Sign in to follow this  
hrothgar

Racist Mike Bloomberg

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, hrothgar said:

I guess Trump is not the only candidate we should be calling a racist....

https://newsone.com/3902125/bloomberg-racist-speech-black-voters-poll/

Hroth

I thought the article missed the most telling line, something I commented on at the time...

On 4/30/2015 at 2:47 PM, plchacker said:

I've seen no calls from you for the anti-gun movement to get rid of the spokesman who personifies "stop and frisk" more than anyone else: Bloomberg, who recently said this:

 

 

On 2/18/2015 at 6:00 AM, Tom Ray said:

Hah! The Aspen Institute and Gra$$root$ TV might not broadcast Bloomberg's comments, but bloggers in pajamas will find the audio and post it.

 

 

  Quote
“We did a calculation on how many people who would have been dead if we hadn’t brought down the murder rate and gotten guns off the streets,” Bloomberg said. “And the way to get guns out of kids' hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them.”

 

Plenty of cities have brought down crime rates without strict gun control laws and without searching random pedestrians.

 

Clearly continuing to advocate the racist policy he had while in office.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd think Trump's support would have clued Bloomberg in that he was on a bad path in 2013. Or 2014. Or 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, or maybe even early in 2019. But noooo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop and frisk may not have been a great idea but it won’t stop me from voting for Bloomberg 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever gets the nomination, they had better make sure the voters know about all the skeletons Trump will drag out of the closet.

One video from Iowa shows a shocked woman who just voted for Pete being told he's gay.  She said she wouldn't want someone like that in the White House.  Even though Pete is out of the closet, there's still a lot of voters who don't know that.

Besides the latest about Bloomberg, he also has stop and frisk in his closet.  If that's not general knowledge, Trump will thump him repeatedly with that in debates and he'll lose a lot of the black vote.

This is going to be a bloodbath election.  Trump loves fighting dirty and won't hesitate to drag everything he can find in their closet out into the open.  And he will pound on it relentlessly.  Discretion, morality, decency - all out the window. 

Trump is the kind of guy who kicks his opponent in the nuts when down.  The Dems had better be ready for it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg has the resources and inclination to fight dirtier.  Biden will direct his voters to Bloomberg.

Putin may also eventually throw trump under the bus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, hrothgar said:

I guess Trump is not the only candidate we should be calling a racist....

https://newsone.com/3902125/bloomberg-racist-speech-black-voters-poll/

Hroth

Another way to read it 

Bloomberg stated undisputed facts, never implying or using  race  
Hroth was outraged and called him a  racist   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jules said:

Whoever gets the nomination, they had better make sure the voters know about all the skeletons Trump will drag out of the closet.

One video from Iowa shows a shocked woman who just voted for Pete being told he's gay.  She said she wouldn't want someone like that in the White House.  Even though Pete is out of the closet, there's still a lot of voters who don't know that.

Besides the latest about Bloomberg, he also has stop and frisk in his closet.  If that's not general knowledge, Trump will thump him repeatedly with that in debates and he'll lose a lot of the black vote.

This is going to be a bloodbath election.  Trump loves fighting dirty and won't hesitate to drag everything he can find in their closet out into the open.  And he will pound on it relentlessly.  Discretion, morality, decency - all out the window. 

Trump is the kind of guy who kicks his opponent in the nuts when down.  The Dems had better be ready for it.

Trump embraced stop and frisk and was elected President. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Putin may also eventually throw trump under the bus

Doubtful -


Russians Think Triumphant Trump Is More Their Man Than Ever

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-acquitted-is-more-russias-trump-than-ever

Excerpt -

Russian state media have welcomed enthusiastically the recent U.S. Senate acquittal of President Donald J. Trump. Having predicted this outcome for his impeachment trial, Russian experts and state media pundits are anticipating beneficial side effects for the Kremlin as Trump is more Trump—and more Russia’s Trump—than ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

Another way to read it 

Bloomberg stated undisputed facts, never implying or using  race  
Hroth was outraged and called him a  racist   

Yet - if anyone on the right does the same thing?   We are tarred as being racist for daring to mention that.  The pertinent portion of the quote from Mayor Bloomberg: 
"“Ninety-five percent of murders — murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take a description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops,” Bloomberg can be heard saying in his unmistakable and signature nasal tone. “They are male, minorities, 16-25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city (inaudible). And that’s where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of people that are getting killed.”"

 

Share this post


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

 

Trump is the kind of guy who kicks his opponent in the nuts when down.  The Dems had better be ready for it.

I don't know much about the Dems, but kicking Sanders would be about as effective as kicking a bag of sand. And Bloomberg seems to enjoy the fights even more than Trump does, he's even too hardcore for all the spooks who station themselves around his businesses.

He's fearless. I used to see him hanging strap on the 6 Train with all of the rest of of us unwashed masses. It's like, he's powered by something that most of us can't see, and I have no idea what that thing is. For all the "outsider" nonsense, Trump is from a politically connected family, dad and uncle. But Bloomberg grew up hard, how do you attack someone who wants you to attack him?

Bloomberg is a "scrapper", and Trump is a "bully". We've all seen a variation of that story a dozen times.

And after the fight, the promoters will be in the back room dividing up the gate. As long as the script fills the seats, they'll make their nut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Yet - if anyone on the right does the same thing?   We are tarred as being racist.

 

Racists being tarred for being racists.

SAD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Jules said:

Whoever gets the nomination, they had better make sure the voters know about all the skeletons Trump will drag out of the closet.

One video from Iowa shows a shocked woman who just voted for Pete being told he's gay.  She said she wouldn't want someone like that in the White House.  Even though Pete is out of the closet, there's still a lot of voters who don't know that.

Besides the latest about Bloomberg, he also has stop and frisk in his closet.  If that's not general knowledge, Trump will thump him repeatedly with that in debates and he'll lose a lot of the black vote.

This is going to be a bloodbath election.  Trump loves fighting dirty and won't hesitate to drag everything he can find in their closet out into the open.  And he will pound on it relentlessly.  Discretion, morality, decency - all out the window. 

Trump is the kind of guy who kicks his opponent in the nuts when down.  The Dems had better be ready for it.

Trump has closet skeletons the size of Yankee Stadium.  But they  seem not to matter to the morans who support him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
59 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

Another way to read it 

Bloomberg stated undisputed facts, never implying or using  race  
Hroth was outraged and called him a  racist   

Yet - if anyone on the right does the same thing?   We are tarred as being racist for daring to mention that.  The pertinent portion of the quote from Mayor Bloomberg: 
"“Ninety-five percent of murders — murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take a description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops,” Bloomberg can be heard saying in his unmistakable and signature nasal tone. “They are male, minorities, 16-25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city (inaudible). And that’s where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of people that are getting killed.”"

One wonders where his police force got the idea to mostly stop and frisk black and brown people, considering nothing in his statement could possibly be construed to be about race.

(Well, except for the "minorities" reference, but Gungrabbiness Uber Alles so that's OK.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how anyone defends Bloomberg on this. He is a racist and should be treated as such. Just because he is pretending to be a Dem now, while Trump is pretending to be a Republican, does not mean he should be excused. I suspect his misogynistic streak will become more evident over time as well.

Take this line:

"You can just take a description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops, They are male, minorities, 16-25"

Show of hands, how many people can identify someone by the description "minority"? Only racists think you can identify someone by a description that states a particular demographics prevalence within the larger population. Minorities include Asian, Hispanic, African American, and other varied backgrounds from the Mediterranean and Middle East. Mike is saying the cops should feel free to harass anyone who is young and does not look like him, which is racist. Don't excuse this bullshit. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I thought the article missed the most telling line, something I commented on at the time...

(Bloomberg, from the ghost database)

 I'll take number four, for fifty dollars, Alex.

Quote

 

let's play WHEEL OF RACE-BAITING with our host, Tom "dogballs" Ray

 

  1. Aussie Apartheid, then the NAACP; 
  2. MLK's gun permit denial, the NAACP;
  3. MLK's church, smearing Rev. Mosteller, the NAACP;
  4. Bloomberg and stop and frisk, the NAACP; 
  5. Gangstas dealing drugs, sheer scapegoating,  and the NAACP; 
  6. Stacy Abrams, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP;
  7. Louis Farrakhan, Darren X, the NAACP;
  8. Judge Taney is coming, thirty times. the NAACP;
  9. Dred Scott fifteen times, as a code for gun rights, and the NAACP
  10. Cooing Chicago (instead of noticing multiple epidemics of violence), the NAACP;
  11. Claiming black gun stats disprove white gun ownership problems;
  12. Did I mention the NAACP… for more than 125 mentions?

 

Share this post


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

I don't know how anyone defends Bloomberg on this. He is a racist and should be treated as such. Just because he is pretending to be a Dem now, while Trump is pretending to be a Republican, does not mean he should be excused. I suspect his misogynistic streak will become more evident over time as well.

Take this line:

"You can just take a description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops, They are male, minorities, 16-25"

Show of hands, how many people can identify someone by the description "minority"? Only racists think you can identify someone by a description that states a particular demographics prevalence within the larger population. Minorities include Asian, Hispanic, African American, and other varied backgrounds from the Mediterranean and Middle East. Mike is saying the cops should feel free to harass anyone who is young and does not look like him, which is racist. Don't excuse this bullshit. 

In addressing this last week, Ari Melber confronted a Bloomberg campaign guy on MSNBC with the actual numbers: 5.5 million stops-and-frisks under Bloomie. An individual was presented who spoke of sixty or seventy stops, personally. He chose to stay home.

