Sign in to follow this  
Quotidian Tom

Bloomberg'$ $peech

Recommended Posts

 

 

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
Guest

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
Guest

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
Guest
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
On 2/27/2018 at 8:40 AM, jocal505 said:

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.

 

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.

 

 

No comment, Tom? More proliferation my ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Remodel said:

Ish is right. These kids can't vote, nor do they have the kind of $peech that makes a difference in Washington, and that Tom loves so much. Maybe in 10 years or so, but I'm sad to think that by then, half of them will be Republicans, and the other half Democrats, and NOTHING will change.

The power of $peech will have won again, and the Hilary wank offs of the world, and this forum will sleep soundly as this country goes further down the mine.


It's not so much that I like it when Bloomberg $peak$, it's that I support his right to do it because I understand mine depends on doing so.

I thought about putting this post in the Power of $peech thread so we could talk some more about how Hillary out$pent Donald and lost, but your subject matter landed it here. So we can talk about how Bloomberg routinely out$pend$ the NRA.

If it were really all about the $peech, we'd have President Hillary and my .22 would already be banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support Mr. Fallon's right to $pend his money sending kids to exercise their rights of assembly and free expre$$ion.

And even when corporations like the NAACP or MTV $pend corporate funds on this kind of political expre$$ion, I support their right to do it if not all of their message.

It seems I can never get #ENOUGH $peech to make me want more cen$or$hip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not surprising that you cannot and will not see the difference.
 
Just a reminder:
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
And

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Freedom of the Press

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1600.htm

--Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, Nov 29, 1802. (*) ME 10:341. "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to put Exxon and the NRA in the same category as CNN or FOX, so be it. But put a limit on just how many congress critters they can buy and sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Remodel said:
It's not surprising that you cannot and will not see the difference.
 
Just a reminder:
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
And

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Freedom of the Press

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1600.htm

--Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, Nov 29, 1802. (*) ME 10:341. "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.

I agree with Jefferson. I just think that freedom of the press refers to the freedom to publish. Not the freedom of certain government-recognized "pre$$" corporations to publi$h. Even non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations like the NAACP and Citizens United can publi$h if they want to.

 

19 hours ago, Remodel said:

If you want to put Exxon and the NRA in the same category as CNN or FOX, so be it. But put a limit on just how many congress critters they can buy and sell.

OK, I'd say the limit should be zero. If you want to put the NAACP and Exxon in the same category, so be it. They're both corporations just like the New York Times, after all.

Share this post


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

I agree with Jefferson. I just think that freedom of the press refers to the freedom to publish. Not the freedom of certain government-recognized "pre$$" corporations to publi$h. Even non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations like the NAACP and Citizens United can publi$h if they want to.

 

OK, I'd say the limit should be zero. If you want to put the NAACP and Exxon in the same category, so be it. They're both corporations just like the New York Times, after all.

Tom is peddling dark money here, and We the People elsewhere. Dark money may have passed from the NRA to the Trump campaign, courtesy of a Russian politician named Alexander Torshin.  See  Posted December 4, 2017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a difference between the press and corporations. I agree that the NRA, the NAACP, the AMA, Pharma, etc. have a right to free speech. They should not have right to buy politicians. When speech becomes $peech, citizens lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2018 at 1:13 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

So we can talk about how Bloomberg routinely out$pend$ the NRA.

This is dishonest propaganda, since Tom is using today's figures without context. From the days of the GCA of '68 until past Sandy Hook (well into 2013), Bloomberg was not a player. The NRA's money went unchallenged for 45 years. The Citizen's United debacle blatantly legalized the dark money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Remodel said:

There is a difference between the press and corporations. I agree that the NRA, the NAACP, the AMA, Pharma, etc. have a right to free speech. They should not have right to buy politicians. When speech becomes $peech, citizens lose.

Yes. +1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Remodel said:

There is a difference between the press and corporations. I agree that the NRA, the NAACP, the AMA, Pharma, etc. have a right to free speech. They should not have right to buy politicians. When speech becomes $peech, citizens lose.

The difference is that "the press" is a marketing term dreamed up by those in the ad business to describe their "news" divisions. Corporations are corporations.

