One is either for NRA/LaPierre/Guns, or for Mike Bloomberg/anti-gun side. NO middle ground.

[graham4anything]

there is a definite line in the sand on the gun issue.
Either for LaPierre & the NRA
or for those like Bloomberg who wish to do something.
No middle ground.

It seems the choice is clear.
I personally am 100% against the NRA/ against LaPierre/ and against bullets in the streets.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57576021/nra-ceo-bloomberg-cant-buy-america/

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who announced Saturday he will shell out $12 million in an ad campaign targeting 2014 candidates who do not support gun control legislation, "can't buy America," Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, said today on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Bloomberg's group Mayors Against Illegal Guns - the vehicle for the ad buy - includes over 900 mayors from across the country, and was designed to counterbalance the NRA amid amplifying arguments for and against stricter gun laws. As the Senate prepares to take up gun legislation that will likely include a comprehensive background check, LaPierre said NRA backers are rushing to keep voices like Bloomberg's from pushing the debate too far to the left.

...snip
=====================================================================
VS-

Michael Bloomberg said-
Appearing on the same program, Bloomberg said "a lot of work" remains for advocates of stricter gun laws, including the uphill battle for an assault weapons ban, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., dropped this week so that his gun package would have a better chance of passing. But, the mayor added: "I think we are going to win this."

"I don't think there's ever been an issue where the public has spoken so clearly where Congress hasn't eventually understood and done the right thing," Bloomberg said. "We're trying to do everything we can to press upon the senators this is what the survivors [of gun violence] want."

[NYC_SKP]

1. I don't like the NRA. I don't like Bloomberg.

Mayor Lindsay was a real mayor.

Bloomberg is a shit with his tobacco taxes and soft drink regulations.

[graham4anything]

7. Until I started mentioning Mayor Lindsay, not one person here ever did.

Mayor Lindsay would have been standing tall with Mayor Bloomberg.
Fellow liberals stand together.

Pity the fools in 1972 who didn't vote for John V. Lindsay for President.
Far to the left of George McGovern, and he received more votes in the primaries in 1972 than George McGovern in the few primaries he ran in.

But JVL would not have won in 2001 same as he lost the senate race he ran for.
The media and the haters hated him.

anyhow, he is not relevant to this discussion as there are only 2 choices.

(it's as simple as the Civil war).One was either for Lincoln or for the traitors against Lincoln.

[baldguy]

8. So, everything he supports is now suspect?

No matter how huge the overwhelming public support is?

I hear he likes puppies & apple pie, too.

(Take note that the soft drink & tobacco thing is now the Tea Party's distraction du jour to avoid talking about their less-than-popular policy positions. Nice try at distracting & derailing the thread.)

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. So talk about "stop and frisk" then. Who needs that pesky Fourth Amendment, right?

A "less-than-popular policy decision", perhaps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_stop-and-frisk_program#Activist_and_legal_response
http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/stop_and_frisk/index.html

[baldguy]

13. And that has to do with gun control....how?

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. OH... that's right. They're stopping blacks and latinos in a search for

illegal firecrackers.

My bad.

[baldguy]

15. You're admitting it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

And you know distraction from the discussion with a non-sequitur is a favorite RW Tea Party tactic.

Sorry, we're not playing.

[stevenleser]

125. Which is exactly why Guilt by Association is a logical fallacy.

We can take it to the most extreme. Even the worst people who ever existed would agree that humans need to breathe oxygen to live. We don't disagree with that scientific factual position because it is one that they hold.

[Melon_Lord]

2. Don't force people to choose...

I don't think you'll like where the support goes.

Black and white is for simpletons.

[baldguy]

10. Simpletons allow propaganda to make their choices for them. As you apparently have.

Rational people see children murdered in cold blood & want to figure out some way to stop it. Apparently you don't.

Either you're with the NRA & the criminal mass murderers or you're not. It's not black and white. It's live and death. Choose.

[Melon_Lord]

25. Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time...

As you can see in this thread alone, all this with me or against me bullshit will just end with most people being against you.

[derby378]

46. A well-respected DUer was reduced to foaming at the mouth when debating me on gun control

They tried the whole "you're either this or that" on me and tried to paint me as "that," but failed miserably. It wasn't even a debate. My opponent was reduced to cutting-and-pasting the same thing over and over again. Rather sad to watch.

[Paladin]

75. Yeah, But You're The One Who Claimed The NRA's Harlon Carter Was Worthy Of Respect.

That wasn't sad, it was reprehensible.

[michreject]

86. Mr Benchley ???

He was a pant load.

[derby378]

111. Not saying who it was...

...but I remember MrBenchley from way back, and no, it wasn't him.

[michreject]

131. I don't want to know

Just wanted to bring up a ghost from the distant past.

[olddots]

99. You could say progress or no progress

This isn't really about who you probably call Nanny State Bloomberg verses Wayne La White Collar Criminal .This is about progress like realizing cigarettes don't help your digestion ,calm your nerves and make you glamorous its about moving forward like waking up tomorrow and trying not to repeat mistakes . This is about thinking critically which starts with all of us figuring out what is real or fiction sold to us by con artists and war merchants.

The arguments here are not memorized talking points and fear driven propaganda .This is bout imagining a world in peace that will never happen until people can imagine what its like outside of themselves ,stop being spoiled babies that won't give up obsolete toys
when the time has come to move forward .

yeah Bloomberg is a jerk off rich guy who may never have been working class but who do think cares more Wayne ??????? you decide
Its better to stand for something than fall for anything like happyness being a warm gun.

go ahead somebody correct my spelling , grammar or word choice it's all you got .

[Melon_Lord]

141. Violence is part of human nature...

Take it away to la la fairy land where no one uses weapons and we become something else. You might want that but it isn't realistic. All of the rights and privileges that you enjoy were at their base level, gained through violence and force and arms.

In the end I will usually support the person who gives me the most choice.

Mama Bloomberg knows what's best for you and me apparently so he loses my vote...

[Paladin]

149. So: Entire Rooms Full Of Dead First Graders And Teachers Are OK With You.....

....as long as your unfettered access to guns remains the same?

Extra points for an honest answer....

[Kingofalldems]

105. Wow, two insults in the same thread.

[Mojorabbit]

115. +1000 nt

[HereSince1628]

3. This issue actually expands and overlaps with other issues.

If you really see it as black and white you have a problem that's likely affected your ability to look beyond the utterly obvious.

