if Huckabee or McCain get the nomination, I am voting for Bloomberg, whether he is on a ticket or not.

would like a word with you, smitty.

MorningBreath: if Huckabee or McCain get the nomination, I am voting for Bloomberg, whether he is on a ticket or not.

I have no idea why, but I have a very unusual farky id for you.

You mean Mike "I'm a bigger gun banner than any Dem in the race!" Bloomberg? Yeah, I can see him taking LOTS of Republican votes away from the eventual nominee... if that nominee is by some miracle Dennis Kucinich!

/The NRA hates Bloomberg with as much passion as ANY gun banner in congress.

Won't get 3.75% of the popular vote.

Jewish
NYC
Competent

That's three strikes.

deadapostle: MorningBreath: if Huckabee or McCain get the nomination, I am voting for Bloomberg, whether he is on a ticket or not.

I have no idea why, but I have a very unusual farky id for you.

if it has to to do with rabbits and panties, its a long story, and is farkied by a couple dozen other tf'ers a well

MorningBreath: deadapostle: MorningBreath: if Huckabee or McCain get the nomination, I am voting for Bloomberg, whether he is on a ticket or not.

I have no idea why, but I have a very unusual farky id for you.

if it has to to do with rabbits and panties, its a long story, and is farkied by a couple dozen other tf'ers a well

It just happens to have something to do with rabbits and panties,

no, Ron Paul is already the Ross Perot of 2008. I don't know what Bloomberg is.

Bloomberg is the Julie Andrews of 2008.

2wolves: Won't get 3.75% of the popular vote.

Jewish
NYC
Competent
Gun-banner
Authoritarian

That's three five strikes.

SilentStrider: no, Ron Paul is already the Ross Perot of 2008. I don't know what Bloomberg is.

Not really. Ross Perot actually had a lot of voter support and made a real impact on the election. Ron Paul doesn't have 1/10th the support Perot did.

I'm tired of hearing this Bloomberg crap. First we get all this BS hype and this not-quite-as-bad-as-Thompson "I'm not running! *nudge nudge*" stuff, now he wants to be the rebel to drop in at the last minute and fix all our problems. Even if he does run, he'll never win. The only reason to run would be to draw votes away from other candidates, which is possible but a stupid reason to run for president.

/Unity? ha...

colovion: You mean Mike "I'm a bigger gun banner than any Dem in the race!" Bloomberg? Yeah, I can see him taking LOTS of Republican votes away from the eventual nominee... if that nominee is by some miracle Dennis Kucinich!

/The NRA hates Bloomberg with as much passion as ANY gun banner in congress.

Restricting guns makes sense in NYC.

Clinton versus anyone but McCain, and I'll vote for him.

Anyone would be better than President Vagina.

Talkin 'bout Bloomers entering the race again?

Here's an idea if yer trying to sell the Presidency off to the highest bidder just put the damn thing up on E-bay. Sure the Sultan of Brunei will prolly end up buying it just for a joke but imagine the look on Hillary's face when she's told to put on a Bhurka and just STFU.

That's worth the total loss of civil liberties and the imposition of Sharia law right there.

Aint it?

/only half kidding
/the other half is disgustipated

Freeper_Madness: CarolynLibrarian: 'obvious' tag would like a word with you, smitty.


He's definitely going to run - as an Independent. But since he's actually a democrat, he could win New York and take those electoral votes away from Hillary. He could do the same thing in California and I think Arnold might even endorse him.

He would effectively be the democrat's Ross Perot and cost them the election.


Look out...


/subby


If Hillary Clinton gets the nod Bloomberg will not run against her, end of story. If Obama or Edwards gets the nod he will. Bloomberg and Hillary represent the same interests and they are not going to pit against each other so that McCain or Huckabee can win.

disappointing

quatchi: Talkin 'bout Bloomers entering the race again?

Here's an idea if yer trying to sell the Presidency off to the highest bidder just put the damn thing up on E-bay.

It would probably be bought by GoldenPalaceCasino.com.

/Only if it had Jesus or the Virgin Mary growing in corn across Nebraska.

Instead of actually running I just wish he would buy a lot of TV airtime and point out all of the issues the candidates are ignoring and all of the stengths/problems with their proposals. Basically I would like him to serve as a reality check on all of the BS the candidates are spewing.

I hope he runs. That will solve the serious shortage of 2008 presidential candidates from New York!

worlddan: If Hillary Clinton gets the nod Bloomberg will not run against her, end of story. If Obama or Edwards gets the nod he will. Bloomberg and Hillary represent the same interests and they are not going to pit against each other so that McCain or Huckabee can win.

I think you have that backwards. Hillary Clinton would be the easiest candidate for him to beat. If either Obama or McCain is nominated, I think he knows better than to run.

Chess90 Ya that pretty much puts Chuck Norris out of play....

Bloomberg/Schwartzenegger '08?

So this is how Arnold is going to sidestep that pesky Constitutional amendment about being a native born American. Once he's VP, and his boy Boomberg is president, they'll push through the loophole to get around him being the lead on the ticket 8 years from now.


Schwartzenegger '16?

You heard it here first.

Anagrammer: I hope he runs. That will solve the serious shortage of 2008 presidential candidates from New York!



Well after all, New York IS the center of the world.

With the nation's priorities already totally out of whack, Bloomberg could get a lot of the non-smoker vote - and that's 75% of the country. Federal law mandating no smoking within 25 feet of any door, window, sewer drain, bird nest or rat corpse.

Then he'd raise the cig tax by $2.00/pack.

And who can complain about his stance on transfats? The French can keep their pastries. We're going to become the granola republic!

And that's all some folks would need as motivation to cast a vote.

On the plus side, all illegal NY restuarant workers would get amnesty so you wouldn't have to close half the kitchens there.

However, the guy loves draconian enforcement of silly laws while missing the point on big things. He's all about centralized control and command.

fark_the_police: Restricting guns makes sense in NYC.

Sure... the criminals LOVE having lots of unarmed victims to choose from.

colovion: fark_the_police: Restricting guns makes sense in NYC.

Sure... the criminals LOVE having lots of unarmed victims to choose from.


Beat me to it. I always love that arguement about gun restrictions ... but, but, it makes sense here. I then point out the top mass shootings and where they occured, all of them having occured in gun free zones, and say, "I'm sure it made sense to someone to restrict guns in those places as well".

Anti-gun zealots like Bloomberg simply want to exercise control over your life. If you are cool with that, fine. I would much rather be able to determine my own destiny.

Thorsen: colovion: fark_the_police: Restricting guns makes sense in NYC.

Sure... the criminals LOVE having lots of unarmed victims to choose from.


Beat me to it. I always love that arguement about gun restrictions ... but, but, it makes sense here. I then point out the top mass shootings and where they occured, all of them having occured in gun free zones, and say, "I'm sure it made sense to someone to restrict guns in those places as well".

Anti-gun zealots like Bloomberg simply want to exercise control over your life. If you are cool with that, fine. I would much rather be able to determine my own destiny.

The record-low murder rate in NYC would like to have a word with you.

I'll say it again:

He IS the Penguin.

Ron Paul:Lyndon LaRouche::Ross Perot:Bloomberg

Paedophile_Deluxe: The record-low murder rate in NYC would like to have a word with you.

FAIL

New York's "record-low murder rate" is incredibly high compared with many other places in the US.

So you are saying that the mere presence of guns turns people into homicidal maniacs? My state has one of the highest rates of gun ownership yet the lowest rate of violent crime. Crime is caused by factors OTHER than the availability of weapons.

However the crime rate can be affected by the availability of guns, just as other factors will affect the crime rate. The only thing that gun control does is make criminals more brazen and INCREASES the crime rate. Just look at all the places in the US with strict gun control, they generally have much higher crime rates than neighboring areas with similar demographics and lax gun control. New York, Chicago, Boston, DC, etc. All have higher crime rates and higher gun crime rates despite the bans.

Australia and the UK are even better examples. Island nations who enact strict gun bans both experience increases in overall crime and a thriving black market for guns.

Crosshair: FAIL

New York's "record-low murder rate" is incredibly high compared with many other places in the US.

Care to name a few? Even Omaha, freakin' Nebraska has a higher murder rate.

So you are saying that the mere presence of guns turns people into homicidal maniacs? My state has one of the highest rates of gun ownership yet the lowest rate of violent crime. Crime is caused by factors OTHER than the availability of weapons.

I never said that guns turn people into homicidal maniacs. Your state may have one of the lowest rates of violent crime, but it also has one of the lowest population densities. There's a lot more to crime rates than gun ownership, and the idea that if everyone was packing then there would be less crime is just not true.

However the crime rate can be affected by the availability of guns, just as other factors will affect the crime rate. The only thing that gun control does is make criminals more brazen and INCREASES the crime rate. Just look at all the places in the US with strict gun control, they generally have much higher crime rates than neighboring areas with similar demographics and lax gun control. New York, Chicago, Boston, DC, etc. All have higher crime rates and higher gun crime rates despite the bans.

Gun control hasn't done much for DC, but that might have to do with the fact that it's right next to a couple of states where it's extremely easy to get guns. Gun control certainly hasn't increased crime in NYC, where the crime rate has been dropping for something like 15 years.

Paedophile_Deluxe: I never said that guns turn people into homicidal maniacs. Your state may have one of the lowest rates of violent crime, but it also has one of the lowest population densities. There's a lot more to crime rates than gun ownership, and the idea that if everyone was packing then there would be less crime is just not true.

The authors of New York Murder Mystery: The True Story Behind the Crime Crash of the 1990s would like to have a word with you. They tracked the decline in the murder rates in NYC and that decline, according to their findinds, had nothing to do with gun restrictions and more to do with the decline in drug use, a better economy, a change in demographics, longer incarceration periods for criminals and other societal changes. Even intimating that gun restrictions had something to do with the decline in NYC murder rate is disingenious.

Oh, and they are still ranked 50th in murders per 100,000 for all cities over 250,000 in population. So, I wouldn't exactly call NYC a paradise just yet. It just looks good now because of how bad it looked in the 80's and 90's.



Paedophile_Deluxe: Gun control hasn't done much for DC, but that might have to do with the fact that it's right next to a couple of states where it's extremely easy to get guns. Gun control certainly hasn't increased crime in NYC, where the crime rate has been dropping for something like 15 years.

I always get a kick out of this arguement. If the availability of guns is equal to an increase in crime, then why don't those surrounding areas suffer from an abysmally high rate of crime themselves?

If you really want to look at how gun control in a vaccuum works, take a look at Australia or the UK. Both are islands. Both have strict gun restrictions. And both have experienced increases in gun related crime rates since guns have been restricted. The UK even leads the US in many violent crime categories now.

Prohibition does not and never has worked. It didn't work on alcohol. It doesn't work now on drugs. It doesn't work on gambling. And it will never work when it comes to guns.

All Bloomberg would do is restrict the rights of otherwise law abiding citizens to provide for their own defense.

No thanks. If you think he is so great, vote for him if he runs. Personally I think the guy is just as much an authoritarian as Guiliani and Clinton.

Goodfella: So this is how Arnold is going to sidestep that pesky Constitutional amendment about being a native born American. Once he's VP, and his boy Boomberg is president, they'll push through the loophole to get around him being the lead on the ticket 8 years from now.

Please read the Constitution:

Amendment XII: "...no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

he appears a veritable weenie on tv

i would suggest he save his money

Paedophile_Deluxe: Gun control hasn't done much for DC, but that might have to do with the fact that it's right next to a couple of states where it's extremely easy to get guns. Gun control certainly hasn't increased crime in NYC, where the crime rate has been dropping for something like 15 years.

Crime rates have been dropping nationwide over the past 15 years. This is true in NYC as well as in Michigan, where a change in the CCW law from "may issue" to "shall issue" has lead to a six-fold increase in the number of CCW holders in the state (mostly in the more urban Southeast corner of Michigan.)

Speaking of those 155,000 concealed pistol licensees in Michigan, less than 2,200 lost their licenses for any reason, of which 175 lost theirs for committing a crime (not necessarily a violent one.) That works out to 0.1% of concealed pistol holders in Michigan being a criminal. I defy you to name ANY other group that is demonstrably 99.9% law abiding!

These are the kinds of people you insist shouldn't be allowed to have handguns to protect themselves (and others) with. Great, except that gun crimes still occur in NYC, so the criminals are armed and the civilians are by and large not armed. I have lots of respect for the NYPD, but even they can't be everywhere instantly.

It is asinine to disarm law-abiding people and leave them at the mercy of armed criminals knowing full well that when seconds count the police are mere minutes away. I don't care if it is in NYC, Washington D.C., San Francisco, Chicago or some podunk township in BFE. The onus should be on the government to prove I shouldn't have a gun rather than on me to prove I need one. Innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz.

/Luckily I live in a state that allows me to own a pistol in any city in the state.

Paedophile_Deluxe: Clinton versus anyone but McCain, and I'll vote for him.

This.

/My very first "this".