Bloomberg's Elitism Comments

Posted by $ johnrobert2 1 year, 9 months ago to Politics
22 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

This morning, I saw, and heard, the video of Bloomberg's comments regarding farmers, et al. One of the e-mails received (apparently by Fox News) opined farmers can survive with Bloomberg but Bloomberg cannot survive without farmers. The sender missed the corollary to his statement: When the socialist state takes over, the farmers, and other so-called low skill workers, would become serfs and forced to work the land. Bloomberg, and others of the "elites", would survive by the efforts of unpaid slaves. I think we fought a civil war to correct that inequity not too long ago. Do they really want to go there again?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 1 year, 9 months ago
    No, we didn't fight a civil war to correct that inequality.
    The "civil war" was declared by Lincoln on behalf of manufacturers and mercantilists to oppose confederate free trade that was threatening their profits. Southern slave owners were also at fault for trying to impose free trade when it should have been obvious that the only recourse of the "union" would be war. It was a protectionist tax war.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by UncleAlbert 1 year, 9 months ago
      Have lived in Georgia for 30 years and my friends here call it the "War of Northern Aggression."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 1 year, 9 months ago
        Your friends have had better education on it than most. [grin]
        Charles Adams wrote an interesting book on the subject, When In The Course Of Human Events.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 year, 9 months ago
          Slavery existed in the United States before the Civil War; after the Civil War, it was abolished. If the War had gone the other way, the continuation of slavery would have been the end result. That's what I know about it.
          To quarrel and nitpick about tariffs while ignoring the fundamental issue of Slavery or Freedom seems irresponsible and contemptible to me.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 1 year, 9 months ago
            It wasn't the fundamental issue at the time, LB. Slavery was guaranteed by federal law and Lincoln and others in the GOP supported those laws fully until they needed an excuse to invade the southern states. The south had established free trade that would cut into the revenues of the union that was being spent to support northern industry. The unequal taxation of the people in the south had been going on for decades but the GOP doubled the tax rates in early 1861- it was a campaign promise made by Lincoln to get support from northern industry. 400,000 men were killed and the freedom of all Americans for the ensuing 160 years has been significantly curtailed because of a war that was unnecessary and occurred solely because of the greed of and looting by owners of NY industry. Lincoln made a mockery of the constitution, jailing anyone who spoke out against him, even ordering the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because he called Lincoln's actions unconstitutional. The congress was afraid to oppose Lincoln's illegal acts. The actions by Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan in particular were war crimes then and now - unnecessary brutal attacks on innocent women and children. Those military men were aware they were guilty of war crimes because they were taught about it at West Point. Grant admitted it in writing. Read the actual history of the times and stop accepting the propaganda false history created by the guilty parties.
            The conditions that the GOP forced on the South after war were equally criminal, by the law of that time and the law today. That also caused conditions for blacks in the south to continue to be very bad for nearly a century.
            Slavery was wiped out in every other country in the world without war and it would have been the same in both the union and the Confederate states because it was economically unsupportable. The problems we still have today and the manipulation of people using the accusation of racism are an indirect result of the war crimes of Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 year, 9 months ago
              People at that time didn't choose to recognize that Freedom or Slavery was more fundamental. But that doesn't alter the fact that it was. I do not condone Lincoln's violations of civil liberties. The people who voted Jim Crow in were the ones to blame for it. I am not claiming that the Northerners were necessarily, simon-pure, but I know the difference between right and wrong, and between freedom and slavery.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 1 year, 9 months ago
    That Bloomingbull$chiffer wants me dino's guns. Heard him on TV saying I have the police to protect me.
    Wow, me dino didn't know cops can rescue me from home invaders in five seconds should I not have time to even dial 911.
    Hey, at least we don't have to worry about the safety of that dullard for a narcisstic Daddy Warbucks.
    Plenty of armed security are being paid to protect him inside his little bubble as he uses some of his billions to buy gobs and gobs of campaign ad face time in an attempt to buy the presidency.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by exceller 1 year, 9 months ago
    Bllomberg has the same problem as the hag had: he is not likeable.

    He spent an enormous amount of money so far on commercials. People will see him "live" first, after the image he created of himself on the net.

    The two are not the same. His shine will fade soon.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by UncleAlbert 1 year, 9 months ago
    Lifted from a email from the Libertarian Party:
    Competing against a rabid authoritarian like Mike Bloomberg adds so much insult to injury. Let’s recall some of his more notable offenses:

    This is the mayor who used his time in office to oversee more arrests on possession of marijuana charges than the three previous mayors combined.
    Like a true authoritarian he cracked down on drug laws even while admitting to using marijuana and enjoying it earlier in life.
    Many thousands of these arrests came as a result of Bloomberg’s notorious Stop and Frisk policy that was every bit as racist and bigoted as the rhetoric behind President Trump’s Muslim Ban and immigration policies. (Interestingly, Trump accurately painted Stop and Frisk as racist in a tweet last week which has since been deleted after the internet reminded him that only four years ago he praised that very policy in a debate.)
    Mr. Bloomberg is claiming to have “evolved” on these positions, as well as his admitted attack on poor people with special taxes on sugary sodas and trans fats.
    On one issue he has certainly not evolved: he is still the leading sponsor of gun-control advocacy in America. This support has gotten him rightfully called a hypocrite as he is a frequent employer of armed-security.
    He certainly fits the profile of other political egomaniacs who demand, “liberty for me, but not for thee.”

    The Libertarian nominee is guaranteed to be the only candidate who supports real liberty for all people. The Libertarian nominee is not going to support different rules for different socio-economic demographics. The Libertarian nominee will never offer support to policies that punish people for possessing a plant.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 year, 9 months ago
    His unending sexist comments need to be played, to see if any real feminists fight him getting the nomination. The one that blew me away was the situation when one of his female employees made an excited announcement about becoming pregnant, Bloomberg said "You are going to kill it, aren't you?" He tried to explain it as a joke, since his employees received maternity leave, and that an abortion would save him money, but the "joke" and the explanation fell very flat.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 year, 9 months ago
    I remember bloomberg as the idiot who banned any soda pop over 32 ounces. So you buy two of them, and buy straws on amazon. Government fixes to problems ALWAYS fail because they are designed to increase government power, NOT to fix the problems
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo