

 

My views, demonstrably based on study conclusions, are not "devoid of reason."

For any one of you to go this direction is to dis my freedom of speech, on Sailing Anarchy.

To display your true feelings about honest discussion. To promote ignorance of earnest discovery. To violate the Bill of Rights you taught me to respect profoundly.

 

 

 

I see that jojo is about as knowledgeable about the constitution and the BoR as woffers is. Neither one seems to know what the constitution actually means or how it works.

 

 

The kind of $peech that $cooter $ubsidizes here as part of his business doesn't need first amendment protection from meddlesome bureaucrats. Yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't Call Him $ir!

 

At a formal investiture ceremony at the British ambassador’s residence in Washington, the ambassador, Peter Westmacott, presented the former New York mayor with the insignia marking him as a Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.

 

...

 

“Back in New York,” Mr. Bloomberg told the guests, “a good friend of mine — this is a friend of long standing — he said to me that this is only a honorary knighthood, and it doesn’t make me either a knight or a commander, nor does it come with a title ‘sir,’ and I said to him, ‘Well, thank you, Sir Paul McCartney.’ “

 

...

 

When asked what he thought of the growing field of presidential candidates, Mr. Bloomberg was equally definite. “Hillary and Jeb are the only two who know how to make the trains run,” he said, to get people back to work.

 

 

$nope$ $ay$ that even Mu$$olini didn't manage that trick. Only railroad companies have done it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg Funding Gun Spin School

 

Columbia University would never sponsor an event funded by the National Rifle Association. What’s more, the idea would seem especially outlandish if most of the speakers at the event were NRA supporters.

 

Yet, gun control advocate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his gun control group Everytown are now funding a two-day workshop in Phoenix on Friday and Saturday sponsored by Columbia University’s Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma. The event will bring together journalists from around the country to learn about “covering guns and gun violence.”

 

Bruce Shapiro, executive director of the Dart Center, claims that there is “no party line” and calls the workshop “very balanced.”

But gun control advocates make up 15 of the panel’s 17 experts.

 

...

 

...two speakers actually support gun ownership, but conservative commentator S.E. Cupp has no particular expertise on the issue. And conservative lawyer David Kopel will speak only about the history of the Second Amendment.

 

 

I don't know Cupp but am pleasantly surprised that they would include Kopel, even in a limited way.

 

The claim that 15 vs 2 is "balanced" was at least good for a morning laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balanced in the same way that Mr Bloombergs net worth and mine are relatively balanced. They are both more than 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balanced in the same way that Mr Bloombergs net worth and mine are relatively balanced. They are both more than 0.

 

From the "No Party Line" link above:

 

“[The] program includes a diverse and wide-ranging group of speakers, including several of the most prominent voices in the country associated with the gun-rights side of policy debates, as well as others with a range of perspectives," he added. "There is no party line.”

 

 

Balanced means "both greater than zero" and it turns out that "several" means "two." And suicide is self-murder. They have to change the ordinary meanings of words to make any kind of point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

No campaign spending on candidates by individuals or corps if they are not in the district or state they are running for office. For example unless GE has a significant presence in KY, they can't throw cash at the KY senate race. Same for an individual billionaire like the kochs. Unless they live in that state or district. - they can't give money to that Pol. For national elections like POTUS, have a nut.

...

 

This transplant from a Citizens United thread is about this thread topic.

 

I don't always agree with the Koch bros and everyone here knows how often I agree with Bloomberg, but I will defend their right to $peak and to contribute to candidates.

 

First, Mayor Bloomberg was very popular in NY, where the people are famously difficult to please. There's more to being Mayor than the issues with which I have disagreements with Bloomberg.

 

There's also more to life. These people are billionaires. Their "fuck you money" earns FU money in interest. We have other billionaires, but you don't know their names. My point? The Koch's and Bloomberg really don't need the aggravation of politics. They don't need jackasses on forums opining about their activities. They could just quietly buy and enjoy jets and boats like I would probably do with such a pile of loot.

 

Instead they try to change the world for the better. They want to buy political outcomes, not boats. It's strange to a polynavicular morbus sufferer like myself, but that's what they want. The fact that I believe Bloomberg tends to change the world for the worse does not change his intention, which I believe to be to change the world for the better.

 

Why discourage this? I told you in the other thread that I'd like to see more $pending on political speech. Complaining about an ignorant electorate while trying to stop people who wish to inform them is kinda silly.

 

I'd like to see the Koch bros give Gary Johnson half a billion dollars. Instead I'll continue to wait for someone who crazy enough to run, sane enough to gather positive attention, AND who is personally worth a billion dollars.

 

I'd like to see Gary account for this gift in the way I described in the other thread: "Yeah, these guys gave me a buncha money. If you have a problem with it, don't vote for me."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Echo echo echo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Tom, we will continue to violently disagree. I don't think rich individuals should be able to "buy" political outcomes. It means they have more $peech than I do and I simply think that is wrong. It invalidates my vote and I don't like that.

 

I have no issue with rich people and corporations attempting to educate and influence on issues that they hold dear to them. But I don't think they should have any more direct access to politicians than I do. Which is practically none. If they want to be able to try to sway a politician to their POV, they should attend a town hall meeting or write a letter to their congress critter just like I have to do. I wonder what would happen if I called up Harry Reid and asked to have a sit down chat with him, since he's my Senator from NV. Maybe I could invite him out for a round of golf or to go hunting. Think he would accept JBSF's invite? Now what if I my last name was Bloomberg or Soros? Think that would change the interest level a bit? You're damn skippy it would and I think that is simply wrong.

 

Again, if Bloomey wants to run anti-gun ads around the country all he wants - have a nut. Its his money and he can do what he wants with it. But if its flooding a particular district in FL to influence a vote to get "his man" into office - sorry no. That is not the way it should work. That decision should be up to the people. Now if bloomey wants to run ads in that district talking about the evils of guns and let the voters make up their minds on which candidate might best represent them on that issue - if indeed that issue is even important to them, then fine. But Bloomey should not be able to directly influence an election if he does not have direct skin in that district. Its up to those people who will be that critter's constituents to decide.

 

Final thought - I'm more and more of the mind that I'm ok with low voter participation and turnout. In some ways its better - because if the only reason a voter shows up at the polls is because of a last minute flurry of attack ads and scare tactics for or against candidate _____, then I don't really want them voting in the first place. If they are not invested enough in the process to be informed and take the time to learn the issues and make informed decisions - then I don't want them deciding the fate or the direction of the company. And since we can't use IQ tests or land-ownership as filters anymore, the self-selecting voter apathy filter is good enough for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a rich person wants to educate the electorate about his point of view, does that mean that politicians who may be affected by his efforts should not be allowed to talk to him?

 

There's power in numbers. That's why I've suggested we form a Sailing Anarchy SuperPAC. Teams can accomplish more than individuals, which is why we form companies and advocacy organizations.

 

I thought you were officially a FL resident now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a rich person wants to educate the electorate about his point of view, does that mean that politicians who may be affected by his efforts should not be allowed to talk to him?

 

There's power in numbers. That's why I've suggested we form a Sailing Anarchy SuperPAC. Teams can accomplish more than individuals, which is why we form companies and advocacy organizations.

 

I thought you were officially a FL resident now?

 

Yes

 

No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that we can or should prevent politicians from communicating with the electorate seems both far-fetched and wrong-headed to me, JBSF. If I'm the big $pender and they can't communicate with me directly, they'll find an indirect way. Much the same as ReadyPAC will find a way to coordinate with Hillary, though that's illegal.

 

 

 

The Washington Post looked further into the $peech in question and found out that guns and school zoning issues are related. Or something.

 

And it turns out once again that all of Bloomberg'$ $peech can't buy any electoral outcome he desires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Bloomberg'$ $peech Toxic?

 

In its post-mortem on the Virginia State Senate races decided on Tuesday, the Washington Post nearly ran out of adjectives in describing the extent of the loss suffered by anti-gun Governor Terry McAuliffe and his anti-gun financier, Michael Bloomberg (shown): “Their aggressive advocacy in a pivotal [state] Senate race in the Richmond area may have backfired by producing a pro-Republican backlash.… [Democrat Daniel] Gecker’s loss was the key setback in an election that tarnished McAuliffe’s reputation as a political wizard.… [McAuliffe] gambled big and lost.”

 

McAuliffe wasn’t just gambling with his own money, either. Two weeks before the election, Bloomberg money poured into two races that, had either of their candidates succeeded, would have given control of the state’s upper legislative body to the Democrats, enhancing McAuliffe’s chances at creating an anti-gun legacy and confirming that Bloomberg money in sufficient quantities could buy elections.

