This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Michael Bloomberg Calls Colorado A "Rural and Roadless" Backwater For Challenging His Gun Control Agenda
Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
I’ve noticed a bizarre trend this year. Northeast establishment politicians attacking the state of Colorado for its own internal decisions. In many ways this makes sense. Having lived in New York City most of my life, I know full well it is not the liberal haven it claims to be. Rather, over the past decade or so it has become a statist, oligarch-coddling, bankster hideout. My adopted state of Colorado is a libertarian paradise by comparison.
There may be a bit of envy or fear at play here, considering that a so-called “flyover” state has led the nation in the civil rights issue of marijuana legalization. While the coasts love to think of themselves as superior, they continue to foolishly imprison people for puffing on a benign plant. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie characterized this backwards, ignorant attitude earlier this year perfectly when he foolishly criticized Colorado’s “quality of life,” which is without question amongst the best in the nation. I tore him apart in my piece: How Marijuana Legalization in America is Destroying Mexican Drug Cartel Business.
Moving along to today’s story, the man who puts his foot in his mouth more than pretty much anyone else, former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, called Colorado “rural” and “roadless” in a recent Rolling Stone article (which has since been pulled, but is supposed to be back up Monday) for the backlash against his gun control agenda from parts of the state.
In case you are unaware of the issue, I covered it last year in the post: NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg Spends $350,000 in a Failed Attempt to Sway Colorado Politics. It’s not the only time Colorado voters have rejected a Nanny Bloomberg intervention, which is perhaps why he harbors such bitterness toward the state. For example, last November: Colorado Rejects State Tax Increase Supported by Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
As usual, Bloomberg throws a hissy fit when he doesn’t get his way. We learn from FOX31 Denver that:
DENVER — Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is popping off about Colorado in a new Rolling Stone interview and Republicans here, who have been blasting Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper for taking cues from Bloomberg on the state’s new gun laws, couldn’t be happier about it.
Asked about three Colorado Democrats being forced out of office by a recall movement that arose last summer after the legislature’s passage of laws expanding background checks and banning magazines of more than 15 rounds, legislation Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns lobbied hard for, the former mayor said this:
“The NRA went after two or three state Senators in a part of Colorado where I don’t think there’s roads. It’s as far rural as you can get. And, yes, they lost recall elections. I’m sorry for that. We tried to help ‘em. But the bottom line is, the law is on the books, and being enforced. You can get depressed about the progress, but on the other hand, you’re saving a lot of lives.”
The successful recalls last September occurred in Colorado Springs, the state’s second largest city, and Pueblo, its seventh largest.
First of all, Colorado Springs has a population of 430,000. Secondly, I have been to Colorado Springs and it makes most areas of New York City look like a third-world ghetto by comparison. Remember, this guy was considered a Presidential candidate. FOX31 Denver continues:
“Just for the record, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, and Jefferson County all have roads. I just traveled them,” said Bob Beauprez, Hickenlooper’s GOP challenger. “Michael Bloomberg’s infuriatingly ignorant remarks show how far removed he is from Colorado, and how wrong John Hickenlooper was to let Bloomberg force his radical agenda on Colorado.
“It’s astonishing that Gov. Hickenlooper would discuss important legislation with Mayor Bloomberg, who obviously doesn’t respect or understand the people of our great state, but refused to speak to Colorado sheriffs. No wonder the governor lied to our state’s sheriffs, instead of admitting that he spoke to Mayor Bloomberg on multiple occasions.”
Now for the quote of the year:
“Not since New Jersey Governor Chris Christie attacked Colorado’s way of life has an east coaster gotten us so wrong,” said Udall spokesman James Owens. “Christie and Bloomberg should stick to what they know best: traffic jams and tiny sodas.
I would add: Financial theft, Oligarchs and Bailouts.
They hate us for our freedoms.
Except this time, it’s actually true.
- 20838 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Your point about money is very, very important. It's a big reason why government policy is so far off base to what WeThe People really need from Washington. These wealthy "do-good-ers" are shaping public policy without the green light from the public. We need to reform how money is used to sway opinion in this country... Both in the media and on the ballot. I scream for some creativity!
I heard a voter from Colorado describe what happened to Bloomburg. He couldn't buy his way. In fact, not only did it backfire in a couple cases in Colorado, it set the precedent that if you touch his money you get your political-ass handed to you.
