Triangulation turned a lot of people off, but I'm generally impressed with what Clinton got done after losing congress and being crippled by his infidelity.
Yeah, Clinton sold a lot of his promises down the river... but he was able to accomplish a great deal by compromising... compare that to Bush who hasn't been able to accomplish jack shit since the Dems took the house, and still has a year and a half left to play with his lazer pointer in the Oval Office.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Yeah, I was just knocking around ideas earlier. He would hurt the democrats more.
But I like him.
So I'm emotionally torn.
I'm with you... I wish he were a viable candidate, I think he's great.
Unfortunately, I still think viable third-parties will only come about through a governmental revamping of the electoral process... which I doubt many democrats or republicans would be down for.
The 2 party system has only broken down once, and that was in a civil war.
I hate to be off topic, but if the system started breaking down I would be sort of scared.
After hearing a bit more about Bloomberg's past, I think this is more in line with what he wants to do than run for president (breaking the two party system). His flip flops parties to get elected, not really following, even caring about, the ideology. He's tried to pass legislation to destroy the party primary system in NYC (didn't work since council members of larger cities tend have party affiliations). As was mentioned in this thread, him running as a Republican anywhere but in NY would be laughable considering his policies.
Although I know fuckall about the intricacies of local elections.
As it stands right now, Bloomberg wouldn't do much to hold back the Democratic tide. He would, however, cause the Republican candidates a lot of consternation.
(Very) Early polling shows he'd garner more Republican votes than Democratic ones.
Exactly. Unlike Nader, I get the feeling Bloomberg would be playing more to the middle rather than an outlying wing of one of the existing parties. If he could pull off a Ventura and energize people who normally don't vote because they hate their choices, it may be possible for him to pull off an upset.
The Democratic primaries is NYC are a total clusterfuck. That's all there is to know.
Yes.
Changing to a Republican to avoid the local party machine and then trying your best to destroy it is not flip flopping and trying to destroy the two party system.
It is an obvious patriotic duty to be achieved with molotov cocktails if words and politics do not avail.
God I fucking hate machine politics.
Shinto on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
At any rate, New York already thinks of itself as the most important place in the universe. Electing their mayor would simply exacerbate this reeking egotism. I think we should disqualify all current and former mayors from the presidency for that reason alone.
California, DC, Texas, and Los Angeles are pretty much the same though. Anything that happens outside of the regional boundaries doesn't really happen.
To be fair, California and Texas are each larger than a lot of countries, and California has the world's 6th largest economy. That at least makes us more important than France.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think the new WTC design is perfect. It's self-consciously prominent, unsightly, and devoid of any significance or substance other than that which it assigns itself. It stands there, shrieking, "I am the tallest building in the world! I am meaningful!"
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Dude, um, I guess I oversimplified.
The civil war has nothing to do with third candidates. In fact, it really had nothing to do with people at all.
There was just an issue that was bigger than the parties themselves and that broke everything up.
Third candidates really don't do jack to the third party system because the parties survive it.
Also Shinto, your post sounds like its sarcastic, but I realized that it isn't.
It isn't sarcastic, right?
I don't think Bloomber is going to run. Anyways, he is way too similar to Giuliani.
Except he wouldn't have to fight against his own views, he could acutally run as himself.
It would be pretty nice to have a candidate who ran as himself (Or herself, don't flame me).
Dude, um, I guess I oversimplified.
The civil war has nothing to do with third candidates. In fact, it really had nothing to do with people at all.
There was just an issue that was bigger than the parties themselves and that broke everything up.
Third candidates really don't do jack to the third party system because the parties survive it.
Also Shinto, your post sounds like its sarcastic, but I realized that it isn't.
It isn't sarcastic, right?
The Democratic primaries is NYC are a total clusterfuck. That's all there is to know.
Yes.
Changing to a Republican to avoid the local party machine and then trying your best to destroy it is not flip flopping and trying to destroy the two party system.
It is an obvious patriotic duty to be achieved with molotov cocktails if words and politics do not avail.
God I fucking hate machine politics.
You went a little overboard, and overboard usually=sarasm around here.
Or maybe I'm just a shitty reader, thats probably it.
I don't think Bloomber is going to run. Anyways, he is way too similar to Giuliani.
The only real similarity to Giuliani is that they're both coming out of New York, and it kind of stops there. Bloomberg is firm in his beliefs and seems to be pretty intelligent, and Giuliani's crazy. Big difference.
