First time visitor? Learn more.

No one has done more for gun rights in the past two years than Mayor Bloomberg

by Speranza ( 91 Comments › )
Filed under Second Amendment, The Constitution at September 4th, 2013 - 7:00 am

Nanny Bloomberg is always guilty of overreaching and the usual result is that hubris meets nemesis. “Mayors Against Illegal Guns”  (MAIG) hit its nadir when they read out the names of people killed by guns and one of the name was Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

by Emily Miller

Pistol-packing reporter Emily Miller’s new book tackles efforts to crack down on gun rights.

Pistol-packing reporter Emily Miller’s new book tackles efforts to crack down on gun rights

No one has done more for gun rights in the past two years than Mayor Bloomberg.

Oh, he didn’t mean to. Bloomberg has used his political clout and a significant amount of his fortune to try to chip away at the Second Amendment. He is never more self-righteous and condescending than when he talks about guns.

Yet at every step, he’s failed. But more than that, Bloomberg’s presence actively strengthens the NRA’s position. He’s sparked fundraising booms for politicians he disagrees with and may wound Democrats in 2014. Meanwhile, he’s pushed gun sales to record heights.

Bloomberg’s most high-profile campaign was spending $12 million to get the Senate to vote his way on expanding background checks for gun purchases. After Sen. Harry Reid was forced to pull the gun control bill, Bloomberg went ballistic. His shocking rhetoric indicated the type of attack ads he would be funding leading up to the 2014 election. [........]

By the weekend, Bloomberg’s group Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), had organized protests with the theme “Shame on You” at the congressional offices of the senators it determined to be vulnerable for voting against the expanded background checks amendment.

Typical was his campaign against Republican Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. He spent more than $2 million on TV ads in New Hampshire and neighboring Boston. Ayotte, who voted to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System instead of the flawed background-check bill, refused to bow to the pressure.

Bloomberg’s deliberate misleading of the public was obvious from the content of the ads. In one, a police chief named Scott Knight, says that Ayotte is “making us less safe.” Unmentioned is the fact that he’s actually the police chief of Chaska, Minn., far from New Hampshire.

While Ayotte’s poll numbers dipped in the immediate aftermath of the ads airing, they rose back up soon after. “I don’t see any effect on Kelly,” GOP party chairman, Reince Priebus, told me in mid-June. “What is the state motto? ‘Live free or die.’ ”

Bloomberg also goes after Democrats, much to the consternation of Sen. Chuck Schumer. His attacks on Republicans don’t stick, but he could get enough liberals to vote against moderate Dems to flip their races — and the Senate itself in 2014.

Unlike most elected officials, Bloomberg doesn’t even pretend that there’s a wall between his official and political activities. City Hall employees have been caught lobbying for gun control in other states.

Before the bodies are buried or the families have grieved, Bloomberg pounces to exploit the tragic murders of innocent people to advance his political agenda. [........]

Jesse Hathaway of Media Trackers Ohio uncovered e-mails between Bloomberg’s mayoral staff and gun-control organizations seemingly trying to exploit the deaths of three high school students in Chardon, Ohio, in February 2012.

One hour after that shooting, MAIG director Mark Glaze e-mailed a CNN story about it to the official government e-mail addresses of three city staffers and other anti-gun activists. An hour later, Lance Orchid, national organizing director of Gun Violence Prevention, e-mailed, “Perhaps this is the perfect time to push out the new micro-site petition around guns on campus.”

That afternoon, Janey Rountree, whose official New York City government title is Firearms Policy Coordinator, asked the group to find out how shooter T.J. Lane got his gun and asked, “Are reporters working on this or planning to push the question?”  [.......]

Despite the ghoulish PR response, all the rhetoric from Bloomberg and Obama simply has spurred more people to buy guns.

Forty-seven percent of Americans self-report having a gun in the home, according to a Gallup poll released in October 2011. That number was up from 41% a year earlier and the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993.

The firearms industry is one of the few that has been growing and investing during the Obama economic malaise. The companies in the US that manufacture, distribute and sell firearms, ammunition and hunting equipment had a direct economic impact of $14 billion in 2012.

When you take into account the supplier and ancillary industries, the total economic activity was a whopping $33 billion.

“I’ve been trying to figure out the power of the NRA,” Schumer told Time magazine in June. “It’s not the money they give out: they give out $3 million, $4 million a year. There are many groups that give much more. It’s not even their membership. They say 5 million — let’s say it is. There are tons of groups with more than 5 million members. It’s that they have a core group of active members who translate what’s going on to the average person — who are sympathetic to them because they’re part of their milieu.”

What Schumer and Bloomberg don’t understand is citizens believe strongly in the right to bear arms, as enshrined in our Constitution. And all the money in the world won’t change that.

“We’ll never match Bloomberg dollar for dollar, but we don’t have to,” said the NRA’s Chris Cox. “The hearts and minds of the American people certainly aren’t for sale to a billionaire mayor from New York City.”

