Considering preliminary studies showed that his soda ban likely increased the amount of soda consumed, I'd prefer him say that he wants to see the terrorists win. With how his policies work out, that would make me feel safer.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bomb
- Thread starter mikeyp
- Start date
Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Bosto
What a f***ing A**Hole!
“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.
So he wants to help those people with that taking away our freedoms...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What a f***ing A**Hole!
“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.
So he wants to help those people with that taking away our freedoms...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This a**h*** more than anyone.
favorite comment.
"We're going to suspend your rights to protest, bear arms, privacy, and trial by jury."
"Why?"
"To protect you from terrorists."
"Why do we need to be protected from terrorists?"
"They hate you for your freedom."
2016 is looking like it's going to be hillary, deval, bloomberg, cuomo. Looks like 2016 is the next time we're getting a republican president.
"We're going to suspend your rights to protest, bear arms, privacy, and trial by jury."
"Why?"
"To protect you from terrorists."
"Why do we need to be protected from terrorists?"
"They hate you for your freedom."
2016 is looking like it's going to be hillary, deval, bloomberg, cuomo. Looks like 2016 is the next time we're getting a republican president.
Why would that help? They're front and center at wanting to limit basic constitutional rights currently.
Per Ben Franklin, Bloomberg deserves neither security or liberty. Of course, he knows that and is trying to build a cult of personality around his benevolent dictatorial approach. That he has the balls to promulgate these ideas now will take the surprise out of the moment when he actually does them (dismisses the Constitution).
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Bloomberg: Statists all, regardless from which direction they come.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Bloomberg: Statists all, regardless from which direction they come.
More of the same with an (R) after their name.
Glockster30
NES Member
Unfortunately, he does not see the irony that represents the epitome of hypocrisy of his views and that of the Left, not to mention he unknowingly reached the highest level of evolutionary stupidity! Other than that, I don’t have any strong opinions about this idiot.
CWulf
NES Member
Wow, its incredible to me how low New Yorkers have fallen... they used to be tough, or at least thought that they were. Then they turn around and vote in guys like Bloomberg and Coumo? I know, I know, we have Deval and Pocahontas Warren here in Mass, but really, what happened down there.
Stop clicking on his BS. Spend your time donating to someone who is working to remove him from office.
Bloomberg, the Constitution is designed to protect us from you. It works just fine. If anything it needs more obvious penalties to those who hold office and violate it so that we can charge you with that crime.
Bloomberg, the Constitution is designed to protect us from you. It works just fine. If anything it needs more obvious penalties to those who hold office and violate it so that we can charge you with that crime.
Hmmmmm... Only an @$$hole will start to rant that guns need to be banned in the face of this. I knew it would not take long for the maggots to come out of the woodwork to feed on the corpses and I was right. Let me see... Pressure Cooker bombs killed and maimed more than their guns. Not to mention, I am sure they were not registered for making destructive devices... And who wants to talk about the IEDs (we cannot say those were IEDs on American Soil since O'Dumbo killed all of the Taliban and bad Muslims with the Drones). And this is NO WAY related to radical Muslim terrorists... NOOOO WAY!
So, the moral of the story is as follows:
When 32 oz. sodas are banned and only 16 oz. sodas are available for law abiding citizens, criminals bring their own 32 oz. cup.
When guns are banned for law abiding citizens, only criminals will have guns.
Here endeth the lesson.
So, the moral of the story is as follows:
When 32 oz. sodas are banned and only 16 oz. sodas are available for law abiding citizens, criminals bring their own 32 oz. cup.
When guns are banned for law abiding citizens, only criminals will have guns.
Here endeth the lesson.
On second thought, he is right 2A needs to be interpreted slightly differently than we currently have.
Specifically, it needs to be stripped of artificial limits of "in the home" as well as "reasonable restrictions".
It needs to be interpreted much more strictly - as it is written - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
What this day has shown us is that we cannot predict what threat we might face and each of our lives and the lives of our loved ones is worth every bit of body armor, select fire gear that the special teams out there were wearing and carrying.
No person is worth any more than another and whether because your job demands you go in to get the bad guy or luck puts you in the wrong house at the wrong time when the bad guy comes in, your life has the same value and is worthy of the same tools to protect it.
Specifically, it needs to be stripped of artificial limits of "in the home" as well as "reasonable restrictions".
It needs to be interpreted much more strictly - as it is written - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
What this day has shown us is that we cannot predict what threat we might face and each of our lives and the lives of our loved ones is worth every bit of body armor, select fire gear that the special teams out there were wearing and carrying.
No person is worth any more than another and whether because your job demands you go in to get the bad guy or luck puts you in the wrong house at the wrong time when the bad guy comes in, your life has the same value and is worthy of the same tools to protect it.
bigtig50
NES Member
This Since its inception we Americans have understood the Constitution pretty well. New "interpretations" from idiots like this are not needed, nor should they even be contemplated.
When liberty finally prevails again, the governing document needs less flowery language and more stuff like "HEY a**h***S, IF IT'S NOT IN THIS DOCUMENT THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T ALLOWED TO DO IT. Sincerely, the new founders. xoxo."
Jason Flare
NES Member
I was in NY yesterday and I had a small revelation as I left through the Holland tunnel. NYC is a great example of how easy it is to manipulate the masses. And they're easy to manipulate because they're busy and not paying attention. The crap that's going on in NY with the No Trans Fats, the attempt at, No Soda Over 16 OZ. the, gun laws, and I think there may be some restriction on Salt, is more easily accomplished with a mass of people than a small group of people since the mass of people are diverse, busy, less organized and less informed than a smaller group sharing concepts would be.
Which is why we at NES see Bloomberg as an tyrant and the people of NYC unaware that Bloomberg is any different from any other politician only think their french fries need salt.
JuergenG
NES Member
I do not understand one basic thing about liberals. Not being one, this bothers me a little. ACLU, etc. all say they support liberties. They want gays to be married. They want the little guy protected. they want freedom of speech. They want equality of pay between sexes. etc etc. at least that is what they say.
But the end result of a whole lot of the laws they try to pass is the elimination of personal freedoms. Obama care takes away your doctor-patient freedom of choice. Rabidly supporting unionized teachers ends up eliminating charter schools, which means the individual students get a poorer education (and maybe doom them to a life of poverty and NO freedom).
So, the basic question...are liberals self delusional? They pontificate on "personal liberties", but apparently want just the opposite. Are the rank and file liberals freedom loving, but the politicians they elect backsliders who lie to their faces?
confused in America!
Livefreeormass
NES Member
Seems like they don't care about liberty, but rather "equality" and "security". Don't think they'll get either, just like that famous quotation on liberty and safety.
The mouthpieces you see on TV don't care about anything other than securing their power and position over you.
An armed populace scares the crap it of them because it is supposed to and they want to "fix" that.
It is just that simple. They don't want a better life for anyone but themselves and they could care less if we live or die for that to happen.
bigtig50
NES Member
Wow, this. It couldn't be more true nor more simply stated.
The Declaration of Independence....It is our right and OUR DUTY to resist????
Thanks to SteelShooter, I now have a pocket copy to carry. I will read it every day!!!!
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
So when the Government gets out of hand, it is our DUTY to throw off such Government. Pretty simple!!!!!
So you see the need to hurry up and take all arms!!!!!!!!
Thanks to SteelShooter, I now have a pocket copy to carry. I will read it every day!!!!
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
So when the Government gets out of hand, it is our DUTY to throw off such Government. Pretty simple!!!!!
So you see the need to hurry up and take all arms!!!!!!!!
This whole "Nation of Laws" thing really sticks in their side.
The fact that the Constitution is a contract and you must look to the intent of the parties seems obvious to me. Just think how these people would act if their mortgage company suddenly reinterpreted their mortgage to have a variable interest rate rather than fixed?
Good thing the interpretation of "F**k you" never changes.
Thankfully it is pretty clear what the founders intended if one would but read their extensive writings on the subject. That is also something the liberals ignore.
Similar threads
