Mayor Bloomberg says he will spend millions more to defeat the National Rifle Association and pro-gun pols
What Bloomy really means is that he is afraid of becoming shot--as he should be. He is making a target of himself.
oldroy
Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
WhoIsJohnGalt wrote:
What Bloomy really means is that he is afraid of becoming shot--as he should be. He is making a target of himself.
He did, however, threaten to spend $12 million of his sizable $28 billion dollar bank account.
I wonder where he keeps his money. He should be very much afraid of what has just happened in Cyprus because I think it is headed here.
oldroy
Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
WhoIsJohnGalt wrote:
What Bloomy really means is that he is afraid of becoming shot--as he should be. He is making a target of himself.
He did, however, threaten to spend $12 million of his sizable $28 billion dollar bank account.
I wonder where he keeps his money. He should be very much afraid of what has just happened in Cyprus because I think it is headed here.
oldroy wrote:
He did, however, threaten to spend $12 million of his sizable $28 billion dollar bank account.
I wonder where he keeps his money. He should be very much afraid of what has just happened in Cyprus because I think it is headed here.
He did not threaten, he actually has launched a $12 million campaign for gun control. Of course that works out to a whopping 0.04% of his overall net worth.
I have no idea where he keeps all his money, I assume that a large chunk of it is kept in Caribbean Banks and in Switzerland where it is free from taxation by his fellow "liberals."
memBrain
Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
WhoIsJohnGalt wrote:
I have no idea where he keeps all his money, I assume that a large chunk of it is kept in Caribbean Banks and in Switzerland where it is free from taxation by his fellow "liberals."
Technically it's all digital. It's kept in a series of 0's and 1's somewhere in a series of data files. Would be a shame to erase them...
For that to work you must no which computer and which files. It's a crying shame that some hacker hasn't already done for him.
IMHO what has happened in my life time,(68 years) that is more dangerous than anything else is too much news and opinion from guys like Bloomberg. Some one should start a campaign to stop that rot. Do we really need all that noise stuffed in our ears 24 hours a day?
oldroy
Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
JIMMY DELL wrote:
IMHO what has happened in my life time,(68 years) that is more dangerous than anything else is too much news and opinion from guys like Bloomberg. Some one should start a campaign to stop that rot. Do we really need all that noise stuffed in our ears 24 hours a day?
Do you know the site we need to go to to "hack" his billions of dollars? Sarcasm, here.
However, you are right about Bloomberg. I don't listen to any of his crap other than when someone links me to some of it.
memBrain
Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
JIMMY DELL wrote:
IMHO what has happened in my life time,(68 years) that is more dangerous than anything else is too much news and opinion from guys like Bloomberg. Some one should start a campaign to stop that rot. Do we really need all that noise stuffed in our ears 24 hours a day?
The problem isn't need...it's want. We have on demand news because people WANT it.
Of course you're right or it wouldn't be playing. On the other hand, it's really only 15 minutes of news 24/7. I think that anymore it's like elevator music. But the most mundane stories are hyped to make you think they're important. Then we have a "good looking girl" telling us what she thinks. Who really cares what she thinks, "but man she's a good looking girl".
oldroy
Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
JIMMY DELL wrote:
Of course you're right or it wouldn't be playing. On the other hand, it's really only 15 minutes of news 24/7. I think that anymore it's like elevator music. But the most mundane stories are hyped to make you think they're important. Then we have a "good looking girl" telling us what she thinks. Who really cares what she thinks, "but man she's a good looking girl".
If you are watching Fox News she is very good looking. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
JIMMY DELL wrote:
IMHO what has happened in my life time,(68 years) that is more dangerous than anything else is too much news and opinion from guys like Bloomberg. Some one should start a campaign to stop that rot. Do we really need all that noise stuffed in our ears 24 hours a day?
You would have us limit speech? How would you go about doing such a thing and who would get to decide? For that matter, how do we set about choosing those we trust to choose what we hear?
Well that is the problem. Each of us has our own "truth". There is the truth that some have that is driven by fairness and emotion. Then there is the truth that others have that is driven by logic and experience. So as you say; who's to decide? One of these approaches should be self evident, but the other side will not listen to reason. Who's who?
memBrain
Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
WhoIsJohnGalt wrote:
You would have us limit speech? How would you go about doing such a thing and who would get to decide? For that matter, how do we set about choosing those we trust to choose what we hear?
I don't think it's so much about limiting free speech as it is about "truth in advertising" per se. These news organizations purport to BE news organizations. Yet, the majority of what they produce is not news but opinion. And the percentage of news that they do report is so full of bias as to be little more than opinion pieces as well. What happened to unbiased reporting of the news? You know, just the facts sir/ma'am?
I'm tired pf hearing "The latest weather patterns are proof of the ongoing effects of climate change" (formerly global warming, gotta change the names as we are debunked after all, right?). Why I can't even begin to take Global Warming/Climate Change seriously is because of all the evidence of data tampering and bias that comes from the people who have produced the hypothesis (I don't think it merits the status of Theory as the conditions of theory have not been met IMO). Regardless, these so called scientists have not followed proper scientific procedure that every school child was taught (at least in my generation, who can say what they are taught today!).
Sorry for the side rant. At any rate, I'm fine with opinion, but we can't allow an institution to call themselves news if they make the decision to pedal opinion as news. As I posted in an earlier topic, the greatest offender (no surprise here) is MSNBC. They produce 85% of their content as opinion, yet they have the temerity to call themselves a new network. I believe a little truth in advertising does not affect freedom of speech. Let them broadcast their opinion, just don't let them call it news.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.