Ron Paul’s farewell salute to freedom

posted at 8:46 pm on November 14, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

There are a fair few issues over which I would heartily disagree with longtime Rep. Ron Paul, but there are also a heck of a lot on which I most vociferously would agree: Limited government, sticking to the Constitution, federalism, free markets, fiscal solvency, classical liberalism, free speech; he knows how to talk a great game on that front. His stubbornly-lingering presidential bid may’ve earned him some ire, and his steadfast libertarianism has managed to garner him a rather — er — shall we say boisterous following, but I wonder if any recent politician has made such a successful career out of sticking to his guns rather than adapting to the political moment; constancy seems to be quite the feat for too many of our elected leaders.

Paul made his farewell speech to the House of Representatives on Wednesday afternoon, as he’ll be retiring at the close of this Congress, and I thought his speech was a good summation of his career and provided some excellent food for thought. Again, I’m not on board with everything he has to say, but he did pose a poignant question of sorts that a lot of conservatives have been pondering in the wake of Mitt Romney’s defeat: “I’ve thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is, the principle that protects all personal, social, and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace, it should be an easy sell. Yet history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians, which are rarely, if ever, fulfilled. Should we have authoritarianism, or liberty?” Selling the conservative vision of freedom as the most effective, penetrating way to help people, and as the pro-market rather than the pro-business party, does seem to be quite the sticking point, doesn’t it? Click the image to watch:

Photobucket


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 3

Allah, you’re talking about a guy who has his own NYPD ARMED bodyguards when he vacations in the Bahama’s. Most Bahama police officers are UNARMED.

It’s GOOD to the THE KING!

How about taking those MILLIONS and pushing for a nation-wide “Laura’s Law”?

That would make sense. That would make a difference!

GarandFan on March 25, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:04 PM

I used to be very liberal, in total favor of abortion.

Then my wife came home with a bottle of wine and said, “We’re pregnant!”

I had to make a decision right then and there.

that decision is my son, his wife, and my middle granddaughter.

You horrid monster liberals like talking, but there’s nothing any of you can tell me.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Liam, most of the older conservatives here who aren’t afraid to speak their mind are vocal. Its what I meant. My point was the topic keeps coming up and a few people who are supposed to be conservative that you’d except to denounce people trying to lower the age of consent, don’t.

Full Faith and Credit is exactly why ssm needs a federal recognition trumping states. Other issues around marriage could be left to the states, like minimum age of consent and blood tests.

JetBoy on March 22, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Thanks for proving me right about the plan. You’ll be back in a few years to say, “Hey, we can’t have states limiting marriage to two near-adults. What about threesomes? What about 12-year-olds?”

Steve Eggleston on March 22, 2013 at 2:43 PM

The same guy Mr. Eggleston was commenting to had nothing to say to libfree in a thread where he was pretty vocal about it.

Once again, I meant no offense to the conservatives here who have been making a stand.

smoothsailing on March 25, 2013 at 6:18 PM

I don’t know why you think touting your supposed federalist inclinations has any relevance to this discussion. Even if you feel that these things should be state issues (many, even most social “conservatives” do not; there’s a reason the GOP platform still includes support for constitutional bans on abortion and gay marriage), I’m sure you still would like to see them banned at the state level. That’s still, unambiguously, an infringement on personal freedoms, whether or not it’s consistent with a federalist interpretation of the Constitution. At least Bloomy is honest about his intentions and his indifferent attitude towards personal freedom. Socons never are.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Actually you need to actually read the GOP 2012 platform. There ws no COnstitutional ban on gay marriage. And I don’t believe there was a constitutional ban on abortion either.

Furthermore, only a liberal would think that by government not recognizing something(gay marriage) that is restricting and infringing freedom. See conservatives believe freedom is the government OUT Of your life not inviting the government into your life.

Secondly, pro-lifers believe that abortion is akin to slavery. Roe v. Wade is akin to the Dred Scott decision. The baby being deemed less than a person has no legal standing and thus no rights and is considered property. We also know whole generations of women have been abused by abortion, and yes I would ban abortion at the state level. That is what the Constitution is about dearie or didn’t you know that. Roe v. Wade is bad law even Constitutional scholars who love abortion agree with that.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 6:22 PM

I used to be very liberal, in total favor of abortion.

Then my wife came home with a bottle of wine and said, “We’re pregnant!”

I had to make a decision right then and there.

that decision is my son, his wife, and my middle granddaughter.

You horrid monster liberals like talking, but there’s nothing any of you can tell me.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 6:18 PM

I’m touched. Really, I am. Truly, there is nothing more beautiful than throwing away your principles based on changing personal circumstances. You and Rob Portman are two peas in a pod.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:23 PM

I used to be very liberal…

You horrid monster liberals…

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Interesting.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Once again, I meant no offense to the conservatives here who have been making a stand.

smoothsailing on March 25, 2013 at 6:18 PM

I don’t find any offense in your posts. Just a discussion, to grasp your point I didn’t catch up to.

All is good. ~S~

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Here’s your Constitutional right to an abortion in all its glory.. Eat it up sweetie:

Davida Johnson is also speaking out about the abortion Gosnell did and she said the abortion facility he ran was filthy — with women sitting on blood-stained recliners. She told the Associated press she had a change of heart about the abortion but was forced to continue the abortion.

“I said, ‘I don’t want to do this,’ and he smacked me. They tied my hands and arms down and gave me more medication,” she told AP.

Johnson was 21-years-old and had a 3-year-old daughter at the time of the forced abortion. She had originally gone to a Planned Parenthood abortion center but chose Gosnell for the abortion after seeing pro-life advocates at the center. She told AP she paid $400 for the abortion and was told that pro-life advocates would not be present at Gosnell’s abortion center because Gosnell routinely did abortions during hours when his center was supposedly closed.