Read the rest - Mayor Bloomberg is the best friend of 2nd Amendment advocates

 

Tags: , , , ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

91 Responses to “No one has done more for gun rights in the past two years than Mayor Bloomberg”
( jump to bottom )

  1. rain of lead
    1 | September 4, 2013 7:29 am

    Bloomie and Obombya
    two libs on the take from the gun industry

    /


  2. Guggi
    2 | September 4, 2013 7:46 am

    but, but but you know former gen. McChrystal is also in favor of more gun control (article from 01/08/2013)

    Stanley McChrystal: Gun Control Requires ‘Serious Action’

    Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal came out in favor of gun control restrictions in a Tuesday morning appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

    “I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine,” he said. “And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”

    Said McChrystal, “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look — I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want — but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.”

    (…)


  3. 3 | September 4, 2013 7:50 am

    Just letting you know that the link at the bottom is busted.


  4. theoutsider
    4 | September 4, 2013 7:57 am

    Predict the vote on Syria. I’d saY 120 RS 100 DS. Any challenges?


  5. 5 | September 4, 2013 8:00 am

    Forty-seven percent of Americans self-report having a gun in the home, according to a Gallup poll released in October 2011. That number was up from 41% a year earlier and the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993.

    That is 47% report having a gun. How many others say it’s none of your damned business what I have in my house? I’d say in jurisdictionslike New York and Chicago, where it is for all practical purposes illegal to own a gun, the percentage unreported is significant. It varies from region to region, though. Where I live that number is north of 80%. As a practical matter, you haver to simply assume that people have access to guns in their home. We have far fewer home invasion robberies where I live, and fewer murders in general. One thing that has been shown to be a lie ofver the last twenty or thirty years is that it would become the “Wild West” if people were allowed to carry guns. Many, perhaps most, states are Shall Issue permit states now, and the predicted bloodbath never emerged. People have shown themselves quite capable of responsibly carrying a gun. Indeed, gun ownership as a whole is up dramatically, while gun crime is generally down. Easier availability of guns does not lead to higher crime rates. Only fanatics are still pushing gun control. People who are fundamentally opposed to the Right to keep and bear arms, and generally hostile to the right of Self-Defense that the Second Amendment implies. We have to keep in mind that the gun control fanatics are anti-civil rights fanatics. YOu can demonstrate to them that gun control laws don’t work, that more guns does not equal more crime, indeed that guns aren’t a causal factor in crime at all, and they simply respond that they don’t believe people need guns. It is essentially a religious opinion. When it comes to gun control, the gun controllers have no problem enforcing their religious beliefs on the population, generally with extremely harsh laws. The punisshment for owning an unregistered machinegun, for example, is up to ten years Federal time. That is ten long years for essentially failing to pay a $200 tax. They hand down lighter sentences for aggravated rape. Is that just? Hardly. We need to reverse the trend in this country towards more gun control. There has never, to my knowledge, been a single Federal Firearm law repealed in our history. The so-called “Assault Weapons” ban had a ten year sunset clause, and wasn’t renewed, but it was never repealed, and GHW Bush’s Executive Order banning the importation of Modern Sporting Rifles still stands as the law of the land. That needs to change. This is fertile ground for the Republican Party, but ground that it doesn’t seem to want to exploit.


  6. 6 | September 4, 2013 8:06 am

    @ theoutsider:

    I don’t think he’ll get that many Republicans, and I think he’ll get most of the Democrats. It’ll pass in the House. What he won’t get, though, is a UN Security Council resolution. The Russians won’t let that happen. What are you going to do when Obama launches an illegal war with few allies? Imagine, if you will, what Obama’s response would have been in an identical situation if Bush were still President. Personally, I would love it if some intrepid Republican dug through the congressional record, and dug out the exact words Obama used when he was opposing Iraq and (especially) the Iraqi Surge, and force-fed those same words back to Obama. That woul dbe beautiful. And since we are on the subject of Syria, what American interest does becomming al Qaeda’s air force serve? Isn’t it really just to get Obama’s domestic scandals ff the front page?


  7. 7 | September 4, 2013 8:07 am

    @ Guggi:
    Generals publically endorsing gun control is creepy, to say the least. There are subjects that career military men should avoid and disarming the public is definitely one of them.


  8. rain of lead
    8 | September 4, 2013 8:08 am

    @ theoutsider:

    are you suggesting that the use of force will pass in congress
    and Repubs will lead in the votes?

    maybe
    I do think it will pass no matter how much we bitch about it

    That Obama wants him some war thats for damn sure
    I guess drone striking just ain’t getting his dick hard like it used to


  9. Guggi
    9 | September 4, 2013 8:15 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    @ Guggi:
    Generals publically endorsing gun control is creepy, to say the least. There are subjects that career military men should avoid and disarming the public is definitely one of them.