I don't think Bloomber is going to run. Anyways, he is way too similar to Giuliani.
The only real similarity to Giuliani is that they're both coming out of New York, and it kind of stops there. Bloomberg is firm in his beliefs and seems to be pretty intelligent, and Giuliani's crazy. Big difference.
Having a chance at becoming president tends to shut down portions of the brain such as logic, right and wrong, etc. Hunter Thompson described it well like a buck going into frenzy when it smells a female in heat.
I have no excuse for anything previous to presidential aspirations.
I found that to be pretty unexceptional myself, but then, I'm more likely to stick with my straight ticket Democratic voting anyway. I may not be his core demographic.
About the only thing the guy could do to sell me would be to come out against the farm lobby. And I just don't think that's going to happen.
Yeah well, if he wanted to fearlessly kamikaze such evils of our government I might be persuaded to join his suicide mission, sentiment overriding all political calculation and good sense.
About the only thing the guy could do to sell me would be to come out against the farm lobby. And I just don't think that's going to happen.
Yeah well, if he wanted to fearlessly kamikaze such evils of our government I might be persuaded to join his suicide mission, sentiment overriding all political calculation and good sense.
More or less. :P
I don't know, though; with the new national primary, I'm not sure that it's as much of a kamikaze run as you'd think it would be. Hell, he doesn't even have to run in a primary. Talk about it enough, maybe people will start to listen. Paul Harvey was saying on the radio the other day that one dollar of every eight the U.S. government spends on healthcare is spent on diabetes, and if you don't think the corn industry has everything to do with that, you're nuts.
Bloomberg would obviously be a great president, and to be honest - if he does run, I'd probably vote for him if Hillary get nominated. But I dont think he stands a chance this cycle, Democrats are way too eager to vote for whatever dem gets the nomination.
And I fear him the fact that he could allow a Republican to win. Oh god that would be terrible.
Bloomberg would obviously be a great president, and to be honest - if he does run, I'd probably vote for him if Hillary get nominated. But I dont think he stands a chance this cycle, Democrats are way too eager to vote for whatever dem gets the nomination.
And I fear him the fact that he could allow a Republican to win. Oh god that would be terrible.
Always the tug of war between fear and hope with independent candidates.
If he was running, say, 30% in the polls I might be persuaded to follow my preference for him.
I found that to be pretty unexceptional myself, but then, I'm more likely to stick with my straight ticket Democratic voting anyway. I may not be his core demographic.
I think the reason he'll be great is because he's so fucking rich that he can afford to speak his mind, no lobbyist shit.
Considering I'm going to be 18 at election time I don't really care about party loyalties. Also, I essentially agree with him on everything, although I don't see how you could actually enact effective gun control against illegal guns.
Bloomberg would obviously be a great president, and to be honest - if he does run, I'd probably vote for him if Hillary get nominated. But I dont think he stands a chance this cycle, Democrats are way too eager to vote for whatever dem gets the nomination.
And I fear him the fact that he could allow a Republican to win. Oh god that would be terrible.
Always the tug of war between fear and hope with independent candidates.
If he was running, say, 30% in the polls I might be persuaded to follow my preference for him.
Ah, the collective action problem.
South Park taught me that my vote doesn't really matter, so I'm just going to go ahead and vote for him.
Also, I'm not scared at all of the republican stable, as none of them are nearly as bad as Bush, so I'll just vote on the issues.
Picardathon on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Paul Harvey was saying on the radio the other day that one dollar of every eight the U.S. government spends on healthcare is spent on diabetes, and if you don't think the corn industry has everything to do with that, you're nuts.
At the risk of going off-topic, is this assuming that a shift to cane sugar from high-fructose corn syrup would seriously reduce diabetes? I don't know much about the evils of hfcs, other than soda with cane sugar tastes a lot better.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Paul Harvey was saying on the radio the other day that one dollar of every eight the U.S. government spends on healthcare is spent on diabetes, and if you don't think the corn industry has everything to do with that, you're nuts.
At the risk of going off-topic, is this assuming that a shift to cane sugar from high-fructose corn syrup would seriously reduce diabetes? I don't know much about the evils of hfcs, other than soda with cane sugar tastes a lot better.
Cane sugar actually fills you up, so you drink less of it, not to mention that HFCS is even more simple than cane sugar, which means your body basically takes it, processes it at lightspeed, and turns it into fat.
Yes Gualinai always had a slight facist side even when mayor. I'm surprised people seem to think Bloomy is a great speaker. He's really soft-spoken and pretty blunt. I don't think he's a fantastic orator. Most of my respect for the guy comes from his lack of interest in moral wankery and nanny-stating and his ability to manage budgets. I mean he's pretty much taken on both Albany and Wasington several times trying to get the terrorism defense money NYC was promised for years.
Yes Gualinai always had a slight facist side even when mayor. I'm surprised people seem to think Bloomy is a great speaker. He's really soft-spoken and pretty blunt. I don't think he's a fantastic orator. Most of my respect for the guy comes from his lack of interest in moral wankery and nanny-stating and his ability to manage budgets. I mean he's pretty much taken on both Albany and Wasington several times trying to get the terrorism defense money NYC was promised for years.
Slight? I'm surprised the guy isn't a direct descendant of Mussolini.
I'm surprised people seem to think Bloomy is a great speaker. He's really soft-spoken and pretty blunt. I don't think he's a fantastic orator. Most of my respect for the guy comes from his lack of interest in moral wankery and nanny-stating and his ability to manage budgets. I mean he's pretty much taken on both Albany and Wasington several times trying to get the terrorism defense money NYC was promised for years.
Agreed. I read his commencement speech and was more impressed with what he was saying rather than how he was saying it. It had humor and humility, while still being authoritative and inspirational. But the writing still felt a little disjointed in some parts.
n Tuesday, Michael Bloomberg, who had purchased the New York City and State Republican Party at a fire sale, announced he was leaving the GOP. The next morning, he highlighted a managerial achievement that underlines the rationale for his all-but-declared independent presidential campaign. With the press corps gathered at City Hall, he held a ceremony to mark the 50 millionth call to New York's 311 hotline. This innovation, borrowed from Chicago, has made it far easier for residents to contact city government with their problems. Bloomberg, in high spirits, put his arm around the operator who had received the call and asked with a wink if she was planning to run for president.
The popular mayor--he has a stunning 73 percent approval rating--has good reason to be ebullient. His record-breaking property tax increases have been largely forgotten because Gotham has been going through very good times. Crime continues to decline, racial tensions have been reduced, and a booming stock market--the Dow hitting one record high after another--has produced a tsunami of spending. The housing market is so hot that in Brooklyn there are condos going for more than a million dollars just a few feet from the site of a new jail. In the words of a Brooklyn realtor "We don't care about jails. We just care about parking."
Bloomberg's contribution to the good times has been limited but consequential. Most importantly, he appointed Ray Kelly police commissioner and then largely stayed out of his way. Kelly has driven crime below the levels of the Giuliani years, and his innovative Operation Atlas anti-terrorism program has been a major success, despite a reduction in the size of the police force. The welfare rolls didn't explode, as some feared, and New Yorkers generally have sense that the city is reasonably well run.
New York is going through a sweet stretch, and, naturally, Bloomberg has reaped the reward. But Bloomberg has added a good deal in the way of artificial sweeteners. His lavish public and private spending--the city budget is growing at twice the rate of inflation, and in 2004 alone he gave out $140 million of his own money in donations to 800 worthy and vote-rich organizations--has bought a great deal of good will.
Yet, when you look for Bloomberg's distinctive achievements to support a presidential run, they're hard to find. When you ask Gothamites about Bloomberg's accomplishments, they're brought up short. Some, if their children aren't in the public schools, will mention education, but most draw a blank. Bloomberg's greatest accomplishment has been to continue the Giuliani crime and welfare reforms. But when it comes to his own initiatives, 311 excepted, it's been a different matter.
As mayor of New York, Bloomberg came in vowing to reform the schools and be held accountable if he failed. But when it comes to the schools, Bloomberg has neither succeeded nor, thanks to his fortune, been held accountable for his failure. Ever since the disastrous late-1960s administration of the mayor whom he most closely resembles, John Lindsay, control over the schools had been placed in the hands of the fractious and unaccountable Board of Education. But when Bloomberg became mayor, the state eliminated the Board of Education and gave him unprecedented control over education. The stock market surge has given him the wherewithal to increase New York's already considerable school budget by an additional billion dollars a year for the past four years. But a befuddled Bloomberg has been uncertain about what to do with his extraordinary opportunity. First, he centralized the operations of the schools, now he's decentralizing; first he wooed the teachers with a sharp salary increase, then he reviled them as the equivalent of the NRA, now he's back to wooing them. And while test scores haven't increased, the number of educational consultants and bureaucrats certainly has. City Comptroller Bill Thompson, a far less than adversarial politician, who invests the city's pension funds, has noted that a company that repeatedly changed strategies without showing results would be a "risky investment" in the corporate world.
Bloomberg has used his personal treasury and that of his fat cat friends to run a permanent public relations campaign, including full page ads they've taken out in The New York Times designed to suggest that significant progress has been made in improving education. How many of those well-to-do friends, who treat the schools as another worthy charity, send their children to public schools? Every purported advance in test scores, notes education analyst Sol Stern, has been highly heralded, every subsequent reversal buried. Still, Bloomberg is nothing if not a first-rate marketer of his own interests, and he's used his supposed success to sell his "reforms" and, implicitly, an independent presidential campaign based on managerial competence to fellow mayors around the country.
Bloomberg is so skilled at using his wealth to market himself that his plan to reduce traffic and pollution by charging congestion fees to come into central Manhattan has been hailed by Time, which put him on its cover, as if words were deeds. But congestion pricing is unlikely to be implemented, and, even if implemented, it's not clear that it would reduce congestion. Time was so impressed with Bloomberg's verbal accomplishments that it failed to note that one of the major causes of downtown congestion are the thousands of parking permits generously given out by Bloomberg's own City Hall. Bloomberg, after considerable effort, has succeeded in getting developer Bruce Ratner's massive Atlantic Yards project approved. At a time when Brooklyn is booming with new, unsubsidized housing construction, the wealthy Ratner, a friend of Bloomberg's, will receive half a billion dollars in subsidies guaranteed to sharply increase both congestion and pollution along already overburdened Flatbush Avenue, the borough's main artery. Recently, when Bloomberg went to a press conference on green initiatives, he ostentatiously arrived by subway, only to be met for the trip back to City Hall by a large gas-guzzling SUV.
There is a lengthy list of Bloomberg failures. Among them: In his first term he virtually ignored the rebuilding of Ground Zero to push for the building of a stadium on the West Side of Manhattan in order to draw the 2012 Olympics. The stadium won't be built, if it had it would have created massive congestion; the Olympics aren't coming and the limited progress at Ground Zero has come from the state. Homelessness is at or near record levels, subway service is declining, and debt is piling up at a rapid pace. Police Commissioner Kelly's achievements are threatened by a Bloomberg-administration negotiated contract that starts rookie cops at a paltry $25,000 a year, and thus has left the NYPD with only a quarter of the recruits it needs. Bloomberg has been too busy promoting himself to note, until recently, that New York is losing ground as a financial center to both London and Hong Kong. If that slide continues, it will, along with the massive debt he's accumulated, be part of his lasting legacy.
Bloomberg has recently unveiled a new anti-poverty plan to be initially financed by himself, George Soros, and the Rockefeller Fund among others. Modeled on programs in Brazil and Mexico, it will bribe children to come to school, take tests, get a library card, and pass exams. It will also help demoralize those kids who do the right thing but aren't getting "paid" for it. But there's no secret as to why Bloomberg, thinks this will work. He's done a brilliant job of buying political support--why wouldn't money be the key to buying educational success and support for his presidential run as well?
Leaving his generous charitable donations aside, Bloomberg spent $160 million to be twice elected mayor of New York. In his 2005 re-election bid he spent more on consultants than his opponent spent on his entire campaign. Bloomberg, who is estimated to be worth at least $6 billion, has talked about spending a billion dollars on a presidential run. The logic seems straight forward. He's done a great job politically by buying the backing of supposedly hard-bitten New Yorkers--imagine how well he probably assumes such a scheme could work on the rubes out there beyond the Hudson.
I'll admit lots of that is true. The NY school system still sucks. that article doesn't mention that NYC has been fighting it out with Albany for proper funding for ages. They've more or less ignored court orders to give the city the funds they're entitled too. the city certaintly could be doing more though.
The Olympics stadium was a bad bad move. It unsettles me that the city is so in the pockets of big developers that the government is willing to turn a blind eye to all logic and sense of responsibility. Thids would be a nagging problem for me in supporting Bloomberg completely.
I'm not bothered that he does lots of publicity. It's generally postive in nature. In both campaigns he never sunk too much smear campaigning or anything. Lots of his publicity is about real issues too like his recent campaigns for traffic reduction and global warming.
I don't think Bloomber is going to run. Anyways, he is way too similar to Giuliani.
The only real similarity to Giuliani is that they're both coming out of New York, and it kind of stops there. Bloomberg is firm in his beliefs and seems to be pretty intelligent, and Giuliani's crazy. Big difference.
Having a chance at becoming president tends to shut down portions of the brain such as logic, right and wrong, etc. Hunter Thompson described it well like a buck going into frenzy when it smells a female in heat.
I find it ironic that you quoted a guy that blew out entire portions of his brain with a firearm.
I don't think Bloomber is going to run. Anyways, he is way too similar to Giuliani.
The only real similarity to Giuliani is that they're both coming out of New York, and it kind of stops there. Bloomberg is firm in his beliefs and seems to be pretty intelligent, and Giuliani's crazy. Big difference.
Having a chance at becoming president tends to shut down portions of the brain such as logic, right and wrong, etc. Hunter Thompson described it well like a buck going into frenzy when it smells a female in heat.
I find it ironic that you quoted a guy that blew out entire portions of his brain with a firearm.
When you are too beautiful to live, you are too beautiful to live.
Hey Than, you should check this thing out called Farm-21, its this new farm reform bill.
It would get rid of the subsidy system in 6-7 years (Depends on senate or house version)
It would replace them essentially with IRA's, only they're for emergencies (Called RMA's)
It would cut farm subsidies by 20 billion over the the next 5 years and 55 bil over the next 10.
The president's got a plan that would reduce subsidies by 11.4 bil per year by just not giving subsidies to rich farmers, but he's so politically irrelevant that I don't think it will make a dent.
I read this out of the Chicago Tribune in the commentaries, the June 22 issue.
Hey Than, you should check this thing out called Farm-21, its this new farm reform bill.
It would get rid of the subsidy system in 6-7 years (Depends on senate or house version)
It would replace them essentially with IRA's, only they're for emergencies (Called RMA's)
It would cut farm subsidies by 20 billion over the the next 5 years and 55 bil over the next 10.
The president's got a plan that would reduce subsidies by 11.4 bil per year by just not giving subsidies to rich farmers, but he's so politically irrelevant that I don't think it will make a dent.
I read this out of the Chicago Tribune in the commentaries, the June 22 issue.
Who are the sponsors?
I really doubt it'll ever make it out of committee.
I don't think Bloomber is going to run. Anyways, he is way too similar to Giuliani.
The only real similarity to Giuliani is that they're both coming out of New York, and it kind of stops there. Bloomberg is firm in his beliefs and seems to be pretty intelligent, and Giuliani's crazy. Big difference.
Having a chance at becoming president tends to shut down portions of the brain such as logic, right and wrong, etc. Hunter Thompson described it well like a buck going into frenzy when it smells a female in heat.
I find it ironic that you quoted a guy that blew out entire portions of his brain with a firearm.
I don't see how that is ironic. Just because how he killed himself involves his brain doesn't make it ironic.
I really doubt it'll ever make it out of committee.
Actually getting this out the door would more than make up for the legislative asshattery we've had to put up with for the last year and change. I honestly can't think of anything I'd like to see more, or that I think would make a bigger difference in people's lives than this.
Of course, it almost certain isn't anywhere, but it's nice to hear it none the less.
Posts
Yeah, Clinton sold a lot of his promises down the river... but he was able to accomplish a great deal by compromising... compare that to Bush who hasn't been able to accomplish jack shit since the Dems took the house, and still has a year and a half left to play with his lazer pointer in the Oval Office.
After hearing a bit more about Bloomberg's past, I think this is more in line with what he wants to do than run for president (breaking the two party system). His flip flops parties to get elected, not really following, even caring about, the ideology. He's tried to pass legislation to destroy the party primary system in NYC (didn't work since council members of larger cities tend have party affiliations). As was mentioned in this thread, him running as a Republican anywhere but in NY would be laughable considering his policies.
Although I know fuckall about the intricacies of local elections.
Exactly. Unlike Nader, I get the feeling Bloomberg would be playing more to the middle rather than an outlying wing of one of the existing parties. If he could pull off a Ventura and energize people who normally don't vote because they hate their choices, it may be possible for him to pull off an upset.
Yes.
Changing to a Republican to avoid the local party machine and then trying your best to destroy it is not flip flopping and trying to destroy the two party system.
It is an obvious patriotic duty to be achieved with molotov cocktails if words and politics do not avail.
God I fucking hate machine politics.
To be fair, California and Texas are each larger than a lot of countries, and California has the world's 6th largest economy. That at least makes us more important than France.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think the new WTC design is perfect. It's self-consciously prominent, unsightly, and devoid of any significance or substance other than that which it assigns itself. It stands there, shrieking, "I am the tallest building in the world! I am meaningful!"
The civil war has nothing to do with third candidates. In fact, it really had nothing to do with people at all.
There was just an issue that was bigger than the parties themselves and that broke everything up.
Third candidates really don't do jack to the third party system because the parties survive it.
Also Shinto, your post sounds like its sarcastic, but I realized that it isn't.
It isn't sarcastic, right?
Except he wouldn't have to fight against his own views, he could acutally run as himself.
It would be pretty nice to have a candidate who ran as himself (Or herself, don't flame me).
What post?
You went a little overboard, and overboard usually=sarasm around here.
Or maybe I'm just a shitty reader, thats probably it.
The only real similarity to Giuliani is that they're both coming out of New York, and it kind of stops there. Bloomberg is firm in his beliefs and seems to be pretty intelligent, and Giuliani's crazy. Big difference.
Having a chance at becoming president tends to shut down portions of the brain such as logic, right and wrong, etc. Hunter Thompson described it well like a buck going into frenzy when it smells a female in heat.
I have no excuse for anything previous to presidential aspirations.
I've been a fan since I read his commencement speech at Johns Hopkins' medical school last summer.
Bloomberg's commencement speech
Yeah well, if he wanted to fearlessly kamikaze such evils of our government I might be persuaded to join his suicide mission, sentiment overriding all political calculation and good sense.
I don't know, though; with the new national primary, I'm not sure that it's as much of a kamikaze run as you'd think it would be. Hell, he doesn't even have to run in a primary. Talk about it enough, maybe people will start to listen. Paul Harvey was saying on the radio the other day that one dollar of every eight the U.S. government spends on healthcare is spent on diabetes, and if you don't think the corn industry has everything to do with that, you're nuts.
And I fear him the fact that he could allow a Republican to win. Oh god that would be terrible.
Always the tug of war between fear and hope with independent candidates.
If he was running, say, 30% in the polls I might be persuaded to follow my preference for him.
Ah, the collective action problem.
Considering I'm going to be 18 at election time I don't really care about party loyalties. Also, I essentially agree with him on everything, although I don't see how you could actually enact effective gun control against illegal guns.
Also, I'm not scared at all of the republican stable, as none of them are nearly as bad as Bush, so I'll just vote on the issues.
At the risk of going off-topic, is this assuming that a shift to cane sugar from high-fructose corn syrup would seriously reduce diabetes? I don't know much about the evils of hfcs, other than soda with cane sugar tastes a lot better.
Giuliani scares the shit out of me. That man defines fear-mongering.
Word.
It's morally perverted.
Agreed. I read his commencement speech and was more impressed with what he was saying rather than how he was saying it. It had humor and humility, while still being authoritative and inspirational. But the writing still felt a little disjointed in some parts.
The Olympics stadium was a bad bad move. It unsettles me that the city is so in the pockets of big developers that the government is willing to turn a blind eye to all logic and sense of responsibility. Thids would be a nagging problem for me in supporting Bloomberg completely.
I'm not bothered that he does lots of publicity. It's generally postive in nature. In both campaigns he never sunk too much smear campaigning or anything. Lots of his publicity is about real issues too like his recent campaigns for traffic reduction and global warming.
I find it ironic that you quoted a guy that blew out entire portions of his brain with a firearm.
When you are too beautiful to live, you are too beautiful to live.
It would get rid of the subsidy system in 6-7 years (Depends on senate or house version)
It would replace them essentially with IRA's, only they're for emergencies (Called RMA's)
It would cut farm subsidies by 20 billion over the the next 5 years and 55 bil over the next 10.
The president's got a plan that would reduce subsidies by 11.4 bil per year by just not giving subsidies to rich farmers, but he's so politically irrelevant that I don't think it will make a dent.
I read this out of the Chicago Tribune in the commentaries, the June 22 issue.
I really doubt it'll ever make it out of committee.
I don't see how that is ironic. Just because how he killed himself involves his brain doesn't make it ironic.
Actually getting this out the door would more than make up for the legislative asshattery we've had to put up with for the last year and change. I honestly can't think of anything I'd like to see more, or that I think would make a bigger difference in people's lives than this.
Of course, it almost certain isn't anywhere, but it's nice to hear it none the less.
And I like Bloomberg!