Johnson indicates she began having psychological issues following the forced abortion and she blames Gosnell for a mental illness she now suffers from and says she has had four miscarriages following the abortion.

She also told AP she doesn’t know if Gosnell killed her child in the abortion or in the snipping technique he used to killed babies shortly after birth.

“Did he do that to mine? Did he stab him in the neck?” Johnson asked at her North Philadelphia home. “Because I was out of it. I don’t know what he did to my baby.”

One woman, for example, was left lying in place for hours after Gosnell tore her cervix and colon while trying, unsuccessfully, to extract the fetus. Relatives who came to pick her up were refused entry into the building; they had to threaten to call the police. They eventually found her inside, bleeding and incoherent, and transported her to the hospital, where doctors had to remove almost half a foot of her intestines.

On another occasion, Gosnell simply sent a patient home, after keeping her mother waiting for hours, without telling either of them that she still had fetal parts inside her. Gosnell insisted she was fine, even after signs of serious infection set in over the next several days. By the time her mother got her to the emergency room, she was unconscious and near death.

A nineteen-year-old girl was held for several hours after Gosnell punctured her uterus. As a result of the delay, she fell into shock from blood loss, and had to undergo a hysterectomy.

One patient went into convulsions during an abortion, fell off the procedure table, and hit her head on the floor. Gosnell wouldn’t call an ambulance, and wouldn’t let the woman’s companion leave the building so that he could call an ambulance.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/24/kermit-gosnell-drugged-tied-up-woman-before-forced-abortion/

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Interesting.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 6:23 PM

The main reason liberals can’t tell me anything is because I used to be one of them. I’m not from the outside looking in. I used to be in the inside.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 6:25 PM

“I do think there are certain times”: when the commoners should conduct an open, physically violent REVOLT against those who supposedly serve as elected officials.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2013 at 4:58 PM

If they keep going that will probably happen. It seems they are pushing for it.

dogsoldier on March 25, 2013 at 6:30 PM

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Uh huh. And I suppose you think Columbine or Sandy Hook is the end result of the Constitutional right to gun ownership?

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Uh huh. And I suppose you think Columbine or Sandy Hook is the end result of the Constitutional right to gun ownership?

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Yes because someone who steals guns and shoots someone is the same thing as a STATE REGULATED AND LICENSED DOCTOR performing abortions.

BWAHHHHAAAa

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM

You do realize, after all, that idiot questions don’t enhance your liberal cred among Conservatives, right?

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 6:35 PM

The main reason liberals can’t tell me anything is because I used to be one of them. I’m not from the outside looking in. I used to be in the inside.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 6:25 PM

What I find interesting is that you use very heated labeling against them(the kind normally used by the Left against us…ironic in and of itself) while at the same time admitting that you were what you now hate.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Uh huh. And I suppose you think Columbine or Sandy Hook is the end result of the Constitutional right to gun ownership?

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Those events are a direct result of liberalism. You know–that ‘Gun Free Zone’ kind of mentality.

In the meantime, you liberals freak over a kid drawing a Crayon picture of his uncle who is a Marine. (yes–that boy got in trouble for that at school two years ago)

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Uh huh. And I suppose you think Columbine or Sandy Hook is the end result of the Constitutional right to gun ownership?

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM

No, us still being able to still speak our minds here regardless of an oppressive liberal government and biased media is the end result. Sometimes I think you guys like gun violence to happen to push your agenda.

smoothsailing on March 25, 2013 at 6:40 PM

In the meantime, you liberals freak over a kid drawing a Crayon picture of his uncle who is a Marine. (yes–that boy got in trouble for that at school two years ago)

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Better to bring up the pop-tart. I’d like to hear Bloomberg defend that decision.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Yes because someone who steals guns and shoots someone is the same thing as a STATE REGULATED AND LICENSED DOCTOR performing abortions.

BWAHHHHAAAa

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Stealing guns and using them to commit mass murder: illegal.

Strapping a woman down and forcibly performing an abortion on her: illegal.

Why don’t you explain to me why these two illegal actions are not comparable? And the fact that he was regulated and licensed is irrelevant–he was licensed to perform abortions within the boundaries of the law, not do the things he is now being criminally charged for. I could just as easily replace my example of Columbine and Sandy Hook with one where a lawfully purchased and owned firearm was used to commit murder.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM

He’s for surveillance, and against firearms…

because his positions, current and future, puts himself and others in danger…extra-judicially. A cycle of despotism.

John Kettlewell on March 25, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Stealing guns and using them to commit mass murder: illegal.

Crime committed in one day.. Not legally sanctioned by the state.

Strapping a woman down and forcibly performing an abortion on her: illegal.

Why don’t you explain to me why these two illegal actions are not comparable? And the fact that he was regulated and licensed is irrelevant–he was licensed to perform abortions within the boundaries of the law, not do the things he is now being criminally charged for. I could just as easily replace my example of Columbine and Sandy Hook with one where a lawfully purchased and owned firearm was used to commit murder.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Crimes committed over DECADES.. Sanctioned by the state and the state looked the other way because it was an abortion doctor and no one wanted to “violate the right of privacy” of an abortion doctor. If he was any other doctor, he would have lost his license years ago.

http://kermitgosnellcrimes.wikispaces.com/

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Uh huh. And I suppose you think Columbine or Sandy Hook is the end result of the Constitutional right to gun ownership?

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Funny how both of those events happened on Liberal Democrat President’s watches.

Liberal Democrat State CT has some of the toughest gun laws in America. Didn’t stop Sandy Hook. And Newtown’s Democrat-Run Public School system very much helped to create the killer that Lanza became.

Please tell us why Chicago, which has perhaps even tougher gun laws than CT, refuses to enforce those laws. And why a sheriff in Colorado has already gone on record saying that he will not enforce that state’s new law.

(Starts Stopwatch)

Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2013 at 6:46 PM

What I find interesting is that you use very heated labeling against them(the kind normally used by the Left against us…ironic in and of itself) while at the same time admitting that you were what you now hate.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 6:38 PM

There’s an old saying: “Nothing is worse than a reformed smoker.”

Yes, I revile liberals. And I’m a b*stard about it and a total pr*ck. But that’s because I know them, having been a staunch liberal.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 6:46 PM

All I know is idiots like him are causing some of my liberal friends to ask what is truly the role of Government and why isn’t it smaller…so keep talking Bloomy! You’re causing them to see the light!

nextgen_repub on March 25, 2013 at 4:48 PM

It’s funny that Bloomberg is talking about the government having the right/duty to infringe on peoples’ privacy rights for the collective good (as defined by government).

Think Bloomberg knows that the “right to privacy” was a creation (via “penumbras” and “emanations”) of the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut? Think he knows that the constitutional “right to abortion” was created by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, and derives directly from (and is dependent on) the right to privacy?

If the government can legitimately take away our right to privacy, then it can certainly take away a derivative right like the right to abortion.

Does Bloomberg really want to go there?

AZCoyote on March 25, 2013 at 6:47 PM

All because of the politics of abortion rights:


Section VI: How Did This Go On So Long?
The callous killing of babies outside the womb, the routinely performed third trimester abortions, the deaths of at least two patients, and the grievous health risks inflicted on countless other women by Gosnell and his unlicensed staff are not the only shocking things that this Grand Jury investigation uncovered. What surprised the jurors even more is the official neglect that allowed these crimes and conditions to persist for years in a Philadelphia medical facility.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH NEGLECTED ITS DUTY TO ENSURE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF PATIENTS IN PENNSYLVANIA’S ABORTION CLINICS.

We discovered that Pennsylvania’s Department of Health has deliberately chosen not to enforce laws that should afford patients at abortion clinics the same safeguards and assurances of quality health care as patients of other medical service providers. …. The Board’s attorneys had ample notice of Gosnell’s illegal and reckless abortion practices…. Eight years before Karnamaya Mongar died, a former Gosnell employee told the Department of State about the illegal practice that resulted in Mrs. Mongar’s death…. Yet … the Board too no action to suspend or revoke his license.

PENNSYLVANIA’S DEPARTMENT OF STATE NEGLECTED ITS DUTY TO DISCIPLINE A DOCTOR ENGAGED IN UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

The Department of Health was not the only state agency that could and should have shut down Gosnell decades ago. ….

THE PHILADEPHIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ALSO IGNORED ALARMING WARNINGS ABOUT GOSNELL’S PRACTICE.

Marcella Choung was not the only person to report Gosnell’s appalling medical practice to health officials. An employee of the Philadelphia Department of Public Health alerted her bosses – twice – that things were seriously wrong at Gosnell’s clinic. The last time she did so was one month before Karnamaya Mongar died. Records produced by the city department reveal that employees in at least two different divisions within the department missed red flags that should have led to investigation and action. Supervisors in the Division of Disease Control ignored a nurse’s disturbing report about conditions in Gosnell’s clinic in 2008 and 2009. ….

FELLOW DOCTORS WHO OBSERVED THE RESULTS OF GOSNELL’S RECKLESS AND CRIMINAL PRACTICES FAILED TO REPORT HIM TO AUTHORITIES.

Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act requires any doctor who treats a woman because of a complication arising from an abortion to make a report to DOH. Willful failure to do so constitutes “unprofessional conduct” and subjects the treating doctor to sanctions by the Board of Medicine. Clearly, this law is being violated, if not willfully, at least consistently. ….

WHO COULD HAVE PREVENTED ALL THIS DEATH AND DAMAGE?

Had state and local officials performed their duties properly, Gosnell’s clinic would have been shut down decades ago. Gosnell would have lost the medical license that he used to inflict irreparable harm on women; to illegally abort viable, late-term fetuses; and to kill innumerable babies outside the womb.

Had DOH treated the clinic as the ambulatory surgical facility it was, DOH inspectors would have assured that the staff were all licensed, that the facility was clean and sanitary, that anesthesia protocols were followed, and that the building was properly equipped and could, at least, accommodate stretchers. Failure to comply with these standards would have given cause for DOH to revoke the facility’s license to operate.

If inspectors had looked solely for violations of Pennsylvania’s abortion regulations, there would have been ample grounds to revoke the approval of Gosnell’s clinic as an abortion provider – as was demonstrated when DOH inspectors finally entered the facility in February 2010.

Had state inspectors reviewed patient files, they would inevitably have noticed that Gosnell was routinely performing abortions without informed consent from patients or signed consent from parents. His files revealed that he was performing numerous illegal abortions at “24.5 weeks,” in itself a confession of criminality. Gosnell, moreover, almost never had the required pathology reports for second-trimester abortions.

Had DOH inspectors spoken to the workers, they might well have discovered that Gosnell’s procedure included severing the spinal cords of babies born alive. Revoking his approval to perform abortions would have been simple. But no one from DOH set foot in Gosnell’s clinic for over 16 years.

The Department of State prosecutors did not even need to go looking for reasons to revoke Gosnell’s medical license. Complaints came to them. Marcella Choung, the former Gosnell employee, spelled out his entire criminal operation for them. Complaints of perforated uteruses and bowels; of a patient’s death from a botched procedure that resulted in a $900,000 settlement; and of family members physically barred from summoning emergency help, were all sent to Department of State attorneys. Yet the department considered none of these complaints serious enough to take action against Gosnell.

Had the Philadelphia Department of Public Health reported to state officials all that its employees knew or suspected about filthy facilities, fraud, the unlicensed practice of medicine, anesthesia chosen by patients based on cost, infectious waste improperly handled and stored, and vaccines stored next to medical waste, perhaps state authorities would have taken action against Gosnell and Women’s Medical Society.

And had fellow doctors, the ones who treated the women after Gosnell butchered them, demanded the attention of DOH and the Board of Medicine, that too might have made a difference.

We don’t know. We only know what happened when none of these people did what they should have.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 6:48 PM

What I find interesting is that you use very heated labeling against them(the kind normally used by the Left against us…ironic in and of itself) while at the same time admitting that you were what you now hate.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 6:38 PM

The greater irony is that this dolt, who admits to changing his attitude towards abortion because he found out his wife is pregnant, thinks he has standing to criticize anyone else’s reasoning as idiotic. His anecdote is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on this site. It’s akin to saying “I used to support gun control, but then I found out how much fun target shooting with a semi-automatic rifle is!”

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:48 PM

The greater irony is that this dolt, who admits to changing his attitude towards abortion because he found out his wife is pregnant, thinks he has standing to criticize anyone else’s reasoning as idiotic. His anecdote is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on this site. It’s akin to saying “I used to support gun control, but then I found out how much fun target shooting with a semi-automatic rifle is!”

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Yeah kind of like your reasoning that government not licensing something is an infringment on individual freedom..

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Crimes committed over DECADES.. Sanctioned by the state and the state looked the other way because it was an abortion doctor and no one wanted to “violate the right of privacy” of an abortion doctor. If he was any other doctor, he would have lost his license years ago.

If Gosnell’s crimes were sanctioned by the state, they wouldn’t be crimes at all, would they? I know it’s hard, but just try to use a little logic every so often.

Funny how both of those events happened on Liberal Democrat President’s watches.

Liberal Democrat State CT has some of the toughest gun laws in America. Didn’t stop Sandy Hook. And Newtown’s Democrat-Run Public School system very much helped to create the killer that Lanza became.

Please tell us why Chicago, which has perhaps even tougher gun laws than CT, refuses to enforce those laws. And why a sheriff in Colorado has already gone on record saying that he will not enforce that state’s new law.

(Starts Stopwatch)

Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Spare me your smug, irrelevant strawmen. I don’t support gun control. I was using it as an example.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:51 PM

The main reason liberals can’t tell me anything is because I used to be one of them. I’m not from the outside looking in. I used to be in the inside.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 6:25 PM

A lot of us of a certain age are. Or used to be. I was raised hard left by a feminist.

At some point in time you grow up see the indoctrination as lies and BS and essentially unworkable in any kind of practical sense.

kim roy on March 25, 2013 at 6:52 PM

The greater irony is that this dolt, who admits to changing his attitude towards abortion because he found out his wife is pregnant, thinks he has standing to criticize anyone else’s reasoning as idiotic. His anecdote is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on this site. It’s akin to saying “I used to support gun control, but then I found out how much fun target shooting with a semi-automatic rifle is!”

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:48 PM

That was his epiphany. Who are you to say it was the wrong way to start conversion?

kim roy on March 25, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:48 PM

You’re a moron. Many people I know became pro-life in just such instances. I have a relative who became pro-life when she discovered she was unable to have a child.

Whatever changes their heart, we welcome.

smoothsailing on March 25, 2013 at 6:54 PM

If Gosnell’s crimes were sanctioned by the state, they wouldn’t be crimes at all, would they? I know it’s hard, but just try to use a little logic every so often.

They weren’t crimes. You really should do some reading since he is only charged with 7 babies death and one women. Yet we know he killed many more babies and at least one other patient. The state did nothing about those deaths.. The state had many complaints of patients who had sepsis, hysterectomisis due to negligence and did nothing. Therefore he stayed in practice based on state licensing and sanction making his crimes state sanctioned.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 6:58 PM

The greater irony is that this dolt, who admits to changing his attitude towards abortion because he found out his wife is pregnant, thinks he has standing to criticize anyone else’s reasoning as idiotic. His anecdote is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on this site. It’s akin to saying “I used to support gun control, but then I found out how much fun target shooting with a semi-automatic rifle is!”

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Well, liberal, I changed my mind about abortion because I realized that the baby my wife was carrying — a gift from GOD — overrode my liberal politics.

If that’s a problem for you, I guess we’re both stuck with it.

Because of that decision, I have a son who has a wonderful wife, and also one of my three granddaughters with another new baby on the way.

Sure–a liberal like you thinks he can score a fabled win. Except I have my reality.

I can shake hands with my son. I can kiss the cheek of his Bride–who is a daughter to me as if she is of my own blood. And, more, I can scoop up my granddaughter to snuggle her and give her a $100 dollar bill to spoil her much as I want.

Maybe you have all that–I don’t know. But i love what I have, after I stopped being a liberal like YOU.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Spare me your smug, irrelevant strawmen. I don’t support gun control. I was using it as an example.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:51 PM

A bad example.. Since the 2nd amendment is actually in plain written English — Can you cite which amendment abortion is?

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 6:59 PM

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Tenth. Works for just about any issue.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Tenth. Works for just about any issue.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 7:03 PM

And that’s where we have to part. The 10th ends where another genetic code begins. :)

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Few people would look better than this guy with one of those shirts that have 2 big hairy gonads right underneath the neck hole.

Only one that would model it better is our fearless kenyan leader… and maybe Harry reid.

acyl72 on March 25, 2013 at 7:16 PM

And that’s where we have to part. The 10th ends where another genetic code begins. :)

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 7:04 PM

I’m not necessarily in disagreement on that part, but when you start asking where in the Constitution there is a right to X, you have to recognize that Amendment X is there specifically to answer that question.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Well, liberal, I changed my mind about abortion because I realized that the baby my wife was carrying — a gift from GOD — overrode my liberal politics.

Your liberal politics demanded that every single pregnancy end in abortion? Because if not, I don’t see how you could possibly have such a hard time distinguishing between a pregnancy you and your wife welcomed and a pregnancy someone else doesn’t want.