 

Gecker’s opponent was Glen Sturtevant, a local school board member and a pro-gun rights supporter. When Sturtevant learned of the millions pouring in to support Gecker from Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety group, he ran ads exposing the inflow of out-of-state money that turned the election in his favor.

 

 

 

 

$pending $20-$30 for every dollar $pent by the NRA didn't work out too well in Virginia.

 

$o unfair!

 

Of course, I continue to support Bloomberg'$ right to $peak out if he wi$he$. And I continue to doubt that $pending on $peech guarantee$ electoral victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg gets acce$$ to $peak to the President about tools

 

The meeting, which was not on the president's public schedule, comes as he is weighing new executive action on guns in response to a series of mass shootings that have marred his presidency.

 

 

Unitary Executive action to bypass Congress in coordination with big $peakers is bad. Sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg'$ Gra$$root$y Nevadan$' Ballot Initiative

 

The organization spearheading the initiative here, Nevadan$ for Background Checks, is an affiliate of and largely bankrolled by the national gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety, funded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Of the $3.6 million in contributions to Nevadan$ for Background Checks over the last two years, $2.9 million came from Everytown.

 

...

 

The organization has been organizing and fundraising in preparation for a “well-funded opposition,” Duffy said.

 

But that opposition has yet to put up a fight of the same magnitude.

 

The NRA has provided $43,000 in direct contributions and donation of resources to NRA Nevadans for Freedom, one of the official organizations registered to oppose the ballot initiative in the state and an NRA affiliate. Another group — Nevadans for State Gun Rights, affiliated with the Nevada Firearms Coalition — hasn’t received any contributions high enough to be reported to the state, though the coalition’s president, Don Turner, said the group had received “smaller grassroots amounts.”

 

 

 

The anti-gun lobby is out$pending the gun lobby by many orders of magnitude once again.

 

Needless to say, I'm not too happy about it. The only thing that would make me even less happy would be bureaucrats telling them they can't do it. As usual, I support their right to $peak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anonymous support. How powerful!!

And at great personal risk

 

Who said that? No matter. My sockpuppet and I support anonymous expression, an American tradition that pre-dates our current Republic.

 

I'm going to change back to Tom Ray soon. People might start thinking I like Gary Johnson just because we have the same last name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anonymous support. How powerful!!

And at great personal risk

 

Who said that? No matter. My sockpuppet and I support anonymous expression, an American tradition that pre-dates our current Republic.

 

I'm going to change back to Tom Ray soon. People might start thinking I like Gary Johnson just because we have the same last name.

 

 

Tom, your talking points have departed from the Publius who wrote Federalist 46. He defined state authority over the militias under discussion, and you are coaching lone wolf patriots.

 

Still, I thought it was a great screen name for you.

 

TOP DEFINITION, from the Urban Dictionary

Slang for penis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg Makes Sense in Commencement $peech

 

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg assailed safe-space culture during his address to the University of Michigan's graduating class on Saturday.

 

"The fact that some university boards and administrations now bow to pressure and shield students from these ideas through “safe spaces,” “code words” and “trigger warnings” is, in my view, a terrible mistake," said Bloomberg. "The whole purpose of college is to learn how to deal with difficult situations -- not run away from them. A microaggression is exactly that: micro. And one of the most dangerous places on a college campus is a safe space, because it creates the false impression that we can insulate ourselves from those who hold different views.

 

"We can’t do this, and we shouldn’t try -- not in politics or in the workplace," he continued. "In the global economy, and in a democratic society, an open mind is the most valuable asset you can possess."

Yahoo News reported that some students actually booed these remarks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg $peak$ for Hillary

 

I didn't know I was flashing gungrabby gang colors a couple of days ago when I put on an orange t-shirt.

 

I usually wear clothes until they are disintegrating rags that would not be accepted by any charity, then throw them in the rag bag for shop use. Might be time for the rag bag to get a splash of color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The view of an independent. He is no dummy.

 

 

 

So what do you think of his habit of $pending his billion$ to influence elections in states across the country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg $poke quite a bit more than the NRA about background checks in Maine, but lost.

 

David Trahan, director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, says voters resented interference by a gun-control group founded by New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg. And he says they particularly disliked a provision in the measure that could bar loaning or giving a gun to a friend without getting a federal background check.

 

 

I continue to support his right to $peak in various states in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom's Article Topic: Lefty perception of gunowners. Bloomberg referred to the sticks of CO. ...

Because Colorado is sooooo backwards that even their second largest city has no roads.

 

Outside NYC = barbarians in flyover country! according to a guy who has probably never been more than 100 feet from asphalt in his life.

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=150407&p=4612672

 

new-york-center-of-the-universe-new-york

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The view of an independent. He is no dummy.

 

 

So what do you think of his habit of $pending his billion$ to influence elections in states across the country?

 

It shouldn't be legal. There should be a limit within reach of regular people - say $1K or $2K max and organizations of any kind should not be allowed to contribute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These evil rich people are not always "contributing" to an individual's campaign.

 

Bloomberg was $pending this time around to support initiatives, not people. He was expressing his opinion using his money.

 

Very much like John Morgan, who is the individual mo$t re$ponsible for our brand new constitutional amendment on cannabis.

 

Without people like him, we'd STILL be waiting for medical marijuana. Last cycle, almost 60% of the voters asked for it. Haven't seen the final number this time but heard it was over 70%.

 

If a guy like Morgan can't $peak about that issue, and no organization can either, would that include pre$$ organizations? Could anyone $peak about the change most of us wanted at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It officially divides us into those who are in a protected class and those who are not. Because dividing people into classes leads to unity and love.

Is that what you support? Are you speaking in favor of unity and love? Really?

 

You have no unity or love for Bloomberg,

 

 

On the contrary. I started a thread about his rights and have said that I believe he means well.

 

That's part of the problem. People who mean well just won't stop what they're doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Bloomberg Won't Stop $peaking

 

The title of the article they linked says he "vows $25 million" but I didn't see him saying that exactly. His pet corporation $aid that they $pent 25 million in the last election cycle and are now prepared to $pend "what it takes."

 

Good for them. I don't care for their message for the most part but I like the fact that Bloomberg can $peak out this way if he wants to. Gungrabbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

??? Link goes to FDA article about menu labeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

??? Link goes to FDA article about menu labeling.

 

Yes, and the National Restaurant Association had something to $ay about it, as the article said.

 

You didn't think we have just one NRA, did you?

 

As with Bloomberg, I support the NRA's right to $peak. Guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Money talks. That whole bit works just fine for CATO. but not too well for the homeless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2017 at 1:47 AM, tomray said:

 

Yes, and the National Restaurant Association had something to $ay about it, as the article said.

 

You didn't think we have just one NRA, did you?

 

As with Bloomberg, I support the NRA's right to $peak. Guns.

You rick-rolled me, and others. You don't mind wasting our time to show how cute you are.

You are a pro-gun blogger who was once worth following, Mr. Ray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You rick-rolled me, and others. You don't mind wasting our time to show how cute you are.

You are a pro-gun blogger who was once worth following, Mr. Ray.

If you don't want to talk about $peech then don't come to a thread about it. Guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. You exhibit the ways of King George. Is that a Libertarian thingee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Okay. You exhibit the ways of King George. Is that a Libertarian thingee?

odd_duck_out_by_ice_diamond-d3dmowu.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, cmilliken said:

If the belief is that the NRA dominates the debate on guns because of their financial backing, why don't opposing people put money into THEIR own lobby group to oppose them?


They do.

I even started a thread to support their right to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Uncooperative Tom said:


They do.

I even started a thread to support their right to do it.

Good!

They should.  In the world of money talks, let your money TALK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg $peak$!

Quote

The group, Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, pledged to contribute $400,000 to Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam’s campaign and $300,000 to to Democratic Attorney General Mark Herring’s re-election bid in the final two weeks of the race, according to The Washington Post. This latest pledge comes atop a previous commitment of $1 million in combined contributions to the pair of Democratic candidates, bringing the group’s total spending on Virginia races to almost $2 million.

I continue to support his right to do it and hope the results are as humiliating as last time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Bloomberg $peak$!

I continue to support his right to do it and hope the re

Last year, the National Rifle Association spent more money fighting a push for a universal background check for gun purchases in Nevada than it did on any Senate or House race.sults are as humiliating as last time.

Tom's cause has enough money to manufacture bogus, weak, implausible gun history, and to present it before the Supreme Court. One needn't be rich to intelligently examine the details of actual FF history, but Tom Ray wants to discuss .22 caliber assault weapons instead. Interminably.

Robert Levy, CATO, and Antonin Scalia are examples where money bought false history, and sold it to malcontents and uncooperatives.

How do we like THAT democracy?