That said, (and I know you grasp this well, Len) I want to establish that pointing fingers at alleged racists will not get the job done here.

Share this post


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

Stop and frisk may not have been a great idea but it won’t stop me from voting for Bloomberg 

He has the primary redeeming characteristic of not being Trump. As a candidate I find him about as appealing as a colonoscopy, but I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

He has the primary redeeming characteristic of not being Trump. As a candidate I find him about as appealing as a colonoscopy, but I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination.

Colonoscopies may not be appealing, but the drugs they give you are first rate.  Got so high I could hunt ducks with a rake.  Sadly though the pharmaceuticals have changed.  No high, no buzz from my last procedure this past fall.

Share this post


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

Just because he is pretending to be a Dem now,

I guess he was pretending to be one up to 2001 as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those comments will get some Trump voters, particularly in the south, to give Bloomberg a look, as long as he doesn’t apologize for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Those comments will get some Trump voters, particularly in the south, to give Bloomberg a look, as long as he doesn’t apologize for them. 

He already did renounce his racist stop and frisk program, though not very credibly at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bpm57 said:

I guess he was pretending to be one up to 2001 as well.

Of course he was.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

He has the primary redeeming characteristic of not being Trump. As a candidate I find him about as appealing as a colonoscopy, but I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination.

Yeah, I will also.  Trouble is, it will probably cause a lot of people important to electing a Democrat to stay home, assuring a victory for Trump.  Trump supporting stop and frisk is a plus for his base, so it works both ways against the Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Trump realized, too late, it hurts him.to point out Bloomberg’s racist  policy.    The problem isn’t the flip flop on a policy Trump long supported, Trump changes sides as often as a wave in a bathtub.    The problem is Bloomberg  gives Trump’s faithful a socially acceptable and smart racist candidate to chose instead of himself.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

You'd think Trump's support would have clued Bloomberg in that he was on a bad path in 2013. Or 2014. Or 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, or maybe even early in 2019. But noooo.

I would think that gunnutz and racists would be flocking to his banner

 

5 minutes ago, Lark said:

 Trump realized, too late, it hurts him.to point out Bloomberg’s racist  policy.    The problem isn’t the flip flop on a policy Trump long supported, Trump changes sides as often as a wave in a bathtub.    The problem is Bloomberg  gives Trump’s faithful a socially acceptable and smart racist candidate to chose instead of himself.   

At this point it's all about vote suppression; the more they can turn Democratic voters off -any- choice, the more likely they are to win. One of Trump's few real political skills is shit-flinging

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bridhb said:
18 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

He has the primary redeeming characteristic of not being Trump. As a candidate I find him about as appealing as a colonoscopy, but I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination.

Yeah, I will also.  Trouble is, it will probably cause a lot of people important to electing a Democrat to stay home, assuring a victory for Trump.  Trump supporting stop and frisk is a plus for his base, so it works both ways against the Democrats.

This poses a question:   If a person has a personal habit/attribute that you dislike, but, you think that that person is the best choice to do the job that needs to be done, would you still vote for them?   As an example:   What I read about LBJ indicates that he was personally quite racist - but, that he did a lot to advance minority issues.  

Would someone who decries racism be a hypocrite or a pragmatist for supporting LBJ?   

For the record - I don't want Bloomberg to get the nod.  I disagree with several of his legislative priorities, and the money he's pushed into my state to support those causes has me really pissed off.   His racism isn't one of the reasons I oppose him.  I don't agree with it, but, I don't think that it was a major factor in his job performance.  

According to an article that came up in my google-fu, "Stop and Frisk" seems to have contributed to a 12-15% reduction in a crime - as it resulted in a larger police presence in target areas.  The article suggests that the "stop and frisk" portion resulted in a <5% reduction in targeted crimes. 
https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/fact-check/does-stop-and-frisk-reduce-crime
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I would think that gunnutz and racists would be flocking to his banner

Yeah - right - you DO know that Bloomberg money is largely responsible for HB961*  being introduced and passed by the Va House of Delegates?   I hope it dies today in the Senate - but, it's there because Bloomberg's $$ helped the 2 new delegates from FFX get elected.  
*
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB961

At this point it's all about vote suppression; the more they can turn Democratic voters off -any- choice, the more likely they are to win. One of Trump's few real political skills is shit-flinging

- DSK

Like my old judge friend told me last night - I ought to be thankful for this attempted intrusion, because it will GOTV better than any promises of "something good". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

This poses a question:   If a person has a personal habit/attribute that you dislike, but, you think that that person is the best choice to do the job that needs to be done, would you still vote for them?   As an example:   What I read about LBJ indicates that he was personally quite racist - but, that he did a lot to advance minority issues.  

Would someone who decries racism be a hypocrite or a pragmatist for supporting LBJ?   

 

 

One trouble with our political system is we basically only have three choices...Trump, the Democrat, or stay home and complain about it.  I wish we had more viable political parties and a system of elimination.  Yeah, minor parties exist, and I have even voted for them previously, but this one is too important to do that again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jules said:

Whoever gets the nomination, they had better make sure the voters know about all the skeletons Trump will drag out of the closet.

One video from Iowa shows a shocked woman who just voted for Pete being told he's gay.  She said she wouldn't want someone like that in the White House.  Even though Pete is out of the closet, there's still a lot of voters who don't know that.

Besides the latest about Bloomberg, he also has stop and frisk in his closet.  If that's not general knowledge, Trump will thump him repeatedly with that in debates and he'll lose a lot of the black vote.

This is going to be a bloodbath election.  Trump loves fighting dirty and won't hesitate to drag everything he can find in their closet out into the open.  And he will pound on it relentlessly.  Discretion, morality, decency - all out the window. 

Trump is the kind of guy who kicks his opponent in the nuts when down.  The Dems had better be ready for it.

Do ya think Bloomberg has the pee tapes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Like my old judge friend told me last night - I ought to be thankful for this attempted intrusion, because it will GOTV better than any promises of "something good". 

 

That pretty much leaves you hating all candidates and all proposed policies. You gotta decide which one(s) you hate less.

That's kind of the default setting for democracy, it often seems.

As for the specifics of the Bloomberg-supported bill, over the past few years (partly from the assholish gun nutz right here in PA) I have switched from supported 2nd Amendment rights to supporting an eventual ban on fire arms. I am now a gun grabber. If you value your 2nd amendment rights more than you value my families right to not get shot by a loony-tunes asshole, then go fuck yourself I would come take your guns personally. It's going to be a long tough road to drag the former America into modern life but this ain't Daniel Boone on TV no more.

And BTW some people should not be allowed to own dogs either, pit bulls or otherwise

- DSK

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Yeah, I will also.  Trouble is, it will probably cause a lot of people important to electing a Democrat to stay home, assuring a victory for Trump.  Trump supporting stop and frisk is a plus for his base, so it works both ways against the Democrats.

There is a major difference in a guy that lived in NYC supporting it and a guy who as mayor ordered it as policy.  
 

Share this post


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

I would think that gunnutz and racists would be flocking to his banner

 

At this point it's all about vote suppression; the more they can turn Democratic voters off -any- choice, the more likely they are to win. One of Trump's few real political skills is shit-flinging

- DSK

Are you under the impression that this leaked tape came from the republicans?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fat Point Jack said:

Do ya think Bloomberg has the pee tapes?

And Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

That pretty much leaves you hating all candidates and all proposed policies. You gotta decide which one(s) you hate less.

That's kind of the default setting for democracy, it often seems.

As for the specifics of the Bloomberg-supported bill, over the past few years (partly from the assholish gun nutz right here in PA) I have switched from supported 2nd Amendment rights to supporting an eventual ban on fire arms. I am now a gun grabber. If you value your 2nd amendment rights more than you value my families right to not get shot by a loony-tunes asshole, then go fuck yourself I would come take your guns personally. It's going to be a long tough road to drag the former America into modern life but this ain't Daniel Boone on TV no more.

And BTW some people should not be allowed to own dogs either, pit bulls or otherwise

- DSK

It THAT was the case, your perspective might be valid.  It's not, and it's not.  We could expand your premise to say that some people shouldn't be allowed on the internet, as evidenced by the idiocy that they spew, but, they are, and everyone else's best option is just to ignore what they don't like and can't and won't change.  

Nobody values ANYTHING over your family's right to not get shot.  If we adopt your premise,  we ought to get rid of cars and booze so you don't get hit by a drunk driver too.  I'm sorry you've decided to join several others in their personal hypocrisy, and have appointed yourself as the personal arbiter of what everyone else should be permitted to own.   Wait - there may be a chance to agree here!   Would you agree that some people shouldn't be allowed to have kids, too? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It THAT was the case, your perspective might be valid.  It's not, and it's not.  We could expand your premise to say that some people shouldn't be allowed on the internet, as evidenced by the idiocy that they spew, but, they are, and everyone else's best option is just to ignore what they don't like and can't and won't change.  

Nobody values ANYTHING over your family's right to not get shot.  If we adopt your premise,  we ought to get rid of cars and booze so you don't get hit by a drunk driver too.  I'm sorry you've decided to join several others in their personal hypocrisy, and have appointed yourself as the personal arbiter of what everyone else should be permitted to own.   Wait - there may be a chance to agree here!   Would you agree that some people shouldn't be allowed to have kids, too? 

 

Nature has it's own way of disallowing some people to have children; at this point/these current circumstances, I would not agree to governement-imposed birth control. But I can easily imagine circumstances where that would be the best thing to do.

