Printable View
He constantly shows himself to be an elitist and a racist yet his money buys his opinion in over and over again. Apparently he thinks the first ones who need disarmed are the young males of "minority" status.......wtf? Wait, but democrats cant be racist.......[hahhah-no]
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...gun-ownership/
http://www.aspentimes.com/news/14957...gal-pot-stupid
That's about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GunsRBadMMMMKay
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Welcome to Citizens United........
It sure isn't his charisma, good looks or common sense.
...and yet Bloomberg was elected as a Republican.Quote:
Originally Posted by GunsRBadMMMMKay
He's probably good at giving a reach around. [Dunno]
With his political money, he has people for that.
If only I knew HOW they made all of their money I'd try the same and try to beat them at their own game.
Okay, I'm dreaming.
I would have never guessed it, seeing his affiliation with the far left and funding so many disarmament groups (i mean gun "control" groups) and democrat candidates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
It's pretty amazing what passes for a Republican on the west coast and in the northeast.
...and yet some people call for more of it to win elections.
BP, you don't have the required moral fiber to make money like he did...Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue
Think Pelosi and her husband's real estate deals, or Kerry and marrying a condiment czar. (who got her money from a conservative 1st husband)
or if you want real stacks (roomfuls) of money, think cartel.
I'm thinking powerball!
He is an excentric sociopath with a desire to weild unlimited power and authority over the people. He has a whole lot of sway with his endless amount of $$$ and others who share similar or the same goals. He is the kind of crazy azzhole the founding members of the USA warned about.
Bloomie's "political success" and influence is grossly over stated.
Remember he and his fellow travelers outspent the recall effort here in CO by a factor of 8 to 1 and still lost. And chances are the gun control laws he bought here in CO are going to go away.
He's lost more than he's won and he's damaged the anti-gun movement more than he's helped it.
I would say that is a good assessment.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavieD55
But there are also people who will follow him. I'm more concerned about them, especially elected politicians who favor him over their own populous.
A Republican in NYC is a Democrat in any sane part of the country. Don't get me started on how out of touch you have to be to be a Democrat in NYC ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-meets-bl...200715633.html
On Wednesday, President Barack Obama met with former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to talk about gun violence. Specifically, the pair talked about what can be done to end the threat that America's loose standards for access to them poses to public safety.
"The two discussed ways to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have access to them, and what more could be done at the state and local level to help address gun violence in America," the White House said of their meeting.
The president's meeting, held with perhaps the most influential gun control advocate in the nation, was a good opportunity to discuss lobbying strategy in light of the rash of mass shootings in 2015 that have sparked a renewed push for ambitious gun control legislation among reformers.
It also serves as a reminder of the unique political path toward any realistic change on gun policy, when Congress has proven almost pathologically incapable of passing even modest gun reform after years of debate on the matter.
View photoBloomberg's clout: In 2014, Bloomberg pledged to spend $50 million on efforts to sway battles over gun policy on the state level, backing organizations committed to policies like expanding background checks. So far, the effort hasn't been hugely successful in achieving results, but he is of course fighting an uphill battle. The National Rifle Association boasts millions of members, spends tens of millions of dollars every election cycle and deftly channels the preferences of huge swaths of the population who are fiercely protective of America's gun culture and rights.
.
Obama, who has pleaded to the public and Congress to rally for meaningful gun control for years, has decided to take matters into his own hands. His administration is in the process of readyingan executive order designed to close what's commonly called the "gun show loophole," a gap in current law that allows people to purchase guns from private vendors — most notably at gun shows — without being subject to a background check. CNN reported that the White House has struggled to develop the legal argument for the executive order so far, but Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama, says that it should be released in "short order."
Obama is waging a lonely battle. Despite the fact that in 2015 there have been more days withmass shootings than there have been days without them, he has no reason to be optimistic that Congress will act on calls for gun control reform. In 2013, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre that rattled the nation, Congress failed to pass expanded background checks on gun sales, despite the support of nearly 90% of Americans.
Recent polling suggests that things may be worse now — one recent poll found support for an assault weapons ban to be at its lowest level in two decades. That doesn't bode well forlegislation calling for just that, introduced by congressional Democrats on Wednesday.
Terrorism is top of mind for the public, and there's a vibrant debate going on among policymakers and in the presidential race on how to manage the rise of ISIS. But figuring out a way to control the purchase and flow of guns, which are far more lethal for the country, shows little sign of gaining traction. It seems to be the American way.