Quote

The NRA Spent Millions Last Year to Fight Background Checks in Nevada

Last year, the National Rifle Association spent more money fighting a push for a universal background check for gun purchases in Nevada than it did on any Senate or House race.

(...)The gun group poured more than $6.6 million into opposing Question 1, making it the NRA’s second-largest campaign expenditure of 2016. The only contest that drew more funds from the gun-rights group was the presidential election, in which it invested over $30 million in support of Donald Trump.

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/nra-spending-nevada-universal-background-checks-las-vegas/

 

THEY LOST. Incredibly, the background check law passed in Nevada, By a razor-thin margin. The FBI is refusing to perform the checks in NV, and expect the state to check the buyers of guns in the private market. Baby steps.

The NV Attorney General is being uncooperative about enforcement, and is now being sued by local voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Tom's cause has enough money to manufacture bogus, weak, implausible gun history, and to present it before the Supreme Court. One needn't be rich to intelligently examine the details of actual FF history, but Tom Ray wants to discuss .22 caliber assault weapons instead. Interminably.

 

 

So why don't groups like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (https://www.csgv.org/) just put 6.6 million in to oppose the NRA?

To me, that's where they whole 'money in politics' arguement rings hollow.  The game is what the game is. We all know this.  We can try and change the game but in the mean time, that's how the system works.

6.6 million is a lot of money - except it's really not if you're the face of a broad organization with actual strong support.  Good Kickstarter campaigns generate more money in a few weeks.  

The reason gun control groups don't put in $6.6 million is because they don't HAVE $6.6 million because they really don't have that broad of support (or at least depth of support) otherwise they WOULD have the $6.6 million they need to push their point of view.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cmilliken said:

 

So why don't groups like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (https://www.csgv.org/) just put 6.6 million in to oppose the NRA?

To me, that's where they whole 'money in politics' arguement rings hollow.  The game is what the game is. We all know this.  We can try and change the game but in the mean time, that's how the scoreboard works.

6.6 million is a lot of money - except it's really not if you're the face of a broad organization with actual strong support.  Good Kickstarter campaigns generate more money in a few weeks.  

The reason gun control groups don't put in $6.6 million is because they don't HAVE $6.6 million because they really don't have that broad of support (or at least depth of support) otherwise they WOULD have the $6.6 million they need to push their point of view.

 

Your valid point is noted. But meanwhile, voting is passe, This"money talks" thing is not the dream of the FF. In fact, gun lobby money just perverted the constitution with an urban myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Your valid point is noted. But meanwhile, voting is passe, This"money talks" thing is not the dream of the FF. In fact, gun lobby money just perverted the constitution with an urban myth.

What's the FF?

On a side note, this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy agreed with Scalia.  I only mention him because frequently he's the 'swing vote' yet Kennedy seems to get attention rather selectively.  In this case, clearly Scalia wrote the majority and made the most aggressive arguments but he wasn't alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Money talked in Nevada. Bloomberg out$pent the NRA by orders of magnitude and won. Barely.

So that "Golden Rule" thing sometimes works, but he's outspent the NRA and lost more times than he's done it and won.

What a lousy scorecard. Now,  spread the scorecard over 35 years. This is not representative democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

What's the FF?

On a side note, this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy agreed with Scalia.  I only mention him because frequently he's the 'swing vote' yet Kennedy seems to get attention rather selectively.  In this case, clearly Scalia wrote the majority and made the most aggressive arguments but he wasn't alone.

FF is a local term for "founding father."

I'll crack your link soon but it appears that Kennedy incorporated a Trojan horse into Heller in spite of Scalia. Scalia was a gun nut to the core, and he was the spiritual leader of the acceptance of Heller. He stretched aceptable boundaries of jurisprudence, and the bullshit ("inexexaustive") hi$tory was central to the sham.

Scalia heralded the principles of originalism , preached against enshrining one's own POV, and supported preambles. He violated each of those, severely, within Heller. Kennedy mollified Scalia, as I understand it, and thus defined the power of modern gun control. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Money talked in Nevada. Bloomberg out$pent the NRA by orders of magnitude and won. Barely.

So that "Golden Rule" thing sometimes works, but he's outspent the NRA and lost more times than he's done it and won.

Tom's source is jaded shit from some site called Free Market Shooter. This oughta be good...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

FF is a local term for "founding father."