As for gun rights, I've tried to suggest many times that reasonable, responsible, law-abiding gun owners have an overriding interest in setting up some way of protecting the public from murderous loony-tunes assholes. But they all... or perhaps the most vocal contingent... offer nothing but defiance, combative rhetoric, and displays of loony-tunes assholery themselves.

I'd very much prefer the coupling of RIGHTS with RESPONSIBILITY come from the the people most concerned and best informed, but it's getting more clear with every passing year that it's not going to happen. Especially not in Trumperica.

- DSK

Share this post


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

And Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.

That's a figment of "it's" imagination.

Bloomberg has real sources.

I'm back to wearing my, "Don't blame me, I voted for Mc Govern" button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
On 2/11/2020 at 11:10 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

You'd think Trump's support would have clued Bloomberg in that he was on a bad path in 2013. Or 2014. Or 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, or maybe even early in 2019. But noooo.

I would think that gunnutz and racists would be flocking to his banner

I'm a gun nut and have been calling Bloomberg out on his racist stop and frisk program on this forum for years, but I guess lots of other non-readers might not know it and reach the conclusion you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I'm a gun nut and have been calling Bloomberg out on his racist stop and frisk program on this forum for years, but I guess lots of other non-readers might not know it and reach the conclusion you did.

Tom Ray decides who the non-readers are. And what legitimate is. And what reasonable is. ANd what o4dinary is. What a royal brain you have.

I want a fair presentation, of a robust pattern of racism, to see a problem from several angles, before pointing "racism" fingers at any person. Proceed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JoCal - you have firmly demonstrated that you are one of the Non-Readers.  To help you:  Steamers made a comment that racists and gun-nuts would LOVE Bloomberg - seemingly oblivious to Bloomberg's gun control advocacy, and Tom's consistent opposition to Bloomberg because Tom felt that Stop and Frisk was racist.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

JoCal - you have firmly demonstrated that you are one of the Non-Readers.  To help you:  Steamers made a comment that racists and gun-nuts would LOVE Bloomberg - seemingly oblivious to Bloomberg's gun control advocacy, and Tom's consistent opposition to Bloomberg because Tom felt that Stop and Frisk was racist.  

 

I get that, without being impressed. Now let's get back on track.

Can you or dogballs support the accusation that Bloomberg is racist by going beyond stop and frisk? My television cannot, so far.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg's comments are in now way racist. They are facts. Someone probably reminded Trump of that... 

As much as I disagree with much of Bernie's policy, he believes it, his people believe it. That gives it soul, it's real. Bloomberg has no soul just a lot of $$$$. He is running a campaign for a group of voters that don't exist. I don't think the American electorate will get on board with a "purchased candidacy".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're older than 40 and white, there's a good chance you won't find his comments racist.  If you're republican, you definitely won't. 

If you are not old and white, you definitely won't see them in any other way.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I get that, without being impressed. Now let's get back on track.

Can you or dogballs support the accusation that Bloomberg is racist by going beyond stop and frisk? My television cannot, so far.

  

You can support it yourself if you avail yourself of the ability to search for his comments relative to the guidance he gave the police force.  I'm not doing anything to convince you of anything - and am going to quit hitting "show new replies" - you're on ignore for a reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

If you're older than 40 and white, there's a good chance you won't find his comments racist.  If you're republican, you definitely won't. 

If you are not old and white, you definitely won't see them in any other way.   

Oh come on, he didn't even call them "schwartzers"

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

JoCal - you have firmly demonstrated that you are one of the Non-Readers.  To help you:  Steamers made a comment that racists and gun-nuts would LOVE Bloomberg - seemingly oblivious to Bloomberg's gun control advocacy, and Tom's consistent opposition to Bloomberg because Tom felt that Stop and Frisk was racist.  

 

I am absolutely, cheerfully, and unapologetically a Non-Reader of OmniPresent Tom's endless gun nuttery. I made the mistake years ago of trying to discuss this and somewhat-related issues but he is very much a one-way street. No facts get in, it's all outflow.

There are several possible reasons why he might hate-hate-HATE Bloomberg but the gun-control issue is certainly one.

FWIW I don't have anyone on ignore.

- DSK

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Oh come on, he didn't even call them "schwartzers"

- DSK

Not in that recording, but I bet there are plenty who've heard him say the word. 

And it's schvartze, You fucking goy 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Not in that recording, but I bet there are plenty who've heard him say the word. 

And it's schvartze, You fucking goy

 

Sorry, honest mistake.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jocal505 said:
3 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I'm a gun nut and have been calling Bloomberg out on his racist stop and frisk program on this forum for years, but I guess lots of other non-readers might not know it and reach the conclusion you did.

Tom Ray decides who the non-readers are. And what legitimate is. And what reasonable is. ANd what o4dinary is. What a royal brain you have.

