General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)"No colon left behind"
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 6, 2012, 05:18 PM - Edit history (1)
WTF?
This is so wrong on so many levels.
Julie
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)
bananas
(27,509 posts)
nxylas
(6,440 posts)Though subsequent events have perhaps rendered his choice of the word "occupying" ironic.
Initech
(100,068 posts)
rustydog
(9,186 posts)I can't recall the context, but the answer gives one pause.
BadGimp
(4,015 posts)But in a slightly different context it freaks me out...
Thank you for making me think again.
greytdemocrat
(3,299 posts)
donheld
(21,311 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Because the war mentality must be maintained, to keep them feeling safe and the masses off balance. Anything else would be sissy. It's worked like a charm for millenia.
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)Is Michael Bloomberg afraid for his life or something from benign and ridiculously compliant OWS protestors?
Seriously?
cbrer
(1,831 posts)It's a plan for the future. When the house of cards that is the American economy collapses, those in control want to remain in control. And have citizens pick up the bill.
It's for our own good...
tomp
(9,512 posts)in any case, imho, when push comes to shove, nypd will lose the war.
generalissimo bloomberg. nice ring to it.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
think
(11,641 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)And will it be any different with Bloomberg's successor?
Whining that America's largest city reasonably has America's largest police force is just that - whining.
think
(11,641 posts)between an army and a police force.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)But too many trolls pretending to be Democrats use shit like this - tone-deaf quotes from Bloomberg taken out of context - to forward the fascist RW pro-gun agenda of the NRA.
think
(11,641 posts)about a police force that is so huge it would be the 7th largest army in the world. It's not so much about Bloomberg but rather his "army". The NYPD enforces the law with it's own form of tyranny.
Just one huge example:
The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Department’s own reports on its stop-and-frisk activity confirm what many people in communities of color across the city have long known: The police are stopping hundreds of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast majority are black and Latino....
~snip~
In 2002, 97,296 New Yorkers were stopped by the police.
80,176 were totally innocent (82 percent).
~snip~
In 2011, 685,724 New Yorkers were stopped by the police.
605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent).
350,743 were black (53 percent).
223,740 were Latino (34 percent).
61,805 were white (9 percent).
341,581 were aged 14-24 (51 percent).
~snip~
Full post:
http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices
derby378
(30,252 posts)Just because you like to call names doesn't mean that we aren't correct on this issue. I wouldn't have even brought it up if it wasn't for your happy ass.
I am pro-union, pro-woman, pro-science, pro-free speech, pro-gun. I am a Democrat. Maintain.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)It never has been.
---
Every time a union gets busted - The NRA wins (along with the gun manufacturers they represent).
Every time abortion is outlawed, and every time gender discrimination is legalized - The NRA wins.
Every time gay rights are outlawed - The NRA wins.
Every time funding for science education is cut or eliminated - The NRA wins.
Every time teaching Biblical creationism is made mandatory at the expense of evolutionary science - The NRA wins.
Every time free speech is curtailed - The NRA wins.
Every time hate speech is promoted & the truth is suppressed - The NRA wins.
Every time Fox News goes on the air - The NRA wins.
When the Citizens' United decision was announced - The NRA won.
When Bush was appointed as President - The NRA won.
When Trayvon Martin was gunned down in cold blood and when his murderer George Zimmerman walked free - The NRA won.
Every time a Republican candidate wins, and every time a Democratic candidate loses - The NRA wins.
And every time the NRA wins THE GOP WINS.
The NRA stands against everything you claim to support - except for guns.
---
People who reduce everything to a single issue - and consistently support the GOP on that issue over the Democratic Party - are Republicans, no matter what other issues they claim to support.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Makes one wonder how many have actually lived in NYC. I lived there through Koch, Dinkins and some Giuliani, went back last year for a while. Loved the city and the city seems to love Bloomberg, at least in Manhattan, and they get to choose. Looks like he is suffering in the polls right now because folk in the outer boroughs think he concentrates too much on Manhattan.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=26018
14. Like 'reasonable' terror suspect lists? The ones *you* were against before you were for them?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3031131#3032492
25. People are harassed, investigated & arrested for their political beliefs.
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 09:34 PM by baldguy
Held anonymously without charge, trial, or communication with the outside world.