I'll crack your link soon but it appears that Kennedy incorporated a Trojan horse into Heller in spite of Scalia. Scalia was a gun nut to the core, and he was the spiritual leader of the acceptance of Heller. He stretched aceptable boundaries of jurisprudence, and the bullshit ("inexexaustive") hi$tory was central to the sham.

Scalia heralded the principles of originalism , preached against enshrining one's own POV, and supported preambles. He violated each of those, severely, within Heller. Kennedy mollified Scalia, as I understand it, and thus defined the power of modern gun control. 

All good and I appreciate the viewpoint.

The link is just wikipedia and was metaphorical.  No need to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Money talked in Nevada. Bloomberg out$pent the NRA by orders of magnitude and won. Barely.

So that "Golden Rule" thing sometimes works, but he's outspent the NRA and lost more times than he's done it and won.

Seriously choice. This is some raggety-ass shit. This is Tom's brain on the morning news. Poor Tom.

Quote

Free Market Shooter’s Founding Statement:

Free market economies are always more efficient than command economies.  This is exemplified on a macro scale by the failures of the former USSR and China’s command economies, and how they’ve collapsed or moved to something closer to the USA’s comparably efficient market economy.  However, the global economy has plenty of foolish taxes and regulations already dragging down the whole world’s efficiency, and new and increasingly stupid taxes and regulations are proposed daily.  Everything written here will be to promote free markets, and to expose the idiocy of proposed and existing regulations that are dragging down our society, while achieving absolutely nothing.

And when it comes to gun ownership in the USA and globally, that free market is under heavy attack.  The government is moving to drive all gun ownership and trade underground into the black market, and criminalize millions in the process.  Nowhere is the failure of gun control more evident than the above examples of China and Russia, where gun ownership is all but illegal, and these command economies have seen their governments exterminate and subjugate their populations.  Most importantly, in many cases (especially if you’re a woman), the gun is your best and possibly only effective line of defense against an attacker.  God made men; Samuel Colt made them equal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Tom's source is jaded shit from some site called Free Market Shooter. This oughta be good...

So there's no way the fact that Bloomberg out$pent the NRA could be corroborated on Reuters

Quote

Nevada in particular has become an expensive battleground. Bloomberg has personally donated nearly $10 million to the effort there, and Nevadans for Background Checks had collected $14.3 million as of Oct. 18. That is nearly triple the $4.8 million that the leading opposition group, NRA Nevadans for Freedom, had received, all from the NRA.

Or Newsweek

Quote

Most of the spending on both sides has focused on “Question 1” in Nevada, which would extend background check requirements to unlicensed guns sales and transfers. Everytown for Gun Safety, a 10-year-old advocacy group founded and bankrolled mainly by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, has kicked in more than $10 million in support of the ballot measure through October 14, according to campaign reports. Bloomberg has contributed another $6 million from his own checkbook. The NRA has put $4.8 million behind its “no” campaign, “NRA Nevadans for Freedom.”

Or the Philly Inquirer

Quote

Bloomberg's initiative only eked out the win in Nevada because of the $20 million spent to support it, amounting to an incredible $35.30 per vote. He outspent his opponents by a factor of three

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2017 at 8:44 AM, jocal505 said:

The NRA Spent Millions Last Year to Fight Background Checks in Nevada

Last year, the National Rifle Association spent more money fighting a push for a universal background check for gun purchases in Nevada than it did on any Senate or House race.

(...)The gun group poured more than $6.6 million into opposing Question 1, making it the NRA’s second-largest campaign expenditure of 2016. The only contest that drew more funds from the gun-rights group was the presidential election, in which it invested over $30 million in support of Donald Trump.

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/nra-spending-nevada-universal-background-checks-las-vegas/

If that's bad, is Bloomberg $pending orders of magnitude more therefore orders of magnitude worse?

Is it bad when NY billionaires are able to buy so much $peech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2017 at 2:24 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

If that's bad, is Bloomberg $pending orders of magnitude more therefore orders of magnitude worse?

Is it bad when NY billionaires are able to buy so much $peech?

What happened to We The People here, Tom?  The concerns of average citizens become swayed by the concerns of big business. This whole bit is rotten, it's a perversion of the representative process.

Free Market Shooter indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Bloombergs are people.

They're high rollers. You'll find more humanity among the homeless IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

They're high rollers. You'll find more humanity among the homeless IMO.

How awful. Could be even worse than the NRA? And $pent orders of magnitude more, according to several sources.