I want a fair presentation, of a robust pattern of racism, to see a problem from several angles, before pointing "racism" fingers at any person. Proceed.

Tom knows I've had him on Ignore for years, so it's fair to point out that some of us might not know he holds one or two reasonable positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Not in that recording, but I bet there are plenty who've heard him say the word. 

And it's schvartze, You fucking goy 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate racists and Nazis. I read Bloomberg's comments and I have no problem with them. The man is simply stating the truth.

I don't know from the clip I read whether he also pointed out that the majority of the minorities living in those neighbourhoods are decent law-abiding people focused on jobs, education and better opportunities for their kids, and that heavily policing the dangerous 'hood they live in is protection that they appreciate and need.

Legalizing recreational cannabis use would free up a massive amount of wasted police time, court time, and jail space. It would also reduce one of the main reasons minorities are conflicted in their feelings toward the police.

Less incidents of nervous cops gunning down innocent black/brown young men would also help......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Happy said:

I hate racists and Nazis. I read Bloomberg's comments and I have no problem with them. The man is simply stating the truth.

I don't know from the clip I read whether he also pointed out that the majority of the minorities living in those neighbourhoods are decent law-abiding people focused on jobs, education and better opportunities for their kids, and that heavily policing the dangerous 'hood they live in is protection that they appreciate and need.

Legalizing recreational cannabis use would free up a massive amount of wasted police time, court time, and jail space. It would also reduce one of the main reasons minorities are conflicted in their feelings toward the police.

Less incidents of nervous cops gunning down innocent black/brown young men would also help......

I agree with most of that, especially the part about ending the stupid drug war that Bloomberg expanded and supports, but randomly stopping and frisking decent, law-abiding people who just overwhelmingly happen to be non-white does not seem to have been appreciated as you seem to expect it would be.

That's why Bloomberg suddenly saw the light on that issue late last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2020 at 9:40 PM, Mrleft8 said:

Yes. They are under informed, and are listening to only what they want to hear. If the legitimate .22 owners, such as your wife were to explain the difference between a .223, or other similar rounds, then maybe there would be a compromise. Instead of explaining, people like you (I'm not saying you specifically) are outraged that their wife's .22 rifle with a 12 shot magazine will be outlawed. It's just not that simple.

 You need to educate people who are legislating, not just blindly lash out at them for what other people, who may not be as informed as you are.telling them a .22 is not a .223. is not that difficult.

You can lead a horse to water, but...

15 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

Tom knows I've had him on Ignore for years, so it's fair to point out that some of us might not know he holds one or two reasonable positions.

and

15 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I am absolutely, cheerfully, and unapologetically a Non-Reader of OmniPresent Tom's endless gun nuttery. I made the mistake years ago of trying to discuss this and somewhat-related issues but he is very much a one-way street. No facts get in, it's all outflow.

There are several possible reasons why he might hate-hate-HATE Bloomberg but the gun-control issue is certainly one.

FWIW I don't have anyone on ignore.

- DSK

To name just two of many who don't want to hear an opposing view.

The fact that every TeamD Presidential contender wants to ban (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) is not particularly well received, nor even acknowledged as a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

If you're older than 40 and white, there's a good chance you won't find his comments racist.  If you're republican, you definitely won't. 

If you are not old and white, you definitely won't see them in any other way.   

If you support him politically there's a good chance you won't find his comments racist.

If you oppose him politically there's a good chance you will.

The old white guys on Fox are slamming him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I agree with most of that, especially the part about ending the stupid drug war that Bloomberg expanded and supports, but randomly stopping and frisking decent, law-abiding people who just overwhelmingly happen to be non-white does not seem to have been appreciated as you seem to expect it would be.

That's why Bloomberg suddenly saw the light on that issue late last year.

BONANZA: field day for Joe

You were quite hard of Bloomie, over racial profiling. You were superior and righteous, too. Then you employed Tom Ray racial profiling, ad naseum. 

Exhibit A, The debate over assault weapons thread.

 

You got out of bed (on maybe 100  days), and made ganga allegations, using the Gun Violence Archives. You edited thei  mass shooting section for drive-by's, and for un-cooperative witnesses, whatever you could find. You edited these dutifully, added spin, threw shade on them, and lumped the incidents together, as gangsta activity.  YOU  LEFT A TRAIL OF RACIAL PROFILING, YOU IDIOT.

You masked your racial profiling behing the code words stupid drug war, then went out with a flair, DO SOME THING. Whew.

 

I love this place, cuz idiots on OCD leave a trail.

 

_Frederick Douglass.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom - there's an awful lot of folks on here who can't stand to think that there are rational people in the world who don't think like they do.  I have to think that they must be insecure in their own positions if their only response is to demean and attack the people who offered differing opinions.  That, or they just like acting the way they do, in which case there's really no excuse for their poor behavior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add me to the list of those who don’t interact with Tom Dogballs.  Haven’t replied to him in years.  He’s not the worst poster here but his one note song on guns and his tedious history of talking exclusively to himself on several thread has me worried for his sanity.  Best not to engage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Tom - there's an awful lot of folks on here who can't stand to think that there are rational people in the world who don't think like they do. 