And that’s where we have to part. The 10th ends where another genetic code begins. :)

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 7:04 PM

I thought you claimed to believe that abortion should be regulated by the states? Because that is precisely what the Tenth Amendment protects.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Your liberal politics demanded that every single pregnancy end in abortion? Because if not, I don’t see how you could possibly have such a hard time distinguishing between a pregnancy you and your wife welcomed and a pregnancy someone else doesn’t want.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 7:17 PM

I really piss you off, that I’m no longer liberal. YOU need validation. I don’t. I’m a Conservative, but YOU keep arguing your liberal point. YOU can’t just say, “OK, Liam. F-you.”

Instead, YOU keep pushing. I only stated my personal case. Your mileage may vary.

I have nothing to prove around here. I’m just me–a regular average guy. YOU, on the other hand…

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Bloomberg is an elitist, statist creep who disdains individual liberty in favor of his own self-appointed superior judgement. Voters need to crush this plutocrat like the cockroach that he is.

petefrt on March 25, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Bloomberg will soon announce Gay for A Day Day where everyone has to go ghey for one day a year to show broadmindedness and tolerance and to Expunge Bigotry from the Big Apple (and to see whether they might be latently homosexual themselves).

For their own good, of course.

profitsbeard on March 25, 2013 at 7:28 PM

I thought you claimed to believe that abortion should be regulated by the states? Because that is precisely what the Tenth Amendment protects.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Actually the 10th amendment leaves it up the states or the individual.. Which is to say that if abortion is not specifically banned or given to the federally government it is given to the states or the individual.

I am fine with the compromise of states getting abortion back because I know the science and technology is on my side. I also am practical enough to know that you can’t go from a federal abortion free for all to an all out ban. Ultimately though I believe that the fetus has a right to life and technology and science will prove that. Roe v. Wade was decided on viability which is a technological term. Constitutional rights should never be dependent on technological changes. It was bad law.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 7:29 PM

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED

TX-96 on March 25, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Go watch all the frickin porn and tv you want..Keep off public places my children may have access to.

What else do you want to know.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Yes, but for that to happen on a voluntary basis would require this soulless ghoul to have class. Unfortunately, class and a steady diet of porn don’t go hand in hand.

CurtZHP on March 25, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Care to keep going here, liberal? I have all night, I’m in bad mood, and I hate liberals like YOU.

Wanna play?

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Actually the 10th amendment leaves it up the states or the individual.. Which is to say that if abortion is not specifically banned or given to the federally government it is given to the states or the individual.

I am fine with the compromise of states getting abortion back because I know the science and technology is on my side. I also am practical enough to know that you can’t go from a federal abortion free for all to an all out ban. Ultimately though I believe that the fetus has a right to life and technology and science will prove that. Roe v. Wade was decided on viability which is a technological term. Constitutional rights should never be dependent on technological changes. It was bad law.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 7:29 PM

So unless I’m reading you wrong here, your appeals to federalism are really just about pragmatically moving the ball closer to the goal of eradicating abortion nationally anyway? Way to vindicate what I’ve been saying all along: social “conservatives” very much intend to use the federal government to promote and enforce their beliefs. Federalism is just a means to an end. States’ rights aren’t worth crap to you.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

States’ rights aren’t worth crap to you.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

And YOU aren’t worth crap to most other people.

What’s your point, liberal?

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 201

You’re an ugly sad little person. You know it too. What a loser. Pretty sad really.

CW on March 25, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Spare me your smug, irrelevant strawmen. I don’t support gun control. I was using it as an example.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:51 PM

A bad example.. Since the 2nd amendment is actually in plain written English — Can you cite which amendment abortion is?

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Armin is far too ignorant to even get your question.

CW on March 25, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Who writes the rules Mike?

mixplix on March 25, 2013 at 7:46 PM

States’ rights aren’t worth crap to you.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

So dipshite if someone thinks states right’s don’t apply to human rights they can’t believe in federalism?

Talk about a logical fallacy. Yeh you’re sad and dishonest. You have one of those personalities. Nobody here and nobody in your day to day life likes you.

CW on March 25, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

This may well come as a shock to you, but YOU are really quite inadequate to your own cause. Really, Armin — it’s not like YOU are able to change any minds around here.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Well…this discussion has gone peachy.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Armin as such a limited range when it comes to discussing topics. What a dullard and a bad one at that.

CW on March 25, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

When I was liberal, I did a whole lot better than YOU when espousing The Cause.

You’d shit to know how many of YOUR type we sent packing.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Armin as such a limited range when it comes to discussing topics. What a dullard and a bad one at that.

CW on March 25, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Armin would need to rise to reach the level of stupid.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 7:53 PM

So unless I’m reading you wrong here, your appeals to federalism are really just about pragmatically moving the ball closer to the goal of eradicating abortion nationally anyway? Way to vindicate what I’ve been saying all along: social “conservatives” very much intend to use the federal government to promote and enforce their beliefs. Federalism is just a means to an end. States’ rights aren’t worth crap to you.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

State’s right means that. States can vote on it. What part of that didn’t you get? I am just confident in the fact that technology and science is on my side and that voters in other states will eventually see the wisdom of voting for an abortion ban. Do you not understand what state’s rights means. It means that voters in the states are allowed to vote.

See the problem with the prochoice side is that the want it to be a choice but not an educated choice. I am confident that when people become educated on the issue; they become prolife.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Armin is about as relevant as libfreeordie trying to tell us all about what it’s like to be straight white man in modern America.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Mike Bloomberg: “I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom”

@AP, if you had scare-quoted “freedom,” you would have nailed it succinctly.

Axe on March 25, 2013 at 8:01 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

What–you run out of steam to try persuading us all to your side?

Forget about me– I’m a lost cause to you.

But how about all the other people here? Or is it that YOU can’t change the minds of others?

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Pissing on the stoopid serfs.

Progressive’s favorite sport.

PappyD61 on March 25, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

You strike me as the kind of person who’d F up his own funeral.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Who are the all knowing, godly ones called “we” that are free to infringe upon our freedoms? Don’t infringe on my freedoms, Bloomberg.

rplat on March 25, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Armin,, yea your argument got destroyed.

(thanks guys, that was a pleasure to read. ;)

Maybe we can find compromise with bloomberg where we drown fetuses in big-gulp cups, or shoot them with “assault” rifles. It’s not such a strech. The chinese drown them in buckets of water.

wolly4321 on March 25, 2013 at 8:21 PM

So unless I’m reading you wrong here, your appeals to federalism are really just about pragmatically moving the ball closer to the goal of eradicating abortion nationally anyway? Way to vindicate what I’ve been saying all along: social “conservatives” very much intend to use the federal government to promote and enforce their beliefs. Federalism is just a means to an end. States’ rights aren’t worth crap to you.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

This makes no sense, but look at who wrote it.

Federalism is about each state preserving their own sovereignty and culture, not using the Federal government to thrust a one size fits all agenda on everyone. The problem with people like you is that you are motivated by hatred and disdain for so called social conservatives, so if social conservatism were to gain ground through basic persuasion, you will suddenly become more sympathetic to centralizing power in Washington. For this reason, social liberals are rarely reliable in keeping government restrained.

The smaller the state is, the less presence it has in social policy and education to shape public opinion; churches will step in to fill the void and this threatens your social values (which are little more than “whatever social conservatives are, I’m not”).

Daemonocracy on March 25, 2013 at 8:30 PM

wolly4321 on March 25, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Armin is a True Believer, that kind of total liberal who willfully blocks out any possible reason.

Not once did he even bother to postulate that ‘abortion is a necessary evil’. No — none of that kind of defense.

Armin is a liberal. That covers everything about him.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 8:31 PM

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 7:29 PM

.
So unless I’m reading you wrong here, your appeals to federalism are really just about pragmatically moving the ball closer to the goal of eradicating abortion nationally anyway? Way to vindicate what I’ve been saying all along: social “conservatives” very much intend to use the federal government to promote and enforce their beliefs. Federalism is just a means to an end. States’ rights aren’t worth crap to you.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

.
Unless I’m reading you wrong here, abolishing ‘abortion-on-demand’ would be an encroachment on FREEDOM, right ?

listens2glenn on March 25, 2013 at 8:33 PM

“I do think there are certain times”: when the commoners should conduct an open, physically violent REVOLT against those who supposedly serve as elected officials.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2013 at 4:58 PM

.
If they keep going that will probably happen. It seems they are pushing for it.

dogsoldier on March 25, 2013 at 6:30 PM

.
I know . . . . . : (

listens2glenn on March 25, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Mikey,, I hope statist such as yourself realize that folks like myself completely realize you can’t be reformed. either you purge us or we purge you.

Your not getting my guns.

Sidenote: couldn’t even get .22lr at the gunshop. .223 frangibles could be had for $24.50/20. .40cal was available.

I can’t get ammo. Glad I have some stockpiled. I have to start handloading. Lee loader.

wolly4321 on March 25, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Uh huh. And I suppose you think Columbine or Sandy Hook is the end result of the Constitutional right to gun ownership?

Armin Tamzarian

Why do you have a problem with either of those? You’ve made it clear you believe laws against killing infringe on personal freedoms.

xblade on March 25, 2013 at 8:53 PM

I can’t get ammo. Glad I have some stockpiled. I have to start handloading. Lee loader.

wolly4321 on March 25, 2013 at 8:48 PM

.
Shhhh . . . not so loud . . . . . . . . . the government will start buying up all of the powder and primers, next.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2013 at 9:01 PM

… restricting abortion and gay marriage (and to a lesser extent since the 80′s, pornography, television, etc.) is interested in infringing on personal freedom?

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:04 PM

So, you enjoy watching pornography on your television, while talking with your gay lover about your upcoming nuptials? And, of course, bemoaning the fact that neither one of you will ever be able to enjoy an abortion paid for by the state.

Have at it, lefty.

But we’re not going to drop the age of consent to nine for you.

Solaratov on March 25, 2013 at 9:07 PM

This makes no sense, but look at who wrote it.

Federalism is about each state preserving their own sovereignty and culture, not using the Federal government to thrust a one size fits all agenda on everyone. The problem with people like you is that you are motivated by hatred and disdain for so called social conservatives, so if social conservatism were to gain ground through basic persuasion, you will suddenly become more sympathetic to centralizing power in Washington. For this reason, social liberals are rarely reliable in keeping government restrained.

The smaller the state is, the less presence it has in social policy and education to shape public opinion; churches will step in to fill the void and this threatens your social values (which are little more than “whatever social conservatives are, I’m not”).

Daemonocracy on March 25, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Exactly! Armin is for state’s rights as long as the states vote the way Armin wants.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 9:07 PM

I do think there are certain times when the people should impeach and/or remove public officials from office for infringing too much on their freedom.

This whole concept of “government of the people by the people for the people” is just a big joke today.

The people seem to be nothing more than bread for the elected officials and for the bureaucrats who carry out their desires. We are here to pay for and serve their needs. Any needs they deem necessary.

The purpose of the government has morphed from protecting the American way of life into merely protecting themselves from us. As thought the purpose of our constitution was to protect the government… not the people or our way of life.

We are becoming everything our founders and immigrants came here to get away from.

JellyToast on March 25, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Uh huh. And I suppose you think Columbine or Sandy Hook is the end result of the Constitutional right to gun ownership?

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Nope.

They’re the end result of all these years of liberal indoctrination of kids to believe that human life has no more value than an image in a video game.

You liberals/leftists created the monsters. Now, you’re stuck with them and want to find something – anything – to blame rather than accept the responsibility for the ‘unintended consequences’ of your policies.

Solaratov on March 25, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:48 PM

You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on March 25, 2013 at 9:42 PM

I don’t support gun control. I was using it as an example.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Sure you support gun control. You support anything that your masters tell you to.

Solaratov on March 25, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Solaratov, I’d say you pretty much nailed it.

As far as Bloomberg’s statement goes, it’s good that his constituency has someone to relate to. To paraphrase an old TV line, “There are 8 million cretins in the Naked City.”

Can you imagine what the media would say if George W. Bush said, “I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom”? Dude. He was given a tough time about getting Patriot Act wire taps on guys calling Pakistan five times a week. And it’s a good thing he didn’t try to outlaw long neck beer.

NoPain on March 25, 2013 at 9:52 PM

I’m touched. Really, I am. Truly, there is nothing more beautiful than throwing away your principles based on changing personal circumstances. You and Rob Portman are two peas in a pod.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Brilliant. Just brilliant!

thuja on March 25, 2013 at 9:55 PM

OBAMAcare……..the death panel of individual liberty and freedom!

Biden was right.

EVERYTHING will be regulated “as the Secretary shall determine”.

PappyD61 on March 25, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Way to vindicate what I’ve been saying all along: social “conservatives” very much intend to use the federal government to promote and enforce their beliefs. Federalism is just a means to an end. States’ rights aren’t worth crap to you.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

You are, of course, absolutely right. As your side also uses the federal government to promote and enforce their beliefs.

It’s kind of hard not to, when the 14th Amendment exists, which makes the federal government the ultimate guarantor of our civil rights.

As for States Rights, I don’t believe in them. The Civil War turned us from “these United States” into “the United States” — not that they weren’t “the United States” already. The Taney Court proved that when it called the Missouri Compromise illegal and stated that the Fugitive Slave Laws were legal. At that point, the North had lost — and Constitutionally at that — because no State could deprive any person of his or her property — that property remained their property no matter in what State it was.

It took those stupid hotheaded South Carolina folk, and the rest of the South, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by rebelliously attacking the United States…

unclesmrgol on March 25, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Let’s have universal background checks for everyone attempting to purchase condoms. You never know…there may be some paedophiles or rapists on the list.

Let’s have universal background checks for everyone attempting to publish anything. You never know…there might be a few Juan Williams and Jayson Blairs.

Let’s have universal background checks for every woman seeking an abortion. The Egg Shell Skull principle is in play here. You never know…there may be some borderline mental disorder that an abortion could trigger a full attack.

Let’s have universal background checks on all non-profit and for-profit managers, executives and board members such as Corporations Organised Under Act of Congress (including Federal Credit Unions), Title Holding Corporation for Exempt Organisation, Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organisations, Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organisations, and Local Associations of Employees, Labour, Agricultural, and Horticultural Organisations, Business Leagues, Chambers of Commerce, Real Estate Boards, etc, Social and Recreational Clubs, Fraternal Beneficiary Societies and Associations, Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Associations, Domestic Fraternal Societies and Associations, Teachers’ Retirement Fund Associations, Benevolent Life Insurance Associations, Mutual Ditch or Irrigation Companies, Mutual or Cooperative Telephone Companies, etc, Cemetery Companies, State-Chartered Credit Unions, Mutual Reserve Funds, Mutual Insurance Companies or Associations, Cooperative Organisations to Finance Crop Operations, Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Trusts, Employee-Funded Pension Trust, Post or Organisation of Past or Present Members of the Armed Forces, Black lung Benefit Trusts, Withdrawal Liability Payment Fund, Veterans Organisation, Title Holding Corporations or Trusts with Multiple Parents, State-Sponsored Organisation Providing Health Coverage for High-Risk Individuals, State-Sponsored Workers’ Compensation Reinsurance Organisation, National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust, and Qualified Nonprofit Health Insurance Issuers (Obamacare-created). You never know what kind of Richard Trumka, James Hoffa, David Brock, Andy Stern, Bertha Lewis, Wade Rathke, Gary Delgado, Robert McChesney, Van Jones, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorhn, Michael Klonsky, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich, Maurice Strong, Al Gore, and the rest of the lunatic bin.
Let’s have universal background checks for everyone registering to vote and the voting. You never know…they might not be citizens or be felons or might have already voted by absentee ballot.

Let’s have universal background checks before individuals can sell their used cars. You never know…the prospective buyer might have 3 DUIs and served time for vehicular manslaughter.

Let’s have universal background checks before African-Americans and poor whites can exercise their Fifteenth Amendment right to vote. You never know some might be felons or non-citizens.

Let’s have universal background checks before women can exercise their Nineteenth Amendment right to vote. You never know some might be felons, non-citizens, or men!

Let’s have universal background checks for all young people before they can exercise their Twenty-Sixth Amendment right to vote. You never know, they might only be 16 or 18 year-old felons or non-citizens or actually Imperial stormtroopers.

Let’s have universal background checks for all prospective used television sellers. You never know. Some may have disabled the adult blocking feature which prevents children from viewing naughty pornography.

Let’s have universal background checks on both lawyers and prospective clients, as well as physicians and prospective patients. You never know. Some lawyers are shady. Some clients are NIGHTMARES ON HELL STREET. Some brain surgeons have Parkinson’s Disease and some patients deserve them.

I could go on, but I doubt that Bloomie would find these are “certain time we should infringe on [anyone's] freedom.”…and neither do I.

Resist We Much on March 25, 2013 at 10:41 PM

“I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom”

.
This thread could go on forever, just making alterations that parody the original headline.
.

“I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom citizenship.”

.

“I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom the ‘Bill Of Rights’.

.

“I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom lower the boom, on you commoners.

.

“I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom remind you commoners of your status (or lack thereof).”

.
See ? … It’s EASY !

listens2glenn on March 25, 2013 at 10:54 PM

“I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom”

Oh, I so agree your mayorship. As they’re doing in Cypress, perhaps “we” the proles you claim to represent should seize all your money above $100k. To quote another famous American, “At one point, haven’t you made enough money?”

Let’s not be greedy, Nanny Bloomberg. Thanks for understanding the needs of the “We”.

theCork on March 25, 2013 at 10:55 PM

I could go on, but I doubt that Bloomie would find these are “certain time we should infringe on [anyone's] freedom.”…and neither do I.

Resist We Much on March 25, 2013 at 10:41 PM

.
Now there’s a LIST. : )

listens2glenn on March 25, 2013 at 10:57 PM

Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Spare me your smug, irrelevant strawmen. I can’t credibly respond to your facts so all I can do is Alinsky you again.

Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Corrected for reality.

H-

Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2013 at 11:47 PM

Tyrant with a Napoleon Complex.

John the Libertarian on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 AM

Care to keep going here, liberal? I have all night, I’m in bad mood, and I hate liberals like YOU.

Wanna play?

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

I like you, Liam.

Alana on March 26, 2013 at 1:48 AM

Shhhh . . . not so loud . . . . . . . . . the government will start buying up all of the powder and primers, next.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Pssst……they already did.

Just try to find small caliber rifle primers. Casings?? Just about impossible.

Talon on March 26, 2013 at 5:48 AM

“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”

Bloomberg does not speak for me or anyone like me. He is a despot who seeks to impose his will on others.

That not democratic or free by any definition. It is tyrannical, kingly and the product of a man who fancies himself dictator.

If Mr. Bloomberg wants to impose his will on others, I have the following suggestion. Take your billions, buy and island, take all those who want to be ruled with you and start your own kingdom.

We are a constitutional republic and a nation “of the people, for the people, by the people”. We are not a nation ruled by Bloomberg and his whimsical decisions.

As such, we will fight and resist your tyranny at all costs. Your billions won’t buy my liberty or steal my freedom. Ever.

Marcus Traianus on March 26, 2013 at 7:55 AM

My only question here is are New Yorkers that apathetic that they have not all risen in one voice and condemned this dictatorial assclown and his nanny-nation policies, and then moved to have his sorry rear end thrown out of office with a NO CONFIDENCE vote?

pilamaye on March 26, 2013 at 8:06 AM

Mike Bloomberg: “I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom”

Says the guy who as a private citizen can afford to hire thousands of guys, for years at a time, who can legally carry concealed weapons — including “assault” weapons — to protect him, his family, his friends, his businesses, and the many owns homes he owns.

Big Bro Bloomberg, elitist fascist par excellence.

farsighted on March 26, 2013 at 8:14 AM

The greater irony is that this dolt, who admits to changing his attitude towards abortion because he found out his wife is pregnant, thinks he has standing to criticize anyone else’s reasoning as idiotic. His anecdote is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on this site.
Armin Tamzarian on March 25, 2013 at 6:48 PM

It looks like Liam came to realize that a fetus is a flesh and blod human being rather than a blob or piece of flesh. Looking at it in that light, I’d say he found his humanity, something you and many liberals lack.

zoyclem on March 26, 2013 at 8:16 AM

I was driving when I heard his words and almost went off the road. Where does this sawed off runt get his authority to tell us what we can do or not do, eat or not eat and own or not own? We have that authority in the Constitution and it’s time we started reminding these #%^#*)’s to stfu. MB (I’m trying to be polite here) thinks he can insulate himself from the avalanche coming down on all of us. He’s trying to ingratiate himself with the in crowd just like high school. He has laid bare the ideology of the liberals. This is what they all think. This is why it was so easy to come up with the savings grab in Greece. Taking from the people is always their first thought.

Kissmygrits on March 26, 2013 at 8:29 AM

Federalism is about each state preserving their own sovereignty and culture, not using the Federal government to thrust a one size fits all agenda on everyone.

Daemonocracy on March 25, 2013 at 8:30 PM

I wholeheartedly agree. All that I have read, & that is a LOT, regarding the founding of this country, written by the various people who were part of the founding, have indicated this very sentiment.
The 10th was included even though many thought it wasn’t needed bcs the sentiment of state’s right was already an obvious given.
Today, even though that Amendment is there, it is baldly ignored. And the states & Congress have let it happen.
Congress pi$$es away its power to the executive & the states pi$$ their power away to the Fed.
Packing the courts with people over the decades to rule unconstitutionally so that the laws are twisted has made it all unbelievably worse.
In reality, nullification, resolutions, by the individual states taking back their power is really the only way I see an chance of America returning to her former greatness.
The Civil War era legalese wrangling twisted everything all up.
It doesn’t matter what came out of that. What matters is that before all of the illegal wranglings America was a bunch of states voluntarily entering a pact with a small Federal presence for the sake of more efficiency in dealing with large issues.
This left the states to deal LOCALLY with their own relevant issues.
For instance, ND just passed a statewide ban on smoking in public places & while I vehemently disagree with such intrusions, it is a STATE issue that was decided by the voters.
If one state becomes a socon haven at the behest of the people, it is none of any other states’ business, nor of the Fed.
If another state wants to legalize pot, heroine, meth, it is none of the business of the Fed nor other states.
The Fed has limited enumerated powers & it has long ignored its boundaries with things such as the Dept of Ed & the EPA.
While it may have an interest in being an intermediary btwn states in commerce, the rest of their stolen power is illegal & I don’t care what damned SCOTUS decisions go against any of that.
The language in the Constitution is crystal clear about state’s rights.
But no one does a damned thing about it.
That is the true tragedy here.
So even though Bloomberg is a tiny dictator, his citizens did vote for him & they can have him.

Badger40 on March 26, 2013 at 8:35 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3