Quote of the day—Michael Bloomberg

In Colorado, we got a law passed. The NRA went after two or three state Senators in a part of Colorado where I don’t think there’s roads.

Michael Bloomberg
July 8, 2014
Michael Bloomberg Isn’t Afraid of the NRA
[The comment by Luvs2Brew addresses the facts better than anyone else I have seen so far:

First off the NRA did not initiate or even engage in these recalls until the very end. Many of us complained they were actually way late to the game. This was a grass roots recall by Coloradans who did not like the idea of our elected officials selling our rights out to out of state interests like Bloomberg.

Second, these recaps were not in rural areas where there were no roads. One was in Colorado Springs, home to the US Olympic Training Center, Cheyenne Mountain, the US Air Force Academy, Peterson Air Force Base and Fort Carson. The other was in Pueblo which is just south of us on I-25. And yes we have roads, and airports and indoor plumbing. So Bloomberg is either completely out of touch, or just a flat out liar.

I’m going with “completely out of touch” and mind boggling arrogance by someone who is unable to stop himself from lying.—Joe]


21 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Michael Bloomberg

  1. He’s also a bigot, as his words clearly show. And a fascist.

    • It’s pure bigotry. The modern fascists do not believe the modern world exists outside their squalid cities on the coasts.

  2. Typical attitude that you get from the Northeastern Elitists. Sadly, very similar to some members of my family that live in the PR of Maryland.

    What’s surprising to me is that they completely fail to understand why we are hostile and disparaging to them and their “positions”

  3. Never forget that “out of touch” and “flat out liar” are not mutually exclusive, and there is room for overlap with bigot, fool, elitist, ignorant, sociopath, and more. Guys like him are surrounded by sycophants, and after being in an echo-chamber for a long time they start believing their own BS.

    • “surrounded by sycophants, and after being in an echo-chamber for a long time they start believing their own BS.”

      Heh. I often think this about the gunnies. Ever notice how many gunnies have a blog and then spend time commenting on other gun blogs? The community doesn’t really seem to be that large when you get right down to it.

      • Well, that just goes to show how little you actually pay attention.

        A large number of pro-rights webloggers routinely comment on anti-rights weblogs… at least, until those anti-rights weblogs get tired of having their echo chambers challenged, and then ban the pro-rights webloggers, or moderate comments and disallow any that disagree with them.

        OTOH, you will almost never see an anti-rights weblogger even attempt to comment on a pro-rights site, despite the fact that basically none of ours moderate comments or even ban people.

        You, of course, are a notable exception, but we have long-since established that you are not here for the hunting.

      • And then there’s people like me, whose web presence using this pseudonym goes back to at least 1994. I seldom make posts to the comment sections of blogs–pro or anti gun rights.

        There’s a lot of us that read daily but don’t comment.

        But, even with the limited number of posts I make, I’ve never had a pro gun rights site delete a comment. I have had several anti-rights sites delete/not post comments.

        • If you are feeling left out, I’m sure we could arrange for a post of yours to be deleted, just for the sake of fairness 🙂

        • I’ve seen conservatives, and even libertarians, ban people…but usually it takes some real craziness to result in being banned. Even then, the posts that lead up to the banning are often left alone, for everyone to see, unless they are particularly vile.

          One example of this is at Eric S. Raymond’s blog: someone showed up in Eric’s comment section, blasting it with angry walls of text, demanding that Eric respond to various criticisms. After a while, Eric warned him that he’d be banned, and when Eric did ban him, he said, “A pity. I only ban about one person a year, and I was hoping I wouldn’t have to ban anyone this year.”

          Contrast this with the Brady Campaign, which doesn’t even allow comments, or Joan Peterson’s blog, where you have to tread carefully if you don’t want a comment deleted.

          The funny things is, when someone is banned for being vile, and all comments are deleted, I can’t help but wonder: if the comment is proving your point, why delete it? Why not leave it on your page, and trumpet it as how vile your opponents are, with all the world to see it?

          This is particularly funny when the commenters know their comments are likely to be deleted, so they screen-shot their comments before deletion, and purposefully trumpet their comments for all the world to see…

        • I notice y’all love to sling labels around: Fascists, Leftists, Communists, Socialists — all the “ists.”

          • Just as the anti-rights bigots like to throw around “ists” — racist, misogynist, capitalist, domestic terrorist, etc.

            The difference is when you can use the actual definition of the word, and point to the specific ways in wheich the person or group you are describing lines up EXACTLY with the “-ist”, it’s merely being precise with language.

            Of course, even our side has people who screw up. For example, I wouldn;t call you a fascist, as I don’t know enough about your economic philosophy — which is what “fascist” actually describes (much like socialist, capitalist, Marxist, etc. – while the majority of statists seem to like spiffy uniforms with tall shiny boots, fascism no more requires “militarism” than Marxism does.) However (to use one prominent example), Hillary Clinton *is* a textbook fascist, because EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC PROPOSITION SHE HAS MADE OR SUPPORTED for the last twenty years has been in complete accordance with fascist principles.

          • I think it’s funny that all these labels are slung around as well, since a single label, Collectivist, is sufficient for describing the basic core of all these philosophies. (The differences are merely in the details.)

            As for those who are interested in protecting the Smallest Minority, there’s a good word to describe them, as well: Individualist.

  4. Nah, Bum-berg isn’t “out-of touch”. Call it what it really is: He was being deliberately insulting to the people of Colorado. Grass roots people (of both “parties”) got rid of three big name pols. He spent a lot of money and doesn’t like losing. Wah…. He and obummbler are soul mates.

  5. I find quotes like this somewhat comforting. Michael Bloomberg is perhaps the greatest threat to our gun rights at this moment. He has money, he has media savvy and exposure, he has political connections, and he has the belief that he’s doing good, so his tyranny is justified.

    Yet, this threat either doesn’t understand us, or is deliberately lying about us, so that his followers and the media can take courage that their cause is going to win in the end; I would go so far to say that it’s even likely to be a mixture of both.

    The problem with this is that, in order to win, he and his followers need to know their enemy. Because he doesn’t know us, he and his followers are going to continue to make mistakes, and wonder why he’s having such a difficult time gaining ground. While we shouldn’t under-estimate Bloomberg, we should keep in mind that he’s showing signs that he’s vulnerable, because he can’t be honest with himself or to fellow gun banners.

    Of course, perhaps he’s just doing this to rile up gun rights supporters, hoping that they’ll make mistakes. (Open Carry In Your Face comes to mind…) The problem with this is that gun rights supporters, when riled up like this, are more likely to call their representatives, turn up at the polls, and otherwise take action to preserve their right to keep and bear arms; thus, if this is his intention, it’s likely backfiring on him. And this is another indication that he doesn’t understand us, and will likely loose because of this.

  6. Yeah, well. Consider the source. Nanny Bloomberg is from New Yawk Citteh, where they have more money than sense to waste on bothering law-abiding folk just minding their own business.


  7. friends:

    bloomberg is a bit condescending towards us “rural types,” doncha think. you know, as in only ignorant dolts live in the “country.”

    fuck the son of a bitch. pardon the french, but, some things have to be said directly. i know it is a bit of a breach of decorum, but, it is just best to say what you mean, on occasion.

    john jay
    milton freewater, oregon usa (still) (for how long, who knows?)

  8. Having driven the roads in Colorado (both urban and rural) and in New York City, I’d have to say the ones in Colorado are better than the ones in New York City. Bloomberg’s provincialism reflects his limited experience of the world.

  9. If you are looking for the explanation, here it is.

    Your blog wouldn’t let me post an image but just google “famous new yorker covers”. They are all like that. How do you think Bloomberg got elected?

Comments are closed.