Is this directed at moi? Cuz it followed my words.  If so, I will respond in terns as kindly as your own, which is a compliment.

I come here for the better ideas, to see the contrast, to expose my confirmation bias among the intelligent. I only want to know the spark of the stupid, and constant, race-baiting, and I have a right to ask. The behavior  was openly directed at moi in public, but that personal bit is a reflection of other habitual stuff.

Stand by to come about. We're gonna deal with it, Chess. 

Quote

(AGIC)...in which case there's really no excuse for their poor behavior. 

Don't twist this. I am hereby calling Tom out on 4.5 years of personal race-baiting, and on twelve forms of repeated general race-baiting. Yo, I point to this as poor behavior, which has become accepted. 

Share this post


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

You can lead a horse to water, but...

and

To name just two of many who don't want to hear an opposing view.

The fact that every TeamD Presidential contender wants to ban (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) is not particularly well received, nor even acknowledged as a fact.

That's utter bullshit. I assume you are intentionally being offensive. I've proven many many times here (and constantly in real life) that I don't have a problem with opposing points of view at all.

Tom is a good sailor but on non-sailing topics is a lying sack of shit on the scale of Dog, only without the sense of humor Dog used to have. There is zero point in reading his gun-related drivel. If you doubt this, try it yourself, there are at least a dozen threads of him talking to himself and bringing in quotes for others from other threads, so he can "prove" them wrong.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
4 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

he fact that every TeamD Presidential contender wants to ban (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) is not particularly well received, nor even acknowledged as a fact.

That's utter bullshit. I assume you are intentionally being offensive.

A better assumption would be that I read legislation they have supported and found that they all want to ban (assault weapons, ordinary .22's).

If they don't want me to think they're in favor of banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) they should probably stop supporting legislation that does exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Tom - there's an awful lot of folks on here who can't stand to think that there are rational people in the world who don't think like they do.  I have to think that they must be insecure in their own positions if their only response is to demean and attack the people who offered differing opinions.  That, or they just like acting the way they do, in which case there's really no excuse for their poor behavior. 

:lol: You posting this to Tedious Tomballs, acting like Tomballs isn’t one of those sacks of shit is beautiful :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2020 at 8:27 AM, Fakenews said:

Putin may also eventually throw trump under the bus

???

Why would he want anyone other than the dumbest and most easily manipulated person in office?

Vlad's goal is to weaken the USA to the maximum extent possible - Trump is his man.

Share this post


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

If you support him politically there's a good chance you won't find his comments racist.

If you oppose him politically there's a good chance you will.

The old white guys on Fox are slamming him.

Old white guys on Fox are having the vapors in public. In private, they agree with him and are relishing the opportunity to publicly accuse others of racism. They don't get to legitimately do that very often.

Edited by another 505 sailor
Typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2020 at 3:59 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

 He (Bloomberg) already did renounce his racist stop and frisk program, though not very credibly at all.

When are you going to renounce the serial racial profiling of The Debate About Assault Weapons thread? You hijacked the thread with selected disinformation. When will you correct your scapegoating of the gangstas? 

Bogus Research by Tom Ray: aka STUPID DRUG WAR

You drew the conclusion for us, many times, that gangstas were behind most mass shootings, which is false. As cited, FBI numbers show that domestic violence accounts for 52% to 57% of our mass shootings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2020 at 8:24 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It THAT was the case, your perspective might be valid.  It's not, and it's not.  We could expand your premise to say that some people shouldn't be allowed on the internet, as evidenced by the idiocy that they spew, but, they are, and everyone else's best option is just to ignore what they don't like and can't and won't change.  

No you can't...  Stop Spinning crap like this...  This is the 2nd time I am calling your BS in the last 3 days.  The inets are in no way related to gunz or their grabbers as it pertains to physically taking guns or physically shooting someone.  That is a false prophesy and needs to be shut down.  Joe shmoe on the inets is not capable of killing someone after a couple of beers over a discussion 1000 mi apart.  Hurt feelings, sure, but you can't kill people with the internet like you can with gunz.  Seriously, where do you come up with this shit??  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2020 at 8:14 AM, Steam Flyer said:

That pretty much leaves you hating all candidates and all proposed policies. You gotta decide which one(s) you hate less.

That's kind of the default setting for democracy, it often seems.

As for the specifics of the Bloomberg-supported bill, over the past few years (partly from the assholish gun nutz right here in PA) I have switched from supported 2nd Amendment rights to supporting an eventual ban on fire arms. I am now a gun grabber. If you value your 2nd amendment rights more than you value my families right to not get shot by a loony-tunes asshole, then go fuck yourself I would come take your guns personally. It's going to be a long tough road to drag the former America into modern life but this ain't Daniel Boone on TV no more.

And BTW some people should not be allowed to own dogs either, pit bulls or otherwise

- DSK

And good on you stem......  Regardless of the circumstances, welcome to the good guys.  

Share this post


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

Add me to the list of those who don’t interact with Tom Dogballs.  Haven’t replied to him in years.  He’s not the worst poster here but his one note song on guns and his tedious history of talking exclusively to himself on several thread has me worried for his sanity.  Best not to engage.

He's a sea lion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2020 at 10:21 PM, shaggy said:

No you can't...  Stop Spinning crap like this...  This is the 2nd time I am calling your BS in the last 3 days.  The inets are in no way related to gunz or their grabbers as it pertains to physically taking guns or physically shooting someone.  That is a false prophesy and needs to be shut down.  Joe shmoe on the inets is not capable of killing someone after a couple of beers over a discussion 1000 mi apart.  Hurt feelings, sure, but you can't kill people with the internet like you can with gunz.  Seriously, where do you come up with this shit??  

Sorry Shags - but, fomenting discontent on the internet to the point of goading people into reaction is a very real thing.  You're not calling anyone on any BS - but, if it makes you happy to think that, you have fun with yourself.   If a gun ban goes into effect, how long will you continue to ignore the causal factors that result in violence while you focus on the next most popular implement? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Racist or not, Bloomberg has purchased a lot of points in the polls and bought himself a spot in the next debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Sorry Shags - but, fomenting discontent on the internet to the point of goading people into reaction is a very real thing.  You're not calling anyone on any BS - but, if it makes you happy to think that, you have fun with yourself.   If a gun ban goes into effect, how long will you continue to ignore the causal factors that result in violence while you focus on the next most popular implement? 

 

HAHAHA, Get rid of em all!!!...  Took you a weekend to come up with some sort of spin hu??  Goading people..  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH..  Seriously, where do you get this shit??  You are actually going to try and equate people convicted of "Internet Goading" to prove your stupid BS spin on gunz and the grabbers.  Focus??  I would not know a frigging 9 MM from tom's sacred 22, so next most popular implement? WTF...  Seriously, do you spin this all up in your head when it comes to this topic, or are you actually getting your talking points from Comrade NRA??  

Share this post


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

HAHAHA, Get rid of em all!!!...  Took you a weekend to come up with some sort of spin hu??  Goading people..  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH..  Seriously, where do you get this shit??  You are actually going to try and equate people convicted of "Internet Goading" to prove your stupid BS spin on gunz and the grabbers.  Focus??  I would not know a frigging 9 MM from tom's sacred 22, so next most popular implement? WTF...  Seriously, do you spin this all up in your head when it comes to this topic, or are you actually getting your talking points from Comrade NRA??  

Believe it or not?  I've got other things to do besides sit on SA and look for things to get angry about.    Riddle me this Batman - the guy who drove the car into the crowd in Charlottesville?  What do you think the source and "encouragement" of his motivation was?   Try this for a change: Read to understand instead of reading to refute - you might be surprised at what happens if you can bring yourself to do that.  

Please note - I did NOT say that "we shouldn't let certain people on the internet" - I used that absurd suggestion as a means to refute another poster's  suggestion that I thought was absurd.  You seemed to pick up on a tangent and go off quarter-cocked ( this drivel isn't even enough to be half cocked) 

I don't know what's crawled up your ass, and frankly?  I don't much care - you can listen and discuss, or you can rant like a spittle flecked lunatic - that's your choice - but, don't think that either matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Sorry Shags - but, fomenting discontent on the internet to the point of goading people into reaction is a very real thing. 

So you are saying your gunnut boys trolling jocal is a bad thing? Or is it only bad when the people “don’t deserve it”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

So you are saying your gunnut boys trolling jocal is a bad thing? Or is it only bad when the people “don’t deserve it”?

Only a fraction of the spew is personal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Believe it or not?  I've got other things to do besides sit on SA and look for things to get angry about.    Riddle me this Batman - the guy who drove the car into the crowd in Charlottesville?  What do you think the source and "encouragement" of his motivation was?   Try this for a change: Read to understand instead of reading to refute - you might be surprised at what happens if you can bring yourself to do that.  

Please note - I did NOT say that "we shouldn't let certain people on the internet" - I used that absurd suggestion as a means to refute another poster's  suggestion that I thought was absurd.  You seemed to pick up on a tangent and go off quarter-cocked ( this drivel isn't even enough to be half cocked) 

I don't know what's crawled up your ass, and frankly?  I don't much care - you can listen and discuss, or you can rant like a spittle flecked lunatic - that's your choice - but, don't think that either matters. 

:D:lol::lol::lol::D      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this