New Yorkers... wtf?

[JBond]

The same douchebag who said Giuliani couldn't run for a third term and then went ahead and cried, then changed the rules for himself.

Some animals are more equal than others. No doubt he is a greedy little do-gooding bitch. I hate two faced MF's like him.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

So you're saying he needs to be **** punted?

 

[VTA]

So what's your problem with Bloomberg?

I can't speak for him, but I'm guessing it has to do with his mini-Caesar acts of infringing upon the personal choices of people.

He's done a fine job of maintaining the cleaned up city Giuliani left him, but his ideas are garbage.

 

[Minimalist]

So what's your problem with Bloomberg?

What's not my problem? Is there anything he doesn't want to ban? From soda to cigarettes being visible -- there's nothing the guy doesn't want to ban. He thinks his job is to tell people what they can and can't do. Everybody was already born with parents. We don't need another well into adulthood...thanks though Mike.

Then there's the most recent bullshit going after the 2A and using his billions to fight the NRA. The NRA consists of a lot of citizens who pay their membership fees and donate. There's a reason it is what it is. One billionaire taking them on because of HIS beliefs proves what a fucking douche he is and that he thinks everything in life can be purchased. There's also his manipulative ads he's running for background checks that are complete lies. But hey, that's what billions can buy you. After all, it's HIS country....not the people's. All that matters is that HE gets what HE wants.

There's also the even more recent comment of him saying we need to give up more of our freedom because of the times we live in. I mean at least the guy TRIED to come up with some ideas that wouldn't take away more of the freedoms of Americans.

The guy would be an excellent dictator. Can you even smoke outside in parks in NYC now? I hear people I have nothing in common with at work referring to him as a dictator. The guy is the ultimate douchebag.

And don't get me wrong..I live a pretty ascetic lifestyle and don't partake in much. I probably have a few things in common with him. But who the fuck is he to basically tell people to stop drinking so much soda and requesting the cigarettes to be hidden from the virgin eyes. The guy thinks he's going to build some sort of utopia based on shitty ideas. He's a joke.

I should also add that I'm a very tolerant person and pretty much no one else can get me riled up like this. The guy is a prick.

 

[buckup]

This thread is amazing.

First off, the OP cites an article that gives no specifics and is so heavily weighted toward the "right" it's difficult to wade through. Not once does it quote Bloomberg as saying he wants to reduce civil liberties. He doesn't give a shit about politics. He wants to make New York City better and safer. The dumb article itself quotes him as saying that all he wants to do is make it safer for kids to go to school.

If you have a problem with reinterpreting the constitution, then maybe we should get rid of the reinterpretations of the constitution, namely the amendments. Obviously, the original document is not unfailable. I'm so tied of people clinging to their cause by saying "BUT IT's IN DER CONSITUTION! ITS MER RIGHT!" when the whole thing was changed from the original document to include that "Right." Times change. Sometimes an amendment might be a good idea.

The assertion that he tried to ban soda is untrue. He tried to ban soda for for idiots that want to drink a gallon of soda at a time. That might sound like a silly idea, but if you adopt the (true, ask your doctor) mantra that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure then you could see through your political blinders that it's a good idea not to drink that much fucking Monsanto bullshit and that diabetes and obesity can be linked to numerous causes of death. If people are too fucking stupid to care about themselves, and that stupidity leads to a financial burden on me, then, hell yeah, I think there needs to be legislation in place to make sure we don't head towards Idiocracy.

Someone even tried (dbair) to imply that people are leaving NYC. Are you fucking kidding me? Brooklyn on it's own is the 4th largest city in the US. Moving away in droves? Not so much.

"Greedy little do-gooding bitch." When is the last time you called someone who was greedy a do-gooder? That doesn't even make any sense. If you dig a little, you'll find that he's actually done away with some city subsidized programs and replaced them with money from his own companies.

Now, I've written all that and you should know that I don't even really think Bloomberg is great. I live in, and have for years, NYC and think he's one of the best mayors I can remember. The one reason I do like him is that he doesn't give a shit about politics, and from I can tell, never will. Politics don't pay his bills so he doesn't care about the machine. He cares about doing what he thinks is right. I dare you to show me another person in an elected office that can claim the same.

 

[dbair1967]

So what's your problem with Bloomberg?

Not enough room to print.

 

[VTA]

This thread is amazing.

First off, the OP cites an article that gives no specifics and is so heavily weighted toward the "right" it's difficult to wade through. Not once does it quote Bloomberg as saying he wants to reduce civil liberties. He doesn't give a shit about politics. He wants to make New York City better and safer. The dumb article itself quotes him as saying that all he wants to do is make it safer for kids to go to school.

If you have a problem with reinterpreting the constitution, then maybe we should get rid of the reinterpretations of the constitution, namely the amendments. Obviously, the original document is not unfailable. I'm so tied of people clinging to their cause by saying "BUT IT's IN DER CONSITUTION! ITS MER RIGHT!" when the whole thing was changed from the original document to include that "Right." Times change. Sometimes an amendment might be a good idea.

The assertion that he tried to ban soda is untrue. He tried to ban soda for for idiots that want to drink a gallon of soda at a time. That might sound like a silly idea, but if you adopt the (true, ask your doctor) mantra that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure then you could see through your political blinders that it's a good idea not to drink that much fucking Monsanto bullshit and that diabetes and obesity can be linked to numerous causes of death. If people are too fucking stupid to care about themselves, and that stupidity leads to a financial burden on me, then, hell yeah, I think there needs to be legislation in place to make sure we don't head towards Idiocracy.

Someone even tried (dbair) to imply that people are leaving NYC. Are you fucking kidding me? Brooklyn on it's own is the 4th largest city in the US. Moving away in droves? Not so much.

"Greedy little do-gooding bitch." When is the last time you called someone who was greedy a do-gooder? That doesn't even make any sense. If you dig a little, you'll find that he's actually done away with some city subsidized programs and replaced them with money from his own companies.

Now, I've written all that and you should know that I don't even really think Bloomberg is great. I live in, and have for years, NYC and think he's one of the best mayors I can remember. The one reason I do like him is that he doesn't give a shit about politics, and from I can tell, never will. Politics don't pay his bills so he doesn't care about the machine. He cares about doing what he thinks is right. I dare you to show me another person in an elected office that can claim the same.

How else is he going to put it? He's been all about infringing on personal choices and this statement from his own mouth just verifies it, no matter his veiling of it by citing 'the children'.

If he's interested in protecting the children from terrorism he should get on the immigration bandwagon and protest allowing any asshole on a 'student visa ' to come here only to turn on us.

You know how I know he's wrong? He's looking at attacks from the outside and blaming the people being attacked. How long before you begin to accept blame for someone assaulting you? I doubt you will.

And it is heading toward idiocracy when you need government curtailing your personal, self effecting habits like what you put in your gob. You can't legislate such things, and the points about why it's problem are a great example why universal healthcare is a very bad idea.

He doesn't care about politics? What are politics by his or your definition?

 

[buckup]

How else is he going to put it? He's been all about infringing on personal choices and this statement from his own mouth just verifies it, no matter his veiling of it by citing 'the children'.

If he's interested in protecting the children from terrorism he should get on the immigration bandwagon and protest allowing any asshole on a 'student visa ' to come here only to turn on us.

You know how I know he's wrong? He's looking at attacks from the outside and blaming the people being attacked. How long before you begin to accept blame for someone assaulting you? I doubt you will.

And it is heading toward idiocracy when you need government curtailing your personal, self effecting habits like what you put in your gob. You can't legislate such things, and the points about why it's problem are a great example why universal healthcare is a very bad idea.

He doesn't care about politics? What are politics by his or your definition?

How else is he going to put it? He's been all about infringing on personal choices and this statement from his own mouth just verifies it, no matter his veiling of it by citing 'the children'.

If he's interested in protecting the children from terrorism he should get on the immigration bandwagon and protest allowing any asshole on a 'student visa ' to come here only to turn on us.

You know how I know he's wrong? He's looking at attacks from the outside and blaming the people being attacked.
How long before you accept blame for someone assaulting you?

And it is heading toward idiocracy when you need government curtailing your personal, self effecting habits like what you put in your gob. You can't legislate such things, and the points about why it's problem are a great example why universal healthcare is a very bad idea.

He doesn't care about politics? What are politics by his or your definition?

To your first point. Please explain with specifics.

I don't disagree that student visas should be regulated more. I'm not sure that he does either.

How does he blame people who are attacked?

Maybe we are already at Idiocracy if he has to let people know that buying a 64oz bottle of chemical infused high fructose corn syrup is bad for you. Also, any healthcare costs, whether universal or otherwise, will continue to go up more than 10% a year when people continue to smoke cigarettes or drink that shit. If someone puts legislation in place to help curtail rising health costs in exchange for teaching you how to not be fat, what's the harm? It's party line bullshit to argue otherwise.

He doesn't care about the monster that politics has become. He's not looking for freebees. He owns the companies that can give freebees. He decided he would do a job and do it right in his view. He's not trying to placate any movements, he's trying to do the best job he can do. Even if you disagree with his policies, you have to see that there aren't many "politicians" like that.

 

[Minimalist]

To your first point. Please explain with specifics.

I don't disagree that student visas should be regulated more. I'm not sure that he does either.

How does he blame people who are attacked?

Maybe we are already at Idiocracy if he has to let people know that buying a 64oz bottle of chemical infused high fructose corn syrup is bad for you. Also, any healthcare costs, whether universal or otherwise, will continue to go up more than 10% a year when people continue to smoke cigarettes or drink that shit. If someone puts legislation in place to help curtail rising health costs in exchange for teaching you how to not be fat, what's the harm? It's party line bullshit to argue otherwise.

He doesn't care about the monster that politics has become. He's not looking for freebees. He owns the companies that can give freebees. He decided he would do a job and do it right in his view. He's not trying to placate any movements, he's trying to do the best job he can do. Even if you disagree with his policies, you have to see that there aren't many "politicians" like that.

You're acting like these large cupped soda drinkers are out there in the millions. I call BS on that. We have a much bigger problem than soda. Banning soda wouldn't even lay a fingertip on our health insurance problems.

But hey...lets do it the Bloomberg way. Just keep taking more shit away from people.

 

[buckup]

You're acting like these large cupped soda drinkers are out there in the millions. I call BS on that. We have a much bigger problem than soda. Banning soda wouldn't even lay a fingertip on our health insurance problems.

But hey...lets do it the Bloomberg way. Just keep taking more shit away from people.

This is a really good example of what I think is a problem today. You're not even arguing against the ban here, you're saying there are bigger fish to fry. There's nothing bad that comes out of legislation to cut down on buying huge sodas unless you make huge sodas. I'm not saying fatties with huge ass sodas are making us pay stupid amounts of money. I'm asking, "why do we stand for it when there is no possible good derived from it?" Seriously, if you knew that passing that bill against stupidly large sodas would decrease your health insurance premium by 10%, would you think it was so crazy?

It's like arguing against the notion of pollution being tied to climate change. If there's a chance that they might be related, why wouldn't you try to change things?

 

[Minimalist]

This is a really good example of what I think is a problem today. You're not even arguing against the ban here, you're saying there are bigger fish to fry. There's nothing bad that comes out of legislation to cut down on buying huge sodas unless you make huge sodas. I'm not saying fatties with huge ass sodas are making us pay stupid amounts of money. I'm asking, "why do we stand for it when there is no possible good derived from it?" Seriously, if you knew that passing that bill against stupidly large sodas would decrease your health insurance premium by 10%, would you think it was so crazy?