    How I loathe McChrystel I can’t tell you it wouldn’t be appropriate to tell here. :-(


  10. 10 | September 4, 2013 8:15 am

    @ Guggi:

    One of the reasons I am not a fan of McChrystal’s. As circumstances have evolved, it is quite incontrovertable that more guns in the hands of American civillians does not produce an increase in crime. Indeed, the trend over the last 20-30 years has been the looser the gun restrictions get, the fewer crimes are comitted. There is a lot of evidence to back this up. While you may not be able to prove conclusively that the laxer gun laws caused crime to go down, you can prove beyond any doubt that increased gun ownership among American civilians is not in any way correlated with an increase in crime. Absent such proof, forbidding gun ownership or in any way restricting gun ownership becomes essentially a religious crusade. Gun control is simply the gun controllers trying to force the rest of the country to live under their religious beliefs.


  11. 11 | September 4, 2013 8:28 am

    What Schumer and Bloomberg don’t understand is citizens believe strongly in the right to bear arms, as enshrined in our Constitution. And all the money in the world won’t change that.

    Shall not be infringed is the strongest wording used in the entire bill of rights. It is not just that “Congress shall make no laws” about guns, but that it shall not be infringed. The Supreme Court has found that is an individual right, and that it applies to the States. How, then, can they get away with all the many infringements of the Second Amendment by Federal, State, and even local governments? The Supreme Court needs to throw some of these laws out. And Congress needs to repeal some of he laws on the books. The fact that gun ownership offends Liberals is not a real justification for Liberals to violate our civil rights with impugnity.


  12. 12 | September 4, 2013 8:33 am

    @ Guggi:

    Here, use this: [Deleted]


  13. rain of lead
    13 | September 4, 2013 8:38 am

    drudge poll is up to over 725,000 votes


  14. Guggi
    14 | September 4, 2013 8:38 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    One of the reasons I am not a fan of McChrystal’s.

    McChrystal has always been a lefty. I won’t take away what he achieved as Lt.Gen. with the SpecOps in Iraq but as a commanding general in Afghanistan he was a complete failure. His entire career he saw himself as a lateral thinker but lateral thinking is NOT always the best. Sometimes it works sometimes it is better to stick with what has been generally accepted. Today he promotes the draft, gun control and sees everyone beside him as stupid.
    He can’t deal with the fact that he failed as commander, that his miserable military ethics are now lectured as bad example and that his leadership skills were deficient. But it is all the fault of the others. Typically lefty. A false self-perception and an absent self-reflection.

    I have much more respect for Gen. McKiernan than for McChrystal or Petraeus.


  15. rain of lead
    15 | September 4, 2013 8:40 am

    French MPs debate Syria military action

    France’s parliament is holding an emergency debate Wednesday over the possibility of taking military action in Syria. However, whether or not France carries out strikes will likely depend on the result of a vote in the US Congress.

    that’s France for ya, willing to fight to the last American


  16. 16 | September 4, 2013 8:49 am

    Guggi wrote:

    Typically lefty. A false self-perception and an absent self-reflection.

    Yeah, that’s pretty much the way I view him as well. He may be a brilliant leader tactically, but his strategic vision is lacking. It is, as MacDuff said, unseemly for a General to advocate abridging Bill of Rights. McChrystal took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States when he joined the military. It doesn’t specify that you shall uphold and defend the parts you like of it while ignoring the parts that are inconvenient for you. McChrystal wanting gun control would be akin to him wanting to resegregate the Military. Gun rights are civil rights. In principle, there is no difference between wantin gto disarm American citizens and wanting to resegregate public education.


  17. 17 | September 4, 2013 8:54 am

    Rodan will like this. What it says isn’t as significant as where he says it.

    When the history of the Christian church of the late 20th and early 21st centuries is written, at least one volume will no doubt be devoted to the persecution of the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East.

    For the moment, however, their plight receives too little media attention, leaving many American Christians ignorant of, and thus unmoved by, the suffering of their fellow believers in the places that saw the birth of their faith more than two-thousand years ago.

    This ignorance has many causes. Much of the media is preoccupied with how the momentous events of the Middle East affect American politics. And President Obama seems to believe that any acknowledgement of Christian persecution would hinder his efforts to launch, as he put it in Cairo four years ago, “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world.” While recently noting the burning of Christian churches, during most of his time in office he has been loudly silent on the suffering taking place.

    It doesn’t surprise me that the plight of Christians is being played down in the media and almost ignored by the president. But what does surprise me—what breaks my heart—is the relative silence of too many Christian pastors.

    I agree with what the man says. Christians should be up in arms over the cleansing of believers from Mohammedan lands. Our failure to protect Iraq’s Christian minority makes the war in Iraq a failure. You will notice that Obama said not a word about Christian persecution under our occupation government in Iraq. Not any real surprise there. But it was a failure of leadership on Bush’s part that allowed it to happen.


  18. Speranza
    18 | September 4, 2013 8:57 am

    @ Guggi:
    Old generals ought to just fade away.


  19. 19 | September 4, 2013 9:01 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    @ Speranza:

    ALL Generals and Admirals are politicians. Period.


  20. 20 | September 4, 2013 9:06 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Good Morning. One reason I don’t care for these politicians who shout and scream how Christian and holy they are is the fact they say NOTHING about real Christian persecution.