[jazzimov]

4. BULLSHIT! There is ALWAYS a "middle ground".

Personally, I don't care at all for Mayor Bloomberg.

Now, ask me about the gun control policies and issues, which have nothing to do with either personality.

[Thinkingabout]

5. I'm with Mike all the way. LaPierre wants to say Bloomberg can't buy America but we

Will not have a gun to our head to buy NRA thinking. The NRA does not scare me and I am not paranoid to fall for LaPierre lies. I vote and will be pushing other sensible folks to vote also, the Congressional members will have a price to pay for voting the wrong way. LaPierre says be gets $5 and $10 donations all the time, with Bloombergs contribution and groups like Gabby Giffirds we can donate to a fund there also. Guess what, there are more of us than the non sensible ones the NRA can scare up.

[spin]

74. Your problem is not so much the NRA which only has 4.5 million members ...

but the 80 to 100 million gun owners, many who do not agree with gun bans.

Donations play a factor as they help get the message out, but many gun owners will vote against any politician who supports gun bans. If you can convince a significant percentage of gun owners to support your ideas you will have a chance to get gun bans passed.

Of course you could try to pass legislation that does not involve banning certain firearms and you would have a higher chance of success. Many gun owners wish to see stronger gun laws passed to help keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and those with serious mental issues.

The Senate poses a significant hurdle to your efforts. You can convince 90% of the voters in the states with a large population to support gun control and the majority of voters in the nation but your efforts can be stopped dead by the fewer voters who live in states with smaller populations who support gun rights. Each state gets two Senators.

Senators from the smaller gun rights states realize that they risk their careers if they vote for strong gun control. You can try to convince them that they should be willing to sacrifice their future in politics for the good of the nation. The problem is that they will point out that they were elected by voters in their states to represent the interests of the state. Also many of these Senators actually support gun rights.

Of course there is a risk that pushing hard for strong gun control may lead to losing seats owned by Democrats in the Senate at the midterms and beyond. This may endanger all the good we have been able to accomplish in the last four years.

[LanternWaste]

108. Membership rolls walk, PAC contributions talk..

"Your problem is not so much the NRA which only has 4.5 million members ..."

Anything we can do to deflect blame and eyeballs from the NRA-- a Right Wing Political Action Committee which spent more than $128 million via campaign contributions, lobbying, and PACs n an effort to get Republican elected.


128 million dollars dwarfs 4.5 million members. Membership rolls walk, PAC contributions talk.

[spin]

117. In the end, votes at the ballot box count most. ...

There is a possibility that gun control advocates may manage to disarm civilians of at least semi-automatic "assault weapons" but it is at the end of a long and difficult road.

[Eleanors38]

132. Your headline: Sounds Rovian.

[Thinkingabout]

124. Perhaps if NRA spent as much on educating gun owners on operating them safely and

Storing the weapons where they are not accessible to young or mentally ill family members and surely thieves so they are not on the streets in the wrong hands then just maybe there would not be a call to control them.

Also, I don't know if you are aware of the polls but 85% of gun owners wants background checks. That would be some of the members of NRA. The voters who want some action will be targeting Congressional members who has high ratings with NRA, we know how to work hard to get the gun violence under control also.

[spin]

126. I would support public service announcements by the NRA to educate gun owners. ...

This approach would reach far more gun owners than NRA firearm safety classes and might improve the image of the NRA. I often see beer commercials that suggest using alcohol responsibly.

I am well aware that many gun owners support background checks as I am one of them. I can't run a background check on a person who wishes to buy a firearm from me at this time but I have my own requirements.

1) The person has to be a resident of Florida.

2) I have to have known this person for a significant amount of time.

3) He/she has to have a valid Florida concealed weapons permit which requires a background check.

4) I prefer to take the buyer to a gun range to test my firearms out before he buys them. That way I can determine if he/she knows the basic rules of handling a firearm safely.

Obviously I rarely sell any of my firearms.

[Thinkingabout]

128. I must praise you on being a sensible and safe gun owner. If I were to bet you probably

Store your weapons in a safe manor. Gun ownership has been around for many years but the violence in the last few years is terrible.

[spin]

130. Yes, I do store my firearms in a safes or lock boxes. ...

In my opinion all gun owners should do the same. I always suggest this to other gun owners and sometimes they point out that they keep an unsecured firearm in their home for self defense. I reply that I can access my self defense weapon just as fast as they can get theirs and mine is secure from small fingers and those who do not have access to the combination.

[Recursion]

6. What ridiculous bullshit (nt)

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. Fuck the NRA and fuck Michael Bloomberg too.

I am not a member of the NRA, have never visited their website, donated to their cause, or purchased any of their propaganda products. At the same time, I refuse to piss on Michael Bloomberg even if I see him on fire (even if I really, really gotta go).

So you support "stop and frisk" lock, stock, and barrel huh? You MUST support it. There's no middle ground, you know. And I'm sorry, but if you support a violation of the Fourth Amendment like "stop and frisk"? Fuck you too.

[baldguy]

12. To all the gun nuts saying "Fuck Bloomberg":

The reason it has come to this is because YOU HAVE FAILED MISERABLY!

For years you've said "Responsible people can own guns responsibly" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and other NRA bullshit.

Well, guess what? YOUR PLAN HAS NOT WORKED!

[spin]

120. FBI statistics state that gun violence in our nation has dropped to levels last seen ...

40 years ago.

Gun violence: Surprise, it's not rising
January 19, 2013

***snip***

According to FBI data, the number of murders committed by firearms in this country is falling, not rising.

In 2011, the latest year for which full data are available, 8,583 people were killed by firearms. That is down from 10,225 in 2006. Murders committed with rifles, which includes "assault rifles" such as the Bushmaster AR-15, fell from 453 in 2007 to 323 in 2011.

***snip***

Overall, the murder and violent crime rates in the United States have been declining for decades. Citing FBI data, New York University professor Patrick Egan wrote last July, "we are a less violent nation now than we've been in over forty years. In 2010, violent crime rates hit a low not seen since 1972; murder rates sunk to levels last experienced during the Kennedy Administration."

