Bloomberg cements place as Nanny State King

posted at 4:00 pm on February 4, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

There’s one name which keeps bubbling to the surface in American politics, and speaking as one of the residents of New York, I’ve never been able to fully comprehend why. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been frequently cited as one of those “outside voices” who could bridge the nation’s partisan divide and possibly even run for president. (Even more strange is the fact that this is occasionally suggested by Republicans.)

First, a little history. This is a guy who is so enamored of the idea of government at all levels being the babysitter for the people that he has enacted some of the most broad, restrictive anti-smoking laws in the nation. He wants Big Brother to monitor your trans fats to the point where you can’t even get foie gras in some restaurants. And now, just to make sure we all know right where he stands, he’s going to blow a significant chunk of his own cash to purchase an ad during the Super Bowl reminding us how he feels about guns.

With little political capital to lose and millions of his own cash to spend, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is determined to check the role of guns in American society.

A 30-second Super Bowl ad featuring Mr. Bloomberg on a couch with Boston Mayor Thomas Menino will go a long way toward cementing Bloomberg as the king of gun control as the billionaire turns from attacking transfats and smoking to cracking down on illicit sales of firearms, too many of which he says end up in the hands of violent criminals.

“Mike Bloomberg is the only major political figure for whom gun control is a front-burner cause right now,” says University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds.

I’m sorry… did you say sitting on a couch? Does Bloomberg even own a television? If he really does still harbor any fantasies of a future run at the White House, you’d think Newt Gingrich would have taught him a thing or two about filming advertisements while sitting on couches and talking about things conservatives despise.

If the only thing Bloomberg is talking about is the gun show loophole – which will be featured in the advertisement – I suppose I could see him taking time out of his day to mention it, particularly living in a city like New York. There are cases on record of people purchasing guns completely outside the law at some gun shows and dealers need to do a better job of making sure they’re not selling to non-citizens or felons who are prohibited from purchasing. But Michael has a history of much more than that. (It may come as a surprise to some readers to learn that you actually can get a concealed carry permit in New York legally. However I believe you’re likely to see an actual Bigfoot in the Hudson Valley before you find one of those permits.)

How much is Bloomberg spending to take out an ad during the Super Bowl on this all too touchy topic? It’s a lot. But hey.. the guy is listed as having a personal fortune in the range of $19B, so I’m sure he can afford the tab. It’s a princely sum, suitable for the King of the Nanny State, I suppose.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

A conservative like Romney.

they lie on February 4, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Blech.

Didn’t this dip skirt or change the law or precedent so he could serve a third term?

And even more ridiculous – but I guess not surprising – New Yorkers voted him back in.

Well, it is the city that elected Dinkins (sp).

Too bad old “Grandpa Munster” couldn’t have continued to be mayor. At least he was fun, even if he is a Democrat.

Logus on February 4, 2012 at 4:05 PM

I can only assume that Bloomberg will be doing the talking in that ad with Mumbles, unless it’s intended as comic relief…

RedMindBlueState on February 4, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Why does the Pub. party let a liberal democrat wear the Pub. label. The fact that he is even allowed in the Pub.party tells me all I need to know how the establishment loves itself some sylphiliptic members.

they lie on February 4, 2012 at 4:06 PM

just don’t ask homeboy to do anything hard…..like plowin’ some snow...

ted c on February 4, 2012 at 4:06 PM

A conservative Republican like Romney.

they lie on February 4, 2012 at 4:02 PM

FIFY

Even better.

At least Bloomberg eventually shed the Republican label.

Logus on February 4, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I think it’s unfair to lump together restrictions on trans fats and restrictions on smoking. I see nothing wrong with combating a disgusting carcinogen in public places where the health of others becomes at risk. Kill yourself at home, don’t smoke in a damn restaurant. I don’t see how you can be pro-life and also pro-deathsticks.

Inquizitor on February 4, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Why does the Pub. party let a liberal democrat wear the Pub. label. The fact that he is even allowed in the Pub.party tells me all I need to know how the establishment loves itself some sylphiliptic CAMEL members.

they lie on February 4, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Fixed It.

they lie on February 4, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Please don’t run the advertisement about guns, Mayor Bloomberg. My Superbowl doesn’t include watching any sports so I have to watch only the commercial parts – your ad will just take up real time that would be devoted to a good ad running…

The Nerve on February 4, 2012 at 4:08 PM

somehow I think “bloomie” thinks he is the long awaited Messiah…

good luck with that bloomie…your term is running out and I doubt you’ll be able to change the law (again) to get another one.

teejk on February 4, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Fast and Furious. Bloomberg approved.

they lie on February 4, 2012 at 4:10 PM

It’s not a “gun show loophole” he wants to put an end to. That’s the catchy, TV-friendly phrase he and his ilk made up.

What he’s looking to do is ban ALL private transfers of firearms. No more selling that old rifle to your hunting buddy for $200 without a federal background check (even though he already legally owns 36 guns). No more buying your son a new .22 on his 16th birthday.

And, if you think any future “gun show loophole” legislation won’t contain a LOT more abrogations of our 2nd Amendment rights buried in the fine print, then you have simply not been paying attention.

Bloomberg and Mumbles can kiss my bitter, clingy backside.

Bruce MacMahon on February 4, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Yeah, whatever.

I’m off to the range to play with my new toy, a Ruger GP100 .357 magnum. Good times………..

iurockhead on February 4, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Has he ever been to a gun show?I would say about 90% of the men in this country will give him a big phtttt.

docflash on February 4, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Yes, but can Mayor Bloomberg do this?

Governor Jerry Brown signs bill that allows state of California to borrow from itself

Emperor Norton on February 4, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Amazing how the dimwits and dumba$$es in the rotten apple keep electing pinheads like Bloomie, just like the same kind of dimwits and dubma$$es in Thugcago keep electing Daleys and Rahmbos. Doesn’t say much good about big city living, does it?

stukinIL4now on February 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM

This effete snob makes me puke everytime I see and hear his whiny azz. When I see him, I always envision a bore standing at a cocktail party with a glass of crappy tasting wine which he sips and attempts to say something relevant that no one except a pseudo inellectual gives a crap about while the rest of us working slobs are heartily guzzling a cold beer. Not the lite crapola, but the real beer gut stuff.

Bloomberg. How the hell did New Yorkers ever elect this choir boy?

they lie on February 4, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I think it’s unfair to lump together restrictions on trans fats and restrictions on smoking. I see nothing wrong with combating a disgusting carcinogen in public places where the health of others becomes at risk. Kill yourself at home, don’t smoke in a damn restaurant. I don’t see how you can be pro-life and also pro-deathsticks.

Inquizitor on February 4, 2012 at 4:07 PM

both are based on “questionable” “science” but believe what you want to believe from the US health police.

teejk on February 4, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Living in California, the only thing I can say about Bloomberg is that he seems to be worse than the nanny state loons we have here. People say they don’t understand California. I’ve lived here for over 30 years and don’t understand it myself. There is the “immature forever” and “surfs up” mentality which probably explains a lot. But I have to tell you, I really don’t understand New Yorkers and why this man is their mayor. I always thought New Yorkers were tough, creative, independent people. Why would they want a nanny mayor? However, Republicans supporting this man is easier to explain because many Republicans don’t know what being conservative means anymore.

Charm on February 4, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Can’t stand to be in NYC.It has to be the most congested, awful place on earth. Mayor Mike is certainly welcome to it. As for the rest of the state of New York and the other 49, you have no jurisdiction so mind your own business and leave us alone, Mike!

Boats48 on February 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM

There’s one name which keeps bubbling to the surface in American politics, and speaking as one of the residents of New York, I’ve never been able to fully comprehend why.

Well, it’s the same reason other New York pols “bubble to the surface” implausibly; because the “surface” is largely located in Manhattan.

Furthermore, Bloomberg feeds into that media core’s idea of what a good Republican would look like: brutal fascism, but pointed in the right direction.

HitNRun on February 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM

I’m sorry… did you say sitting on a couch? Does Bloomberg even own a television? If he really does still harbor any fantasies of a future run at the White House…

Bloomblob would do far better nationally on a democrat ticket.

slickwillie2001 on February 4, 2012 at 4:22 PM

I see nothing wrong with combating a disgusting carcinogen in public places where the health of others becomes at risk. Kill yourself at home, don’t smoke in a damn restaurant. I don’t see how you can be pro-life and also pro-deathsticks.

Inquizitor on February 4, 2012 at 4:07 PM

The hazards of second hand smoke is mostly based on AGW like “science” imo.
That said, a person always has the choice of not frequenting establishments that allow smoking..but if one chooses to..one should politely stfu. Just my opinion.

Mimzey on February 4, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Mayor Bowel Bloomberg!

KOOLAID2 on February 4, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Amazing how the dimwits and dumba$$es in the rotten apple keep electing pinheads like Bloomie, just like the same kind of dimwits and dubma$$es in Thugcago keep electing Daleys and Rahmbos. Doesn’t say much good about big city living, does it?

stukinIL4now on February 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM

you gotta go back in time…Bloomie is as about as liberal as they get but he had to run on the GOP ticket because the Dem ticket was more liberal yet (to the point where it was scary)…

I used to work there but managed to escape…

teejk on February 4, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been frequently cited as one of those “outside voices” who could bridge the nation’s partisan divide and possibly even run for president.

I’d vote for Ron Paul before I’d pull the lever for Bloomberg.

chemman on February 4, 2012 at 4:24 PM

You left out this Planned Parenthood donation he was going to do.

ChuckTX on February 4, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Since Mayor Bloomberg is so attentive to everbody else’s business, I think it only fair that he release his un-redacted tax returns for the last 7 years.

MessesWithTexas on February 4, 2012 at 4:26 PM

A 30-second Super Bowl ad featuring Mr. Bloomberg on a couch with Boston Mayor Thomas Menino …

Wonderful. But why not borrow the twin cast-iron bathtubs from the Cialis ® ads? That would be even better …

RedPepper on February 4, 2012 at 4:27 PM

The hazards of second hand smoke is mostly based on AGW like “science” imo.
That said, a person always has the choice of not frequenting establishments that allow smoking..but if one chooses to..one should politely stfu. Just my opinion.

Mimzey on February 4, 2012 at 4:22 PM

I agree Mimzey…junk science at its best…however, as one that enjoys the pursuit, I actually like the smoking bans. Indoor air quality is certainly nicer and I don’t mind going outside once and awhile for a puff or two.

teejk on February 4, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Inquizitor on February 4, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I’m not a smoker but take issues with the second hand smoke canard. I grew up in smoggy LA during the late 50′s and 60′s. Couldn’t see the 10000 ft mountains 8 miles from us between May and November. Both parents smoked two packs a day. My lungs are just fine as are the lungs of my 3 siblings.

I will agree that it smells nasty and I don’t wish to be around smokers but the 2nd hand smoke scare reminds me to much of the AGW scare.

chemman on February 4, 2012 at 4:29 PM

If Bloomberg would like to spend 3.5 million plus the production budget on a Super Bowl ad. I say good for him. If Bloomberg is making the case for gun control, good luck with that./ Gun control=nice group. As the bumper sticker says; “When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns.”

Bmore on February 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Excellent! They are proceeding according to my dastardly plan to show their tyrannical, juvenile agenda for what it is. More Americans will despise him and the nanny state after this ad than (sorry) 100 Hot Air posts!

PattyJ on February 4, 2012 at 4:39 PM

If the only thing Bloomberg is talking about is the gun show loophole gun laws as written, debated, and signed into law by our representatives

 
FIFY

rogerb on February 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM

. Indoor air quality is certainly nicer and I don’t mind going outside once and awhile for a puff or two.

teejk on February 4, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Can you even smoke outside in NY?

Mimzey on February 4, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Why do these liberals insist on micromanaging everyone’s life ?

Most have screwed up their own, do they want company being
miserable ?

amadan on February 4, 2012 at 4:50 PM

iurockhead on February 4, 2012 at 4:11 PM

You’ll love it. One of the finest I’ve ever owned.

jb34461 on February 4, 2012 at 4:54 PM

19 BILLION? I wonder how many children that could feed? Or how many homes he could outright buy for the homeless? How many people with cancer could be treated? Maybe he should stop trying to take away my right to protect myself, which his protected 1% butt doesn’t have to worry about, and start doing things to make the world a better place. I wonder how much he’d appreciate me deciding how to spend his money?

txhsmom on February 4, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Mimzey on February 4, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Yes, just not adjacent to public property’s. Government owned. For instance a public park, you must be across the street, not on the street side of park.

Bmore on February 4, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been frequently cited as one of those “outside voices” who could bridge the nation’s partisan divide and possibly even run for president. (Even more strange is the fact that this is occasionally suggested by Republicans.)</blockquote>

Only to those with their head up their a~s for the past two decades who pretend that the Republican Party isn’t dominated by progressives.

elfman on February 4, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Surprised he’s not also palling around on his Super Bowl couch with Maryland Governor Marty O’Malley about how they can better restrict gun ownership and “curb violent crime.” For all the good it’s doing in Baltimore.

Sgt Steve on February 4, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Once again, the difference in us and them boils down this:

A conservative who dislikes guns does not buy one.

A progressive who dislikes guns wants all guns outlawed.

jb34461 on February 4, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Sgt Steve on February 4, 2012 at 4:57 PM

It would seem all of Md with exception to the lower Eastern shore is lost.

Bmore on February 4, 2012 at 4:59 PM

I hope his spot has a phone number to call. I’ll definitely ring them up and let them know exactly how much I support Nanny Bloomberg’s initiatives. Exactly.

Jeffersonian on February 4, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Yeah, he’s a nanny alright, but he was afraid to confront his OWSer children. Libs are afraid of OWSers.
http://themorningspew.com/2012/02/04/washington-d-c-owsers-get-the-heave-ho/

bloggless on February 4, 2012 at 5:01 PM

…always Winter, never Spring”

THAT is what Progressives are.

Spring
I’d like to have some salt to put on my steak.

Winter
Ban salt shakers from tables, and fine restaurants that defy order.

Spring
I’d like to brush my teeth with the water running.

Winter
Install faucets that only work if your hands are moving in front of the sensor (and only with 1/2 the PSI of a regular faucet with handles).

Spring
I’d like to hose off my driveway and wash the grass clippings down the street into the storm drain.

Winter
Ban any outdoor water use for non-landscaping and fine those that don’t put grass clippings in a special container for the city.

Spring
I’d like to get a Happy meal with a toy for my 4 year old.

Winter
Happy Meals lead to obesity (even for your skinny kid) and toys are choking hazards and should be banned.

Spring
I’d like to have a gun to defend my family from the thugs in the hood that case our neighborhood.

Winter
Make the homeowner liable to lawsuit if the criminal is injured on the welcome mat as he flees your house (after trying to rape your children).

http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsS/16812-26700.gif

Bloomberg is one of them.

PappyD61 on February 4, 2012 at 5:01 PM

bloggless on February 4, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Fear is actually not accurate when describing his relationship to the OWS crowd.

Bmore on February 4, 2012 at 5:06 PM

First, a little history. This is a guy who is so enamored of the idea of government at all levels being the babysitter for the people that he has enacted some of the most broad, restrictive anti-smoking laws in the nation. He wants Big Brother to monitor your trans fats to the point where you can’t even get foie gras in some restaurants.

Eh, I like smoking bans–someone else’s smoking could adversely affect my health, which I would very strongly dislike. (Contrast to the restrictions on consuming trans fats, which could affect the health of people who make bad decisions–but not the health of those around them.)

In any case, the whole gun control fiasco is just insane. Owning weapons is one of the relatively small number of things that we’re explicitly allowed to do according to the Constitution. I haven’t seen any decent argument for gun control, other than the silly claim that “the people” (as in “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”) actually only refers to soldiers.

Mr. Prodigy on February 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM

It angers me that a man who has burly bodyguards and can afford to pay for platoon of them wants to tell me I can’t have gun. I can’t afford even a scrawny bodyguard. How I am supposed to defend myself in Bloomburg’s world?

thuja on February 4, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Mr. Prodigy on February 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM

I’ve yet to read where a driver dragging on a smoke swerved from his lane and wiped out a family of five. Let’s ban alcohol too. Alcohol directly and indirectly kills more people than tobacco. I can avoid a smoke filled place, I can’t avoid drunks in cars, airplanes or other public places. So where do you draw the line?

Whadda ‘ys say we have a cocktail and discuss how we can outlaw those nasty cigarettes.

jb34461 on February 4, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Mr. Prodigy on February 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM

I have no opinion one way or the other on smoking, second hand or otherwise. Just wanted to offer this as the devils advocate. http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/OSHA.html

Bmore on February 4, 2012 at 5:20 PM

NYC and Cali. Two places with the most arrogants, condescending, self-righteous cads on the face of the planet that are 100% certain they’re smarter than you…but keep votings jack@$$es into office who steal their rights with their explicit consent. It’d be funny if it weren’t so sad.

CycloneCDB on February 4, 2012 at 5:25 PM

I don’t understand where in the constitution, it gives any level of government the right to tell restaurants what kind of food they are allowed to serve and how they can prepare it for consumption. Why do New Yorkers think it is OK for the government to tell them what they can eat and how it is to be prepared?

karenhasfreedom on February 4, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Bloomberg is like many liberals about guns – he thinks they’re loud and uncivilized and if he makes it difficult enough people will stop getting them. Of course all that means is that even fewer private citizens will be in any position to defend themselves against all the NY scum who do have guns. The answer will be that taxes will have to be raised in order to hire more police to protect the citizens from the people who aren’t law abiding and thus don’t give a d*mn about Mike Bloomberg’s whiney laws.

katiejane on February 4, 2012 at 5:37 PM

It must be awful to go through life so outraged at all the injustice; burgers served, cigarettes smoked, guns fired at targets, carbon leaking from cow’s behinds, and on and on. There is so much for those poor tormented souls to fix if only the great unwashed were not standing in their way.

jb34461 on February 4, 2012 at 5:43 PM

I think it’s unfair to lump together restrictions on trans fats and restrictions on smoking. I see nothing wrong with combating a disgusting carcinogen in public places where the health of others becomes at risk. Kill yourself at home, don’t smoke in a damn restaurant. I don’t see how you can be pro-life and also pro-deathsticks.

Inquizitor on February 4, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Most restaurants have very powerful HVAC systems. The V, of course, stands for ventilation. The second-hand smoke canard is just that, voodoo “science” with little relationship with facts. The smoking and non-smoking solution seems more than adequate.

That said, I wonder how many of Bloomercricket’s bodyguards walk around unarmed. I’d venture to bet that Bloomer himself owns a sizable collection of those eeeeeeeeeeeeevil firearms. This is pure speculation on my part, but I’m sticking with it.

hillbillyjim on February 4, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I agree Mimzey…junk science at its best…however, as one that enjoys the pursuit, I actually like the smoking bans. Indoor air quality is certainly nicer and I don’t mind going outside once and awhile for a puff or two.

teejk on February 4, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Which is why you always had the choice of going to a smoke free establishment. In many of the places I have lived, before smoking bans, there was always multiple good resturants/bars that were no-smoking, and they were always just as busy as the smoking ones. Many of the people I know went to those bars specifically because they were no-smoking.

cobrakai99 on February 4, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Maybe Bloomberg should remind felons that it’s against the law for them to own guns. This guy is a #$%@ idiot, in a LONG line of RICH idiots, who think they know everything there is to know about everything.

GarandFan on February 4, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Bloomberg should have been arrested and jailed when he illegally sent out New York cops to try and frame non-New Yorkers for imagined gun offenses. And then, idiot New Yorkers had the gall to vote the little Napoleon wannbe back in. That was beyond pathetic.

Bloomberg also should have been arrested for colluding with the OWS Squatters in an open assault on the city.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 4, 2012 at 5:58 PM

There are cases on record of people purchasing guns completely outside the law at some gun shows and dealers need to do a better job of making sure they’re not selling to non-citizens or felons who are prohibited from purchasing.

Sorry Jazz, the federal government already has that angle wrapped up. Kind of in a fast and furious way.

arnold ziffel on February 4, 2012 at 6:10 PM

“There’s one name which keeps bubbling to the surface in American politics…”

Personally, I think Boob-berg’s name keeps bubbling to the surface because he pays trolls to say it in conjunction with their toxic gas emissions. He likes to imagine himself as a “no labels” kind of guy – he doesn’t realize it but he has PLENTY of labels, most of them unfit for family websites.

Marxism is for dummies on February 4, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Someone refresh my memory-didn’t NY toughen their gun laws after John Lennon was gunned down in 1980?

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Yeah, whatever.

I’m off to the range to play with my new toy, a Ruger GP100 .357 magnum. Good times………..

iurockhead on February 4, 2012 at 4:11 PM

You will like it. I have had one for ten years.

arnold ziffel on February 4, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Has Michael I, King of New York officially proclaimed his permanent reign? Or is it just assumed at this point? Do they have mayoral elections in the Big Apple at all anymore?

cicerone on February 4, 2012 at 6:22 PM

He can prove his point by becoming a statistic…can a pro-lifer make a bullet out of transfat, salt, and the US Constitution?

John Kettlewell on February 4, 2012 at 6:31 PM

A politician making a pitch on one side of a political issue? The NRA can demand equal time. Super Bowl time.

curved space on February 4, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Let us all remember that Bloomberg became an ‘R’ only when they wouldn’t make Carl McCall sit in the back of the bus at the ‘D’ nomination.

Lanceman on February 4, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Oh. This should be great … Michael Bloomberg and Thomas “Mumbles” Menino.

If knows his footballMenino speaks, this could be the funniest Super Bowl ad EVAH!

BRunner on February 4, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Well, do the ppl who don’t mind smoking ban’s remember that as more and more ppl quit, the less taxes the nanny’s gonna get. The less they get on cigarettes , the more they will tax other things. Perhaps sugar or salt. Now think they blame cigarettes, next it will be something you use.
The worst argument I hear is , tax them I don’t get smoke, well ok but as they get more money, then the money stops, they WILL tax something you enjoy. So when that happens DON’T cry to me cause I quit smoking it’s your turn to pay!

angrymike on February 4, 2012 at 7:05 PM

BRunner doesn’t even begin to approach the tip of the iceberg with Menino quotes. Regardless of the outcome of the game, Boston will be embarrassed by the end of the superbowl, thanks to Menino being presented on a national stage like that. Why we keep electing the guy, I’ll never know (okay, I do know, but thats more depressing than the idea that we’re just a bunch of idiots up here).

DominusNovus on February 4, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Bloomberg should be forced yo spend time in pockistan with no guards

I would laugh at the result

Sonosam on February 4, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Sigh. He is awful. The choices in the past few elections here in NYC were between Bloomberg and even worse.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on February 4, 2012 at 7:36 PM

some of the most broad, restrictive anti-smoking laws in the nation

One place Government should act. There is no freedom to make life unbearable for others. Before the smoking ban there were few Restaurants I could eat at. Many people are very allergic to the numerous poisons that pour out of tobacco. We do not have freedom to trample on the rights of others to live.

Smokers can still smoke they just should not be allowed to force others to smoke as well. If they can come up with something that will allow a smoker to keep his smoke to himself I am all for it. Until then laws to keep smokers from denying my freedom to life are absolutely constitutional. Just like other laws against assault. You smoke and you assault me it is that simple.

But the other things he did are just wrong. Government has no right to make laws forcing me to live a healthier life. That is my business not theirs as I harm only myself.

Steveangell on February 4, 2012 at 7:46 PM

“Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published “danger” threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

“Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

“For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published “danger” threshold.

“For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

“Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

“At the lower end of the scale– in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

“For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

“Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room — a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we’ve been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

“It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat.” ~

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

Second hand smoke, is a myth used by obnoxious cranks to force other people to behave like they’re told, by said obnoxious cranks.

You want a smoke free resturant, then go to one that bans smoking, but when you sit there and demand that smokers have no right to a place where they can smoke without being bothered.. you no longer are concerned about health, but about reaming people who you don’t like..

so, kiss my blue collar a**.

I’ll do as I please, and if that offends some blue nosed snob, so much the better.

I find it really hilarious when some fat slob at 300lbs… is whining that my smoke from fifty yards is ruining his health.. self awareness is not a trait commonly found in the perpetually offended.

mark81150 on February 4, 2012 at 7:50 PM

I cant wait to this clown is gone. I am so sick of his smug mug on the news during his press conferences ect. This guy gives Obama a run for the money as one of my most disliked polls. His “just so much smarter than you” attitude, AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Greed on February 4, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Second hand smoke, is a myth used by obnoxious cranks to force other people to behave like they’re told, by said obnoxious cranks.

It takes only one cigarette to cause me to have an asthma attack that could kill me.

Yes it is objectionable to far more than half the population. In fact ex smokers are often re addicted to cigarette through second hand smoke when they die of smoking related disease how is that not the fault of those who insist on smoking around others?

Thus even if you buy the false arguments that second hand smoke is not all that dangerous. Remember the false studies saying smoking was healthy. You are still left with the fact that an ex smoker is very likely to start smoking again if constantly exposed to second hand smoke. That can and does kill millions a year.

Steveangell on February 4, 2012 at 8:13 PM

One place Government should act. There is no freedom to make life unbearable for others. Before the smoking ban there were few Restaurants I could eat at. Many people are very allergic to the numerous poisons that pour out of tobacco. We do not have freedom to trample on the rights of others to live.

—-

Steveangell on February 4, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Really?.. I mean really? They recently at the3 behest of aq 350lb. city council woman, banned smoking in all resturants in my Ohio county,… before that, in the county seat, my town, almost half the resturants were nonsmoking, and that’s in a small Ohio town, and there are not that many people who are allergic to trace amounts of cigarette smoke, or there’d be massive suits to ban cars for their exhaust, which is much more abundent in a parking lot than cigarette smoke. It has nothing to do with science of health,. it’s just a nasty mean spirited vendetta against smokers by people who hate the smell.

But feel free to inflict their vices on others,.. like nasty colognes, bad breath, BO, stone cold ugliness and out right PC health Nazism.. I don’t care that you have a resturant without smoking,…

but you damn sure wanna make sure no one anywhere has one where he can light up.

So who’s the intolerant jerk, the freedom crushing jackbooted PC police? In this county, the fine for smoking a joint in a public building is far less than that for a cigarette. So you tell me it isn’t just vindictiveness. Anti-smoking jihadists are the most personally offensive mean spirited klowns I ever met.. they scream I’m KILLING THEM… when They’ll strut 70 yards across a public parking lot, to get close enough to tell me this.. and I did not bring my smoke to him, he sought me out.

I do not buy the frail as a flower defense, a few maybe,.. but vast numbers? Not a chance, they just make stuff up to pad the numbers and try to bully people.

Way back, it used to be, people would ask you politely, please the smoke bothers me, could you please put it out? I never knew a smoker to say no.. now, it’s they’ll seek you out, even outside, and put themselves inches from you, and get snarly nasty about you’re ruining their health. Then, get offended when told to go back to where they were, if it bothers them, the anti-smokers have no right to inflict close proximity then whine about it.

My pet peeve,.. wether I ever quit or not, the PC health nazis are no different than the other banners… liquer, books, they simply hate that they don’t control what other people do..

They banned all resturant smoking here, bars,.. and now, they want an outdoor ban as well, I kid you not, smoking in a parking lot, o

mark81150 on February 4, 2012 at 8:21 PM

They banned all resturant smoking here, bars,.. and now, they want an outdoor ban as well, I kid you not, smoking in a parking lot, or sidewalk, or open air park…

They want bans here too.

These people are not about their own health, it’s just sheer control freakism run amuck.. and the well intentioned boobs who supported them before, are se3eing them for what they are and backing away.

mark81150 on February 4, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Second hand smoke, is a myth used by obnoxious cranks to force other people to behave like they’re told, by said obnoxious cranks.

mark81150 on February 4, 2012 at 7:50 PM

The WHO did a study on it, found out it was all a pack of lies, and buried the story.

And I ain’t talkin’ about Roger Daltrey & Pete Townsend.

Lanceman on February 4, 2012 at 8:25 PM

This thing about the “gun show loophole”…

Are there any statistics on how many guns used in violent crimes arose from these “loopholes”?

For some reason I just can’t envision a bunch of gangstas roaming through a gun show to purchase weapons illegally. Not when they can probably get them just down the street for a fraction of the cost.

Mitoch55 on February 4, 2012 at 8:49 PM

It takes only one cigarette to cause me to have an asthma attack that could kill me.

Do you know how rare that is”

There simply are not millions of people in dire danger, but we are not insisting on smoking near you.. you are insisting on forcing every body to conform to your wishes, even if we self segragate. You’re forcing yourself on us, not the other way around.

Yes it is objectionable to far more than half the population. In fact ex smokers are often re addicted to cigarette through second hand smoke when they die of smoking related disease how is that not the fault of those who insist on smoking around others?

I don’t give a damn it’s offensive to you,.. or anyone else, it’s legal, and again, you simply will not stop forcing yourself on us in every possible location… even when we offered a compremise, just let us have a few smoking resturants, the rest nonsmoking, it was thrown back in our faces. That business owners were concerned they’d loose business and jobs.. no dent, the jihadists were fixated and as intolerant as any Taliban and as impervious to second opinions. OSHA set those numbers, I didn’t.

Thus even if you buy the false arguments that second hand smoke is not all that dangerous. Remember the false studies saying smoking was healthy. You are still left with the fact that an ex smoker is very likely to start smoking again if constantly exposed to second hand smoke. That can and does kill millions a year.

Steveangell on February 4, 2012 at 8:13 PM

It’s a matter of choice,.. and you are not listening (metaphorically).

We never said you can’t have nonsmoking resturants, or places to go..

but you refuse us anyplace..

anywhere.. and that..

is just plain evil, it’s as unjustifiable as prohibition and as likely to fail. Because I’m not planning to stop, and if I buy them off the back of a truck, so be it, it’ll be cheaper without all the taxes.

The millions all shrugging about legalizing and licensing weed, but the same millions screeching about they’s health and demanding cigarette smokers all grovel and beg forgiveness…

The science behind second hand smoke is junk science pushed by Al Gore style wanna be’s with an agenda.. my agenda is to be left alone..

your’s is too seek us out and inflict your frail little self wanted or not, to demand we do as you say.. even when you have a host of other places to be, we can’t have any..

go ta Hell…

mark81150 on February 4, 2012 at 8:49 PM

One place Government should act. There is no freedom to make life unbearable for others. Before the smoking ban there were few Restaurants I could eat at. Many people are very allergic to the numerous poisons that pour out of tobacco. We do not have freedom to trample on the rights of others to live.

Smokers can still smoke they just should not be allowed to force others to smoke as well. If they can come up with something that will allow a smoker to keep his smoke to himself I am all for it. Until then laws to keep smokers from denying my freedom to life are absolutely constitutional. Just like other laws against assault. You smoke and you assault me it is that simple.

Steveangell on February 4, 2012 at 7:46 PM

The pant-wetting hyperbole from the militant anti-smoking brigade rears its ugly head again. “Second-hand smoke” is simply a device constructed so that people who are merely inconvenienced by the unpleasantness can maintain a phony self-righteousness while enforcing their personal preferences on others by attaching a non-existent “health” component to it.

You act like you have a divine right to patronize any bar or restaurant and expect them to accommodate your petty sensitivities in order to stay in business. If a bar or restaurant wants to allow smoking, it should be allowed to do so, if that bar or restaurant does not want to allow smoking, it should be able to deny smoking on its premises…after all smoking is legal and these establishments are on private property. A free market creates an environment where the wishes of both smokers and non-smokers can be accommodated. Unfortunately, government’s relentless encroachment makes the question moot.

fitzfong on February 4, 2012 at 8:52 PM

How much is Bloomberg spending to take out an ad during the Super Bowl on this all too touchy topic? It’s a lot.

Air time for a Super Bowl :30 is $3-3.5 million. Production can be anywhere from the low six figures to the low seven figures.

Too bad you big-time bloggers can’t take 30 seconds to go to google and look it up.

bgoldman on February 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM

This is why we need Gingrich’s fairness doctrine, right?

thirtyandseven on February 4, 2012 at 9:11 PM

go ta Hell…

mark81150 on February 4, 2012 at 8:49 PM

I apologize for that,.. it was intemperate of me.

I do not apologize however for being angry, I was born an American, with the understanding, that as long as I followed the law, obeyed the rules, and tried to be an example, I would be allowed the simple benefit of being left to do as I wished. Choices,.. good or bad, are a birhright.

Now, you have an agenda driven group, using made up science, (akin to climate gate) to force conformity on a very unwilling public. Smokers are what,.. 20 percent or so..? But that does not grant pumped up busybodies the divine right to command subservience to their demands.

Or use it as an attempt to place the blame for your condition on people who just want to be able to have a cigarette after dinner.

I’ve seen the studies, and read the counter opinions, the second hand smoke adherents are just reading what they want to see. It’s no more dangerous than walking through any major city with all it’s air issues… less so in fact.

Second hand smoke is just a cudgel, hand crafted to beat the public into submission, because without it, there is no rational reason to force smokers into complience with laws which are merely vindictive power grabs.

mark81150 on February 4, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Steveangell on February 4, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Sorry bout your weak genes

maybe we should ban peanuts too since a fraction of a percent of the population would die from them

I guess this is how liberals are made
they believe they deserve special rights

Sonosam on February 4, 2012 at 9:30 PM

damn..

need a cigarette… be right back,.. oh wait, my house, I’ll smoke right here..

till they make that illegal too,.. never know when a health nazi will kick down the door, and start gasping for air,.. since we aren’t allowed to smoke anywhere they might decide to push their way into..

slap the cuffs on Danno.. got another second hand smoke killer here.

When, oh when are we going to start executing these murderers,.. MILLIONS ARE DYING BECAUSE OF THEM.. or so I’ve been told… now dope smokers just get a ticket, and we’ll probably legalize that, and we abort millions of babies a year..

but that cigarette smoker..

he’s the real villan ../s

-

I’m so sick of these people, everybody conform, for their benefit, but don’t expect them to show any respect in return..

mark81150 on February 4, 2012 at 9:33 PM

As someone else pointed out, “gun show loophole” is just another lie by the liberal gun banners to mask their intent to ban the private sale and transfer of firearms. The unintended (actually intended) consequences will be enormous.

I really really despise liberals and their arrogant, condescending maternal attitudes.

AZfederalist on February 4, 2012 at 9:38 PM

He is the Evil Mr Rogers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_G7CV_TqLI

Gonzo on February 4, 2012 at 10:14 PM

I don’t smoke. Never have. My husband smokes. I won’t even buy cigs for him. It’s disgusting to me. But it is LEGAL. If someone trys to take my husband’s LEGAL cigarettes from him I will shoot them with my LEGAL Glock 19. I am fed up with people telling me what to eat, breathe, read, watch, drive, and vote for. I am going to have to stop watching and reading news util after the election. It’s making me very dangerous.

megthered on February 4, 2012 at 10:21 PM

I always thought New Yorkers were tough, creative, independent people. Why would they want a nanny mayor?

Charm on February 4, 2012 at 4:20 PM

That was the 1930′s.

Today the average New Yorker is a member of a herd mentality whose primary interest is self-gratification. Hang out any evening and you will see the real New York in all its shallow glory. It’s non-stop looking for the next party or get off. The most unrealistic place I’ve ever lived.

The future’s gonna be cruel to them. They’re not prepared for it.

Cleombrotus on February 5, 2012 at 12:10 AM

I live in Idaho…I don’t give a flying crap how Bloomberg feels about guns. He can’t get mine.

sage0925 on February 5, 2012 at 4:26 AM

Bloomberg gets elected the same way that the murderer POS Ted Kennedy and McCain get elected by the people that swallow their talk and ignore their actions. We also have half a ton of Congressman that get elected the same way. California must be proud of their Governor and their Congress reps. too.

mixplix on February 5, 2012 at 5:07 AM

I’ll bet you that little man has a private security detail.

Staffed by men.

Men who carry guns.

Men who know how to use them.

That’s fine for him, but not for you – peons.

CorporatePiggy on February 5, 2012 at 9:10 AM

An open letter to Mayor BloomersInAKnot.

F you. I will never set foot in NYC to spend a single taxable dime in your gulag metropolis. You’re a blatant liar for perpetuating the myth of the gun show loophole.

We’re expected as responsible citizens to have a reasonable understanding of the criminal record of those we might even hand firearm to. Not as dealers, collectors, or in any capacity of sales. Just loaning a friend use of a gun on range day, or so much as showing them a weapon, if they’re a felon, we’re expected to know. Dealers have it much rougher, paperwork takes man hours and/or technology to run something by NCIS.

To suggest than any gun show is some sort of black market speakeasy for evading your already restrictive “reasonable gun laws” is the height of dishonesty.

I bought my first pistol at a gun show. I found an unbelievable price sticker on an EEEEVIL Springfield 1911 Champion, Mil Spec, in .45 auto. It’s a “compact” it’s “large caliber” and “military style” painted in “tactical” colours. They ran a background check on me to buy it. Can you believe it? I couldn’t even get the gun show loophole at a damn gun show! Turns out, it doesn’t exist.

Please move to Europe, it’s already just like the place you want us to be. Leave us alone. If your kind is right and we’re all gunning each other down on main street while inhaling a bucket of bacon fries laced with nicotine next week. What do you lose? Hell, one of their goofy monarchies might even grant you a Knighthood for your restless crusade to make everyone equally defenseless. I’m sure the irony of such a thing will weigh less than your chain of office.

PXCharon on February 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Mayor for Life Mike!

Wander on February 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM

thanks for the heads up, when his commercial airs I’ll walk outside to enjoy a smoke, eat some trans fat, and thank God that I don’t live in NYC

burserker on February 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I do live in NYC, and he had the law changed just for him to run for a 3rd term- just like a petty dictator in a third world country.
He is pushing for a “conjestion tax” to tax vehicles driving in NYC, because he is jealous of London. He needs to be clued in that no one is joy riding in NY – we are driving in to make money that he taxes, pay a toll ($13. Round trip) get taxed on parking (18%) and ticketed when you can’t make out the cryptic signs & rules for street and meter parking.

To bolster his claim of conjestion, he has blocked streets off by putting picnic tables in the middle of them (Broadway is now NarrowWay in Time Square, and put bike lanes in the middle of avenues, where the bikers tear around with no enforcement, riding thru red lights, on the sidewalk, no lights at night, headphones in both ears, and scream at pedestrians, because they are saving the earth.

His board of health lies to the people of NY with tax payer signs in the subway with a photo shopped amputee who musta lost that leg from supersizing.

Petty dictator. Divorced from reality.

Wander on February 5, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2