Michael Bloomberg? Anyone?

[Prope]

Personally, I like him.

Thoughts? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/05/AR2007070502056.html)

Madison Square Garden was taken over by New York police and their families, all there for the graduation ceremony of 1,097 new officers. A rousing video flashed images of police responding to the Sept. 11 attacks. It was a scene tailor-made for Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor who has made the reduction of crime in New York and the city's response to Sept. 11 the underpinnings of his presidential campaign.

But sitting in the prime spot on the dais last week was Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Giuliani's successor and the man who, many New Yorkers say, threatens to undermine Giuliani's bid for the White House with his own flirtation with a presidential run. The 5-foot-7 billionaire businessman with a Boston accent does not exude the law enforcement authority that the ex-prosecutor Giuliani did, yet the crowd cheered as Bloomberg trumpeted New York's continued drop in crime.

[1951Campbell]

He's a nanny-state jackass.

[Prope]

Then there is that opinion. :D

I'd bet he would take 15-20% of the vote.

[ewokpelts]

Bloomberg Sucks balls.

He vetoed a joint funded program(with the yanks and mets) to build new yankee stadium and replace shea(both of which would have retactable roofs and were canidates for a super bowl/final four/olympic consideration), but CUMMED IN HIS PANTS to spend 2 BILLION on an OPEN AIR JETS STADIUM on the west side(with the weak promise of an open air nyc super bowl and tried to crown his shitty olympic bid with it.)


If he's stupid enough for that, what makes you think he'd be any effective as a leader of this country and our troops?

[Unregistered]

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x26/ballstein12/perfect_pass_tribute.gif

[Prope]

:hawk:
"I love comparing the merits of new stadiums building for professional sports teams and proper usage of our armed forces in armed conflicts."

[ewokpelts]

:hawk:
"I love comparing the merits of new stadiums building for professional sports teams and proper usage of our armed forces in armed conflicts."
point is, do you want a guy that can easily flip flop on a whim (even for a trivial issue like stadiums) directing our millitary?
And it is widely known that bush parlayed his pollitical capital after negotiating the rangers' stadium deal into a govenership(along with a little help from hie daddy and friends cash and favors).
Gene

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x26/ballstein12/perfect_pass_tribute.gif?

[Prope]

point is, do you want a guy that can easily flip flop on a whim (even for a trivial issue like stadiums) directing our millitary?
And it is widely known that bush parlayed his pollitical capital after negotiating the rangers' stadium deal into a govenership(along with a little help from hie daddy and friends cash and favors).
Gene
Yeah, the two are unrelated.

[Unregistered]

point is, do you want a guy that can easily flip flop on a whim

Speaking of "flip-flopping":

"Although a lifelong Democrat, Bloomberg ran on the Republican ballot and was elected mayor in 2001, and was reelected to a second term in 2005. He is frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007."



?

Also known as "pass."

[ewokpelts]

A guy who's careless about the public's money will be carelss about the public's other resources, which includes thier sons and daughters.

Look at Bush as a clear cut example.

[Prope]

A guy who's careless about the public's money will be carelss about the public's other resources, which includes thier sons and daughters.

Look at Bush as a clear cut example.
I think there is a difference when it comes to funding a stadium, in which, perhaps, a greater public good can come from it, as opposed to funding a war in which many people will/might die.

[samram]

I think there is a difference when it comes to funding a stadium, in which, perhaps, a greater public good can come from it, as opposed to funding a war in which many people will/might die.

Nothing much good comes from stadiums either except owners get stadiums for cheap and they pay almost nothing in rent. The stuff you hear about job creation has been disproven over and over. Same thing goes for the Olympics (I hope cbot doesn't see this :)).

[Prope]

Nothing much good comes from stadiums either except owners get stadiums for cheap and they pay almost nothing in rent. The stuff you hear about job creation has been disproven over and over. Same thing goes for the Olympics (I hope cbot doesn't see this :)).
In either event, I think comparing building a stadium to the war in Iraq is quite moronic.

[samram]

Well, in terms of lives lost, true.

[ewokpelts]

Nothing much good comes from stadiums either except owners get stadiums for cheap and they pay almost nothing in rent. The stuff you hear about job creation has been disproven over and over. Same thing goes for the Olympics (I hope cbot doesn't see this :)).
Aside from the quick burst of construction jobs(which 99.95% of the time are already gainfully employed union workers who will have a job lined up after contrusction is completed), how many jobs can be generated? Low paying concession jobs? Which, if the stadium is merely REPLACING an older facilty, were already there?
Gene

In either event, I think comparing building a stadium to the war in Iraq is quite moronic.My issue was the recklessness Bloomberg handles NYC's money. If one is reckless about a state or city's financial resources(especially since he's a successful businessman before he entered politics), how can you trust himto effectively handle more important resources? The chief of which is our soldiers?

Again, look at Bush, political neophyte gets a Texas Govenorship based off his money and connections. Thrashes the state laws on enviromental policies and how they limit big business' attempts to make money, as well as fuck up in general the states economic resources.
Then he proceeds to "win" the presidency and REALLY fucks things up.
Again, a guy that has only held public office for a few years who then runs roughshod over a LOT of shit, mainly the 87 BILLION dollars a year pouring into a piece of shit country we had no business blowing back to the stone age in the first place.. Then there's the human capital.

[samram]

^ Yeah, that's my point. I was just pointing out what the normal arguments of stadium backers is, but that's because I didn't understand the comparison Prope was making at the time.

[soxwon]

Then there is that opinion. :D

I'd bet he would take 15-20% of the vote.

All the better for president FRED!!!!

[Prope]

All the better for president FRED!!!!
That was, of the conservative vote.

[MeanFish]

All the better for president FRED!!!!

That made me wince. Please, what do people see in this guy? How is he any different than the other non-Paul Republicans who scare the crap out of me? Enlighten me.

Not meant to be a flame, I just truly don't get it.

[soxwon]

That made me wince. Please, what do people see in this guy? How is he any different than the other non-Paul Republicans who scare the crap out of me? Enlighten me.

Not meant to be a flame, I just truly don't get it.

Thompson is a bonified Reagan Republican.
That is what this country and the GOP need, a return to true conservatism.
Polls show Americans are mainly conservative, not liberal.
The GOP thru Bush has changed to a more moderate, stance.
GWB caved in to Liberal thinkers, to apease them.
Thompson is very popular, as an actor and as a politician.
He has been missing from the Political scene for awhile-Yes.
But a return to Reagonomics, Fighting Terror, Securing borders.
is what he will offer.
In all honesty-despite the fact, americans loathe GWB, the Republicans will win the white house
because Do you honestly think the USA will vote a woman who is so despised by most voters and would be soft on terror President?
I dont think so!!!
Obama has a new look, he's fresh, he offers new ideas, but he is Black, and Someday a black man, will be president, but it will not be on 08.
Go ahead and laugh and say NO WAY, a republican will win.
But if you really look at it, Terrorism is the #1 priority in the world, National Security
is the most important issue, and CONSERVATIVE Republicans are much stronger on the issues than Liberals-and America will see this and vote GOP.
Americans want illegals out, thats a republican vote, Americans want to be secure thats a Republican vote.
Republicans will not 'Talk" with Terrorists, Libs want to "talk".
Big mistake there.
Al-Quada and terrorists want the DEmocrats to win, just as they wanted Kerry to win.
They fear Conservatives.
America will make its choice and it will be GOP for 4 more years.
Maybe it wont be thompson, it probably will be Guliani with Romney as VP
Thompson would pick JC WATTS more than likely.
JC could be the first black man elected president not Obama.
We shall see.

Oh yea another thing.
Fred Thompson would bring in the most beautiful
first lady in the history of America.
His Lovely, Intelligent, Wife Jerri.

[soxwon]

Im really surprised someone, didnt cut me down for my views here.
I guess everyone agrees? i doubt it!!!

[Prope]

Since you asked...

Polls show Americans are mainly conservative, not liberal.Please cite those polls.
The GOP thru Bush has changed to a more moderate, stance.I'd argue a more extreme stance
GWB caved in to Liberal thinkers, to apease them. GWB seems to be anything less than an appeaser
Thompson is very popular, as an actor and as a politician. Again, cite a poll
But a return to Reagonomics, Fighting Terror, Securing borders.
is what he will offer. Isn't that what GWB is trying to offer? How will Freddy be any different
In all honesty-despite the fact, americans loathe GWB, the Republicans will win the white house
because Do you honestly think the USA will vote a woman who is so despised by most voters and would be soft on terror President?No, but I have never thought she would win. And I'm sorry, aside from your guy Fred - which Republican would win? Also, has he even said he's running?
But if you really look at it, Terrorism is the #1 priority in the world, National Security
is the most important issue, and CONSERVATIVE Republicans are much stronger on the issues than Liberals-and America will see this and vote GOP.Is it that they are stronger, or is it more that Democrats can't give an idea about it without being labeled as 'soft,' 'misguided,' or 'unpatriotic'
Republicans will not 'Talk" with Terrorists, Libs want to "talk".
Big mistake there. Why? Diplomacy works. Detente worked with the Soviets under Nixon, and Nixon is regarded by most historians (including this quasi-liberal one) as great at foreign policy (Not much else). Reagan didn't think detente would work, because he didn't want it to work. Diplomacy can work.
Al-Quada and terrorists want the DEmocrats to win, just as they wanted Kerry to win.
They fear Conservatives.Why would they fear conservatives. Membership is up under Bush. Union dues are pouring in. Also, isn't saying that (and I hate to use the Edwards bumper sticker here) just an example of 'Politics of Fear?'
America will make its choice and it will be GOP for 4 more years.
Maybe it wont be thompson, it probably will be Guliani with Romney as VP
Thompson would pick JC WATTS more than likely.I don't think many in the South would like a Mormon in the office, but that's just me. Also, JC Watts was only elected because he could run a football.

Oh yea another thing.
Fred Thompson would bring in the most beautiful
first lady in the history of America.
His Lovely, Intelligent, Wife Jerri.As if that should matter. :rolleyes:
Since it seems to does, what better spouse in the White House than somebody who has already occupied it?

[soxwon]

Since you asked...
hillary- not even a woman, theres no word that can describe her.

[samram]

I think Hilary's foreign policy would be awfully similar to Bush's.

Fred Thompson is the closest thing to four more years of Bush, so if that's what you want, that's your guy.