***snip***

The idea that the United States is experiencing a rising tide of gun violence is simply false. That does not mean that we should pursue no legislative actions to curb mass killings. But those actions should be guided by facts, not emotional impulses.
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130119/OPINION01/130129954/1007/news02

In Florida gun violence is at an all time low.

Florida firearm violence hits record low; concealed gun permits up
Posted: 01/07/2013

In the so-called Gunshine State, home to the most gun permits in the country, firearm violence has fallen to the lowest point on record.

As state and national legislators consider gun control laws in the wake of last month's Connecticut school shooting, Florida finds itself in a gun violence depression. The Firearm-involved violent crime rate has dropped 33 percent between 2007 and 2011, while the number of issued concealed weapons permits rose nearly 90 percent during that time, state records show.
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/florida-firearm-violence-hits-record-low-concealed-gun-permits-up

Much of the gun violence in our nation is the result of turf warfare between competing drug gangs. It's hard to blame honest and responsible gun owners for the failure of our War on Drugs. Most of the shooters in recent massacres had waved red flags that a more responsive mental health care system could have addressed.

Gun owners would like to see gun violence decrease even further but few gun control advocates or those in the media have any interest in our ideas. It obvious to us that our current laws should be better enforced and can be improved. We also support passing new laws if they will actually accomplish something beside banning certain firearms because of their appearance.

Gun owners are often insulted and if we are ever to make headway in reducing gun violence, both sides of the issue need to show a little more respect for those who disagree with them.

I will point out to you that it isn't so much that our plan hasn't worked but that it hasn't been tried. A new assault weapons ban is not the only solution to gun violence in our nation and its a poorly conceived idea that would accomplish little.

If there was a movement to reduce traffic deaths caused by speeding motorists, would it make sense to demand that Corvettes and Mustangs be banned?

[MotherPetrie]

16. Well, if I can only pick one I pick Bloomberg. I think he's an ass but

I think the NRA is 100% evil.

[Lizzie Poppet]

17. Absolute nonsense.

They can both fuck off...

[JVS]

18. I can't wait to see the new guns with cup holders large enough for a big gulp.

[Ghost in the Machine]

19. Oh bullshit!! Nice channeling of GWB and his "you're either with us or against us", though....

[Kurska]

20. Nah, I'd be happy if they both went to a desert island somewhere.

They both have pretty disgusting views on certain things.

[ZOB]

21. This OP is a great example of what's wrong with the world

Increasingly, people are choosing to gravitate toward extremes. There is no compromise, no peaceful solution, between extremists.

...which leaves us accomplishing a whole lot of nothing until one side has enough of a majority to swing the pendulum WAY to their side...which then generally generates enough outrage among the middle to spend a lot more time accomplishing absolutely nothing until the pendulum swings WAY to the other side....and on, and on, and on.

Until the majority of us decide to actually work toward solutions, we're not going anywhere. OPs like this perpetuate the idiocy.

[Common Sense Party]

101. A-freakin'-MEN.

Extremists never accomplish anything.

[graham4anything]

22. To all the pro-NRA people, anti-Mike- you had your chance to do something, you blew it

So finally someone has the guts and cajones to go against the NRA, and to take the blows from the NRA.

No wonder such hatred for Meek Mike, soon to never again run for public office.

And his wonderful mom, lived to 102 because of a little luck and much WELLNESS.
Gives the Great Equalizer another 30 years to do things.

WELLNESS is an issue the same anti-Bloomberg, anti-doing anything about guns seem to not want. Their RWAC(Rebel without a cause) rants against wanting to do anything that helps the poorest of the poor lower their health care bills while guzzling 1560 calories in a 90 minute movie in soda, and another 1500 in a tub of fake buttered popcorn. 3060 calories in 90 minutes.

Wellness and Guns also are opposite. Guns kill. Wellness lengthens life.

And the gun people and the NRA had a chance for decades now to do something rational and sane, and each time it was fought and didn't happen, because of the blackmail agianst the candidates who spoke out.

Thankfully a anti-Gunslinger rode into town. WTF cares who paid for the horse, be happy the anti-gunslinger is wanting to put his money where his mouth is.
Wellness is appreciated by the vast majority of people.
Who also want something done and want it done before another 100,000 kids die.

Only way candidates listen is in reelection. Not doing anything ensures the NRA wins.

Why do you think there is so much hatred from the NRA, and from republican/tea/libertarians against President Obama?
Why? Because he is doing GREAT THINGS to move the country foward, and the haters are throwing every roadblock to stop him.

Guess what, if they weren't so damned afraid of things changing, they wouldn't waste the time to have a full front attack on public tv against Bloomberg and the NRA.

Little secret is- Obama and Bloomberg are WINNING. It's just going to take a while to dust all the streets off.

And every little soundbyte the NRA makes is six feet under.

Because modern society is demanding WELLNESS, not death.
cheapest way to insure Wellness is to get rid of bullets and guns from the street, and from the hands of 100% of the people who kill (which on any given day and time, can be anyone, because with a gun and bullet, people have that apparatus to instantly change from good to bad.
Even 3000 calories in a 90 minute period do not kill quickly, but a gun/bullet change in a flash.

Bye Bye NRA soundbytes.
And for all the all of a sudden now expressing they dislike the NRA(but don't want their guns taken), then we all should agree to instantly work for the reclassification of the NRA as a terror org, silence them, track their money trail (ala what DeepThroat said in Watergate) and freeze 100% of their assets. I doubt Mr.Wayne LaP. would work without a million dollar salary.
How bout that for an instant start?
Remove the NRA from the discussion and let the congress people vote their CONSCIENCE.
Especially those with children and grandchildren.

Let's plaster the airwaves of each town with those that there was no wellness found, for kids with childhood diabetes from all the calories, and those who died from guns/bullets.

Without any opposition from the NRA(or a newly named org.)

Wanna see what the vote count is then? I do.

[Union Scribe]

24. Fuck your right wing idol.

Fuck him and fuck his union busting, fuck his racist police force, fuck his hypocrisy, fuck his attacks on libraries and public education. Fuck.

[NutmegYankee]

28. +1

Bloomy has his police force stopping and frisking minorities every day for nothing more than walking down a sidewalk. He's a scumbag!

[baldguy]

63. You're on the side of Wayne LaPierre, the NRA and the Tea Party. Who's your RW idol?

[Lizzie Poppet]

69. That's a load of logically-challenged horseshit.

"You're either with us or against us" was fallacious fuckwittery when GWB babbled it, and it isn't improved when you parrot him.

[baldguy]

76. So, it's now OK on DU to criticize a well-respected liberal politician by spreading RW lies?

Just as long as he supports rational and OVERWHELMINGLY POPULAR gun control measures? And who happened to have won the majority of Democratic votes in the last election, and has a 60% approval rating in the notoriously liberal New York City?

But it's not OK to point out the hypocrisy of those criticizing him - especially when they use the worst extremist RW talking points against him?

[premium]

79. Bloomberg is a well respected liberal politician?

The same man who unleashed his NYPD goons on the OWS protesters last summer?
The same man who supports the racist stop and frisk policies of the NYPD?
The same man who wants more surveillance in NYC?
The same man who wants to tell you what size soda drink you can have?
The same man who wants to bust unions?

That well respected liberal politician?

[derby378]

85. Listen to the wind...

[Eleanors38]

133. Smell the wind...Phewwww!

[Puzzledtraveller]

152. Progressives love Mike Bloomberg

How have we come to think progressive and liberal mean the same thing is beyond me.

[Lizzie Poppet]

81. No, it's OK to criticize an overreaching, nascent totalitarian plutocrat.

Opposing the NRA's excesses is one thing. Committing one's own excesses is another.

[pintobean]

116. Bloomberg is the 7th richest person in America

He's worth 27 billion.
You're either with the one percent, or you're with the rest of us.

[The Straight Story]

26. Look, they are having a sale

http://www.minnkotamotors.com/products/trolling_motors.aspx

[hootinholler]

31. I would have missed this thread if it weren't for

At Mon Mar 25, 2013, 05:47 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Look, they are having a sale
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2562817

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

How is Post 22 trolling?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 25, 2013, 05:56 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: graham4everything has been trashing DU with his pro-Bloomberg, pro-1%, pro-authoritarian nonsense for too long. That is all he posts about.

He is a troll of the highest order
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: #22 is a right-wing plant. I'm sure of it more and more everyday...
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't find this post offensive, but it does seem non-contextual. The post this one replied to does not seem to be trolling any more than the entire thread. TSS, please ensure you're aiming your accusation of trolling in the correct direction.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Oh FFS! The entire thread is TROLLING by the trolling troll who started the whole trolling thing. Were it up to me that jerk would have been shown the door long ago.

Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[The Straight Story]

32. Well, glad I am not alone in my observations (nt)

[Blue_In_AK]

113. Authoritarian much?

[Generation_Why]

23. I like Michael Bloomberg. He would make a great VP for President Hillary Clinton.

I'd be proud to support a Clinton/Bloomberg ticket.

[pipoman]

62. Yeah, then he could expand his

reign of narcissistic nannyism to the whole nation..he is a wack job and would destroy Hillary's chances entirely..

[Richardo]

27. One is either FOR "you're with us or against us" or AGAINST "you're with us or against us"

No middle ground.

[JVS]

29. This statement is false.

[hobbit709]

30. One is either a fanatical ideologue or an ideological fanatic-no middle ground.

[hack89]

33. Of course there is a middle ground

for example, supporting all gun control measures with the exception of the AWB and registration.

That would put you in direct conflict with the NRA over universal background checks and limits on magazine sizes.

[aikoaiko]

34. I am for civil liberties.

I trump your bullshit false choice with the protection and maintenance of civil liberties (all of them) for all.

[graham4anything]

35. Mike Bloomberg is WINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

soon a new court, a new reinterpretation of the 2nd

and
so long
farewell
auf wiedersein
goodbye

to guns and bullets in the streets

My civil liberties are broken if I can't assemble wherever I choose free from a gun/bullet by a itchy twitchy hand shooting up the place
Or some asssasssin shooting a kind meek doctor in a church

Or some Zimmerman somewhere taking away an innocent person's unarmed life, that person might have cured cancer, we shall never know, thanks to his life being snuffed out by
a person who had a legal gun



Shame anyone else will still die by a private persons obsession

[derby378]

49. Infinite beatitude of existence! It is; and there is nothing else beside It.

It fills all Space, and what It fills, It is. What It thinks, that It utters; and what It utters, that It hears; and It itself is Thinker, Utterer, Hearer, Thought, Word, Audition; it is the One, and yet the All in All. Ah, the happiness, ah, the happiness of Being!

[pipoman]

70. LOL

"

[aikoaiko]

129. It's not supposed to be about mike

It's supposed to be about the people.

You keep forgetting that.

[Eleanors38]

135. You workin' for the other side?

[graham4anything]

143. Joe Biden is on our side. OOPS. Michelle Obama is on our side.

[Eleanors38]

147. Don't get on the other side of the door from Joe.

[graham4anything]

148. I would be very happy (100% so) if Biden makes history being VP for a 3rd/4th term

I would be 100% for a Hillary/Biden 2017-2025 presidency

and I don't see why it couldn't happen, especially if Joe runs to flank out the neverwillbees and wannabees and removes any remaining oxygen from the primaries that way.

Then the #1 and #2 vote getter combining would be a glorious thing.

A VP is not restricted to more than two terms as VP, that is just a constitutional law
prohibiting the President from doing so.

(btw, note, the Constitution was amended and all amendments are as solid as the original ones, as the Constitution itself is living, breathing. Which is a great thing after all.)

(btw, I did spell check on this post.)

[BlueStreak]

36. I like my car. I like to drive on roads where the drivers and vehicles are regulated.

I think most responsible gun owners would feel the same about guns.

And that also happens to be what the Constitution says.

[4Q2u2]

37. No Gabby Giffords Then

Bloomy would have put money against her in efforts to get elected.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/09/gabrielle-giffords-profile-liberal-gun#

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Arizona/Gabrielle_Giffords/Views/The_Second_Amendment/

In a world of absolutes, no will change. Nothing will get done, all that will suffer is our freedoms. You see just the surface of Blomberg's "Wellness Effort", what if he then moves on to bad words because they cause stress and hurt feeling. That shortens lives as well, so onto the Bloomy Acceptable Speech Code.

I in the name of knowing better than you recommend that you stop posting on DU for a while, it is adversely effecting your health.

Signed the Right Honorable Me, Myself, and I.


P.S. No I am not a Doctor but I will play one to forward my agenda.

[graham4anything]

38. The hatred of him shows he's WINNNNNNNNNNNNNINGGGGGGGG! That makes me feeling groovy!

[4Q2u2]

41. Level of hatred is your Approval Meter

Then Bushie is head and shoulders the man Bloomy is, based on that criterion. GWB I guess was never wrong, for he is hated around here more than anybody. Remember the Patriot Act was for our GOOD. We will all be safe and secure in our roach motels when the 1% get to tell us how to fully live a proper life.

I thought the Right Honorable Me, Myself and I recommend reducing your emotion swings to limit ill health effects. Seems posting on DU has you over Groovy, and according to our made up facts from the study we paid for, that is not good and should be banned.

[derby378]

50. Do I smell pizza?

[graham4anything]

53. I now the NRA folks hate him, as Doris Day sang "Que Sera Sera".

[premium]

56. You're mistaken.

It's not just the NRA folks that despise him, it's all folks who respect all civil rights that despise him.

That's your flaw, you think that only NRA folks hate him and fail to recognize that many, many other groups intensely despise him because of his constant flouting of civil rights and trying to legislate how people should live their lives.

I despise him as much as I despise the Koch bros.

[graham4anything]

58. I love Trayvon Martin and despise Zimmerman and his obsesison with guns and bullets.

Travy has no civil rights left.

It's a shame. He might have cured cancer 10 years from now

again, no one cares if anyone likes him or not. He ain't running for anything.

The vast majority of Americans want the insanity of guns to stop.

Guns are so 1850s. And back in the 1850s there were laws stating NO guns in the streets when one entered a wild west town.

And millions hated Lincoln and LBJ too.
But then I love both.

As long as Bloomberg spends one dollar more, the candidates will change, Hillary will bring in the house and Senate in 2016 and 2020 and the court shall shift

Matters little if Bloomberg is rated 1% or 100%. It is 100% irrelevant.

And nothing will stop the court shift.

And the more Gunpeople hate it, the better the odds that it is going to happen.
Everything else is irrelevant (but a good distraction, that is what LaPierre says in his
daily talking points him and his suits hand out.

BTW, women are going to get it all changed.
52% of the country is women, and women don't in major big numbers like guns.

Long as Joe Biden is running the anti-gun show, every single Obama fan loves Joe.
Therefore Joe and Gabbie are the face.
No one cares about Bloomy. They care about his leading the $$$$ to break the blackmail
of the NRA.

Game
set
match

or as Roy Orbison sang "It's over, it's over, it's over"
and the NRA is over.

edit to add-btw, this will be my last response to you.
No need to respond to those who like the gun situation the way it is.

Still laugh at the way Chuck Heston came off as such an idiot in Michael Moore's "Columbine".
He clung to his guns, he looked totally ridiculous then. Now, he is completely forgotten, as he ruined his acting reputation.
The NRA though is Soylent Green.

totally irrelevant, but watch, the gun porn is going to start.

[premium]

59. ?

and finally,

[Melon_Lord]

65. I can easily imagine that spiel...

... From a crazy man with a big bushy beard handing out poorly photocopied pamphlets on a street corner.

[premium]

67. That's what that reminds me of.

Thanks.

[Kingofalldems]

106. So clever and funny.

[premium]

107. I thought so too.

Thanks.

[Kingofalldems]

104. Calling a DUer crazy eh?

This is so strangely familiar.

[RZM]

72. I hope that your persona here is performance art

Because if it isn't . . .

Yikes.

Either way, I do enjoy it. So don't go off of the deep end and get banned, ok?

[Eleanors38]

136. If it IS performance art...?

[RZM]

39. Does anybody (besides you) actually like Mike Bloomberg?

He's never struck me as somebody with much of a base or a following. Just a billionaire who believes his money entitles him to positions of power and to tell all of us how we should be behaving and thinking.

[premium]

40. There's a few others,

although they're in the minority.
I think that his idolizing of Bloomie is, well, weird and unhealthy.
Just this mans opinion of course.

[RZM]

42. I don't even mean here, but in the country at large

Even the candidate in Chicago whom he helped couldn't run away fast enough when his assistance was brought up.

I don't get the impression that anybody outside of NYC much likes him.

[premium]

44. I'd have to agree with you,

I don't think alot of people in the country have much respect or like for him.

[av8r1998]

43. Mike Bloomberg....

Is an authoritarian, delusional, lying, narcissist.

On his resume are:
"Deciding" what's good for you (Whether it's smoking, food, "Sugary Drinks", etc.)
Actually stated "If you're not going to take care of your health WE'RE going to do it FOR YOU"
He wants more and more and more Surveillance Cameras in the city.
HE will decide how best to spend your money
Stop & Frisk (OK... he didn't INVENT that but he certainly supprts it)
Changing term limits so that he could be Mayor again.
Bending the City Council to his will
Trying to crush unions ... look at what happend to the Transit Workers a few years ago.
Cutting pay to city workers
Closing firehouses
A number of years ago he reduced NYPD starting pay to 25K/year (below the poverty line in NYC), and allowed people with Class A Misdemeanor CONVICTIONS to become NYPD officers. (Usually an A Misdemeanor conviction means an E felony was actually originally charged and plead down)
He said in that same interview that he "Supports the 2nd Amendment for INDIVIDUALS for SELF DEFENSE". I am curious as to HOW he has actively supported this right.
Constantly trying to reduce pay and benfits for Teachers

I find it hard to believe that ANY DU'er can support this guy's lunacy - in ANY way.
He is a menace.

[premium]

45. Don't forget he sent his NYPD goons to violently crush the OWS last year. nt.

[av8r1998]

47. My Bad

I DID forget that...
But ... don't forget when he started having NYPD issue summonses for "Unlawful Use of a Milk Crate"

[Remmah2]

48. My cat's couldn't care either way.

nt

[Bluenorthwest]

52. I opposed the NRA when Bloomie was some Republican money man so he does not own that issue

his money does not buy that for him. In addition, anyone who actually wants to see gun regulation would not stand by and allow any person to co-opt the issue claim it is the person, not the issue, that is important.
Bloomberg is an 'independent' who used to run as a Republican, his NYPD is racist and reactionary, I will not stand with some stop and frisk fascist Republican for any reason at all.

Bloomberg is the wrong man to be the face of any movement because he is held in contempt by so many, in the case of gun regulation, many who support such regulations do not support Bloomberg. And they will not do so just 'cause some Bloomberg promoters wish to play 'we pretend he is not a Republican' games while Mike stops and frisks minority youth.
The racial statistics about arrest and stop and frisk reveal the true nature of Bloomberg. More than 85% of the thousands of stops each day are black or Latino, most of the rest come from LGBT, low income and other minority groups.
People who care about the citizens of NYC should read the following report:
http://stopandfrisk.org/the-human-impact-report.pdf

[graham4anything]

57. Elizabeth Warren voted for Reagan and Bush41 and was a republican.Betcha didn't know that.

but the above you wrote is a distraction to the gun issue, and has nothing to do with
anything.
Of course, we know the NRA/gunnies hate him.

They want the gunny thingy to stay as it has been.

Mike isn't running for anything, nor will he be in office after Jan.

Of course, the other stuff is lies, because he is a lifetime liberal democratic candidate and a President Obama endorser, two times in a row.

[img][/img]

[premium]

60. Bloomberg reminds me of this guy.

The benevolent Dr. Raymond Cocteau from the movie, Demolition Man.

He, too, thought that he knew what was best for the little people.
Even bears a striking resemblance to him.

[bluedigger]

61. I'm not interested in your divide and conquer tactics.

And I'm not falling for them.

[graham4anything]

64. Elizabeth Warren is now on the side of Mike Bloomberg on the gun issue.

[bluedigger]

66. So what?

I'm not a single issue voter, nor do I see the world in your Manichean either/or worldview of absolutism.

[premium]

71. Yeah, so?

I reject your either with us or against us meme.
It sucked when GWB said it and it suck when you say it.

My way or the highway is bulls**t.

[Union Scribe]

73. Wait, so now you like her?

You were just trashing the hell out of Warren in another thread.

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. So why did he support her *opponent* in the election?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/bloomberg-raises-socialism-label-in-discussing-warren/

The Brown-Warren Race

“What I’ve tried to do is find liberal middle-of-the-road Republicans and Democrats. In the Senate, Scott Brown, who single-handedly stopped the right-to-carry bill. You can question whether he’s too conservative. You can question, in my mind, whether she’s God’s gift to regulation, close the banks and get rid of corporate profits, and we’d all bring socialism back, or the U.S.S.R.”

“But the bottom line is Scott Brown single-handedly stood up when we needed him to stop the right to carry on campus and in the streets of our city and our state and our country. And I said to him ‘You do that, and I’m going to support you.’ Now, I don’t have to agree with him on a lot of other things, although he’s certainly no crazy right-wing – he’s just more conservative than I am – but here’s a guy that really made a difference, and if we don’t support people like that, nobody’s going to take risks.”

You've been pissing on our legs and telling us "It's raining" for months now- and people are getting tired of it.

[graham4anything]

84. Because he backed gun control and she didn't back then. Which is why she now switched.

but you already know that.

Your right to back LaPierre.

This whole thread is based on MTP press sunday morning.
That was the choice MTPpress presented

[friendly_iconoclast]

87. By your standards, Richard Nixon was a better president than George McGovern would have been.

Nixon wanted to ban handguns. All that other stuff is secondary, by your lights.

[graham4anything]

89. I supported McG.however, anybody knew he would never win. He was a horrible politician

but a damn nice guy.
LBJ was far to the left of McG. on all the important issues.

Had Adlai Stevenson won over the Ronald Reagan clone, Nixon never would have become president.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. Why weren't you willing to throw McG. under the bus like you were for Warren?

Nixon was the more pro-gun control candidate. Hadn't gotten the antigun faith yet?

For that matter, why was Bloomberg's support of Brown now acceptable for you?

[graham4anything]

92. I support Joe Biden-Mike Bloomberg-Gabbie Giffords and Barack Obama on guns

this is a thread about guns
all the other is strawmen redherrings

Either you support Joe Biden and Barack Obama or you support the NRA/Lapierre on guns
there is no other option

the other stuff is irrelevant.
The private citizen gunnies hate is not running for national office nor did he ever.

So it is all irrelevant.

I supported Warren myself, but I don't impose my views on anyone like the NRA does.

Any liberal should want guns removed from the street and wellness.

Libertarians Ron and Rand and Duke want anarchy and chaos and no rules like their buddies in the NRA

[friendly_iconoclast]

94. Are you going to support primary challenges to pro-gun Dems in red states?

[graham4anything]

95. yup. May all the winners be anti-gun. only 17 change is needed

[friendly_iconoclast]

97. It will be very interesting to revisit that post in December 2014-bookmarked.

[friendly_iconoclast]

98. And if they lose in the general elections in those states/districts? "Too bad, so sad"?

[premium]

103. And what will you say if they're replace by RW repubs?

[av8r1998]

109. This is where your line of thinking

Goes off the deep end...
So you'll support an Anti-Gun primary dem candidate in a red state, who will SURELY lose to the Repub candidate on the Gun issue (and given that it's a red state, a plethora of other issues as well) because you are anti gun.
So, instead of getting or retaining a majority in the House or Senate, you would throw the race to the GOP on the issue of guns?

Think of it this way ... in 2010, if you had supported a primary challenge to Harry Reid by an Anti-Gunner, Sharron Angle would have most likely won.

This is somehow ok with you????

In 2014, 21 Democrats are up for re-election in the Senate, compared to 14 Repubs.
Also keep in mind this is the last class of Senators that were elected in 2008. So they're potentially as vulnerable as Dem senators were in 2010. This is a midterm, so historically, the President's party loses seats.

Of the 21 Dems up for Re-Election, 7 of them come from states lost by Obama in 2012.
These are places with a long tradition of supporting the 2nd Amendment, such as Alaska, and Montana, who also have Pro-2A Democratic Senators.

An Anti-Gun Democrat would throw these races to the Repubs without a doubt.

NONE of the GOP Incumbents are from a Blue State. They are ALL RED.

But... now consider, you have an Election in New Jersey (Chris Christie land) where Lautenberg is retiring,
A special election in Mass to replace John Kerry (Can anyone say SCOTT BROWN), Harkin in Iowa retiring, and races in several borderline red states (like Virginia) that voted for Obama. So I am betting there are at least 12 vulnerable Democratic Seats if Anti-Gun dems win primaries.

Maybe my political calculus is wrong, but I am VERY serious. This Gun issue could make Obama's last 2 years the most difficult of his presidency, and cost Democrats the Senate.

And I see by your post above you are hoping for a change to SCOTUS.
Well - Thomas, Ginsburg and Scalia are not exactly spring chickens, but I guarantee, a GOP Senate will not confirm any anti-gun SCOTUS candidates replacing Thomas or Scalia. (Though Scalia has been taking Elena Kagan shooting on a regular basis)

But you go right ahead and support all of the Anti-Gun red-state democrats you can.
I live in a Blue State with no Senators up for re-election.
It really drives me nuts when single issue people decide to ignore the political reality in which we live.

[4Q2u2]

96. Post #38 Told you about Gifford.

"Giffords held the advantage of being local, having been born and brought up in Tucson. She did not compromise on core liberal principles, in particular her support for the right to abortion and backing for Barack Obama's healthcare reform, but she also believes in gun rights, almost a non-negotiable position in Arizona. "

"She was on the conservative wing of the Democrats, one of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats, and was among those who last week failed to give public backing to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bid to become party leader in the House.

Her pragmatic approach to politics has been evident in her support for immigration reform.

With a big Latino support network behind her, she has a principled belief in the need to find a route to citizenship for illegal immigrants for tougher security along the US-Mexican border, which is particularly porous south of Tucson. She called for the deployment of the National Guard, which Obama put into effect last year.

Giffords took a degree in Latin American studies at university in California and a masters in regional planning at Cornell. She subsequently spent a year in Mexico and is fluent in Spanish.

After a short stint in New York with the Pricewaterhouse accountancy firm, she returned to Tucson in 1996 to work for a family tire business.

She started her political life as a Republican but switched in 1999, and a year later was elected as a Democrat to the Arizona state legislature. In 2006, she successfully stood for the US House of Representatives"

So in your world there is no room for personal growth (change) and everybody is cast in stone. So you have to throw her out and under the bus.

[ZombieHorde]

110. There are other options.

I support gun control, but I don't know if I will support everything they want. For example, I don't support laws restricting what sort of grip a firearm can have, because I don't think that will reduce firearm violence in any way.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. Kindly take your support of, and apologias for, Republican enablers elsewhere.

If you think monmaniacal support for crypto-fascists and Republicans is acceptable, you need
to remember that this is DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[premium]

91. After careful study of friendly iconoclast's post,

I fail to see where he is backing LaPierre.
Do us all a favor and point out where this person is backing that POS.
Or, in you mind, is opposing Mike proof of support for the NRA?

And I don't give a damn what MTP presented, I make my own choices, not you, not Bloomberg, not MTP.

[friendly_iconoclast]

93. It's more of the same "If you're not with us, you're supporting the terraists" horseshit.

I've been outspoken in my disdain for the National Republican Armory here, but since I don't hew
completely to the line demanded by the gun control Puritans, I am deemed to be a NRA supporter by them.

[ZombieHorde]

54. Fallacy of excluded middle.

It's just what it sounds like.

General fallacy may also be in play here, which is guilt or praise by association.

[yellowcanine]

102. Basically the same as the "false choice"

One always gets into trouble when a complex topic is presented as "either/or"

[Eleanors38]

138. You found that caya in a typhoon? Congratulations!

[ZombieHorde]

140. What? lol

I have no idea what you are trying to say, but I seem to have won something!

[madville]

55. I'm against both of them

Support neither.

[One_Life_To_Give]

68. W, I thought you retired?

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/

[NCTraveler]

77. I swear I recognize this debate style.

I just can't put my finger on it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

134. Same here, and I can't place it either....oh wait, I got it!

[cali]

78. what a steaming pile. n/t

[Niceguy1]

80. screw that.

I like to think for myself and wont be buliied into a political pposition

[sarisataka]

82. In a similar vein...

Any government that supports, protects or harbours terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.

George W. Bush

A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it.

George W. Bush

When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal.

Richard M. Nixon

The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative.

Benito Mussolini

[pipi_k]

100. I believe

F. Scott Fitzgerald had it right when he said: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function".


It doesn't appear to take much in the way of thinking to choose a side and stick to it with stubborn rigidity.


I don't consider myself to have a first-rate intelligence by any means, but I can see where many issues are about more than, as George W Bush said, "Yer either fer us, or yer aginst us".

Stubborn rigidity sucks no matter who's doing it.

[graham4anything]

119. As Kristofferson sang "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"

as is wailing on the beach in the moonlight over what was lost because well, one is truly free.

Reminds me of Ralph Nader voters, stubborn as mules thinking they did what was correct,
then wailing on the beach in the moonlight over all that was lost when Bush was seated,
something that directly occurred because back then, Nader was their bullets/gun they were clinging to.

What if bullets/guns being given up are indeed what JFK asked when he said
"What YOU can do for your country".and it was giving up bullets and guns.

Why not follow Benjamin Franklin who said "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" and he was talking about preventing mass shootings and giving up guns as the cure.

[pipi_k]

142. A couple of points...

JFK never asked people to give up anything. He only asked people what people would do for their country. I don't think he would be foolish enough to ask anything specific of anyone.

Because people have different ways of helping, and different means and abilities.

Just do what you can. That's all he asked. That's all any reasonable person would ask, IMO.

As for Benjamin Franklin's philosophy, if we're going to target guns, why not carry it even further.

We can prevent heart disease deaths by outlawing fatty foods. We can prevent drunk driving accidents/deaths by outlawing booze. We can prevent child abuse by requiring prospective parents to undergo intensive psychological testing.

We can prevent many smoking related illnesses and deaths by outlawing cigarettes.

So many things we can prevent...why stop at just one?

But that wasn't my point. My point is that one doesn't have to be a supporter of the NRA in order to also understand that ridding the streets of guns will probably never be entirely possible (how did Prohibition work for us?), and that regular citizens are going to want the right to keep guns even if they don't have one right now.

Anyone who thinks that ridding the country of guns means that mass killings won't happen obviously doesn't remember the OK City bombing.

Maybe we should outlaw the sale of fertilizer and whatever other substances can be used to make bombs.

People will always think of a way to inflict mass casualties on their fellow humans.

[graham4anything]

145. Thanks for proving my point. It 100% can be done.

Because of Oklahoma City, guess what?

One now CANNOT in a sophisticated federal building, drive a car into or under a building anymore.

They have completely (in a sophisticated city building) blocked the way Timid McCoward did it.
In NYC, you can NOT park at the airport under the terminal anymore.
And in most NYC buildings, they now have concrete (though they pretty them up, so you don't notice them as security items as they have trees growing out of them, and trees are pretty), in front of buildings, and security checkpoints going underground garages, both seen and unseen.
You have cameras on the street, done because of McCoward and both 9-11s.

So you prove my point.

IT CAN BE DONE.

We can 100% stop someone getting IN a supermarket, mall, movie theatre, townhall, anywhere USA.

Things get a little easier, once you understand that it IS indeed 100% possible to stop the mass shootings in public streets or with public street access.

There is another little secret too...but that is for a different post. Not a tag along in the middle of a thread.

[Blue_In_AK]

112. Ridiculous.

Of course there's a middle ground.

[hlthe2b]

114. I have nothing but contempt for La Pierre and the NRA, but I am FOR...

all the dead and injured of Columbine, Aurora, Newtown and so many other daily gun tragedies. I'm glad Bloomberg is putting his $$ to the cause, but it is the faces of these dead--especially the children of Newtown I think of daily.

[graham4anything]

118. The real question for the pro-gun/hate Great Equalizer people is the reverse of what you say

In 2016, would standing together, the democratic party put in their agenda the getting rid of bullets in the street, work with the NRA to elect Jeb Bush against the democratic platform that wishes to do such?

One knows where Joe Biden stands. Would you work against Joe if he is on the national ticket in 2016 and Jeb Bush or Rand Paul is the republican nominee?

Is your gun worth more to you than any other thing in the entire country?
Is your bullet worth more to you than any other thing in the entire country?

Just how important is that gun/bullet to you?

Because come ballot time, there indeed are only 2 choices (unless those are happy with the way 2000 went, when there were 3 choices.)

what are you really standing for, if you fall for the NRA line and bullet/gun trump everything?

imho

all the other is just plain bull.

(and NO President Obama/HillaryClinton fan is going to vote against them and vote for Jeb or
Rubio or Ryan).

[Llewlladdwr]

121. I will not support any politician that attempts to restrict my right to keep and bear arms.

Not ANY.

[NaturalHigh]

122. That's an insane point of view.

I expect insanity from extremists of both sides, though. Their views then tend to perpetuate even more extreme views from the other side. That is why almost all extremists deserve to be ignored.

[graham4anything]

123. Do you think Joe Biden is an extremist? Do you think Michelle Obama an extremist?

What if it were Michelle leading the cause and Bloomberg's name was hidden but it was his money?
What if FDR were leading the cause?
What if Bobby Kennedy were leading the cause?

[NaturalHigh]

127. The point-of-view is extreme. I don't care who posits it.

By the way, I don't worship individuals like some do. Nobody is above being called on bullsh*t, no matter how iconic.

[graham4anything]

146. Which point of view? BTW, there is beauty in President Obama's point of view on everything.

There has never been so eloquent a President in the history of Presidents.
Every single word President Obama speaks, has EXACT meaning, though his detractors and professional agitators in politics, attempt to either not understand (not realizing the 10 steps ahead that President Obama clearly sees), or not wanting anyone else to understand what indeed they do understand.

But life in America shall be different in a short period of time, thanks to President Obama and to his agenda moving forward.

And, I am sure most Democratic folks here there and everywhere, truly applaud that.
(Being that as always, 90% of the core base,myself included) of democratic voters are very, very happy with the first half of President Obama's term, and looking forward for even more and better times in the years/decades ahead as his agenda continues.
(And looking personally forward to 2018, when President Obama is nominated for the US Supreme court by President45, Hillary Clinton (or whomever the democratic president should for some odd reason it not be Hillary) at that time.

I do love IDEALS. and yes, sorry to admit I guess in your statement, I do love President Obama and 100% of what he stands for and 100% of what he has done, and 100% his vision of what will be.

His words are beautiful.

Like the old canard "Things get a little easier, once you understand".
And, I do understand perfectly what President Obama says and does 24/7/365.
Nothing has ever been so clear as what his victory (winning the revolution) in 2008 has meant to me.
And I am loving every single minute of his Presidency.
(if only he had what FDR had, 4 terms, alas, it cannot be, but SCOTUS awaits him like it did for President Taft, to have in effect, more than 4 terms.)

Can one imagine how great it would be if President Obama replaced Antonin Scalia in 2018, and rightfully became the heir to Justice Thurgood Marshall?

[tritsofme]

137. It is a strange character you play here.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

139. If we could get Michael Bloomberg to somehow regulate the amount of stupid shit that you post. I'd

be wiling to support him.

[DLnyc]

144. One is either a black-and-white thinker, or sees everything as nuance. There is no middle ground.

(Except for all the stuff between these two extremes.)

(Which is, like, you know, pretty much everything.)

[Robb]

150. I'd be more inclined to disagree with you were it not for the responses.

Almost entirely DU's Progressive Gun Squad(tm).

Predictable as sunrise, in retrospect. People with indefensible positions are repulsed by the notion they must defend them, preferring to insist on some unique nuance doing the job for them through some sleight of hand.

[hack89]

151. That is what happens when you venture out of your new isolation chamber

you actually have to deal with people that disagree with you.


Do you think that Bloomberg is now a progressive icon because he agrees with you on guns? Or do you simply need his money to buy politicians?

[Robb]

153. I hope you won't take offense when I laugh.

Your screen name, and that I could set my watch by your predictable ad hominem and gun-grabber hatred.

Life is rich.

[hack89]

154. I certainly wouldn't expect you to answer a hard question.

why do you think I hate you? It is not like you represent a threat to me in any way.


btw - are you now self-identifying as a "gun grabber"?

[Robb]

155. You beg for us to understand your nuanced opinion, but choose to deal in absolutes yourself.

Bloomberg is the devil when he opposes gun proliferation, yet you adore him when he oppresses OWS.

It is not difficult at all to see where you are coming from, at least.

[hack89]

156. Thinking OWS was ineffective is not the same as supporting Bloomberg.

you of course can show everyone where I have ever supported Bloomberg? Didn't think so.

Bloomberg is an asshole - regardless of what cause he is writing checks for.