  21. 21 | September 4, 2013 9:07 am

    rain of lead wrote:

    drudge poll is up to over 725,000 votes

    Vote Early and Often! :cool:


  22. 22 | September 4, 2013 9:09 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    Predict the vote on Syria. I’d saY 120 RS 100 DS. Any challenges?

    That sounds about Right. The Nation Building/Wilsonian Progressive faction of the GOP calls the shots. Too many Conservatives believe a strong defense is bombing everyone.


  23. 23 | September 4, 2013 9:11 am

    @ Macker:

    That is absolutely the case. It always has been. War is a political act. As Clauswitz said, war is jut the continuation of politics by other means. In a country that has civillian control of th emilitary, the generals have to know how to manage public opinion in order to maintain support for the war. This is an area that Petraeus faile at. When the country is at war, it is up to the generals and the politicians to keep the public behind the war. You didn’t see bullshit during World War Two like the rebuilding of Iraq before hostilities have ceased. Our generals weren’t looking for victory. They were looking to how they could make the Mohammedans feel good about themselves. This is an institutional problem.


  24. huckfunn
    24 | September 4, 2013 9:11 am

    Obatomy just said “I didn’t set a red line, the world did”. HORSESHIT! Further… “MY CREDIBILITY IS NOT ON THE LINE”.


  25. 25 | September 4, 2013 9:15 am

    @ Goldwaterite:

    I knew you’d like the article. Bauer is right that Christian pastors should be talking about this. And I agree with you that the political leaders in the Religious Right should be making more of this. 9-11 proved that terrorism works. Everybody goes way out of their way to avoid hurting the Muslims’ feelings. It seems we are willing to accept defeat in order to feel that we are inclusive enough. If today’s leaders hd been in charge in 1942, they’d have gone on about how Nazism was a great political movement. Hell, they’d probably argue that the Nazis were a peaceful people. The fact that Mein Kampf called for the extermination of the Jews would have been ignored just as theyignore Muslim doctrine on genocide today.


  26. 26 | September 4, 2013 9:23 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    I lost respect for the leaders of the Christian Right when they said nothing about the Bombing of Serbia Twice. They huff and puff at 2 women kissing, but are silent to Christians fighting for their lives.


  27. 27 | September 4, 2013 9:30 am

    @ Goldwaterite:

    Christian leaders don’t really look at Christian persecution. I think they are afraid to. Christianity has been so demonized by the Left, that believers are embarrassed by the Christian position on many issues. Gays are a big one. Most people believe that a person’s personal life is personal, but they don’t want the gays thrown into their face at every turn. We Aren’t the ones going around hacking people’s heads off over doctrinal disputes, yet we are demonized as the “American Taliban”, which is very offensive. It is interesting how postmodernists say that everything is valid. That there are no right answers, really, nor wrong answers, but then they deny Christian the freedom of conscience that they Demand for themselves. The Church needs to fight back.


  28. 28 | September 4, 2013 9:42 am

    Christian leaders don’t really look at Christian persecution. I think they are afraid to. Christianity has been so demonized by the Left, that believers are embarrassed by the Christian position on many issues.

    My thing is, where were these Christians leaders when Lebanese Maronites were fighting for their lives in the 80′s?
    Where were they when the Serbs were fighting al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and the IRG?
    Where were they when Chaldean Christians were being ethnically under the nose of US soldiers under a allegedly devoute Christian President.

    That is the reason I have no use for much the leadership of the Christian Right. Coptic Churches burning in Egypt bother me more than Miley Cyrus dancing with a dildo. I don’t like something on TV, I just change the channel.


  29. 29 | September 4, 2013 9:43 am

    Speranza wrote:

    @ Guggi:
    Old generals ought to just fade away.

    Old Navy Pilots should retire and hang out at the country club.


  30. RIX
    30 | September 4, 2013 9:46 am

    Obama during his press conference in Sweden said in answer to a question, “I didn’t set a red line, the World set a red line.”
    Lies mean nothing to him.


  31. 31 | September 4, 2013 9:49 am

    @ RIX:

    No, I believe he is telling truth. In Obama’s mind, he is the world!


  32. 32 | September 4, 2013 9:59 am

    @ Goldwaterite:

    HE IS the world
    HE IS the chilluns….


  33. Speranza
    33 | September 4, 2013 10:01 am

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ RIX:
    No, I believe he is telling truth. In Obama’s mind, he is the world!

    So let it be written, so let it be done.


  34. 34 | September 4, 2013 10:06 am

    @ Speranza:

    Obama: “Le Monde es moi”


  35. RIX
    35 | September 4, 2013 10:12 am

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ RIX:

    No, I believe he is telling truth. In Obama’s mind, he is the world!

    He could. But doesn’t he care that there is video of him setting the Red line.
    It’s nice when you own the Media.


  36. Guggi
    36 | September 4, 2013 10:19 am

    Macker wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    @ Speranza:

    ALL Generals and Admirals are politicians. Period.

    No doubt there has always been a fine line between military and politics and this line has more than once been strechted (MacArthur would be a typically example but he was the exception not the rule). Literally every Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Stuff wrote essays about it (including Dempsey) but since the Clinton presidency this line has been more or less destroyed. Clinton wanted to dominate the military and therefore he sent signals that only those officers would be promoted to highest ranks who had good links to politics and since Clinton the Democrats openly support an official party membership for officers. One oft he reasons McKiernan was fired was that he had no political network and he didn’t want to have one. In his opinion he was a man oft he military nothing else. On the other side Petraeus and McChrystal did everything to have best links to politics. They -- like MacArthur -- not only stretched but crossed the line.


  37. 37 | September 4, 2013 10:19 am

    RIX wrote:

    Obama during his press conference in Sweden said in answer to a question, “I didn’t set a red line, the World set a red line.”
    Lies mean nothing to him.

    Top o’ da mornin’, RIX!

    He also referred to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs as “Mr. Dempsey”. I watched much oaf the press conference and it was infuriating. I also felt a lot of sympathy for the Swedish PM, he was reduced to an Obama prop in his own country.


  38. 38 | September 4, 2013 10:21 am

    @ Speranza:

    Yul Brynner, “The Ten Commandments”.


  39. Speranza
    39 | September 4, 2013 10:23 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    Predict the vote on Syria. I’d saY 120 RS 100 DS. Any challenges?

    Who gives a crap? Obama is God. More importantly what do you think of your great peace maker president? Can I call Obama a war monger?


  40. huckfunn
    40 | September 4, 2013 10:23 am

    Do ya feel lucky, punk? Well do ya?


  41. Speranza
    41 | September 4, 2013 10:24 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Yul Brynner, “The Ten Commandments”.

    Where’s your Moses now, seeee?
    Edward G. Robinson


  42. 42 | September 4, 2013 10:25 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Where’s your Moses now, seeee?
    Edward G. Robinson

    Perhaps the WORST piece of casting EVAH!


  43. Speranza
    43 | September 4, 2013 10:27 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    Where’s your Moses now, seeee?
    Edward G. Robinson
    Perhaps the WORST piece of casting EVAH!

    It was a campy script.
    Moses, Moses, Moses
    Ann Baxter


  44. Speranza
    45 | September 4, 2013 10:30 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    He also referred to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs as “Mr. Dempsey”. I watched much oaf the press conference and it was infuriating. I also felt a lot of sympathy for the Swedish PM, he was reduced to an Obama prop in his own country

    You are right, he really is an oaf.


  45. coldwarrior
    46 | September 4, 2013 10:32 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    Where’s your Moses now, seeee?
    Edward G, Robinson
    Perhaps the WORST piece of casting EVAH!

    yeah, but the best casting was yule brenner as pharo.


  46. coldwarrior
    47 | September 4, 2013 10:33 am

    @ Guggi:

    how nice. that ass of a former general should lose his pension and be stripped of any other benefits.

    he is not ‘support and defend the constitution at this point’


  47. Guggi
    48 | September 4, 2013 10:34 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Can I call Obama a war monger?

    during his 4+ years more then double as many soldiers died than during the Bush presidency.


  48. RIX
    49 | September 4, 2013 10:36 am

    Top o’ da mornin’, RIX!

    He also referred to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs as “Mr. Dempsey”. I watched much oaf the press conference and it was infuriating. I also felt a lot of sympathy for the Swedish PM, he was reduced to an Obama prop in his own country.
    @ MacDuff:

    Morning Mac. Yeah Obama just droned on & on.
    He hung the Swedish PM out to dry, having him just stand there


  49. huckfunn
    50 | September 4, 2013 10:37 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    Perhaps the WORST piece of casting EVAH!

    Speranza wrote:

    It was a campy script.
    Moses, Moses, Moses
    Ann Baxter

    Dishonorable mention for John Wayne as Gengis Kahn in The Conqueror. Krayzeee Kornball.


  50. 51 | September 4, 2013 10:41 am

    Guggi wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    Can I call Obama a war monger?
    during his 4+ years more then double as many soldiers died than during the Bush presidency.

    So now you know what you have to do to win a Nobel Peace Prize, me thinks Alfred Nobel would not be impressed.


  51. 52 | September 4, 2013 10:41 am

    Guggi wrote:

    during his 4+ years more then double as many soldiers died than during the Bush presidency.

    Seriously? That’s a pretty stunning statistic!


  52. 53 | September 4, 2013 10:45 am

    coldwarrior wrote:

    yeah, but the best casting was yule brenner as pharo.

    Agreed, Brynner was a brilliant actor and he was perfect as Pharaoh.


  53. RIX
    54 | September 4, 2013 10:49 am

    Via TWS:

    In Sweden, President Obama complained about the way he’s sometimes treated back home in the United States, and suggested he’d be more welcomed in Europe:

    “You know, I have to say that if I were here in Europe, I’d probably be considered right in the middle, maybe center-left, maybe center-right, depending on the country. In the United States, sometimes the names I’m called are quite different.”

    He is always whining ,or apologizing for America when he is overseas.
    Can you imagine George W doing this?


  54. 55 | September 4, 2013 10:59 am

    @ MacDuff:

    We lost more people in Afghanistan, than we lost in Iraq, too. the Afghan War heated up when Obama took over. He changed the mission from simply keeping the Taliban down and out to turning Afghanistan into a model democracy. What he really managed to do was get the Taliban to diversify their assets into the production of hard narcotics for consumption in the USA. You have to wonder who all is getting kick-backs from Afghan heroin operations.


  55. 56 | September 4, 2013 11:04 am

    @ RIX:

    Obama would not be Center-Right anywhere.


  56. 57 | September 4, 2013 11:04 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    You have to wonder who all is getting kick-backs from Afghan heroin operations.

    I bet alot of people are.


  57. 58 | September 4, 2013 11:08 am

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    You have to wonder who all is getting kick-backs from Afghan heroin operations.
    I bet alot of people are.

    Ask yourself, why is Obama’s former adopted home town of Chicago so deadly… Especially amongst individuals who organizations traditionally traffic in heroin and cocaine?


  58. RIX
    59 | September 4, 2013 11:09 am

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ RIX:

    Obama would not be Center-Right anywhere.

    It’s always humorous when his admirers describe him as a “moderate.”


  59. 60 | September 4, 2013 11:17 am

    @ Goldwaterite:

    It’s big business. It really makes no sense to have the Southern border Open and then have drugs illegal. All that does is create a black market that is very lucrative for the people willing ot take the risk of smuggling. ANd there will always be smugglers. American funds are keeping the Mexican drug cartels in business. Our money would be better spent if we bought the world’s heroin production every year and just destroyed it. The drug smugglers wouldn’t care, because they’d still be getting their money.


  60. 61 | September 4, 2013 11:18 am

    @ doriangrey:

    There’s a ton coming in.


  61. 62 | September 4, 2013 11:19 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Heroin is run by Asian groups, but yeah your point stands. The Drug War is stupid and Unconstitutional.


  62. 63 | September 4, 2013 11:20 am

    @ RIX:

    The sad part is how many people believe it.


  63. Speranza
    64 | September 4, 2013 11:21 am

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    Heroin is run by Asian groups, but yeah your point stands. The Drug War is stupid and Unconstitutional.

    The War on Drugs has worked out as well as LBJ’s “War on Poverty”.


  64. RIX
    65 | September 4, 2013 11:21 am

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ RIX:

    The sad part is how many people believe it.

    They have to torture reason & common sense.


  65. Speranza
    66 | September 4, 2013 11:22 am

    RIX wrote:

    Goldwaterite wrote:
    @ RIX:
    Obama would not be Center-Right anywhere.

    It’s always humorous when his admirers describe him as a “moderate.”

    I have a friend who actually calls him a “moderate”.


  66. 67 | September 4, 2013 11:23 am

    @ Speranza:

    It has to do with the media image.


  67. 68 | September 4, 2013 11:23 am

    @ Speranza:

    You know which President started the “War on Drugs.” Hint, he was the one after LBJ. :wink:


  68. 69 | September 4, 2013 11:27 am

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ Speranza:

    You know which President started the “War on Drugs.” Hint, he was the one after LBJ.

    Ol’ Dick was a veritable cornucopia of foolish ideas. He was actually a brilliant man, it makes you wonder what he was thinking…..


  69. 70 | September 4, 2013 11:31 am

    @ MacDuff:

    The thing about Nixon was that his actions were actually Liberal, but he used red meat rhetoric to attract the Right. I don’t understand why many Republican voters love Rhetoric. To me actions speak louder than words.


  70. RIX
    71 | September 4, 2013 11:31 am

    Speranza wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    Goldwaterite wrote:
    @ RIX:
    Obama would not be Center-Right anywhere.

    It’s always humorous when his admirers describe him as a “moderate.”

    I have a friend who actually calls him a “moderate”.

    That is a mystery how anybody could draw that conclusion.


  71. 72 | September 4, 2013 11:32 am

    @ Speranza:
    The War on Drugs has done what it was intended to do: enriched organized crime. Organized crime has tentacles in both major Parties, though I suspect moreso in the Democrat Party. The Democrats are tied to the unions, and the unions have always been tied to the Mob. The Mafia really came into its own durig Prohibition. They weren’t able to keep alcohol illegal (though I imagine that they tried), but they got other drugs to be declared illegal and set up shop supplying that market. It is no coincidence that the same people are arguing to make guns illegal. Not only will that create another black market, it will also have the salutory effect of making it safer to be a criminal. Chicago is the model that the Mafia would like to replicate everywhere. And Obama is down with that. Add in crony socialism and raiding the national treasury, and you have the Obama Administration as the most successful criminal enterprise ever.


  72. RIX
    73 | September 4, 2013 11:33 am

    @ MacDuff:
    Nixon was a victim of his own paranoia.
    But, compare Watergate to the Obama scandals.
    They make Nixon look minor league.


  73. 74 | September 4, 2013 11:37 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    ganized crime has tentacles in both major Parties, though I suspect moreso in the Democrat Party.

    That’s the way I see it. Although in the case of Republicans there is a Utopian element that believes Government can make society moral and good.


  74. 75 | September 4, 2013 11:45 am

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    Although in the case of Republicans there is a Utopian element that believes Government can make society moral and good

    There is that tendency. You have to remember, the Republican Party started out as a moral crusade (abolitionist). There is a core of moral fiber in the party’s DNA. I don’t necessarily condemn that. Laissez-faire has its good points and its bad points. People aren’t moral by nature, but a society has to have some standards or it isn’t a society. You really agree with that, though you may not realize it. In our society, little is looked on as being more wrong that the sxual exploitation of a child. Most American, whether Left or Right, straight or gay, will agree that the sexual exploitation of a child is evil and should never be condoned. Afghan society is much different than that. The use of small boys for sexual gratification is commonplace in Afghanistan. The Hard Left will say “well, that’s their culture”, but I’d say that most American would be appalled at our tolerance. I know I am. There is a point where you have to either civilize the savages or destroy them, and Afghan society is well past that line.


  75. 76 | September 4, 2013 11:54 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    There is that tendency. You have to remember, the Republican Party started out as a moral crusade (abolitionist). There is a core of moral fiber in the party’s DNA. I don’t necessarily condemn that. Laissez-faire has its good points and its bad points.

    That is avery valid point. I think that is what the conflict on the Right is about. The base/Tea Party thinks government can create a socially moral Utopia, whereas Libertarians/Fiscons view Government as intrusive and accept the world as messed up.

    In many ways both Non-Libertarian Republicans and Democrats agree with Big Government. Non-Libertarian Republicans believe the government can create some perfect morally just society and the Democrats believe government can create an economically just society. I disagree with both views, hence my dissatisfaction with the current political setup.

    There is a point where you have to either civilize the savages or destroy them, and Afghan society is well past that line.

    That has been my take even before 9/11 about Islam.


  76. The Osprey
    77 | September 4, 2013 12:02 pm

    Richard Milhous Nixon exemplified the true spirit of American bipartisanship. :lol:


  77. 78 | September 4, 2013 12:07 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    Non-Libertarian Republicans believe the government can create some perfect morally just society

    No one, I think, believes that we can create a Perfect society. That is aa straw man, and really kind of a cop-out. We can’t be perfect, so let’s be as bad as we want to be isn’t a smart way to define social policy. We can set some basic standards that all members of society are expected to adhere to. That is the basis of law. You are going to make some subjective judgements. You can’t get away from that. And you really wouldn’t want to. A perfectly amoral society would be a miserable place to try to live. Like Detroit, really. Societies always have standards that the people are expected to live up to. That isn’t arguing for a perfect society, but I think we can all agree that society should condemn raping children. That isn’t to achieve a perfect society, but a society where it is desirable to live. America has done better at that than any other nation on the face of the earth. We’ve not been perfect, no, but we are better than any other place on earth. That has been true throughout our history. You can’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good. You can’t say “We can’t create a perfect society, so let’s have nothing!” That is nihilism, and it is self-defeating. It is kind of like these so-called “Anarchists” in places like San Franscisco. They wouldn’t last ten minute it a real anarchy. Somebody would snuff them. I always feel like giving trhe “anarchist” a hard kick to the balls and then asking them how they like anarchy now. For civil society to exist, there must be some rules and limits on behavior.


  78. 79 | September 4, 2013 12:07 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    The thing about Nixon was that his actions were actually Liberal, but he used red meat rhetoric to attract the Right. I don’t understand why many Republican voters love Rhetoric. To me actions speak louder than words.

    Nixon was terribly insecure and I think that explains a lot of his actions; he desperately wanted to be liked. He was highly intelligent, but seemingly bereft of personal charisma, he would never have been a successful politician in today’s world.

    Do you know that, at the height of the anti-war protests, he actually went out in front of the White House and talked to a group of the protesters in an effort to “relate”? Dick was a strange bird….


  79. Speranza
    80 | September 4, 2013 12:15 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    The thing about Nixon was that his actions were actually Liberal, but he used red meat rhetoric to attract the Right. I don’t understand why many Republican voters love Rhetoric. To me actions speak louder than words.

    You are being too logical. lol


  80. 81 | September 4, 2013 12:15 pm

    RIX wrote:

    @ MacDuff:
    Nixon was a victim of his own paranoia.
    But, compare Watergate to the Obama scandals.
    They make Nixon look minor league.

    His reputation as “the Darth Vader of former Presidents” is a bit inflated; he wasn’t the epitome of evil he credited to be. I don’t even think he’s close to being the most corrupt. He’s the Presidential example of “the Peter Principle” and was ham-handed enough to get caught. No one ever accused Nixon of being a smooth operator.


  81. Speranza
    82 | September 4, 2013 12:16 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    Do you know that, at the height of the anti-war protests, he actually went out in front of the White House and talked to a group of the protesters in an effort to “relate”? Dick was a strange bird….

    Yes he talked football with them (or tried to).


  82. SciFiGuy
    83 | September 4, 2013 12:16 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ Speranza:

    You know which President started the “War on Drugs.” Hint, he was the one after LBJ.

    Ol’ Dick was a veritable cornucopia of foolish ideas. He was actually a brilliant man, it makes you wonder what he was thinking…..

    Probably listened to a drugged-up Elvis!!!


  83. Bumr50
    84 | September 4, 2013 12:16 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    Heroin is run by Asian groups, but yeah your point stands. The Drug War is stupid and Unconstitutional.

    It’s coming through Mexico now, here, as well.

    Some from Jersey docks (assuming Afghani), and some from the Surenos.

    I actually been getting pretty violent.


  84. Bumr50
    85 | September 4, 2013 12:17 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    Although, there’s no telling where the Surenos got theirs.


  85. Bumr50
    86 | September 4, 2013 12:20 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    I actually been getting pretty violent.

    It’s actually getting pretty violent.

    Not me.


  86. 87 | September 4, 2013 12:30 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    I honestly wouldn’t know where to find heroin if I wanted it, but I’m not tied into the underground economy in any other way, either. I know they are importing the shit by the tractor trailer load, though. Meth, even more than heroin. The war on drugs has been an expensive failure. We lock up a greater percentage of our population than the former Soviet Union did, and all we’ve managed to do is make it more lucrative for the drug runners. If it were legal, they’d be forced to submit their wares to FDA regulation, and at least you wouldn’t have to worry about the relative purity of what was being sold (a principle cause of over-doses). But there isn’t the will to tackle the problem on the part of politicians. It is easier to build new prisons than it is to explain to the sheeple why their prohibition didn’t work.


  87. Bumr50
    88 | September 4, 2013 12:40 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    That’s what’s happening in all of these rave OD deaths.

    The media reports them as MDMA overdoses, when in actuality it’s become so difficult to manufacture MDMA that many of these deaths and hospitalizations are occurring from use of cheaper, more dangerous product(PMA) that’s sold by dealers as ‘Molly.’ It’s not.

    Think ‘China White.’


  88. 89 | September 4, 2013 1:00 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    Yeah, people are dying not because they are junkies so much as they are dying because the supply is impure. Are drugs good? No, of course not.But they aren’t the Font of Ultimate Evil, either. We have proven over the last 40 years that there is a massive appitite for drugs in this country. That stiff prison sentences don’t deter people from dealing, and that their is a lot of violent crime associatesd with drugs, again because they are illegal. There was a lot of violence associated with bootlegging during Prohibition, too, and for the same reasons. If we had more realistic drug policies, crime would go down pretty much across the board. YOu’d have to enforce driving while intoxicated laws, but you have that anyway. At some point we are going to have to admit that the whole drug war was a mistake. It would devistate organized crime if you legalized drugs and controlled the legal avenues to acquire them. I don’t knw when we will get a realistic drug policy. People have been conditioned to think of drugs as the Ultimate Evil, and so there is resistence to legalization. We’e seen a couple of States move in that direction on marijuana. I think we’ll see more of that in the next ten years. We’ll see. Soooner or later I think everything is going to come apart at the seams. Our deficit is strangling our economy. You can’t go on borrowing what, 10% of our GDP every year? 5%? It is over a trillion dollars each year, and the entire economy is about 16 trillion. We owe a little over $16 trillion to all of our creditors, so we are right at 100% of our GDP in debt. It wouldn’t be impossible to turn things around, but you’d have to do something to grow the economy. I just don’t see an avenue for growth on the scale that we need it. By the end of Obama’s second term in office we’ll be over $20 trillion in debt. That is starting to push Debt-to-GDP ratios into the same territory as Greece, only we are so much bigger than Greece. There will be nobody to bail us out. That is what our political leaders Should be focused on, not a war on drugs or a war on guns (both of which are ultimately a war on the American people).


  89. Speranza
    90 | September 4, 2013 1:32 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    The war on drugs has been an expensive failure.

    How does one measure victory in a “war on drugs”?


  90. 91 | September 4, 2013 1:46 pm

    @ Speranza:

    The way they measure victory is in the street price of drugs. I shit you not. The theory is that as the price of drugs goes up, demand will lessen. The problem with that theory is twofold: first, drugs have inelastic demand (addiction), which means that the demand will remain nearly constant. Large changes in the price of drugs make little difference in how many people get addicted. The second reason is the doozy, though. As they interdict drugs beinsg smuggled, the street price for those that get through does, indeed, rise. The thing is, the profit of the drug trade rises along with the price. The smugglers who are making it rthrough are making more money than if there were no interdiction. When I was in school I read a good book on addiction studies called Chocolate to Morphine that went into cosiderable detail about inelastic demand, addiction (which is what the whole book was about), and the profit motive for the dealers as well as the users. So if we are “winning” the drug war through interdiction, we are actually losing it because demand pays what it is worth to people to feed their addiction. You don’t just decide one day that smack is too expensive and quit. This is the same pattern that they replicate in regards to smoking. With cigarettes running north of $5 a pack, you have seen some drop-off in demand, but for the most part smokers pay the new taxes and smoke their cigarettes.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David