It's like arguing against the notion of pollution being tied to climate change. If there's a chance that they might be related, why wouldn't you try to change things?

So then why don't we ban cars that go over 65mph? Banning large sodas won't make .000001% of a difference. Maybe we next should be foods with more than 7g of fat in it. That would help out A LOT!! Instead of banning every fucking thing why not just educate more people?

Maybe we should we ban red meat? That's been linked to the cause of a large percentage of stomach cancer. Then there's alcohol and cigarettes and cheeseburgers. You're talking about heading down a really ugly path.

There's a huge difference between what we're talking about and climate change by the way.

 

[buckup]

So then why don't we ban cars that go over 65mph? Banning large sodas won't make .000001% of a difference. Maybe we next should be foods with more than 7g of fat in it. That would help out A LOT!! Instead of banning every fucking thing why not just educate more people?

Cars that drive over 65 ARE banned in NYC. You get ticketed for that.

In response to your argument which is the same thing party lines tell you to use...

Don't change the subject when things are going against you. If banning large sodas makes ANY difference, what's the argument against it? Don't talk about cars to distract yourself from from the fact that you just said it makes a difference.

I'd actually support a ban against foods with more than 7g of fat if it meant that in quantities allowed someone could consume 140g of fat in a sitting. I mean, it doesn't have any bearing on me other than make health insurance go down by .000001 so I'd be stupid to argue against it.

 

[VTA]

To your first point. Please explain with specifics.

I don't disagree that student visas should be regulated more. I'm not sure that he does either.

How does he blame people who are attacked?

Maybe we are already at Idiocracy if he has to let people know that buying a 64oz bottle of chemical infused high fructose corn syrup is bad for you. Also, any healthcare costs, whether universal or otherwise, will continue to go up more than 10% a year when people continue to smoke cigarettes or drink that shit. If someone puts legislation in place to help curtail rising health costs in exchange for teaching you how to not be fat, what's the harm? It's party line bullshit to argue otherwise.

He doesn't care about the monster that politics has become. He's not looking for freebees. He owns the companies that can give freebees. He decided he would do a job and do it right in his view. He's not trying to placate any movements, he's trying to do the best job he can do. Even if you disagree with his policies, you have to see that there aren't many "politicians" like that.

What I mean is his perception:

He continued, “It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks,”

Us being attacked say's something bad about us that we have to change our foundations? I don't agree at all. I'll admit it may say something bad about out foreign policy, but not about our national foundations which are pretty antithetical to foreign intervention and at what point do we point at the animals doing the crap?

Also, he's conflating terrorism with idiots like that kid in Sandy Hook, drawing a parallel disingenuously (elsewhere in the article). They're entirely different beasts. I think what happens in the cases of Sandy Hook and Colorado say something awful about our society, but not our foundational rights. I don't like him mixing the two at all.

And yes, we are truly a gluttonous society. With food, entertainment and leisure. We're more interested in our over-.priced gadgets than the effects they have on the people who make them for a dollar a day. There's an overall problem of morals that effects everything and frankly, it's out of hand. We're at a very hard stage in our civilization. We're seeing the consequences of freedom and the consequences of it's abuse and of course people in power are going to seize the opportunity for greater control and we're left with wanting answers that we might start agreeing with bad ideas, because the alternative sounds horrible. I don't claim to have answers, but I know it's far beyond party line politics and the last we thing we need to do is start asking notoriously dishonest and back-biting group of politicians to make things better for us.

But it's working wonderfully to their benefit. Americans frigging hate each other over partisan politics and it's dreadful and will not lead to any good thing. This small forum as a microcosm, look how people treat each other concerning different views. This doesn't effect legislation, it keeps us distracted while they in power abuse our trust.

I honestly see him as just another man in a position of authority looking to amass more influence and frankly I don't like it. Our system was built with the idea of checks and balances and I don't like of this generations crop of power hungry savages looking for and buying influence, Republican or Demorcat or people like him trying to say he's Libertarian.

I hope that covered everything you'd touched on.

 

[JBond]

This thread is amazing.

First off, the OP cites an article that gives no specifics and is so heavily weighted toward the "right" it's difficult to wade through. Not once does it quote Bloomberg as saying he wants to reduce civil liberties. He doesn't give a shit about politics. He wants to make New York City better and safer. The dumb article itself quotes him as saying that all he wants to do is make it safer for kids to go to school.

If you have a problem with reinterpreting the constitution, then maybe we should get rid of the reinterpretations of the constitution, namely the amendments. Obviously, the original document is not unfailable. I'm so tied of people clinging to their cause by saying "BUT IT's IN DER CONSITUTION! ITS MER RIGHT!" when the whole thing was changed from the original document to include that "Right." Times change. Sometimes an amendment might be a good idea.

The assertion that he tried to ban soda is untrue. He tried to ban soda for for idiots that want to drink a gallon of soda at a time. That might sound like a silly idea, but if you adopt the (true, ask your doctor) mantra that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure then you could see through your political blinders that it's a good idea not to drink that much fucking Monsanto bullshit and that diabetes and obesity can be linked to numerous causes of death. If people are too fucking stupid to care about themselves, and that stupidity leads to a financial burden on me, then, hell yeah, I think there needs to be legislation in place to make sure we don't head towards Idiocracy.

Someone even tried (dbair) to imply that people are leaving NYC. Are you fucking kidding me? Brooklyn on it's own is the 4th largest city in the US. Moving away in droves? Not so much.

"Greedy little do-gooding bitch." When is the last time you called someone who was greedy a do-gooder? That doesn't even make any sense. If you dig a little, you'll find that he's actually done away with some city subsidized programs and replaced them with money from his own companies.

Now, I've written all that and you should know that I don't even really think Bloomberg is great. I live in, and have for years, NYC and think he's one of the best mayors I can remember. The one reason I do like him is that he doesn't give a shit about politics, and from I can tell, never will. Politics don't pay his bills so he doesn't care about the machine. He cares about doing what he thinks is right. I dare you to show me another person in an elected office that can claim the same.

Umm.... Ok I guess.

Do me a favor and show me the Constitutional amendment he has proposed. What he proposed was chicken shit. If he really thought his ideas were the best he would take his billions and try to rally for a new amendment. He knows most Americans will not abide by his nanny state style of leadership. His bans are idiotic. But worse than that, he is a politician of the worse type. A two faced phony. He mislead people regarding the type of leader he would be to win his first election and then he took over the corrupt political machine that is NYC. Look no further than the Hudson Project. How many hundreds of millions has he given away to a near bankrupt project? To believe he is divorced from the machine is naive at best and down right pathetically stupid at the worst.

PS. A do-gooding bitch is a person that claims they have all the answers about how you should live your life and insists you live by their rules while they live by another set. They claim to do this for the betterment of others, because you know...only they know what is best.

 

[Dodger12]

He's done a fine job of maintaining the cleaned up city Giuliani left him, but his ideas are garbage.

This. Well said VTA. Bloomberg hasn't cleaned up shit. He's just tinkering with someone else's success.

 

[Dodger12]

Don't change the subject when things are going against you. If banning large sodas makes ANY difference, what's the argument against it? Don't talk about cars to distract yourself from from the fact that you just said it makes a difference.

I'd actually support a ban against foods with more than 7g of fat if it meant that in quantities allowed someone could consume 140g of fat in a sitting. I mean, it doesn't have any bearing on me other than make health insurance go down by .000001 so I'd be stupid to argue against it.