This article is about as slanted as they come. It's more than just misleading, it's filled with flat out lies.
Really? More days with mass shootings than without them. Prove it! Total nonsense which attempts to solicit an emotional reaction and fill peoples heads with untruth.Quote:
Despite the fact that in 2015 there have been more days withmass shootings than there have been days without them, he has no reason to be optimistic that Congress will act on calls for gun control reform.
While this 90% statement has been proven untrue many times over, the author continues to attempt to sell this lie yet one more time.Quote:
In 2013, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre that rattled the nation, Congress failed to pass expanded background checks on gun sales, despite the support of nearly 90% of Americans.
Private ownership of firearms are "far more lethal for the country" than terrorism? Please, dear author, do tell me the last time privately owned firearms killed 2,996 people and injured another 6000+ in one day like muslim terrorist did on September 11, 2001.Quote:
Terrorism is top of mind for the public, and there's a vibrant debate going on among policymakers and in the presidential race on how to manage the rise of ISIS. But figuring out a way to control the purchase and flow of guns, which are far more lethal for the country, shows little sign of gaining traction.
Consider for a moment that the reason politicians won't pass anti-gun legislation is that they know it's political suicide. The bulk of the American populous recognize the importance of owning firearms and won't just lay down and peacefully take it if/when our government, in violation of our Constitutional right, tries to take our guns away. For such an "enlightened" bunch the Left sure doesn't seem to be able t see the reality that's right in their faces.
The sad thing about this article is the number of unaware citizens who'll read it and believe it to be completely true because it's coming from an offical journalist. It's nothing more than an anti-gun hack piece written by a morally bankrupt and completely dishonest "progressive" piece of worm-ridden filth.
In 1973, Bloomberg became a general partner at Salomon Brothers, a bulge-bracket Wall Street investment bank, where he headed equity trading and, later, systems development. In 1981, Salomon Brothers was bought by Phibro Corporation, and Bloomberg was laid off from the investment bank and given a $10 million severance package. Using this money, Bloomberg went on to set up a company named Innovative Market Systems. His business plan was based on the realization that Wall Street (and the financial community generally) was willing to pay for high quality business information, delivered as quickly as possible and in as many usable forms possible, via technology (e.g., graphs of highly specific trends). In 1982, Merrill Lynch became the new company's first customer, installing 22 of the company's Market Master terminals and investing $30 million in the company. The company was renamed Bloomberg L.P. in 1987. By 1990, it had installed 8,000 terminals. Over the years, ancillary products including Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Message, and Bloomberg Tradebook were launched.Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue
As of 2012, the company had more than 310,000 terminals worldwide.
Each of those terminals runs you $750-1,500 a month for all the bells and whistles. Do the math.
Psychological warfare against the American people. For money.
Money, money, money...
My previous post was pointed at the PTB in CO.
I forget the South American country but Google is you friend. Bloomberg has exerted his cash to stop smoking. Lots of "Ninny State" legislation to further the cause. The tobacco industry countered with lawsuits. Bloomberg left the country with the lawyer fees with only minimal financial help.
I think he is good at using people.
Sniff sniff, Trump?
How true. Bottom line he's another I know What's Best for Everyone except Me. Elite coksuker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ah Pook
The liberals have had to move the goalposts to sort of make this claim, now their definition of a "mass shooting" has been expanded to include any incident where more than one person is shot, such as a person shooting someone and then turning the gun on themselves, or being shot by police (or even by a third party).Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue
Sure wouldn't break my heart if something happened to him. He's gotta fly places, right? Perhaps the odds'll catch up with him.....
If the Bloomberg and democraps get there way it will be easier for us to identify the terrorists in this country.
The terrorists will be the ones holding the semi-auto rifles.
And even then they have to include events that never happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
Note that they have moved the goalpost yet again. The newest definition includes 4 or more wounded (even with 0 dead) as a "mass shooting". This change enabled them to get the newest and most dramaticallyQuote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
increasedinflated numbers yet.
Yep. Two gang-bangers shooting each other in the leg is the same as Sandy Hook using the left's numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshane
But these are the same people that said in the Kellerman study that a gang-banger's stolen Glock stored under his pillow is exactly the same thing as the $15,000 custom Italian trap shotgun in the safe of an Orthodontist.
no, no--he's worth protecting because he's rich. armed guards, etc. as far as he's concerned, you're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by rondog
In the case of Bloomberg, it's information, for sale, in a timely manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue