Tuesday March 31, 2015
Jump to content
The mayor of Star Valley is an associate of Michael Bloomberg? Someone who sides with the extremist views of the self-styled dictator of New York City? Someone who believes the lies coming out of the mouths of people who are working to control every aspect of daily life?
Goodbye Mike; it was nice knowing you before they decided to recall you.
How can anyone in his right mind associate himself with someone who is so bitterly opposed to freedom and liberty that he is trying to take away the rights outlined in the Constitution? How can anyone side with a man who is so egotistical that he even thinks he has the right to control what people eat?
Mike, let me tell you something as a private citizen who is by no means one of those you no doubt refer to as "guns nuts." What I am is simple: One who believes that the concept of individual liberty embedded in the Constitution was intended to place the rule of law above the rule of privilege and money.
Those of us who still believe in "one man, one vote" know full well that those who would enslave us will first work to disarm us. What liberty means, in case you do not know it, Mike, is the freedom to be who we are without fear of interference from people who think they are endowed with some special wisdom that makes their view the only view, people who think that "we the people" are really "we the poor slobs," men and women so lacking in brains and self-control that we have no right to decide for ourselves what we eat, what we drink, what we do, what we think, or what we own; people who think we are so weak minded, and so unable to control ourselves, that we cannot even be trusted to own a weapon.
Thank you for letting us know who and what you are
Senate Gun Control Bill fails today. Goes down in vote defeat 54 to 46. Do you think Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Bloomberg are po'd? Why, it just breaks my heart. The Constitution and 2 amendment won this one at least for now. Thank you NRA for calling in all those markers....
I'm still wondering why anyone would associate himself with a Nazi like Bloomberg. The man is so out of control that he needs to be put in a home somewhere. To think that anyone would dare to try to tell people what they can eat and drink! To think that anyone would dare to use a public health agency to force people to do what he thinks they should do. Don't drink things that are sweet. Don't eat anything with fat in it. Don't do this. Don't do that.
We aren't dogs and cats, Mister Bloomberg. We are human beings. Every one of us has the right to choose his or her religion, political party, clothing, newspaper, radio and TV stations, lifestyle, food, and drink--and a hell of a lot more! Go tell you dog what he can eat. I hope he bites the hand that doesn't feed him.
You know what is worst about this? I'm willing to bet that he doesn't act according to his own rules, that he just wants US to do what's right for us. Just us. That what he calls justice, I guess JUSTUS.
His attitude is that of a man who is clearly no American. In a land founded on individual liberty he thinks, acts, and talks like a latter-day Hitler. Imagine what he would do if he had the power to do it. Right now he is held back by the Bill of Rights, but think what he would do if he could somehow grab power and enforce his maniacal ideas. We'd have storm troopers dressed in black watching our every move. We'd have concentration camps. We'd either yell, "Heil Bloomberg!" or we'd have men in leather coats at the door some night.
Men like that think in terms that you and I do not understand. They care nothing for liberty; they care only for their own warped and twisted beliefs. So he wants to cut the cost of health care in New York City by forcing people to eat "right." What next? I can easily see him taking the next step, saying that since the disabled, the mentally ill, and the homeless add nothing to society they should be done away with, as Hitler did away with them--coaxing them into an "ambulance," locking them in, driving off with them, and dumping them at the end of the drive, murdered by carbon monoxide fumes from the exhaust.
Why would anyone associate himself with such a man? Unless, I suppose, he is another of the same, thinks like Bloomberg does, and cares as little about liberty and individual freedom as he does.
Bloomberg is representative of a long list of "elitists" that have made a career out of "Public Service". I remember Ted Kennedy once being asked why he voted for some piece of legislation that his constituents were overwhelmingly against. His retort (paraphrasing) was that "We politicians know better what's in the best interest of all Americans even better than they do, that's why we were elected to office". There you have it. A small glimpse into the mindset of the likes of a Bloomberg, et al. I personally wouldn't offer them spit if they were succumbing to thirst.
I have been listening to and reading words like that for a long time. You can find them in the history books. They stretch all the way back into time as far as we have written records.
I am always very doubtful about anyone who starts quoting Aristotle or Plato (the elder). If you read their works you immediately see that they saw the world through the eyes of aristocrats. And I always wonder how much people really know when their start praising ancient Greece and Rome. Neither of them was a place where anyone who believin individual liberty would have wanted to live. The whole concept of aristocratic rule (which translated from the original Greek means--a direct quote--"rule of the best").
One voter; one vote. That's it. For better or worse it is the only path to liberty.
This may sound extreme, but as far as I am concerned someone who espouses Bloomberg's ideas--rule by a select group of people with a certain ancestry, higher quality or worth, greater intellect, or wealth--is sedition in a nation which believes in individual equality under the law.
The secret to ending Autocratic rule and finding freedom begins with the education of our youngest citizens. The education must be honest, truthful, historically accurate and demanding of personal responsibility. All that we know, began in the mind of our youngest selves.
The Radical Jihadists know this.
The Nazis knew this.
Mao knew this.
Christ knew this.
When we find that we can't persuade men to believe, then we must start with the children. They are honest of heart, will accept truth shown to be true, tend to reject deception but the caution is selfishness and want. The education must include punishment and reward. Recognition for achievement, but encouragement for the effort.
People like 'Doomberg' who spends his weekends in the Bahamas, will always be who they are. People who want favor from him will be what they are and some will be caught up in what seems to be logically driven motives. So the secret is to always ask what does a person gain by this? Is the ultimate outcome what 'I' want? Is it what I want my children to want?
One Voter must vote. That I'll go along with. That voter must be informed not bought. That's the rub. The protection from Democracy (two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner) is the Republic. That, however, requires....REQUIRES...an informed and educated electorate who is morally right and looking out for their fellow man.
I could not have said it better--or as well.
The way to educate our kids is to teach them the meaning of liberty as embodied in the words "inalienable rights," showing them how the Constitution turns those rights into law.
Incredibly enough, I am reading book by a Harvard Constitutional Law professor who either has no idea what he is talking about or is pushing an agenda.
He says that looking at the Constitution to see what our founding fathers meant when they said something is all wrong. He says that we have to "interpret" the Constitution. In fact that's the name of his book, "Interpreting the Constitution." It's garbage.
For example, he says that when the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech," it doesn't really mean that Congress shall make NO law. It means we should have to decide when logic and reason overrules what it says.
What a butthead! It says NO law. That's exactly what it means: No law, NONE!
What do we do if a question comes up?
We look at the important words and decide if we need another amendment to clarify the meaning. We DON'T just fiddle with the meaning.
When we looked at the word "Congress" and wanted the law to extend to every level of government we wrote the 14th Amendment. That's the right way to do things.
Make? No doubt what that means.
No means no.
Speech? Aha! That's where buttheads like one who wrote the book begin doing their dance around the truth, extending the meaning to things we do not want it to mean.
What is speech? Words--written, spoken, or signed. Nothing else is speech.
Is burning a flag speech? Don't be ridiculous! The proper way to handle a frayed flag is to burn it, as opposed to tossing an object of respect in the garbage, and yet there have been people who said we couldn't make a law against burning one IN PUBLIC to insult the nation it represents.
Is pornography speech? Of course not.
An armband? Don't be crazy! (If it is, exactly what does one mean?)
Is giving money for political purposes speech? Don't be stupid! (It may be protected some other way, but it is not speech by any stretch of the imagination.)
Is giving someone the finger speech? Of course it is. It's signing.
See the difference between what the lunkhead says and what I am saying? I am not "interpreting" what our founding fathers said. I am taking it to mean exactly what it says, and exactly what they SAID it meant: Speech.
You can "interpret" the meaning out of the entire Constitution.
And that's what "progressives" try to do.
The concepts embodied in the Constitution are ones which applied to the first man and woman who ever walked the planet. They take the words "inalienable rights" and make it plain what they mean. We can live by those concepts forever! We need to teach that to our kids.
On a completely different subject, I was startled by something that now ex-mayor Rappaport said in defense of his record on photo radar cameras, which he "pushed for." Here it is:
"The thing is, what people don’t realize, since we put that in, we have not had one fatal accident. We’ve dropped the speed limit from 73 miles an hour to 43 miles an hour. We were averaging between three and nine fatal accidents annually before that...”
I was so startled by the words "We were averaging between three and nine fatal accidents annually before that..." that I went back and read them again twice to see if I had misread what he said. But that's exactly what he said. In fact, he said that the majority of those three to nine fatal accidents every year had happened "... at the Circle K and at Cornerstone and Moonlight,” so there is no question that he meant right there in Star Valley.
"Three to nine fatal accidents in Star Valley?" I asked myself. "Impossible! We'd have been so shocked out of our minds by numbers like that we'd have been talking about nothing else here on the forum."
I think I remember most, if not all, the fatal accidents near here. The truth is I don't recall even one fatal accident inside Star Valley in the years before the cameras were put up, but in all fairness I've decided to get the actual numbers. Could be I'm wrong, but I don't think so. I'll get back to you.
The cameras in Star Valley appear to be for collecting revenue. The cameras used for surveillance, as in Boston, certainly did their work by taking a photo of the bad guys. Kudos to the cops who tracked down and stopped the killers.
I agree with you about being glad they caught the bad guys. I'll comment on that tomorrow on String 205, where it belongs, but not today. I make a habit of posting just once so that I don't interfere with anyone else's comments.
The only reason I am posting on this string twice in one day is because I have two things to say:
First of all, I want to apologize to Bill Rappaport for implying that he was the "enemy." That was a bit over the top. It's obvious that Bill's position on gun control is different from that of most people who post here, but he has a right to his opinion. I'll be honest with you, Bill, I got really riled up at the idea of anyone up here in Rim Country associating himself with the likes of the mayor of New York, a person I DO look upon as an enemy of liberty. Once again, I apologize.
Secondly, folks, I have spent a lot of the intervening time since my last post--and even before that post--doing some in-depth research on fatal accidents. Boy have I ever! I started out yesterday evening to dig up every bit of info I could and only just finished a few minutes ago. I can't tell you how many sites I've been to and how many case reports I have read. A lot! I'll put up the result in a separate post.
After researching fatal accidents in Gila County and Star Valley, as reported in actual case records, I cannot verify the "three and nine fatal accidents annually before " claim.
I'm sorry, Bill. I've done my homework. I've been to a site that records every fatal accident in the nation, not just by state or county, or even just by road name or number, but case by case.
Let's take one case record as an example because it happened on Moonlight Drive, which you mentioned in your statement.
Here's the pertinent data:
Case Number: 40812
Date: 25 Oct 2006
Number of persons: 1
Type of Road: Rural Road or Street
Harmful event: Overturn
Not near a junction
Two lanes, not divided
Speed limit not posted
Accident occurred on the crest of a hill
Type pavement: Dirt
Surface condition: Sand, dirt, oil
No traffic controls
No hit and run
Weather clear and dry
No notification time given
No EMS at scene
Not taken to hospital
Street or highway name: Moonlight Drive
Vehicle number 1
Person number 1
I have the same case record on every fatal accident in Gila country between 1995 and 2011. The accident above, occurring as it did a mile off 260 might not be justification for photo radar on 260, but it certainly did happen in Star Valley (and so I counted it).
I'm sorry but case records for Gila County do not show nine fatal accidents in any year on State Road 260 in or close to Star Valley where most of the accidents in Star Valley would have had to occur, or elsewhere in Star Valley. The highest number is five, but they were separate accidents in separate places and not all listed as in Star Valley. But even giving Star Valley credit for EVERY accident on HWY 260 in Gila County (an impossibility), except for three that were so obviously wrong I couldn't do it, and adding an extra fatality in 2006 to account for the accident shown above, I can't make the numbers meet the claim.
1995 zero, 1996 zero, 1997 two, 1998 one, 1999 three, 2000 two, 2001 zero, 2002 zero, 2003 two, 2004 five, 2005 two, 2006 one, 2007 two.
Even bending over backwards and giving Star Valley credit for EVERY accident that occurred on SR 260 (an impossibility!) except for one in 1996 and two in 2003 that clearly occurred in Payson and Kohl's Ranch, I can only come up 2 out of 13 years that meet the lowest end of the "between three and nine" claim, and no year comes even close to the upper end of that claim.