But "the press" to describe journalists was not part of the vernacular in 1789, so the difference you are looking for in the first amendment is an invention from a later time. It's designed to make us believe in the myth of "unbiased reporting." Selecting what to report is the beginning of bias, so the term is oxymoronic. But it does make people feel better to read opinions and perceptions of the world that they already believe and have a "fact" stamp put on it.

We're on the same page with regard to the right of anyone to buy politicians, though you seem to think they currently have that right. I don't think anyone has that right.

When speech becomes $peech, citizens win. Because without spending some money to propagate it, it's just a thought in your head or maybe something you said to friends.

When $peech is cen$ored, citizens lose. If the reason for prohibiting the $pending is that it's political, that's inhibiting political expression and no other type. It is amusing to see the people who advocate that approach go on to say that prohibiting spending has nothing to do with inhibiting political expression.

Yeah, nothing to do with it, except for that being the whole purpose of the cen$orship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

.22

On 2/15/2018 at 12:03 PM, d'ranger said:

Dear Clueless Tom - I don't know any reasonable person advocating banning anything 22lr.  That you use it makes you just as big a disingenuous fucktard as Jack.  


Yes, that .22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2018 at 9:07 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The difference is that "the press" is a marketing term dreamed up by those in the ad business to describe their "news" divisions. Corporations are corporations.

But "the press" to describe journalists was not part of the vernacular in 1789, so the difference you are looking for in the first amendment is an invention from a later time. It's designed to make us believe in the myth of "unbiased reporting." Selecting what to report is the beginning of bias, so the term is oxymoronic. But it does make people feel better to read opinions and perceptions of the world that they already believe and have a "fact" stamp put on it.

We're on the same page with regard to the right of anyone to buy politicians, though you seem to think they currently have that right. I don't think anyone has that right.

When speech becomes $peech, citizens win. Because without spending some money to propagate it, it's just a thought in your head or maybe something you said to friends.

When $peech is cen$ored, citizens lose. If the reason for prohibiting the $pending is that it's political, that's inhibiting political expression and no other type. It is amusing to see the people who advocate that approach go on to say that prohibiting spending has nothing to do with inhibiting political expression.

Yeah, nothing to do with it, except for that being the whole purpose of the cen$orship.

Bull$hit. The only winner is the entity that outspends all the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Remodel said:

Bull$hit. The only winner is the entity that outspends all the others.

This is particularly funny in a thread filled with examples of Bloomberg out$pending the NRA and losing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:
7 hours ago, badlatitude said:

There is nothing I can do now but support a full Second Amendment extermination, which I will do with huge endowments. Money talks.

I think that is an excellent idea!  I fully support you spending your every last dime on this project.  PLEASE, give until it hurts.  And don't stop giving until the 2A is abolished..... or you die..... whichever comes first.  And speaking of money, I have a  $100 side bet that the later will happen before the former.  Any takers?


This should be entertaining.

Badlat wants to do as Bloomberg has been doing and $pend a bunch of money for political purposes. As always, I support his freedom of the pre$$ in this matter, even if he wants to form a corporation for the purpose.

But I'd like to hear from fans of disclosure of such $pending. How much should he disclose and how is that going to comport with forum rules on outing individuals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Bloomberg is losing, overall. His effort didn't exist in 2013. In this propaganda-based attack, let's  not forget Bloomberg was out-spent by the gun lobby for thirty years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering how this campaign is going?

On 4/7/2018 at 9:08 PM, badlatitude said:

There is nothing I can do now but support a full Second Amendment extermination, which I will do with huge endowments. Money talks.

 

You haven't reverted back to this guy, have you?

On 1/9/2018 at 11:52 AM, badlatitude said:

I like my Second Amendment rights and will continue to resist the Nutterz attempts to dislodge me from my rights. I already said I would voluntarily surrender my weapons, my job now is to make sure that you do too.

 

Share this post


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

Just wondering how this campaign is going?

 

You haven't reverted back to this guy, have you?

 

It's going well, Tom. You'll have your turn at the wheel, just be patient.

Share this post


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

I wonder if you'd get in trouble if you named your SuperPAC "Catch .22's!"

Hmm. Tom Ray Lite on the gun threads today. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites