Bloomberg: Constitution ‘must change’ to give government more power

[Ducimus]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/ny-mayor-michael-bloomberg-constitution-must-chang/

Stand aside, privacy-rights protectionists. The bombings in Boston prove the nation needs to change how it interprets the Constitution to give government greater power to protect citizens, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said.

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a Tuesday press conference reported by the Politicker. “But we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

Specifically, Mr. Bloomberg said the nation needed more surveillance and the likes of more magnetometers in schools.

“We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff,” he said in Politicker, talking of the need for greater latitude for courts to grant powers to law enforcement and government to provide security.

“Our obligation, first and foremost,” he said, “is to keep our kids safe in the schools. First and foremost [it’s] to keep you safe if you [go] to a sporting event. First and foremost, [it’s] to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks.”

Seriously? Helloooo slippery slope! I'm at a loss for words.


Side link discussing the matter on youtube:
N.Y. Mayor Michael Bloomberg: Constitution 'Must Change' to Give Government More Power (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pixatAU5bg8) (NRA news, just FYI.)

[GoldenRivet]

We are walking into very dangerous times in American government :nope:

[Sailor Steve]

What a bunch of whiners! Big Brother Bloomberg is right. We need new interpretations of the Constitution. It doesn't really mean you have a right to say what you want, or to meet peacefully, or to worship what you want (or don't).

It doesn't really mean the government can't come into your home and search for whatever it wants, whenever it wants.

It doesn't really mean you have a right to a fair trial, or a trial at all.

It's all in the interpretation.

[Oberon]

Pretty inevitable, but this is just one guy. Of course, many more will feel the same way but that's to be expected.

What it boils down to is the trade off between liberty and security, every time someone blows something up or shoots something in America (or indeed in many other nations) the question is always asked 'Why wasn't this prevented?', or 'What can we do to stop this?' and now we've reached the point where no real further action can be taken without infringing on constitutional rights, so either the choice must be taken to accept the risk of further terrorist attacks or school shootings or accept the loss of constitutional rights, and it's easier to justify the prevention of deaths of children than it is to defend a document written over two hundred years ago.

So, generally speaking, the masses will lean towards greater security because a) they don't want to run the risk of being blown up or shot and b) they are told that these things can be avoided if they are willing to give up certain parts of privacy, after all...if you haven't done anything wrong, why do you need to be worried, as they will say.

Here comes the future...

[Vince82]

It's unamerican.

[mookiemookie]

I think it's interesting to see the rivalry of originalism vs. that of a living Constitution here.

Strictly going by a document written by a group of men who lived and died 250 years ago comes with certain problems. Technology has advanced so far beyond what the framers ever envisioned that you are forced to look at things in a different way. I think that's all Bloomberg's saying.

[Buddahaid]

Gee I haven't noticed any increased security measures take effect in any of the past fifty years. We really need this to be even more intrusive and obvious. We need Robocop so not one bad thing can ever happen to anybody anywhere, anytime. Screw you Bloomberg!

[Ducimus]

I think it's interesting to see the rivalry of originalism vs. that of a living Constitution here.

Strictly going by a document written by a group of men who lived and died 250 years ago comes with certain problems. Technology has advanced so far beyond what the framers ever envisioned that you are forced to look at things in a different way. I think that's all Bloomberg's saying.

The problem with your way of thinking, is that history repeats itself. Just because something happened a few hundred years ago, doesn't mean it can't happen again. People are still people, regardless of what technologies are, or are not, available to them. Mankind hasn't changed - at all.

The framers of our country, were far wiser then you are I. I reject the notion of a "living constitution". That's just power hungry politician double speak for, "Ill redefine things to how it best suits my agenda, in order to sidestep that damn Constitution and Bill of rights that is always getting in my way, so i get what i want. "

[Ducimus]

Pretty inevitable, but this is just one guy. Of course, many more will feel the same way but that's to be expected.

What it boils down to is the trade off between liberty and security, every time someone blows something up or shoots something in America (or indeed in many other nations) the question is always asked 'Why wasn't this prevented?', or 'What can we do to stop this?' and now we've reached the point where no real further action can be taken without infringing on constitutional rights, so either the choice must be taken to accept the risk of further terrorist attacks or school shootings or accept the loss of constitutional rights, and it's easier to justify the prevention of deaths of children than it is to defend a document written over two hundred years ago.

So, generally speaking, the masses will lean towards greater security because a) they don't want to run the risk of being blown up or shot and b) they are told that these things can be avoided if they are willing to give up certain parts of privacy, after all...if you haven't done anything wrong, why do you need to be worried, as they will say.

Here comes the future...

Well, i'll refrain from pasting in the usual Benjamin Franklin quotes. I for one, am not willing to give one iota of liberty for security. I feel very strongly about this. I would rather live as a free man with some element of danger to contend with, then live under big brother and have some government minder always sticking his nose up my ass.

[Oberon]

Well, i'll refrain from pasting in the usual Benjamin Franklin quotes. I for one, am not willing to give one iota of liberty for security. I feel very strongly about this. I would rather live as a free man with some element of danger to contend with, then live under big brother and have some government minder always sticking his nose up my ass.

I know the quote and would have put it myself but I've used it many times before so refrained like you. :03:
I agree with you, but you and I are becoming the minority in society, after all you only have to look at the amount of information available online on us already, particularly if you engage in online society like facebook or twitter (which if I had to hazard a guess I'd say that you did not). Now, it may be easy to rebuttal that with your non-compliance with modern online society that you are exempt from that, however you are in a minority, and with each passing generation that minority gets smaller. Within two generations posting your life story on facebook (or whatever the fad is then) will be a norm, and with things like google glasses it will be even easier to capture life moments and share them with the internet denizens.
Now, what does that mean in regards to privacy and rights in the real world, well as life and society takes the current restrictions as norm then there will be less blanching at the possibility of further restrictions, particularly if they are seen as being necessary for the greater good of society. Mark my words, soon there will be a small chip that you can have placed in your hand, it will open doors for you, start your car just my gripping the steering wheel in a certain way, you will be able to get on and off buses and trains without having to buy a ticket in advance, and you will be able to buy your shopping just by picking it up from the shelf.
It will be easy, convenient, and it will also monitor everywhere you go, to help find lost children and elderly relatives who have gone walkabout. Of course, some will say that "It's the mark of the devil" or that "the government is herding us like sheep" but they will be dismissed as 'Yubbas' and when no-one dies after using the chips, the convienience will override any fears of constitutional infringement or loss of privacy.

At the end of the day, convenience will triumph over security, history has shown us this much so far. By all means, resist, many will, but when we die, history will march on, and the youth will inherit the Earth.

[em2nought]

I'd say that letting our gov't have too much leash is the reason most of this crap is occurring. We need a choke collar on that rabid dog. :har:

...and how dare someone interfere with the sacred cow of a sporting event! Corporate welfare is not amused.

[Ducimus]

I know the quote and would have put it myself but I've used it many times before so refrained like you. :03:

Indeed. However relevant some quotations may be, like anything used too much, it starts to sound unoriginal, and in fact, starts to lose it's meaning.


I agree with you, but you and I are becoming the minority in society, after all you only have to look at the amount of information available online on us already, particularly if you engage in online society like facebook or twitter (which if I had to hazard a guess I'd say that you did not).

Well, I disagree that we are a minority in our thoughts. I would submit that the current political division within the United states into "red" and "blue" states as evidence to the contrary. While i realize i'm generalizing, it is my thought residents of Blue states are more apt to trade liberty for security while those residing in red states are not.

As for facebook, or twitter, your right. I would never use such sites in any capacity. It has been my view since before the days of "geocities" and everyone was into making their personal web page or weblog, that putting too much personal information on the internet is a very bad idea. The reasons for that start on identity theft and branch outward from there. Suffice to say, "Homey don't play that".


Now, it may be easy to rebuttal that with your non-compliance with modern online society that you are exempt from that, however you are in a minority, and with each passing generation that minority gets smaller. Within two generations posting your life story on facebook (or whatever the fad is then) will be a norm, and with things like google glasses it will be even easier to capture life moments and share them with the internet denizens.

Maybe, maybe not. Thought I do find myself drawing a metaphor to the intention behind things like The Colosseum in ancient Rome. It's whole purpose was to keep the Plebians happy and their minds off their troubles, less they would get upset and do things the rulling class wouldn't like. I'm not saying that technology, internet, toys, games etc are designed with that in mind, but the net effect (pardon the pun), is the same.

I have often wondered, were it not for computers, games, etc, diverting me, and any motivation and dedication i posses, what would I have accomplished? I have often thought back to wondering what it would be like in the before the advent of computers. (I grew up with computers, or is that, computers grew up with me? My first PC was an 8086 IBM clone). I think past generations accomplished much more with their lives without the diversions we have now. On a side note, have you seen this commercial? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIi8Dp34EZM) It disgusted me the first moment I saw it. It's like peoples whole lives centered on, and revolving around, stupid little electronic boxes.



Now, what does that mean in regards to privacy and rights in the real world, well as life and society takes the current restrictions as norm then there will be less blanching at the possibility of further restrictions, particularly if they are seen as being necessary for the greater good of society. Mark my words, soon there will be a small chip that you can have placed in your hand, it will open doors for you, start your car just my gripping the steering wheel in a certain way, you will be able to get on and off buses and trains without having to buy a ticket in advance, and you will be able to buy your shopping just by picking it up from the shelf.
It will be easy, convenient, and it will also monitor everywhere you go, to help find lost children and elderly relatives who have gone walkabout. Of course, some will say that "It's the mark of the devil" or that "the government is herding us like sheep" but they will be dismissed as 'Yubbas' and when no-one dies after using the chips, the convienience will override any fears of constitutional infringement or loss of privacy.

You have a point about convenience. My wife is a self admitted "whore to convenience". Although, I think along the way though, there will always be people raising concerns about legal, ethical, or moral boundries.


At the end of the day, convenience will triumph over security, history has shown us this much so far. By all means, resist, many will, but when we die, history will march on, and the youth will inherit the Earth.

Well, at the end of the day, we are all just dust and bones. When it comes to changes in our constitution, bill of rights, liberty, freedom, and everything that is important that makes up home to me, I will always resist. Not just for myself, but for my family. At the end of the day, I would rather go out fighting for what I believe in; at least then I can leave this world knowing I tried and did my best. To blatantly borrow Paton, "If a man does his best, what else is there?"

[JU_88]

Jesus Christ...
The idiocy of this guy is unbelivable, the only way to truley beat terrorism is to not change a goddamn thing!
Do what this guy suggests and its Terrorists =1 America= 0.

[Wolferz]

More knee jerk reaction to what could possibly be more false flag BS.

If mister Bloomberg et al feel so insecure in their person, maybe they should find a new place to live. Perhaps Canada?

There is nothing more complicated than perception and perceiving a threat under every rock is nothing more than blind paranoia.

I guess it's time to start stocking up on the ammo and get myself an easy rider rifle rack for my pick up truck..:arrgh!:

[TLAM Strike]

Strictly going by a document written by a group of men who lived and died 250 years ago comes with certain problems. Technology has advanced so far beyond what the framers ever envisioned that you are forced to look at things in a different way. I think that's all Bloomberg's saying.

Has technology advanced that much really? Could the Boston bombers did what they did in 1776? Sure: In the 17th century (100 years before the Constitution was written) repeating firearms already existed so in theory they could have had a shoot out with police. Gunpowder and bombs existed, books written in 14th century China explained how to make fragmentation bombs, so in theory they could have blown up a great number of people. Their ideology certainly existed, we would fight a war against its followers not soon after the ink was dry on the Constitution. The only differences is that they would have had to leave their house to acquire it all instead of sitting at a computer.

What Bloomberg is saying is not that he wants to make the country safer, he wants to exercise greater control over it. He could say that he wants the Government to track down those who indoctrinated, encouraged, and supported the bombers and bring them to justice (guess what it's easy people were saying 2 years ago they should look at the Mosque the bombers attended and how it was linked to fundamentalists); but he instead says we should give up our rights so the Government can protect us.

[Oberon]

Indeed. However relevant some quotations may be, like anything used too much, it starts to sound unoriginal, and in fact, starts to lose it's meaning.

:yep:

Well, I disagree that we are a minority in our thoughts. I would submit that the current political division within the United states into "red" and "blue" states as evidence to the contrary. While i realize i'm generalizing, it is my thought residents of Blue states are more apt to trade liberty for security while those residing in red states are not.

It goes both ways and I think that politics don't really come into it as much as the sense of power that governing parties feel. After all, the Patriot act was put in through a red government and supported by red parties, so it's more of an individual thing than it is a political thing, after all I am sure that there were blues in favour of Patriot and reds against it.

As for facebook, or twitter, your right. I would never use such sites in any capacity. It has been my view since before the days of "geocities" and everyone was into making their personal web page or weblog, that putting too much personal information on the internet is a very bad idea. The reasons for that start on identity theft and branch outward from there. Suffice to say, "Homey don't play that".

I will confess that I am on both of the sites and indeed I did once have a geocities page (actually it was home-something to begin with before it went to geocities IIRC) but I am careful about what information I post. I once heard about a girl who posted everything she was doing on twitter, including when she was leaving for her holiday and then she was confused when someone broke into her house while she was on holiday.
Google Earth and Google Street view are another two examples of personal intrusions that weren't around ten or twenty years ago (although Earth probably was but only to military intelligence) and one has to wonder what the next stage will be, real time streaming Google Earth? I'd certainly enjoy looking at it, even if by doing so I am encouraging the loss of privacy of those I watched.

Maybe, maybe not. Thought I do find myself drawing a metaphor to the intention behind things like The Colosseum in ancient Rome. It's whole purpose was to keep the Plebians happy and their minds off their troubles, less they would get upset and do things the rulling class wouldn't like. I'm not saying that technology, internet, toys, games etc are designed with that in mind, but the net effect (pardon the pun), is the same.

Completely true, the bread and circuses effect is very prevalent in todays society, if you were to ask the average American or Brit something about politics, they'd either go on a rampage based upon what the biased media has told them or they'll claim ignorance and ask if you have watched 'America/Britain's got Talent'.
On the other hand, technology has radicalised some political beliefs, and increased the spread of them, organisations like the Tea Party or the UKIP would have struggled to have gained the base that they have had without the ease of access to communications. Of course, consequently the focus on these radical groups by either side of the political media has only served to further discourage the average public member from getting involved in a political spectrum that seems to be dominated by 'nutcases'

I have often wondered, were it not for computers, games, etc, diverting me, and any motivation and dedication i posses, what would I have accomplished? I have often thought back to wondering what it would be like in the before the advent of computers. (I grew up with computers, or is that, computers grew up with me? My first PC was an 8086 IBM clone). I think past generations accomplished much more with their lives without the diversions we have now. On a side note, have you seen this commercial? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIi8Dp34EZM) It disgusted me the first moment I saw it. It's like peoples whole lives centered on, and revolving around, stupid little electronic boxes.

Also true, the amount of reading and drawing that I used to do back before 24/7 broadband and Steam is vastly higher than I do now.
But yes, the age of electronics is throughly here, and if a 'Revolution' style event occurred and all the power went out, well...I know I would certainly struggle at first, but I would hope that I would make it through, but it would be tough. A book worth reading is 'One Second After' which is realistic to the point of being quite depressing how society would cope if the power went out tomorrow...and that was written in 2009, we've gone even further down the road of electronic dependency now.

You have a point about convenience. My wife is a self admitted "whore to convenience". Although, I think along the way though, there will always be people raising concerns about legal, ethical, or moral boundries.

This is true, but at the end of the day it will be a King Cnut style affair.

Well, at the end of the day, we are all just dust and bones. When it comes to changes in our constitution, bill of rights, liberty, freedom, and everything that is important that makes up home to me, I will always resist. Not just for myself, but for my family. At the end of the day, I would rather go out fighting for what I believe in; at least then I can leave this world knowing I tried and did my best. To blatantly borrow Paton, "If a man does his best, what else is there?"

Well, America has made it thus far without becoming a police state, but I can understand the fear that it may unwittingly slide into one, a nation is only a few events short of it after all, however equally living a life paranoid of government intentions is equally self-destructive, not that I'm accusing you of such a thing, but there are people, as we both know, who are quite firmly in that camp and the rest of us can just shake our heads in disbelief in it. Still, a healthy mind that questions the decisions of government whilst not falling into the trap of paranoia is a good thing, sometimes governments do need a reality check...once upon a time they got that through voting, but I think that system has lost its effectiveness over the eras, but it's still better than the alternatives.

[Platapus]

We DO need to change the way we interpret the Constitution. :yep:

We need to get back to the interpretation of the Constitution that puts limits on the powers of the Federal Government.

We need to reinterpret the Incorporation Doctrine to determine if it truly is in our best interest, and if so, properly define and place limits on it.

Absolutely we need to change the way we interpret the Constitution.

But I fear that this is not what Bloomberg meant. :nope:

Bigger government is not the solution
More powerful government is not the solution

[Skybird]

Relevant readings for this topic.

LINK: On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolutio (http://lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe32.1.html)


As the Declaration of Independence noted, government is supposed to protect life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet in granting government the power to tax and legislate without consent, the Constitution cannot possibly assure this goal but is instead the very instrument for invading and destroying the right to life, property, and liberty. It is absurd to believe that an agency that may tax without consent can be a property protector. Likewise, it is absurd to believe that an agency with legislative powers can preserve law and order. Rather, it must be recognized that the Constitution is itself unconstitutional, i.e., incompatible with the very doctrine of natural human rights that inspired the American Revolution.

Indeed, no one in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one's alleged protector to determine unilaterally, without one's consent, and irrevocably, without the possibility of exit, how much to charge for protection; and no one in his right mind would agree to an irrevocable contract which granted one's alleged protector the right to ultimate decision making regarding one's own person and property, i.e., of unilateral lawmaking.


LINK: War, Terrorism, and the World State (http://www.quebecoislibre.org/021207-8.htm)


What we see in the U.S. today is something very familiar. Governments love crises – indeed, they frequently cause or contribute to them – in order to increase their own power. Just witness the government takeover of airport security, the establishment of an office for homeland security (isn't that the task of the Department of Defense? and if not, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call the department of defense the Department of War?), and the current plan of establishing an almost complete electronic surveillance system vis-a-vis its own citizens.

In order to combat terrorism it is necessary to engage in a non-interventionist foreign policy, to have a heavily armed civilian population – more guns, less crime – and to treat terrorism for what it is: not as a conventional attack by the armed forces of another state but as essentially private conspiracies and crimes which must be combatted accordingly by police action, hired mercenaries, privateers, assassination commandoes, and headhunters.


LINK: Reflections on State and War (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe17.html)

LINK: Why Bad Men Rule (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe13.html)


the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it nearly impossible that a good or harmless person could ever rise to the top. Prime ministers and presidents are selected for their proven efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Thus, democracy virtually assures that only bad and dangerous men will ever rise to the top of government. Indeed, as a result of free political competition and selection, those who rise will become increasingly bad and dangerous individuals, yet as temporary and interchangeable caretakers they will only rarely be assassinated.

[Cybermat47]

Don't worry, the government isn't after more power.

:shifty:

[Oberon]

We DO need to change the way we interpret the Constitution. :yep:

We need to get back to the interpretation of the Constitution that puts limits on the powers of the Federal Government.

We need to reinterpret the Incorporation Doctrine to determine if it truly is in our best interest, and if so, properly define and place limits on it.

Absolutely we need to change the way we interpret the Constitution.

But I fear that this is not what Bloomberg meant. :nope:

Bigger government is not the solution
More powerful government is not the solution

The problem lies in gaining consensus across America as to what the Constitution means, something which as we can see at the moment is just not happening. Depending on each persons agenda, they interpret it in different ways, like lawyers finding loopholes.
Makes me wonder how they managed to agree long enough to write it in the first place... :hmmm:

[August]

It goes both ways and I think that politics don't really come into it as much as the sense of power that governing parties feel. After all, the Patriot act was put in through a red government and supported by red parties, so it's more of an individual thing than it is a political thing, after all I am sure that there were blues in favour of Patriot and reds against it.

FWIW it was a bit more lopsided than that. 98 vs 1 in the Senate and 357 to 66 in the House.

[August]

Bloomberg scares me. It's not because he's a control freak but that he's a control freak with 25 billion bucks and a media empire.

[Sailor Steve]

The Makes me wonder how they managed to agree long enough to write it in the first place... :hmmm:
They didn't. They fought over it for months, and finally only agreed on the system we have now because it was pointed out the them that they had to compromise on the points of contention or admit they couldn't do it.

[soopaman2]

As a close follower of Bloomy.

Not a believer, just someone who watcheds his bullcrap, a local observer.

I moved to NJ because of him, first off.

Second. This jerk, as a member of city council, somehow circumventedf the peoples will, by being a leading oppositional voice to Rudolph Guilianis third term, pst 9-11.

We the people wanted it, city council said no, lead by mayoral candidate Michael Bloomberg.

He then won the election, then banned smoking in bars, won another a few years later.

When it came his turn for 3rd term, it went through city council no problem, after he won the election it was finally put to vote by the people of NYC, and they struck down the more than 2 terms crap.

Amazing!!

No one tells this story, a modern day Tammany Hall. Google that one, Tammany hall was a doozy, but at least boss Tweed didn't try to ban soda.

I am a local, this scumbucket and his crap decisions hurt my everyday life.

[August]

No one tells this story, a modern day Tammany Hall. Google that one, Tammany hall was a doozy, but at least boss Tweed didn't try to ban soda.

Boss Tweed also didn't have $25 billion clams and own a media empire. That's what makes this Tweed reincarnation so dangerous imo.

[soopaman2]

Boss Tweed also didn't have $25 billion clams and own a media empire. That's what makes this Tweed reincarnation so dangerous imo.


Very true, Bloomy is a billionaire, as well as the owner of Bloomberg News.

Explains all his control fantasies...

I almost forgot to add that to his resume. Thanks :salute:

[August]

Very true, Bloomy is a billionaire, as well as the owner of Bloomberg News.

Explains all his control fantasies...

I almost forgot to add that to his resume. Thanks :salute:

:salute:

We just got the Blue State Blues Brother!

[Ducimus]

Bloomberg scares me. It's not because he's a control freak but that he's a control freak with 25 billion bucks and a media empire.

This guy scares me for the same reason. In our political system today, money IS power. Votes are nearly irrelevant because whatever a person, or group of persons with lots of money wants, they just buy. The real power in government? Follow the money.

As a close follower of Bloomy.

Not a believer, just someone who watcheds his bullcrap, a local observer.

I moved to NJ because of him, first off.

Second. This jerk, as a member of city council, somehow circumventedf the peoples will, by being a leading oppositional voice to Rudolph Guilianis third term, pst 9-11.

We the people wanted it, city council said no, lead by mayoral candidate Michael Bloomberg.

He then won the election, then banned smoking in bars, won another a few years later.

When it came his turn for 3rd term, it went through city council no problem, after he won the election it was finally put to vote by the people of NYC, and they struck down the more than 2 terms crap.

Amazing!!

No one tells this story, a modern day Tammany Hall. Google that one, Tammany hall was a doozy, but at least boss Tweed didn't try to ban soda.

I am a local, this scumbucket and his crap decisions hurt my everyday life.

Thanks for sharing. Things sound about as bad, if not worse, then what I was thinking.

From bad to worse, is this guy is stepping from the local stage, to the national one. It is my belief that Bloomberg, or someone like him, could very well be what the face of tyranny in America would look like.

[mookiemookie]

then banned smoking in bars

If only that was a national law. :woot: We have it in Houston and it's awesome. Unfortunately I'm soon moving outside of the city limits. :(

[August]

If only that was a national law. :woot: We have it in Houston and it's awesome. Unfortunately I'm soon moving outside of the city limits. :(


Stop spending so much time in bars...
http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/gh0E.H0GdVEYmsOamWBh_A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMxMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/blogs/partner/470_2532727.jpg

[mookiemookie]

Stop spending so much time in bars...
http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/gh0E.H0GdVEYmsOamWBh_A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMxMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/blogs/partner/470_2532727.jpg

Hah! Restaurants too. That's my main issue. Bars, yeah. They're not health clubs, you know what you're getting into when you go in there. But restaurants....man, I just wanna enjoy a meal without coming home smelling like I went to a bar.

[Skybird]

Everywhere you hear the call for more government, and more government surveillance, and more powers for governments, and government, government über alles. What many people outside government do not want to see, and what many people in government carefully hide form the public is that governments compete with each other for dominating other, weaker governments in other places and organizations. It is a ruinous competition that eliminates the number of competitors slowly, but surely, by stronger ones swallowing weaker ones. In the end, there can be only one government, a one-world-government. And ladies and gentleman, I present to you the inevitable truth: this one government will not be the government of a free people, but will be a complete and total and absolute dictatorship.

Do not worry, if you are in line with its ideology, you have nothing to fear, like no law-abiding citizens has to fear laws. And if you still get a headache over your doubts, the market for psychopharmaka becomes more and more a wild-west-fashioned anything-goes-arena all the time, I'm sure there is a happiness pill that gives even you the chemical club that you need to bear life and to function as is demanded of you.

[Skybird]

While we are at it:

LINK: US gives big secret push to internet surveillance (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57581161-38/u.s-gives-big-secret-push-to-internet-surveillance/)

LINK: Explanation of 2511 letters (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511)

LINK: The white House's claim (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/executive-order-improving-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity)

Wer's glaubt wird seelig!

[Simmy]

This guy scares me for the same reason. In our political system today, money IS power. Votes are nearly irrelevant because whatever a person, or group of persons with lots of money wants, they just buy. The real power in government? Follow the money.

Money has always been power.
The golden rule: those with the gold make the rules.
The founding fathers of this country were the richest men in this country.
Money always talks. People who got elected on the "Terms Limits" platform soon dropped that thought as soon as they were elected.
Obama was just a good guy in the hood, then suddenly he was a senator, then he was president. I wonder what kind of money is behind him?
The constitution in their mind is:
"and that government of the government, by the government, for the government, shall not perish from the earth.”:rock:

[Ducimus]

Obama was just a good guy in the hood, then suddenly he was a senator, then he was president. I wonder what kind of money is behind him?


Anywhere between 11.8 and 12.2 million dollars, depending on where you look. "Good guy in the hood"? That's a load of crock. He's a millionaire Politician from Chicago.

[Skybird]

Anywhere between 11.8 and 12.2 million dollars, depending on where you look. "Good guy in the hood"? That's a load of crock. He's a millionaire Politician from Chicago.
Like the majority of senators: two thirds (67%) in 2011.

Like roughly the half of congress,47%, in 2011.

With the 113th congress being again wealthier than the previous one, by median net worth.

[Ducimus]

Like the majority of senators: two thirds (67%) in 2011.

Like roughly the half of congress,47%, in 2011.

With the 113th congress being again wealthier than the previous one, by median net worth.


Which only proves my point. What makes Bloomberg different, is he is projecting and pushing a dangerous agenda and will stop at nothing.

[Platapus]

A friend of mine is running for a State House position in Virginia. This is a part time position that pays about $17,000 per year.

In order to run for this office, he told me that he has to raise $1,000,000 for his campaign. For a small part time job as state house member.

He then told me that in the very near future, for the same position, it will probably cost $5,000,000.

That is one of the problems with politics. It costs so much money to run a campaign that the candidate has to get the money from somewhere. Local donations won't cover it so they turn to the Political Party for funds. Multiple strings are attached at multiple places.

It really should not cost a million dollars to run for a state assembly position. But it does. And the funding race keeps getting bigger and bigger.

You will have a tougher time winning an election by spending $500,000 if your opponent is spending $1,000,000. So you might as well spend $1,000,000. Then next election your opponent spends $1,500,000. Wadda goin to do?

There is no such thing as string-less donations. :nope:

I don't know what the solution is, or whether any solution may be worse then the disease.

But if you have to spend $1,000,000 to get a $17,000 part time job, that opens up a lot of potential for corruption. :nope:

[Stealhead]

A friend of mine is running for a State House position in Virginia. This is a part time position that pays about $17,000 per year.

In order to run for this office, he told me that he has to raise $1,000,000 for his campaign. For a small part time job as state house member.

He then told me that in the very near future, for the same position, it will probably cost $5,000,000.

That is one of the problems with politics. It costs so much money to run a campaign that the candidate has to get the money from somewhere. Local donations won't cover it so they turn to the Political Party for funds. Multiple strings are attached at multiple places.

It really should not cost a million dollars to run for a state assembly position. But it does. And the funding race keeps getting bigger and bigger.

You will have a tougher time winning an election by spending $500,000 if your opponent is spending $1,000,000. So you might as well spend $1,000,000. Then next election your opponent spends $1,500,000. Wadda goin to do?

There is no such thing as string-less donations. :nope:

I don't know what the solution is, or whether any solution may be worse then the disease.

But if you have to spend $1,000,000 to get a $17,000 part time job, that opens up a lot of potential for corruption. :nope:

If it costs 1 million in a state such as Virgina then in a large state such as California,Florida,New York and Texas the money needed for a campaign must be higher. I bet it costs 10 to 20 million in a state with a large population.

I know for certain here in Florida there is a lot of wealth in some hands but of course these persons represent a small portion of the population.All the money is in Broward,Dade and West Palm Beach county or at least the majority of the private money is.

[August]

$68 million for our recent Warren v Brown senate race. And that doesn't count the millions spend by PAC's.

[Stealhead]

$68 million for our recent Warren v Brown senate race. And that doesn't count the millions spend by PAC's.

Was that a state or national seat?sorry I do not know anything about Ma. politics.My impression was that Platapus was talking about state level seats.

I was referring to state level campaigns not those headed for D.C.

At any rate one million dollars is too much for a state office campaign.

[August]

Was that a state or national seat?sorry I do not know anything about Ma. politics.My impression was that Platapus was talking about state level seats.

I was referring to state level campaigns not those headed for D.C.

At any rate one million dollars is too much for a state office campaign.

Yes he was but they follow the same pattern. That was a record btw.

[Stealhead]

Yes he was but they follow the same pattern. That was a record btw.


The late Senate election in FL the one the Marko Rubio won cost only counting the top three contenders and rounding off $42.5 million.

This page if accurate implies that we are both wrong MA did have the most expensive race.
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topraces.php

FL was king of the hill for House seats.


Notice how most of the money is spent in the biggest Blue and Red states?


What a farce the whole thing.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

I know for certain here in Florida there is a lot of wealth in some hands but of course these persons represent a small portion of the population.All the money is in Broward,Dade and West Palm Beach county or at least the majority of the private money is. Don't I known it, I'm living next to the Intercostal and all I've got to is go outside and look across the water. There's at least five or six mansions that are visible, just Google Hypoluxo Island.

[Simmy]

"Good guy in the hood"? That's a load of crock. He's a millionaire Politician from Chicago.

Well I only used that term because he was just a nobody at one point and living in a mansion the next. Someone was pumping money into the cause that's for sure.

[August]

Well I only used that term because he was just a nobody at one point and living in a mansion the next. Someone was pumping money into the cause that's for sure.


He comes from money on his mothers side I thought.

[soopaman2]

Hah! Restaurants too. That's my main issue. Bars, yeah. They're not health clubs, you know what you're getting into when you go in there. But restaurants....man, I just wanna enjoy a meal without coming home smelling like I went to a bar.

I will agree with this, we have smoking bans in restaurants in NY and NJ, and as a smoker I appreciate it, cigs and food never mix.

But bars, in my drinking days I loved a shot and beer chaser, and a good smoke as I let the alcohol settle.

Bars in NYC lost alot of money, because within 6 months, there would be alot of people on the sidewalk out front these bars, then the police start hassling you, basically making you leave or put out your smoke and go back in the bar.

Mostly because your smoke bothers some fake coughing tourist that actually stopped staring up at the tall buildings and bumping into people to complain about ciggy smoke.

I blame tourists, and Bloomys dream of turning this into some kind of cheap Carribean Island tourist resort, at the detriment of the happyness of the people.

[Tchocky]

Point of a smoking ban in bars and restaurants is so that the staff don't have long-term health problems because of where they work.


That's the long and short of it.

[soopaman2]

Point of a smoking ban in bars and restaurants is so that the staff don't have long-term health problems because of where they work.


That's the long and short of it.
Dana Reeves, wife of Superman, Christopher Reeves, who never smoked, but worked in lounges singing all her life where heavy smoking took place.

Dead of Lung cancer, and a saint of a woman. I see your point.

[Webster]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/ny-mayor-michael-bloomberg-constitution-must-chang/


Seriously? Helloooo slippery slope! I'm at a loss for words.


Side link discussing the matter on youtube:
N.Y. Mayor Michael Bloomberg: Constitution 'Must Change' to Give Government More Power (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pixatAU5bg8) (NRA news, just FYI.)


I find it hard to believe the man who made salt on French fries and 16 oz soft drinks illegal in his state would think its time to throw away the constitution :rotfl2:

[Tribesman]

I find it hard to believe the man who made salt on French fries and 16 oz soft drinks illegal in his state would think its time to throw away the constitution
Yet he did neither of those things, though its easy to believe that you believe he did.