Sorry, Bill. I did my best. If you have accident reports that will verify the number of accidents in Star Valley which you cited I invite you to come on the forum and post them. Nobody will give you a hard time; we'll just give you a chance to vindicate yourself. There's always a chance of some error in the records, and I'm sure everyone would be delighted if you could clear up the apparent discrepancies.
Sorry Tom but If the lights save one person they are worth the trouble for people to slow down for less than 5 miles. Start sooner, drive slower.
I have had many friends and some family members killed in car wrecks on 87. Four in one wreck just north of the East Verde Bridge. You probably couldn't find them in the records as one was in 1958 and another, my brother in law about 1965 just south of Buckhead.
My grandson had a wreck just south of Rye because a recall on his car had NOT been fixed properly or maybe not at all. He was not killed but injured. He was not speeding. Watch out if you buy a used car.
I know off the subject again. Old age makes your mind wander if you can remember anything. (:
I wasn't going to comment on this issue. However, something keeps nagging at me. So here I go.
There are studies that illustrate that most of us are pre-programmed to react to an issue in certain ways. The conservative will usually take the conservative view whereas the liberal will usually go with the liberal view. I believe the comments in this blog prove that point insofar that gun supporters will come out strongly in favor of their position no matter what the facts may show.
The Payson Roundup articles about the Rappaport incident say the following, "He said that without his permission a gun control group launched by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg had also listed him as a member." And the reaction of a commentator in this blog, "The may of Star Valley is an associate of Michael Bloomberg? Someone who sides with extremist views of the self-styled dicotator of New York City?" This reaction is a bit extreme! Read what Rappaport said.
The Roundup article also says "He (Rappaport) said the letter represented his personal opinion and that he never implied it represented the council's opinion." Perhaps it was wrong for Rappaport to use town stationery. However, he has a right to a personal opinion and he has a right to express it. I do believe that freedom of speech is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
The article also explains, "I've (Rappaport) been an NRA member for 26 years. This is not about the 2nd amendment. This is about closing the gap at gun shows--that's the only thing I supported."
Mr. Rappaport also says that he sent the letter to Flake and McCain and not the White House. He also states that he never joined "Mayors Against Illega Guns,."
By the way, I am not a fan of Michael Bloomberg. I feel he goes too far. However, I am not going to refer to him as a dictator or a Nazi. Those types of terms appeal to the emotions and not to reason.
I wasn't talking about the lights, just about the statement made by Rappaport that before 2008 Star Valley saw three to nine traffic fatalities each year. Do you believe that?
"Read what Rappaport said."
You put the cart before the horse, Bernice. FIRST, the paper said that Rappaport joined with Bloomberg. THEN, we criticized him for doing it. THEN he denied doing it, and appears to have exaggerated the numbers about photo radar. If there was no exaggeration he can easily show it. We're just waiting to hear from him.
As to Bloomberg, he and others like him are the greatest danger to liberty this nation has seen since Adolph Hitler swaggered in the shade of the Eiffel Tower, certain he and his kind were going to rule the world
I'm still wondering why anyone would associate himself with a Nazi like Bloomberg.
Yes, Nazi. Yes, National Socialist. And any democratically elected mayor who thinks that being chosen to serve the people gives him the authority to tell them how much sugar they can have, what size drinks they can drink, how much fat they are allowed, and whether or not they can have a cup of cappuccino is a wannabe dictator.
And please note that I am neither a conservative nor a gun nut.
"This is about closing the gap at gun shows--that's the only thing I supported."
Bernice, you simply do not understand. That is gun-controlese for stopping all private sales of weapons. The bill was NOT "about closing the gap at gun shows." Try going to a gun show right now and buying a gun from one of the companies displaying their weapons at the show. Do it right now, without the new bill. What you will discover--and what they are very careful not to tell you--is that you will have to fill out all the forms and have all the background checks NOW. Gun shows were NOT the target. That's a flat out lie. Worse, it's one of those half-truths that sound so innocent that gullible people swallow them.
What is true is that the bill would have extended the checks to private sales. It said, for example, that if you were to call KMOG and put a gun up on Trades and Sales then you could NEVER sell that gun to anyone, no matter how long the time might be, unless you went through a federally licensed gun shop. In other words, if I had a Garand, which I haven't, and I decided to tell the people on this forum that I wanted to sell it, the buyer would have to go through all the background checks even if he was my next door neighbor. That is NOT a gun show.
Bernice, the first step in taking away the rights of law abiding citizens is to disarm them. That's what all this is about, have no doubt about it.
And you just heard a registered Independent speaking who voted Democratic in every election in his life except two (I voted for Goldwater to get the war in Vietnam won, and for John McCain because he was a moderate and I thought he was what we needed instead of his opponent**).
**PS: History has shown I was right.
Nazi, Hitler, dictator. These terms all conjure up pictures of concentration camps, gas ovens, slave labor, use of chemicals, torture, execution without trial, etc. It hardly conjures up someone trying to outlaw large sugary drinks. If you really believe outlawing large sugary drinks is going to lead to the things experienced in dictatorship, you should watch out for the boogey man hiding behind your bedroom door.
Please remember I am not a Bloomberg fan,
You should know that Hitler came along at just the right time. Because of the terms of World War I, Germany was in dire straits. He came along and gave them hope. Misguided, yes, but at least a hope for a way out.
No one, I repeat no one wants to take away the right of law abiding, mentally sound people. Does not wanting background checks mean you favor gun ownership by criminals and the mentally unsound?
While you want to protect your right to bear arms, what about my right to free and peaceful assembly? Don't I have a right to go to the theater or mall free from worry of being shot? Don't children have a right to go to school free of the fear of being murdered?
One more thing. With respect to gun shows. While it is true that commercial dealers might give background checks, what about the private individual you comes for the sole purpose of selling five, ten perhaps only one gun. Do these people run background checks. An individual I know who is an avid gun collector, and goes to many gun shows, and has sold guns at gun shows over many years says all he has to do is walk around in a show with a rifle over his shoulder and he has offers to purchase said rifle. Sometimes that is the way he gets rid of a gun or rifle he no longer wants in his collection.
Bernice, you are right about your friend selling his private property firearms to another individual. So what? Can you sell your car to another individual without Govt. involvement? Of course. Your fishing boat? I don't mean to be flippant, but how about selling a common kitchen pressure cooker at your yard sale? Where does it stop with getting permission from the government to sell your personal property items. Yes, you should be responsible and do your best to vet out the buyer. If that means you don't like the way they look or act, you don't do it. I call it personal responsibility. In addition to the phony gun control "it's for the children guilt campaign" it's another power grab by the nanny state to control PEOPLE. In addition to that, it would foster another bureaucratic need to grow another official agency to process, register, and monitor each sale. All for a fee from you to the government of course.
When you have a private sale of a car you must notify the State of Arizona so that they can change their records concerning the ownership of the vehicle. I don't know about fishing boats -- never tried to sell one. However, they do have a license and perhaps their registration is the same as cars.
No one wants anyone to register sale of generally non dangerous household items. That pressure cooker only became dangerous once it had been filled with explosives and a timer. Although, I must admit that I was once given a pressure cooker as a gift. After reading the instructions and warnings, I decided not to use it and gave it away. My concern was that with my tendency to have "things go wrong" the pressure cooker would probably go wrong for me.
My husband bought guns at carport sales and I always wrote out a bill of sale from the owner, ask for his drivers license and took all the information off of it and had him sign it.
Did the same thing when my husband sold one of his guns. You don't know if the person selling you the gun may have commited a crime with it and with the information I wrote down we could prove where, when and who we bought it from. Also if the gun my husband sold was used in a crime we could prove who, when he sold the gun. It is called CYA.
Boat trailers have titles like cars, boats have a watercraft document you get from Game and Fish. You have to buy them at 2 different places. You don't have to notify the state when you sell a car, it is for your own protection to send in the registration paper you get with your license tab each year with the buyers name, address, and date on it.
Pressure cookers are great if you watch the little guage on top doesn't go to high. And don't try to take the lid off before all the pressure is out of it. Tried that once and cleaned up pinto beans for a week.
In honor of your question on background checks I will put up a string showing that the gun control laws being pushed by a growing elitist aristocracy are in direct contravention of the Constitution.
To be polite, though, I'll address a couple of your other comments.
"...what about my right to...?"
Surely you are smart enough to know that your right to assemble is totally immaterial. Such comments are an attempt by people in the mainstream media to fill the air with so much trash talk that those who can't think for themselves will repeat it (and I am NOT implying that you are one of those).
My own brother-in-law came to my house and repeated one of those things.
While we were talking he asked, "What do you think about the Boston Marathon and the Second Amendment?"
When I questioned him about why he would ask such an idiotic question his answer was. "Well. they say it has to be; Al Qaeda and the other terrorist groups haven't taken credit for it."
Now think of how illogical that is. Because the usual terrorist groups haven't taken credit for killing some people it HAS TO BE the "Second Amendment people." How can anyone buy the kind of crimped-minded logic peddled on the airwaves?
Re the phrase: "...what about my right to free and peaceful assembly?" It is taken from the First Amendment and is a prohibition placed on CONGRESS. The whole phrase is "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble." It is aimed at the government, not at the people. How does anythingsome individual does fall into the category of "Congress shall make no law?"
"When you have a private sale of a car you must notify the State of Arizona so that they can change their records concerning the ownership of the vehicle."
Not true. You only have to notify the state if you want to use that car on the road. There is NO control over the sale. Would you like it if there were? How about this? Because OTHER people have been charged with a DUI, reckless driving, or speeding YOU have to have a background check done before you can buy a car.
As to whether or not Bloomberg is a NAZI type, I rest my case on this very clear statement: "Yes, Nazi. Yes, National Socialist. And any democratically elected mayor who thinks that being chosen to serve the people gives him the authority to tell them how much sugar they can have, what size drinks they can drink, how much fat they are allowed, and whether or not they can have a cup of cappuccino is a wannabe dictator."
I did not speculate on what he MIGHT do re concentration camps et al if he had the power to do it. I commented only on what he is actually doing. The fact that he might do some of things you mention if he had the power is speculation--yours, not mine--and does not change what he IS doing. His actions are clearly dictatorial because they dictate things that the people do not want. They are clearly socialist as well. End of statement.
My right to assemble is totally immaterial?????????????????? I beg your pardon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As I said in my first comment on this string. There are studies that prove that people are predisposed to respond to issues in certain ways. I believe this string adds support to those studies.
While some are willing to apply the term Nazi, Hitler, dictator to a mayor who wants to outlaw large sugary drinks, I am more concerned about militant groups that hold "military maneuvers" on weekends, people who want to limit our right to vote by making voting places less accessible, people who belong to secret societies like the KKK, etc.
View the issues as you may. I will say no more on this issue.
Right, Bernice, in a discussion of the individual right to own a gun, the right to assemble is totally immaterial. Immaterial is defined as "irrelevant," in other words not part of the discussion. There's just no connection between the two of them. The right to bear arms does not change, or in any way imperil, the right to assemble, and so one is not material to the other, and so is "immaterial."
It would be VERY material if someone were trying to take away that right, or trade it off for the right to bear arms, but no one is doing that--except some mainstream media word merchant who thought it would be clever to use an old discredited debating technique.
(Just so that you won't think I am kidding you, the use of misdirection by changing the subject has a name given to it in studies of fallacious reasoning. I'm sure you've heard of it. it is "red herring." Here's it's definition: "The term red herring refers to any argument designed to change the topic. Red herrings are usually employed when one is on the edge of defeat in a debate. Such arguments are considered to be logically fallacious." And yes, I have made a lifetime study of fallacious arguments. It's a kind of hobby with me because I try to avoid such things.)
Tell you what, look it up and see if I am joshing you:
Here's a link you'll probably enjoy going to just for the sake of reading about the ways that people try to create a phony argument. It will give you ammunition against such things.
As to my use of the term NAZI to describe people who think like Bloomberg, go back and check the more than 12,000 posts I have put up and see how many times I have applied the term "NAZI" to anyone. Unless I am completely mistaken, other than the NAZI's in 1932 to 1945 Germany, you'll find just one--Mayor Bloomberg.
It's not my fault that he fits the image, Bernice. Gee! Just yourself this: What was the major element of Nazism? Answer: The domination of society by people who deemed themselves to be superior. The German NAZI's thought they were a "super-race;" they rejected both democracy and free enterprise. Their goal was the complete control and domination of the people. They created a state police that looked into every nook and cranny of life. If they didn't think something was good for the nation, you better not be caught doing it. They even went for far as to eliminate the mentally ill and handicapped. As old as I am, if someone tried to do things like that I would take up arms and fight them to my last breath.
Trust me, Bernice, once people like Bloomberg gets their hands on power they use it to further their own aims, not that of the people. Right now Bloomberg is the worst of the worst. He thinks that his ideas of what is good for the people should become law. I'd like him to tell me where in the U.S. Constitution anyone in this nation has the power to control other people eat or drink?
That's not to say that I too am not disturbed by any other person or group whose goal is to take away the rights of people. Good Lord! That's what I'm arguing about here. If someone were trying to take away your right to assemble I'd be the first one fighting for you.
What shocked me was the report Mayor Rappaport had joined a group of elitist politicians joined together to interfere with the rights of honest, law-abiding citizens. That group of mayors is a pack of elitists, people who believe that YOU and I do not have the brains to make our own decisions--or the right to do it. Rappaport says he didn't do that. I am still waiting to see his letter in print, which would end the issue, wouldn't it? And the only other thing I have taken issue with was the number accidents he claimed. I can find no evidence of it. If he's got it, fine. Just out it up and I'll see to it that no one gives him a hard time about it.
And I hope you are not saying that I am predisposed to look at "issues in certain ways."
Remember me? The guy who fought FOR Obama when he was being accused of being the one who worked the bailout of the car companies? The one who took flack over it and never budged an inch because Obama was not the one who did it?
You know what I am "predisposed" to to do?
• Fights for YOUR rights.
• Search for the truth.
• Bring facts into arguments where there is more heat than light.
"I have seen the enemy.....and he is us!"
I used to love Pogo. First time I ever saw him was when we moved from New York to New London. Pogo was not in any of the three newspapers we used to get only on Sunday in New York (could not afford them on weekdays).
When we moved to New London we took the upstairs apartment in a two story house. Norman Sousa, the kid downstairs, had a toy chest out in the hallway downstairs (which shows you how life was in those days because anyone could have walked in and helped himself). To my utter amazement he opened it one day and showed me that it was stuffed clean full of comic books--hundred upon hundreds of them.
We did not have much in the way of comic books in New York. Too poor. So that treasure trove of comic books was something astounding to me. And there were I do not know how many Pogo's in there. One I remember as clear as day was one where Albert the Alligator ate something--a hot pepper I think--and took off into the air, flying around, making square turns up there, and yelling "Dalyrimple! Dalyrimple!"
Walk Kelly had a great sense of humor. Do you remember the three rats? They were named Bewitched, Bothered, and Be MIldred. :-)
Just looked up Walk kelly to see what happened to him. He wrote Pogo from 1913 to 1975. That comment you quoted was from 1971.
By the way, Norman had the very first Superman comic every printed. I think it was Action Comics #1 or something. Not sure of that, but I know it was the first time Superman ever appeared. Want to bet that when Norman and his family moved out about two years later (right around 1945) his mother did the same thing with " those old comic books" that mine did with my baseball cards while I was in Iceland?
Here's a quote from the column I did on mothers.
"There were about--oh-h-h--two hundred or so new ones altogether, another hundred in almost new condition, and another hundred or so besides. They were all baseball cards, and the issue dates ranged from 1930-something to 1940, but the players went way back into the 1800's. Among the brand new ones I had there were some Ty Cobbs, some Lou Gehrigs, a lot of Babe Ruths and Joe DiMaggios, and lots of others."
And no, I never said a word about it to Mom. Not one word.
By the way, Ron. I ran across some information about Dan Daly that I didn't know. There will be two columns on him in a couple of weeks.
Posting comments requires a free account