Your problem is you look only at stuff like "the trace." They leave out the 20 million Bloomberg $pent when complaining about the 6 million that the NRA $pent.

Now you look like a moron for complaining about the 6 million and not about the 20.

Face it, if the NRA $pending is bad, Bloomberg'$ $pending is orders of magnitude worse, especially given the lack of humanity.

I still don't think any of it is bad. What's bad is cen$or$hip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Now you look like a moron for complaining about the 6 million and not about the 20.

Read my post. I'm complaining about both mega-buck influences. Though I prefer the one backed by vetted morals, research and history.

Free Market Shooter?  YCMTSU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

What MBL and anyone else afraid of the future do not understand is - these "kids", if they are not already, will soon be of voting age. 

The children who lost their friends at Sandy Hook (in 2012) are going to be eligible to vote in the next few years. 

I am hoping these young people have more intestinal fortitude than our generation in standing up to the NRA and their bribery of our elected officials


If they do, they stand a chance of getting on the REAL money train. Bloomberg routinely out$pend$ the NRA, so go where the big money is, right?

BTW, how do you feel about Bloomberg'$ bribery of our elected officials? I remain a big supporter of his right to $peak out if he wants to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Marion Hammer is an un-elected political force in FL, and has been for 20 years. She has no accountability to the public. There's something wrong with such civics.

And Bloomberg is an un-elected political force in lots of states, $pending more than the NRA.

He can just whip out 50 million for his cause, and he does! Not a big deal to him. I continue to support his right to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

And Bloomberg is an un-elected political force in lots of states, $pending more than the NRA.

He can just whip out 50 million for his cause, and he does! Not a big deal to him. I continue to support his right to do this.

You continue to be a mouthpiece for the Koch Brothers. What you are peddling is hidden, and needs to be disguised by the ACLU, NAACP, and MLK.

You are a sopisticated guy, Tom. A Free Market Shooter, so to speak. So why would you drop turds on MLK two different ways? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You continue to be a mouthpiece for the Koch Brothers. What you are peddling is hidden, and needs to be disguised by the ACLU, NAACP, and MLK.

You are a sopisticated guy, Tom. A Free Market Shooter, so to speak. So why would you drop turds on MLK two different ways? 

Tom transferred my reply to his race-baiter thread. He has used that MO for five years, sometimes, I find, to compartmentalize his baggage. Let's have the answer posted here as well.

 

Quote
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom began to discuss his race-baiting, on his racebaiter thread:

OK, I know that saying he should not have been the victim of racial discrimination by government officials was one of the "turds" that irks you but what was the other?

 

 

ANSWER: The story of Rev. Mosteller. http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&p=4902143  (See Post 141 of This Nonviolent Stuff). You laid this turd in both your Triple Crown of Racebaiting AND your Grand Slam of Racebaiting. 

 

 

Though a senior pastor in MLK's church in GA, Mosteller made one public comment, after a tragedy, suggesting the Second Amendment offered remedy (against non-introspective elk not unlike Pooplius types and Jeffie types). Mosteller got sacked, immediately. Lost his job, his support for his family Tom. He must have understood the context, since he showed up for his bishop's disgraceful photo op... wearing slacks.  Brietbart provided the photo shot.

http://www.mediacircus.com/2015/04/shame-on-them-teen-thug-heart-transplant-patient-abandoned-by-iconic-civil-rights-group/

When asked to explain your defamation, your smear, you said vaguely "because what he did was right." How cryptic, since Mosteller was of two minds, on one day.  MLK's church made no excursions on any violent path, yet you gleefully painted the picture of the entire GA faction of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference as armed. Slime slime slime. 

You want the cachet of MLK, eh?  We all do. Yes, he can (and will) lift you up, Tom. But ironically, Pooplius tried the impossible, to drag him down.

Mosteller.jpg

 

Yes, you projected violence onto MLK's church two different ways. The other was to make MLK a poster boy for shall issue. More slime, other slime.

Look, you slippery character, you claim you don't produce moar guns, yet here you are projecting guns where they are not welcome, a very real sphere  where non-violence was proven to work much better than guns. 

You need to leave well enough alone. You are compromised, Tom, if you touch this superior human, MLK. To be continued.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2018 at 1:03 AM, benwynn said:

Since 1998, the NRA has spent over 200 million dollars on political activities. 


Heh. Pikers. Over 20 years?

At $50 million per election cycle, Bloomberg is showing them what life in the big leagues might be like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites