What Christian conservatives need to know about Mike Bloomberg
Category: News & Politics
Via: donald-j-trump-fan-1 • 5 years ago • 124 commentsBy: Dr. Michael L. Brown
Conservative and Christian opponents of Michael Bloomberg are spot on in their criticism. He is a racist. He’s said and done many things against minorities and minority Americans. He’s a misogynist. Elizabeth Warren was correct about him on that count as well as others she mentioned. Bloomberg is a control freak thinking to substitute his views as regulations over our freedom and liberty to do the opposite. His bigotry against religion as mayor was legendary in an evil way. Lastly his “just kill it” attitude regarding abortion on demand is simply morally evil incarnate.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
It is ironic that former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg is presenting himself as the balanced alternative to extreme socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders. In reality, when it comes to areas of great concern to Christian conservatives, Bloomberg has been anything but moderate.
As noted by Catholic activist Bill Donohue with references to his tenure as mayor, "on two key social issues – abortion and religious liberty – the presidential candidate was a total bomb."
Donohue actually claims that "Bloomberg is one of the most radical pro-abortion politicians in American history."
Among the former mayor's accomplishments was this: "Bloomberg's passion for abortion allowed him to appropriate $15 million from a civic facility revenue bond transaction that benefited Planned Parenthood."
Would you want someone like this in the White House?
Lest you think these policies were a thing of the past, on February 12 Bloomberg announced , "As president, I will fiercely protect a woman's right to choose, and I will appoint judges who will defend that right."
He also declared, "On my first day in office, I will reverse the damage President Trump has done to women's rights and ensure that every woman has access to reproductive health care."
Never Trumpers who are pro-life might want to reconsider their stance should Bloomberg become the Democratic nominee. (For that matter, given the current crop of candidates, they should reconsider their stance regardless of which candidate emerges as the Democratic nominee.)
Donohue also states that, "On religious liberty issues, Bloomberg's record was similarly awful."
To cite just one example, "The courts have long ruled that religious groups have a right to use public facilities, yet Bloomberg denied the right of an inner-city Christian church to hold religious services in a public school on Sundays, setting up a court challenge. He lost in federal district court in 2005, but his censorial effort was not lost on supporters of the Bronx Household of Faith."
I ask once again: if you are a Christian conservative (or, simply a person who cherishes our fundamental freedoms), is this the kind of man you want in the White House?
My Stream colleague John Zmirak claimed that Bloomberg was "much more profoundly evil a person … than anyone ever imagined," even calling him an "amoral monster."
Another Stream colleague, Rachel Alexander, has sampled some of Bloomberg's derogatory comments about women and others, as opponents of Donald Trump have often done.
The difference, of course, is that Trump has proven himself a friend of the unborn and a friend of religious liberties. Bloomberg has proven himself to be the exact opposite.
Timothy P. Carney drew attention to several of Bloomberg's more severe statements that confirm this. For example, he writes that, "Mike Bloomberg once pointed to the in utero child of an employee and said 'kill it, kill it,' according to two witnesses."
And this, according to Carney, is part of a larger, dangerous mindset:
"Telling an expectant mother to kill her baby , mocking a new mother's desire for quality child care , cursing whenever a female employee gets pregnant, and publicly denigrating marriage among professional women all reflect a clear and consistent mindset: The women who worked for him were worker bees. Their humanity, their fertility, their love, and their human attachments were all impediments to productivity. He saw these women as means to his ends of profit."
Let the reader look at Bloomberg's more recent, pro-abortion comments and decide whether this assessment is accurate.
Personally, what I'm sure about is what his policies have been and what he promises his policies will be. That is not the person I want leading our country.
What raises even more concerns is that Bloomberg presented himself as a champion of religious liberty as mayor. As David French noted in 2012, "at the same time that the mayor declared that 'no neighborhood' in New York was 'off-limits to God's love and mercy,' he was enforcing a unique-in-the-nation policy that in fact declared New York City schools 'off-limits' to private religious use that includes worship."
Yes, this was unique to New York.
As ADF attorney Jordan Lawrence explained , "By state law, the city opens its 1,200 schools on weeknights and weekends to community groups for any use 'pertaining to the welfare of the community.' The public schools allow thousands of organizations – scout troops, labor unions, arts groups, etc. – to hold meetings, concerts and recitals. They've even allowed 'Law and Order' to film in the schools.
"Why single out religious groups and churches, by prohibiting them from conducting worship services in vacant schools when students are gone?"
So, under Mayor Bloomberg, everyone else had the right to rent and use the city's 1,200 school buildings with the sole exception of religious groups and churches. Why?
The New York Daily News was not hyping things when its February 14, 2012 headline announced : "The Bloomberg administration says churches must leave school buildings now."
Is this the administration you want running America?
Let the voter beware.
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
Timothy P. Carney drew attention to several of Bloomberg's more severe statements that confirm this. For example, he writes that, "Mike Bloomberg once pointed to the in utero child of an employee and said 'kill it, kill it,' according to two witnesses."
And this, according to Carney, is part of a larger, dangerous mindset:
"Telling an expectant mother to kill her baby , mocking a new mother's desire for quality child care , cursing whenever a female employee gets pregnant, and publicly denigrating marriage among professional women all reflect a clear and consistent mindset: The women who worked for him were worker bees. Their humanity, their fertility, their love, and their human attachments were all impediments to productivity. He saw these women as means to his ends of profit."
Let the reader look at Bloomberg's more recent, pro-abortion comments and decide whether this assessment is accurate.
Personally, what I'm sure about is what his policies have been and what he promises his policies will be. That is not the person I want leading our country.
What raises even more concerns is that Bloomberg presented himself as a champion of religious liberty as mayor. As David French noted in 2012, "at the same time that the mayor declared that 'no neighborhood' in New York was 'off-limits to God's love and mercy,' he was enforcing a unique-in-the-nation policy that in fact declared New York City schools 'off-limits' to private religious use that includes worship."
Yes, this was unique to New York.
As ADF attorney Jordan Lawrence explained , "By state law, the city opens its 1,200 schools on weeknights and weekends to community groups for any use 'pertaining to the welfare of the community.' The public schools allow thousands of organizations – scout troops, labor unions, arts groups, etc. – to hold meetings, concerts and recitals. They've even allowed 'Law and Order' to film in the schools.
"Why single out religious groups and churches, by prohibiting them from conducting worship services in vacant schools when students are gone?"
So, under Mayor Bloomberg, everyone else had the right to rent and use the city's 1,200 school buildings with the sole exception of religious groups and churches. Why?
[Deleted]
How fascinating that one would endorse a hit piece that tosses out unsubstantiated allegations passed on through multiple sources, repeats exaggerations and misrepresentations of Bloomberg but will do the exact opposite in defense of Trump.
Put a D next to Trump and an R next to Bloomberg and no doubt the hit pieces seeded would be on Trump with nothing but defense for Bloomberg.
Exactly what I was about to say...
Thanks to his billions, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is getting some traction in the Democratic presidential race. But as he becomes more visible, so does his past. He’s given his opponents good reason to dig up dirt on him.
And boy is there a lot of dirt.
Rude and Offensive
He’s made plenty of rude statements. And nearly as many offensive statements. We have documentation. Elisabeth DeMarse, Bloomberg L.P.’s former chief marketing officer, created a booklet as a gag gift for him in 1990 titled “The Portable Bloomberg : The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg.”
Bloomberg Belittles Farmers
Not even farmers are safe from Bloomberg’s contempt. He belittled them four years ago on a panel at Oxford University. “I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer,” he said.
“It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that.”
Vice President Mike Pence responded by tweeting a speech the legendary Paul Harvey made at the Future Farmers of America convention in 1978. It’s a beautiful speech , about God saying he needs a farmer.
It begins: “On the eighth day, God looked down on his planned paradise, and said, ‘I need a caretaker.’ So God made a farmer. God said, ‘I need somebody willing to get up before dawn, milk cows, work all day in the fields, milk cows again, eat supper and then go to town and stay past midnight at a meeting of the school board.’ So God made a farmer.”
WATCH the amazing video below.
She wrote in the introduction, “Yes, these are all actual quotes. No, nothing has been embellished or exaggerated. And yes, some things were too outrageous to include.”
A lot of his quotes cannot be reproduced here, because this is a family-friendly site. Many of them use profanity and talk about sex. Usually degrading, exploitative sex. Apparently his former marketing office left out others even worse than those.
Here are three of the tamer ones. Regarding women, he said, “If women wanted to be appreciated for their brains, they’d go to the library instead of Bloomingdale’s.” And, “I know for a fact that any self-respecting woman who walks past a construction site and doesn’t get a whistle will turn around and walk past again and again until she does get one.”
He’s no kinder about the British royals. “The Royal Family — what a bunch of misfits — a gay, an architect, that horsey faced lesbian, and a kid who gave up Koo Stark for some fat broad.”
Bloomberg’s Response
Bloomberg campaign spokesperson Stu Loeser said the booklet included “comments that may or may not have been said.” He told The New York Times in November that “Mike has come to see that some of what he has said is disrespectful and wrong. … He believes his words have not always aligned with his values and the way he has led his life.”
Another offensive incident took place when Bloomberg was taking a photo with some people. He saw an employee standing nearby. Sekiko Sakai Garrison was not in the picture. He asked her, “Why didn’t they ask you to be in the picture? I guess they saw your face.”
He went on, “How’s married life? You married?” She said she was expecting a baby. Bloomberg responded, “Kill it.” He then muttered, “Great! Number 16!” Garrison interpreted the remarks as telling her to have an abortion or she would lose her job. The “16” apparently referred to the number of pregnant women in the company.
Garrison filed a lawsuit alleging that Bloomberg and other employees “engaged in a pattern and practice of sexual harassment, sexual degradation of women, and discrimination.” Garrison alleged that Bloomberg would berate pregnant women. “What the hell did you do a thing like that for?” She said he told an employee who had trouble finding a nanny, “All you need is some black who doesn’t have to speak English to rescue it from a burning building.”
Confidential Settlement Over Remarks
Under oath, Bloomberg denied the exchange with Garrison occurred. But he reached a confidential settlement with her, which sources say was in the six figures. A former Bloomberg employee, David Zielenziger, said he observed the conversation. He told The Washington Post , “He talked kind of crudely about women all the time.”
In 1996, Bloomberg told The Guardian, “I like theater, dining and chasing women.” In his 1997 autobiography, Bloomberg By Bloomberg , he bragged that he “had a girlfriend in every city.”
Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »
Regarding the elderly and healthcare, Bloomberg once said, “If you show up with cancer and you’re 95 yrs old, we should say ‘There’s no cure, we can’t do anything.'” One clever woman responded on Twitter, “What if you’re 86 yrs old, you’ve been treated for colorectal cancer, cancerous lung growths and pancreatic cancer? And your name is Ruth Bader Ginsburg?”
Rude Remarks About Minorities
In 2011, Bloomberg said “an enormous cohort of black and Latino males” who “don’t know how to behave in the workplace.” He was promoting a multimillion-dollar initiative to help minorities gain employment during his tenure as New York City mayor.
In 2015, he made another controversial remark about minorities. Defending the police’s stop and frisk policy, he said the way to bring down murder rates is to “put a lot of cops” in minority neighborhoods because that’s where “all the crime is.”
And that wasn’t all. He said the end of discriminatory redlining by banks led to the 2008 economic crisis. Redlining was a practice where banks refused to offer credit to certain places on a map, which were often drawn to keep out minority neighborhoods.
Bloomberg’s bloopers are getting quite a bit of media attention since he’s rising in the Democratic polls for president. The RealClearPolitics average of polls has him at 14.2. Will his gaffes hurt his chances? Biden has drastically slipped in the polls, possibly due to all of his misstatements. The same may very well happen to Bloomberg.
In the meantime, please view this beautiful tribute to the farmers so easily dismissed by Mayor Bloomberg.
Follow Rachel on Twitter at Rach_IC . Follow The Stream at streamdotorg . Send tips to rachel.alexander@stream.org .
It is as if you were trying to prove my point.
There’s nothing unsubstantiated about the things Bloomberg has said and done.
How do you rationalize praising Trump on things that are fully substantiated (and not even denied) while taking every allegation made against Bloomberg as truth?
My hypothesis is partisan flavored confirmation bias.
So you should be glad to support him. You make him sound like your other venerated New Yorker, The Donald.
How many times do we have to tell you all that with Bloomberg’s position on gun issues as well as his control freak nature with soda and churches along with his abortion stance could never get the Republican nomination and why he left the party to be an independent. You can’t just put an R after Bloomberg. Even before it could only happen in New York.
As usual …
No need to rephrase what I wrote because it seems my language was already crystal clear:
No. We ignore your point to talk to the broader audience as of your post wasn’t there. This seed is not about Trump no matter how much secular progressives try to make it so.
My point was not about Trump. My point was about irrational hyper-partisanship and the sustaining element of confirmation bias. My point was in reference to this seed.
Who is 'we' and when were you elected spokesperson?
Right wing Christians gave up their ability to complain about people like Bloomberg when they voted for trump, who literally has no morals at all.
And the difference here is that Trump did say that and admitted to it.
The transcript is:
But Trump! 🤪😭🤥🤓
Hypocrisy. You praise Trump and ignore his character flaws while attacking another politician on alleged character failures. Hypocrisy.
There’s a boomlet in stories by conservatives on two parallel topics:
Getting Down to Two Sickening Choices
I’m glad that the Democratic field is winnowing down. It’s good that the merely flawed and mediocre candidates are falling by the wayside, making room for a grand contest between the truly hideous, appalling ones. Did you really want to spend the next six months of your life
I’ve written here repeatedly that our headlines seem to stolen from some bad apocalyptic novel self-published in the 90s and sold only at gun shows. For the race for the Democratic nomination I need to tweak that. Their contenders in 2020 are literary characters, all right. But from different novels.
Straight Out of C.S. Lewis
The lesser Democrats (Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and now Biden) are minor comic figures from one of Tom Wolfe’s satires. (Think of The Bonfire of the Vanities .) Each has clawed his way to the top of a different greasy political ladder that stops well short of the presidency. And each now waves around his 10-point, single-spaced resume, crowing about how he followed all the rules, so now it’s his turn. It’s only fair. Watching such stunted people flail around at the end of their tethers is ultimately kind of … sad.
But Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg are different. They’re major characters, and from a more important writer. Each of them could have sprung from the pen of C.S. Lewis, and stepped out of the pages of the dystopian satire That Hideous Strength . In fact, the two candidates seem like colleagues at the conspiratorial think-tank, the National Institute for Co-ordinated Experiments (N.I.C.E.).
Bernie Sanders: Prophetic Maniac
Paul Sperry makes the case that we should take seriously Sanders’ consistent support for Communist regimes. You know, as the media would if Trump had a long track record of praising fascist governments, like Pinochet’s Chile. Or had honeymooned with Ivana in apartheid-era South Africa. Sperry writes:
In the last debate, Sanders ranted and fumed. He cited the suffering of the “American working class.” Maybe this old man thinks he’s running in 1932. He’s campaigning to half-starved workers squatting in “Hoovervilles” and waiting hollow-eyed on bread lines. Instead of, you know, enjoying an economic boom with record-low unemployment and real pay raises in blue-collar pockets. That’s because Sanders is not a politician. Or indeed a public figure grounded in day-to-day reality. He’s a wild-eyed prophet of a gnostic religion.
His creed? Hate the world as it is. Love instead the crudely drawn but fanatically treasured Utopian dream-world it promises to make real. Ignore the cost in blood, waste, freedom and mutual hatred that would impose on living, breathing people. You know, like the tens of millions who died from Cuba to Cambodia.
Desolation Theology
In other words, Sanders incarnates C.S. Lewis’ character Reverend Straik. That parson has decided that the “Kingdom of God” is something we forge on earth via bayonets and bullets. Jesus was nothing more than a prophet of revolution. A partisan of the poor who tragically died too young to fully unfold his worldview. Or found an effective guerrilla movement to fight the Romans. We should cling to Jesus’ occasional signs of rage against injustice. Just slough off His calls for non-violence and meekness. Think of them as youthful indiscretions a longer-lived activist would surely have outgrown.
Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg are different. Each of them could have sprung from the pen of C.S. Lewis, and stepped out of the pages of the dystopian satire “That Hideous Strength.”
In other words, we should reject Christian metaphysics, but cling arbitrarily to certain tenets of Christian morality. Why? Because we like them. They give us a pretext for a life spent boiling over with rage against our neighbors. And scheming to gain more power to engineer their lives and “fix” them. For their own good, of course. That’s what Bernie Sanders has been doing for decades, instead of ever getting a real productive job.
Bloomberg: Mad Scientist
And Bloomberg? He shows us how small and squalid human beings become when they dispense with biblical morality altogether. Then follow materialism all the way down the slippery Gadarene slope to drown in the sea. Tim Carney’s truthful portrait of the ex-mayor is a savage masterpiece. A few choice snippets appear below.
Carney sums Bloomberg up, for all his billions, in a few short well-chosen words.
Sex Robots and Surveillance Drones
In other words, Bloomberg is the real-life Filostrato. He’s the eunuch scientist Lewis depicts in That Hideous Strength who has learned to loathe all biological life. Its messy, sticky, oozing fertility and madcap freedom offend Filastrato. He prefers the austerity of bone-freezing empty space, and the tidy sterility of planets without any atmosphere. Filostrato wants to impose an authoritarian state, to be sure. But only as a means to finally “cleansing” the planet of the “contagion” of organic life.
Bloomberg doesn’t seem to be big on introspection, so even he might not realize it. But his own Utopia, fully realized, is easy to picture. Visualize a world of disarmed, dutiful worker bees kept “happy” by sex robots and docile by surveillance drones.
Trump is not on topic here. The seed is about Bloomberg, not a what about ism.
Indeed it is and all are free to flag all the off topic stuff.
No 'Donald J. Trump fan 1' the hypocrisy of a seed is fair game.
You have put forth a seed making unsubstantiated allegations against Bloomberg while ignoring proven allegations against Trump. People have the right to point out hypocrisy as part of a rebuttal to your seed.
seed:
seeder comment:
anybody that shits all over hypocritical dominionist scum has my vote...
Please. Actual audio or video recordings of Bloomberg is hearsay and unsubstantiated? Trump is not the issue and we will not engage you all in any reference to him here. Make your own seed about what Trump said and did 10-12 years before he ran for office and remind yourself how effective repeating all that was in causing him to lose the 2016 election
No if fully and objectively reviewed. Hearsay and unsubstantiated claims are spin and whole-cloth allegations based on partial truths. In contrast, a tape of some guy talking about grabbing pussies is not hearsay. Right?
Partisan politics is inherently slimy and dishonest. Thus I find pure partisans to be distasteful. More people should ignore the spin machines and actually objectively read transcripts, watch the full video, listen to the full audio. People should not try to create a false narrative by cherry-picking, redefining and lying.
And people should not simply repeat what others tell them without being able to back up their claims.
When it comes to slimy little mike , i’ll take Elizabeth Warrens word for his actions and behaviors. She like ripped him a new one like only one within the party could do.
There is the problem right there … taking other people's words rather than doing your own research.
Warren was obviously being dishonest. She asked Bloomberg about his taxes and he stated that he is releasing them like he has routinely done in the past and that they are working on them with release in a few weeks. She would not accept that and came up with the ridiculous rebuttal that he should do it faster by paying overtime. Clearly she was not interested in anything but attack.
I see the same with your seeds and comments. Attacking Bloomberg on hearsay, spin and flat out fabrication while defending and praising Trump. Pure blind partisanship.
We are not in elementary school. Don't follow Trump's childish lead.
Warren has sources in the media she was quoting as well as in several cases Bloomberg’s own words to use against him. You will really love my latest seed about GOP donor and Trump friend Bloomberg.
I choose to address the hypocrisy of jumping on mere allegations of poor character while ignoring far worse with Trump and instead praising the man.
Learn to deal with disappointment.
How did 2016 turn out?
[deleted]
How did 2018 turn out?
The gop's worst popular vote loss in history!
Surprising. I figured Clinton would win. But either way, the choices sucked.
You presume I wanted Clinton? I was disappointed before the general started; as soon as I saw who the nominees were going to be. You should not presume.
( By the way, your comments to me today qualify as mild trolling. Thus far each has been a snarky attempt to get a rise with no intellectual value added to the discussion. )
[deleted]
When we gained senate seats?
Bloomberg is even worse...
all opposition to secular progressives and their agenda is considered to be trolling against themselves as no dissent is to be allowed.
That is not trolling. Nothing wrong with making a factual reasoned argument. Mere claims - especially generalizations - are no substitute for a good argument.
Trump is a part of the article and mentioned many times, so he is on topic.
Now that you as the seeder have introduced an article within your article about Sanders, Bloomberg and all of the named Dem candidates, they too are "ON TOPIC".
... and from across the aisle come the falsely enraged whataboutists.
This whole seed has been contaminated with whataboutisms.
No surprise given the topic.
she’s now got the big phony tits and everything
So does Ivanka.
Yep! They're the same creature. And the same people who have been bemoaning the demise of morality in this country via the election of Trump, or wailing about the corruption of rich people buying their way into office, will be the same ones who vote for Bloomberg. Because: good reasons.
Exactly . The people attacking Trump who support Bloomberg for President are at least as bad or big of hypocrites as they accuse us of being for supporting Trump and opposing Bloomberg. Bloomberg is a far worse person now than Trump ever was and Trump has changed for the better since deciding to run.
The funny thing is that you put forth yet another attack seed on Bloomberg and you will clearly continue to do so.
Speaking for myself, I have never seeded an attack on Trump.
In response to your seeds, some of us note the irony of an individual who ignores / excuses the many character flaws of Trump yet grasps onto any alleged negative about Bloomberg — even when it is mere hearsay, speculation, exaggeration and in some cases pure fabrication.
You speak of hypocrisy yet fail to recognize it when it stares you in the face (from the mirror).
The people Knew what Trump was before the election. They decided he was better than the vile evil villain opposition then. Trump has not repeated what he did a decade or more before running since his election. So people are not going to vote against Trumps re election for stuff that they knew about before voting for him the first time. We are going to vote for him based on his accomplishments in office. Now Bloomberg is going through an initial vetting like Trump did in 2015 and 2016. I’m more than willing to see what his democrat opponents dig up on him. I already despised him over the school issue in NYC, the soda ban, and the gun grabbing issues before he ever got Into the Presidential campaign. Now I have more reasons not to like. I’m considering re registering as decline to state independent to vote for Sanders in the democrat primary
Oh sure make excuses for him, that is what Trumpers do. He has and continues to do far worse, but hey it is okay with you because you chug the Kool Aid. Pitiful.
You support Sanders over Bloomberg??
No. He is trying to be a spoiler. There is a lot of that going on.
I have to ditto what Tig said.
Trump isn’t the issue here. Bloomberg’s behaviors and words are.
Yes! In that race though I’m considering voting for Pocahontas to keep the delegate spread such that there will be a brokered convention
A lot of democrats did that in 2016 voting for Trump thinking he’d be the easiest for wicked witch Hillary to beat.
I'd love you to prove that.
And what does that make of Bloomberg fans who attack Trump voters for supporting Trump when their man Bloomberg has a similar history and they support him. You all are what you call us, at best.
They wouldn’t have written about it if it wasn’t happening...
Then you are not paying even the slightest attention. For example a history of heaping sycophantic praise onto Trump and then calling Bloomberg 'slimy mike'. The blind partisanship is funny to observe.
And here again you prove that you jump to conclusions instead of trying to understand what I write.
Your allegations are irrelevant. Deliver a link that demonstrates your claim that I would support Sanders.
( You clearly are not paying attention. )
No surprise to me that you cannot back up your comment. Maybe go back to being vague so nobody can call you out?
Read this:
Where did you get the idea that I would support Sanders? Either you read it somewhere and can provide a link or you just dreamed it up. I suspect you dreamed it up based on not paying attention to what I write and running instead with presumption. If not, then you should be able to deliver a link.
And I repeat, where did you get that idea other than failing to comprehend what I write and engaging in simplistic presumption? Deliver a link that shows I support the policies of Sanders which he calls 'democratic socialism'.
Buy a vowel.
Unbelievable. You really have no clue on my position regarding socialism. All this time you have delivered drive-by snark and you do not even comprehend the basics of my message.
i disavowed a marriage vow so i could remain divorced from the reality some here must dwell, but it could be far worst, you could be with me in my own special Hell
YEa
Alcohaulin ASS " pour another drink into my glass eye
socket till i see the rockets red glaring at me like an X wife who is just before Y in the alphabet soup she tossed in my face as no cookies were handy so she baked a cake frosting the pumpkin while Jack held the lantern enlightening the way to the finely tuned social distortion ,
but in appropriate proportion
Since, in spite of your years of claiming otherwise, you obviously do not have clue one on my position, here is plenty of information. First, I will quote an excerpt from an article I wrote in 2018 on the topic:
The above, if you read it, states my most general position on socialism. It is a theoretical meta-model that has never existed. If a model of socialism does exist in the future, it will be well into the future (none of us will be alive) and will be the result of societal evolution. To exist, it necessarily must come from the desire and efforts of the people.
The above, if you read it, shows that my purpose for discussing socialism (and this has been true for over a decade) is to encourage people to break free of slogan-level thinking and at least understand the meaning of the terms they use. Instead of calling everything they dislike 'socialism' it is far more effective to name the issue. There are excellent, unambiguous terms to use such as redistribution, expropriation, statism, public services, big government, command economy, etc. Use them, be clear, and avoid sounding like a conspiracy theorist or someone who lacks clue one about the subject matter and just cries 'socialism' at every turn.
Here is a link to the article . Plenty of comments there if my summary does not sufficiently impart my position to you.
Fascinating. There is no way to get you to recognize even an opening clue.
That is not my position, not even close.
Regardless, you are clearly trolling so we are done.
thus, my interjection, as he is consistent
removed for context
I agree with what you quoted from 6.1.31. There is no way is sinful humanity can ever make theoretical socialism work. It will always devolve in to selfishness, hoarding, and laziness. People who think they can get a freebie will try for it and people feeling they aren’t getting a good return for their labor will work less hard.
[deleted]
i N joy mounds of Almonds,
while being consistently inconsistent
ditto on you all and Bloomberg.
A freebie? You are not agreeing with me because you clearly are thinking that 'socialism' connotes big government giving things away. We are talking about two very different things.
Yup, you are operating on a slogan-level understanding of the concept. Just as I thought.
True; being consistent is a good thing.
Trolling, in contrast, is repeated attempts to simply piss people off. One way to accomplish this is to largely ignore whatever the other person writes and keep repeating falsehoods. While it might fail to piss the other off, it is trolling nonetheless.
You made allegations and demanded I respond. When I did respond in summary along with a mountain of supporting details, you ignored what I wrote and contrived yet another false allegation.
Ignoring factual responses and instead repeatedly making false offensive allegations is trolling.
Your cliches are not persuasive. Vague claims sans supporting facts. I think most of us know your game.
What I mean is that your style is to make claims while refusing to provide any specifics. You are purposely vague to avoid scrutiny. On top of that, you pretend to know things (e.g. you pretend that I have a 'game' and that you know it) yet when challenged you crumble.
In short, I am confident that most people on this site realize that you pop in to deliver snark and then flit away. That is what I meant by 'most of us know your game'.
Factless is the magic word.
Too bad that you do not behave accordingly.
Unfortunately you do continue to post juvenile drive-by nonsense replete with intellectually dishonest claims.
Yeah, your arguments are just brilliant. Takes quite a bit of skill to make vague claims and then run away when challenged.
You claim you do not waste time with people like me but you keep buzzing around like a gnat (and delivering about as much useful content). Time to cease trolling.
removed for context
[You can not impasse per the CoC, without a prolonged discussion. Any impasses done just to not engage will be removed. [ph]]
Just to set the record straight as to what it is that we should be aware of before considering any vote for him. That was the topic of this seeded article.
What happened to thread #8?
It was a moderator comment that comments were under review and then removed as to not disturb the article.
It was a linked excerpt from the seeded article as to what the actual topic of it is. How can an excerpt from an article disturb the same article? All that was disturbed was the ongoing derailing to talk about Trump instead.
This comment that proves Trump is part of the topic?
or these comments from the seed also?
Bloomberg is an indescribably vile and evil human being unworthy of being selected dog catcher. He’s a control freak and the worst possible choice in the democrat party primaries
Such a cogent argument. I am sure you are persuading all sorts of people with these ridiculous, emotional declarations.