The President's press secretary says that people should watch what they say, or else - and the press is too afraid to say anything.
People are prevented from traveling freely because they are on a gov't list....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117225999#post14
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002461812
NYPD Infiltrated and Spied on Liberal Groups
Last edited Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:18 PM USA/ET
The AP (via CBS) notes that undercover cops went to liberal political groups' meetings, building intel files on activists and protesters.
The newswire says that interviews and docs collected during the investigation "show how police have used counterterrorism tactics to monitor even lawful activities."
The AP points out that the NYPD used these same tactics in 2004, when the department monitored church, environmental, and anti-war groups in the U.S., claiming these policies were necessary to prep for the GOP convention...
But these methods continued far after the convention took place: in 2008, the NYPD's super-secret intel department sent an undercover officer to attend the People's Summit in New Orleans. The project report gathered information on two U.S. activists, journalist Jordan Flaherty and labor organizer Marisa Franco, the AP notes....
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/03/nypd_spied_on_l.php
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57403085/docs-show-nypd-infiltrated-liberal-groups/?tag=contentMain;contentBody
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101480663
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101481530
baldguy
(36,649 posts)While supporting the radical RW fascist agenda to the NRA.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Let's remind those who forgot (or choose to elide) Mayor Bloomberg's take on the Iraq War:
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4015422
Original message
Bloomberg on the Iraq war: some disturbing hints
Buried in a June 23 New York Times piece on Mike Bloomberg receiving a charity award was some interesting reporting on where the mayor stands on the war. Nothing like a nice ground zero photo shoot with Pickles to highlight the patriotic bona fides.
A Mayor Often Ill at Ease, and Usually Muted on Iraq
By Jim Dwyer
June 23, 2007
…In May 2004, a year after the invasion, Mr. Bloomberg served as host to Laura Bush, who had come to New York in an effort to rally support for the war effort. Mrs. Bush visited a memorial for Sept. 11th victims. Standing next to Mrs. Bush, with the Statue of Liberty in the background, Mr. Bloomberg, right, suggested that New Yorkers could find justification for the war at the World Trade Center site, even though no Iraqi is known to have had a hand in the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Don’t forget that the war started not very many blocks from here," he said that day in 2004.
- snip-
… In his speech, Mr. Bloomberg remarked on the sacrifice of soldiers and what he implied was the ingratitude of people opposed to the war.
"We shouldn’t forget that we have young men and women overseas fighting and dying, sadly, so that we can protest," he said. "I sometimes think young protesters don’t realize that their right to protest is not something that they would have elsewhere, and it’s a right that has to be fought for continuously."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/nyregion/23about.html?_r=3&oref=regi&ocid=81&incamp=ts:chall_article_trial&headline=A+Mayor+Often+Ill+at+Ease,+and+Usually+Muted+on+Iraq&oref=slogin
Remember these? You should, you wrote 'em:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=987297
Original message
Are we safer now that Saddam is in custody?
There are people who acknowledge that Bush lied to America about the Iraq war: lied about Saddam's WMDs, lied about the threat posed by Iraq, lied about the connection to Al Qiada, and lied about the costs involved – both monetarily and in human lives. Yet they still support the war. They say "The overthrow and capture of Saddam Hussein has made America safer and made the world safer. Isn't it better that this homicidal maniac is no longer in power? Isn't it a great step forward in the war on terrorism? Hasn’t Bush made us safer?"
Saddam is now in custody, yes. But, the world is not a safer place. The primary threat from Al Qiada is still there - Bush has done almost nothing to stem the tide of anti-American hatred surging through the Muslim world. Unbelievably, he has even added to it. After the attacks of Sept 11, America had the entire world behind us, willing to support us in nearly anything we did to destroy the Evil Doers that murdered 3000 people. Bush has totally squandered that outpouring of compassion and support. With his arrogance he has alienated our historic allies to the point where they look upon the warnings generated by our intelligence services as a way for the Bush administration to score political points domestically. And they'd be right. For the Bushies there's no distinction between policy and propaganda. The vast array of non-partisan gov't apparatus that has been carefully built up over the last fifty years, which was meant to provide professional, objective analysis on any number of various domestic and foreign areas of expertise. - has been co-opted to solely to support the narrow domestic agenda of the NeoCoservitive-Industrial Complex. And to hell with literally everything else.
Saddam is no longer a threat, yes. But, he wasn't a threat before the invasion. Saddam can no longer hatch plots with Osama. But, he wasn't doing that before the invasion, either. He can no longer indiscriminately murder his people. But, when he was doing that Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr were supporting him; they looked the other way and gave him more arms and money. Also, there have been more Iraqi civilians killed in the last several months since the invasion than in the prior twelve years since the first Gulf war. Iraqi civilians have more to fear from Bush Jr than they did from Saddam.
Bush has been distracted from his primary purpose as Commander-In-Chief - that is to protect American citizens from harm. His main objective as Commander-In-Chief should be to fight the very real terrorist threat which America and the civilized world must face together. But the NeoConservitive-Industrial Complex has other ideas. They've been planning the Iraq War for the last ten years with PNAC. The drums for war were beaten by the Right-Wing media. The fires of hatred for the Arab world were fanned by the "Christian" conservatives. War-profiteering corporations needed a pliable gov’t to involve with their ghoulish trade. The manufacturing of a war fell right in with their needs. And Bush is beholden to all of these groups for his current position....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4517936
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-30-05 08:36 PM
Original message
My response to a freepin' LTTE in my local paper.
In regards to James F. Cornwell's letter of Aug 30: If Mr Bush wished to protect the America, he would have only attacked those who posed a threat – al Qaeda and their sponsors in Saudi Arabia. He would have enlisted the aid of our best allies - such as France and Germany who have long endured the threat of fundamentalist terrorism. The fact is Mr Bush and his cronies planned on attacking Iraq from the start of his administration, and only needed a reason palatable to ill-informed
Americans and ill-informed media to do so. The attacks of Sept 11 gave him that reason, and Bush has referenced them at every occasion to justify his invasion & continual occupation of Iraq. Even through Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing nothing nothing to do with Sept 11.
Mr Bush is due for criticism because he has simply failed as a President. His actions threaten the security of the United States. He has ignored the advice of, and demoted, fired or dismissed employees of the federal government and military who, with their vast experience and expertise, had warned him repeatedly of the folly of unnecessarily occupying an Islamic country like Iraq. He coddles our enemies and their supporters. He has alienated the very allies we need to fight the fundamentalist terrorists. And in doing so he has had people investigated, arrested & detained without trial or charge - merely for their political views. Smells like fascism to me.
One can wonder why, if he believes in his Glorious Leader's cause, Mr Cornwell isn't in Iraq serving in uniform instead of ensconced in the relative safety of "liberal" New York University? Or if he and the supporters of the war are willing pay the cost of it themselves (now about $30,000 each)? Or if he believes, as some in the right-wing punditry have stated, that his hosts in New York City behaved as cowards on Sept 11 while they were being attacked - and while Mr Bush failed in his duty to protect them - simply because that city is deemed to be too "liberal"?
The simple, moral and honorable solution to Mr Bush's Iraq Quagmire is to withdraw. We should pay reparations to the Iraqi people for committing the crime of invading their country. (This would be much less costly than occupying the country.) Allow them to employ themselves to rebuild their country - without lining the pockets the Republican middlemen in Halliburton and Bechtel.
As Clarence Page reminded us - a critic of the President once said "Victory means having an exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." If this was true when Gov Bush said it about Pres Clinton's policy in a low-level conflict like Bosnia, it is even more applicable about Pres Bush in a full-blown war like Iraq.
But now, Mayor 0.1% is now a great progressive leader. The term "Molotov-Von Ribbentrop pact" springs to mind...
baldguy
(36,649 posts)All I care about is that on the one issue of gun control he's correct - and is supported by a consistent majority of New Yorkers, and a consistent majority of Democrats, and logic, morality & the truth.
The fact that rabid RW NRA supporters like you just can't stand that is just icing on the cake.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)60. I can't speak for GSC, but I'm certainly voting Obama in November.
Last edited Tue Mar 20, 2012, 01:26 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Thing is, the President has been more pro-gun in action (as opposed to rhetoric) than Mittens.
So a single-issue pro-gun voter would have to 'go Obama'!
I await your retraction...
baldguy
(36,649 posts)If you support the NRA & guns rights, Romney is your man. When was the last time your NRA endorsed a Democratic Presidential candidate?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Question for DUers: Do you hate the NRA so much you'll ally with Michael Bloomberg?
Note: This is a repost from GD, where it was locked. Unsurprisingly there were a few replies in the affirmative
I'll state right off the bat that I'm not thrilled with the NRA personally, because I'm about 90% sure that despite their proclaimed non-
partisan stance, they are in fact a right-wing political movement with a big gun club, like I stated here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117222584
"Why I'm not going to rejoin the NRA just yet."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117222584#post50
"No point in donating money to people that piss on the President, while accepting Mitt's AWB."...
Protip: Attempting to rewrite history won't work against those who know how to search...
derby378
(30,252 posts)And I don't know why you're bringing up the Ehnahrrrreeyyyyyy, since I'm a Democrat and all that. 
baldguy
(36,649 posts)and the GOP.
Or are your reading comprehension skills that inadequate?
derby378
(30,252 posts)This is Democratic Underground, not NRA Underground. When the Constitution is upheld, we fucking win.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)You're infested.
derby378
(30,252 posts)Have a great night.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Nothing of substance to refute what I've posted above.
Of course there's no way to refute it, because all of it is true.
derby378
(30,252 posts)It all exists only in your world. That's why I haven't felt the need to exert myself.
If you want to chip away at the Bill of Rights, I can't stop you. I'm here to help Democrats get elected, and Democrats only get elected when they honor the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which we all know the GOP damn sure won't do.
What are your intentions? To get Democrats elected? To preserve American ideals? Those are mine.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)The two are entirely incomparable - because the NRA is entirely a fascist RW organization that is allied totally with the GOP.
The NRA, the GOP and other RW organizations DO NOT SUPPORT ELECTING DEMOCRATS.
The NRA, the GOP and other RW organizations DO NOT SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
The NRA, the GOP and other RW organizations DO NOT SUPPORT AMERICAN IDEALS.
--
Those are the facts. You can either deal with them, or hide your head in the sand.
derby378
(30,252 posts)You act as though I were a member of the Ehhhnnnahhrrrrayyyyeeeee or something. Wassamatta with you?
These are the facts, and they are undisputed. Democrats support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, I, as a Democrat, support the Second Amendment. You can kick dirt on home plate and scream about the Ehhhnnnahhrrrrayyyyeeeee all you want, but I formulated my ideas about gun rights without any help from them, thank you very much.
Now go hide your own head in the sand while I keep on - uh, winning?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)"You just can't STAND that we're winning, can you?"
I think this needs to be posted again, since you don't seem to have seen it - or understood it - before:
It never has been.
---
Every time a union gets busted - The NRA wins (along with the gun manufacturers they represent).
Every time abortion is outlawed, and every time gender discrimination is legalized - The NRA wins.
Every time gay rights are outlawed - The NRA wins.
Every time funding for science education is cut or eliminated - The NRA wins.
Every time teaching Biblical creationism is made mandatory at the expense of evolutionary science - The NRA wins.
Every time free speech is curtailed - The NRA wins.
Every time hate speech is promoted & the truth is suppressed - The NRA wins.
Every time Fox News goes on the air - The NRA wins.
When the Citizens' United decision was announced - The NRA won.
When Bush was appointed as President - The NRA won.
When Trayvon Martin was gunned down in cold blood and when his murderer George Zimmerman walked free - The NRA won.
Every time a Republican candidate wins, and every time a Democratic candidate loses - The NRA wins.
And every time the NRA wins THE GOP WINS.
The NRA stands against everything you claim to support - except for guns.
---
People who reduce everything to a single issue - and consistently support the GOP on that issue over the Democratic Party - are Republicans, no matter what other issues they claim to support.
If you were honest about you support for guns, you'd be a Romney supporter.
If you were honest about your support for Obama, you'd totally oppose the NRA and all of it's policies.
derby378
(30,252 posts)I am one with the NRA simply because YOU SAY SO. Wow. How could this have eluded me for soooooo long? Especially with you calling me a Republican and all that. And your little quote about Romney shows you how little you know about Romney's actual feelings on gun legislation.
Uh - winning, anyone? Rhymes with "winning."
baldguy
(36,649 posts)derby378
(30,252 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)And only makes you look more like a conservative Republican.
derby378
(30,252 posts)You're the one who claims I sound like a conservative Republican despite all of my activism to the contrary.
You're the one who wants me to be a conservative Republican so fucking bad you can almost taste it.
Democratic Underground is my peeps. Who the hell are yours?
Here, I'm even going to help you out. Here's an article all about yours truly from 2009:
http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/2009/07/01/A_Liberal_Democrat_Who_Loves_Guns.aspx
baldguy
(36,649 posts)They're fighting your pro-gun battles for you, and their goal is to destroy the Democratic Party.
You can ignore it all you want, pretend it's the opposite, tell lies to yourself, but you can't change the truth.
derby378
(30,252 posts)Avoiding the truth at all costs, just so you can prove a point to your little friends at VPC or Brady or whatever.
"Oh, look! Here's ALEC! Let's see you worm out of this one, you fucker!"
Honestly, it's suppertime. Enjoy your evening - I'm chowing down.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)All your shouting and handwaving aside, there's one turd you can't polish:
Michael Bloomberg is simply a more refined version of Frank Rizzo- Boss Hague writ large. Were it not for his anti-NRA stance, he would be righteously excoriated here. Instead, he gets a free ride from our version of the Clivenden Set.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Unlike the NRA-loving gunners here, who give money & support to the actual fascists there and in the GOP, and ALEC and vote for candidates they endorse, and campaign for & work to defeat Democrats.
derby378
(30,252 posts)All I'm getting from you is opinions and hot air.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)from one "I am pro-union, pro-woman, pro-science, pro-free speech, pro-gun. I am a Democrat." woman to another 
Paladin
(28,254 posts)derby378
(30,252 posts)The most sensible thing to do is make the most of this unlikely arrangement.
I've been a Republican once, and I ain't going back.
Response to derby378 (Reply #75)
Post removed
derby378
(30,252 posts)You only want me to be one so you can properly hate me. Why do you feel the need to have a scapegoat?
Paladin
(28,254 posts)...a DU Gun Enthusiast took it upon himself to criticize her legislative record as not being pro-gun enough. I am not remotely "stuck with" someone like that. And that's the sort of company you're keeping.....
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Unbelievable, and I'll bet none of them live in NYC and doubt any have even visited. The city is ten times safer than it was under Koch or Dinkins and obviously 3,000 times safer than it was under Giuliani.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)
Rex
(65,616 posts)so...what does that leave us?
TomClash
(11,344 posts)Even Bolivia has a larger "army." The NYPD would be something like 60th - it only has about 36,000 people.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)HE thinks he does.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)But after seeing Rachel Maddow and Richard Engel's documentary Day of Destruction, Decade of War there is no doubt we have a police state now. Not in the near future or far future. Now. And after seeing the violence on the members of Occupy, I don't know who needs any more proof.
Is it all that far fetched to believe that all the police need is an order from their superiors to shoot demonstrators and it'll be done?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The quote is from a speech he gave last November at MIT, in reference to a possiblr run for the White House and how being mayor of NYC qualifies him.
http://www.politicker.com/2011/11/30/mayor-bloomberg-i-have-my-own-army-11-30-11/
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)nt
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Thought we were above that.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)in particular and referring to them as an army, as well, I do not think that it was in the context of discussing his fitness as a presidential candidate in any way mitigates his statements. He clearly sees himself as a 1%er with massive power that he thinks he owns, rather than a elected servant of the people of the City of New York.
Since you seem to be concerned about the context of his statements why not let us know how the context effects their meaning.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)imo
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)What kind of searches, how were they warrantless? Cite please.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You say Bloomberg initiated that? I couldn't find any reference to him in the link. I'm not surprised it happens anywhere in the US, which is still a deeply racist society. It sure as hell happens in LA.
I have many friends who live in NYC, all Dems of various ethnicities and none have been frisked to my knowledge. Most do live in Manhattan, which does appear to be getting more attention from Bloomberg than the outer boroughs, which seems to be the source of most complaints.
I lived in Alphabet City during the Koch years. Shootings and stabbings daily, junkies and dealers everywhere and nary a cop in sight. Until Feb. 1984 when Koch introduced Operation Pressure Point and we reclaimed our neighborhood. Never heard a gunshot during the next 5 years I lived there. It's even better today, and I think partly thanks to Bloomberg.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)especially lower east side and hells kitchen. much of the improvement has been due to policing, but i am certainly not in favor of excessive policing. i am not if favor of "stop and frisk" or of "random" bag searches on the subway. I have never been subjected to "stop and frisk" but that is probably because these days i spend my time in NYC as a LI commuter rather than a resident (used to live in hells kitchen and various parts of queens). i have been stopped to have my bag searched when entering the subway and in each of the 3 instances i told the cop "no thanks" and walked to the next nearest subway entrance.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)getting on the subway knowing there are random bag checks? Hardly the shit you have to go through at JFK or any other airport. Unfortunately, NYC has been targeted several times by Al Qaeda Inc.. Makes a lot of sense and a small price to pay. Let's not be naive. Also, this was not a street frisk you refer to and you chose to go elsewhere. I wouldn't be crucifying the mayor for trying to keep his city safe. Would you prefer an armed populace in the city? Because that is what the wingnuts are advocating.
Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #40)
tk2kewl This message was self-deleted by its author.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)just as i can say no to a search and decide to get on the subway a block away so could anyone with evil intentions. the searches do nothing to make new york safer from terrorists.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)How could you possibly know if they make NYC safer or not. Maybe you're right, maybe not. Apparently 10% turn something up. I think they only search bags, backpacks etc., not body searches, unless the bag turns something up.
Seems to me, the NYPD has kept the city safe for the last decade. So something is working. You say you commute in from LI, do you find a lot of folk in the city complaining?
From what I hear, more people complained about the ground zero mosque and cultural center and Bloomberg's support of it, which I endorse 100%.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Who is "running against Washington", which seems to be something that is a consistent RW meme. But that isn't surprising considering that he was a Democrat before seeking elective office, then he switched to Republican to get elected, but then he became an Independent. And then changed the laws so he could get re-elected. Bloomberg has proven that like Vladimir Putin, he will change his spots, and the laws as needed, to keep getting elected.
“At the state or federal level, that’s where the real problems are. You see it particularly in American government at the moment where they are just unable to do anything, and yet, the mayors of this country still have to deal with the real world,” said Mayor Bloomberg.
Mayor Bloomberg closed by expressing the desire for someone with real, executive experience to arrive on the scene and change things in Washington.
“Unfortunately, people at the federal level or the state level typically spend their whole lives in politics, and they’ve never been an executive and it shows,” Mayor Bloomberg said.
He and the rest of his mayor friends have all the answers, and everyone else is just a dumbass who should STFU, and let THEM run things. That is arrogance beyond belief, and you wonder why people outside NYC don't like the place or Bloomberg?
And wasn't Bush II lauded because he had "real, executive experience"?
Seems like that cover of the The New Yorker from March 29, 1976 View of the World from 9th Avenue still rings really true today.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)So he gets lauded as a 'progressive' by some here...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Which is not that surprising, coming from such an urban liberal mecca as Ft. Worth.
Why don't you tell us about the lauding of Bush II, as you call him. He was known as Dubya by most around here and I don't recall anyone lauding him, especially for his "executive experience". Maybe you think your current Governor has better "executive experience", LOL. He switched parties too. Many politicians have switched parties, some good, some bad. Many Republican mayors have been better than Democrat mayors, especially in NYC and LA. Businessmen often make good mayors, like Bloomberg and Dick Riordan. Professional politicians and lawyers don't usually do so well on the city level.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)unkachuck
(6,295 posts)....aren't 'us' anymore....they are mercenaries working for the tyrants on wall-street....
Zax2me
(2,515 posts)The pic puts it all in context.
WhoIsNumberNone
(7,875 posts)Guaranteed the NYPD could take defeat many of the armies in the bottom 50%