My God man you can't possibly be this stupid. I'm scared for America's future when I read this drivel. Sure, banning large sodas may make a difference. So will banning soda in general, along with bacon, eggs, cheeseburgers, bacon cheeseburgers, chewing gum, sugar, possibly caffeine (depending on which study you believe), processed beef (ie: all non-organic foods), steak (hell, especially steaks cooked rare), potato chips, Doritos, double scotches, 24 ounce beers, fruits/vegetables sprayed with insecticides, cement mills, steel mills, oil fields and factories in general (they pollute the air), fried foods to include fried chicken, french fries, onion rings; hell, why not just ban KFC, Chic-a-fil, McD's, Popeye's and Burger King. We can go on and on about things that may not be healthy for us but do you really believe that insurance rates will drop 10%? What world are you living in.

It's about people infringing on personal freedoms and I just can't believe people would be so willing to give them up because this asshole says so. I'd like to follow this asshole for one day and see how he lives and the shit he eats and then bitch slap him when he does something unhealthy. ******.....

 

[buckup]

@VTA I appreciate that you've read and thought about what we're talking about. I don't claim to have all the answers. I don't think Bloomberg is the end all be all. He may have taken policies that he saw working from previous mayors and continued them. I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

I see your points, but I don't think Bloomberg is the worst mayor, an idiot, or even the worst politician out there. I am not a democrat, republican, liberal, or conservative....Socially you could say I'm more liberal, fiscally I'm certainly more conservative....but I think at some point someone has to wake up the mouth breathers...be they in NYC or otherwise.

@JBond - I get that you like to stir the pot. I get that you like to argue someone's points with unrelated counterpoints. His bans are not idiotic. The people who do not regulate themselves are idiotic. Your claim that he mislead people to win his first election is without a foundation. He remains the person he said he was, whether you agree with his policies or not.

I imagine by Hudson Project you are referring to the Hudson Yards, and not the Hudson Project referring to the NJ/NY pipeline. I wish I had all the info, but I don't. A quick google search like the one you did would yield that Bloomberg pushed 9M in taxes through for Hudson Yards development...on top of the 256M he himself raised and donated. His opponents are not clean in this matter either. Clinton Housing has taken money from around the globe and not invested it....

I don't think BLoomberg is perfect, but then again I think the political machine itself is broken. They're all a bunch of crooks. I just think you guys pointing at Bloomberg thinking you're experts because you watched something on Fox News is short sighted...

@Dodger12 - If you continue someone else's success without letting things slide back to the way they were, is that not some kind of success on its own? Also, you should be scared for America's future. I'm scared for America's future. I'm scared that people are in an uproar about his ban (which is actually just taxing people that feel the need to drink obscene amounts of soda). You're arguing about liberty when you're missing the point. You're on the side of stupid, uneducated people. You're arguing that people should stay stupid and uneducated.

The whole idea of the tax is a lesson in moderation. Do I think that organic foods are better than non-organic? Yes. You'd be silly to think otherwise. Are fried foods bad? Yep. This smacks of an argument just to argue. Are you really so set in your ways that you're against legislature that helps people not kill themselves? I don't want to hold idiots' hands. Somewhere along the line it became ok to let idiots be idiots, and I'm not down with that.

You're fighting for the personal freedoms of people to eat shit and be fat? Choose a more noble cause. Why would you rail against people who are trying to change the way people live for the better and defend the lowest common denominator? That's my point. If by taxing someone more to buy a soda makes them think twice about buying the soda, what's the fucking problem? Your response is further illustration of reacting along party lines. If you could take the taxes from people killing themselves and funnel it back into something more contructive, what's the problem?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

You're fighting for the personal freedoms of people to eat shit and be fat? Choose a more noble cause.

So who gets to determine what's a noble cause and what isn't? You?

Personally, I believe upholding personal sovereignty is always a noble cause.

 

[bkeavs]

I'm being robbed of my god given freedom by Bloomberg taking my 64 ounce coca cola from me.

How dare he? Its my right to drink it

 

[Cowboysrule122]

Anyone of you complaining about him actually live in New York

and PLEASE dont say Buffalo is part of New York

Well, Buffalo is in New York. :confused