NYC, home of the empty apartment skyscraper, where you can buy a cronut for $10 and eat it on a street that smells like human and dog piss.
Don't interrupt your enemy when he is busy defeating himself.
He who openeth his mouth too wide shall bring on his own destruction.
Fuck this tyrant keep spending your money you fat piece of shit. Why this guy is still breathing is a miricle in itself.
Bloomberg is a lying sack of shit, and he knows it too.
Bloomberg needs to go fund another false flag SH Have an incident in which everyone is in a big photo-op, crying, messages to stop the killing and then destroy every piece of evidence and withhold the facts from all investigative inquiries.
Yep, have another SH so the POTUS can declar emartial law and extend his term in the WH. Lock and load America
This is what comes from spending too much time in Manhattan - it gives one a skewed perspective on geography. I love those tourist maps that picture cowboys vs Indians just west of Chicago. Bloomberg seems to believe the maps are straight from National Geographic.
Disarming the populace is a important part of their agenda on a number of levels. Expect the filth to commence as soon as they disarm the populace.
Says the cowardly aquiline lilliputian dual citizen with 6 heavily armed body guards
He probably does represent the Lollipop Guild on this issue. http://gothamist.com/2007/12/03/diane_sawyer_ca.php
Michael Bloomberg is an enemy of the citizens of United States.
Bloomberg, hey keep talking like an elitist redneck putting down entire states, and I'm only too happy to be a Colorado native who helped wreck your gun grab attempts!
As a lifelong Colorado resident, I just have to say a few things to the people out there who aren't as familiar with this state.
Colorado is a bizarre amalgamation of many different types of people, but they can roughly be categorized in two discreet groups: first, there are the pro-gun rights, multi-generation Coloradans who have lived in the western, rural, mountainous parts of the state for decades and decades, and then there are the more "liberal" types who live in Denver, Boulder, and the other front range cities, and who are relatively new transplants to the region.
Hence, why you get an (oddly enough) pro-gun rights AND pro-marijuana legalization state. People here love the outdoors; we are in better shape than most; we smoke more weed than most, and we are wealthier than most others in other states. Why wouldn't you want to live here?
Colorado is a great state, and anyone who says otherwise has no clue what they're talking about, including Bloomberg. Coloradans want restrictions on their ability to smoke weed just about as much as they want increased gun control measures. Colorado Springs, however, is mostly just urban sprawl based primarily on the presence of five different military bases in the city or on its outskirts. I went to college in the Springs and unfortunately, I have to say Colorado Springs is one of the worst cities in Colorado to live, unless you live closer to the mountains/Manitou Springs.
Having said all of this, Colorado is definitely leading the way forward on several energy and civil rights issues. And if you work in the defense industry, I guess Colorado Springs is bearable in small doses. But still, anyone who thinks Colorado is some lawless, "roadless" wild-west caricature like Bloomberg does has their head pretty far up his/her ass. Even those recall matters discussed above were mostly just a consequence of a) the recall vote taking place on a TUESDAY and by in-person voting ONLY (hopefully you don't have a job or anything like that) and b) only pro-gun people showing up to actually vote that day, as they were the only ones motivated to vote. I'm not saying it's bad they voted the way they did, but surely judging an entire population for a decision that was made by fewer than 20% of the voting populace isn't the best way to judge the opinions of people in Colorado. (Also, this state has an inordinately large amount of school shootings, so I don't think the anti-gun people are even advocating in bad faith, although ultimately I disagree with them for basically the same reason I disagree with marijuana prohibition).
But if you do move here, please move somewhere other than Denver, as the rental prices for apartments here are sky-high at the moment (probably attributable to the fact that Denver is such an awesome place to live). I have had many opportunities to move out of the state in my life, but I've chosen to live here because of what a great place it is. Hopefully the other Colorado folks here know what I'm talking about. We are a very "libertarian" people, regardless of whether you consider yourself left or right of center.
plus, you,ve got "Southpark"...
Hey, I live in South Park
I've got family who transplanted to Denver long ago, whilst I trekked to Texas (praise the Lord). And I have to say, as an outside observer over many moons, that city has more moonbat weenies masquerading as men per square block than any city I've ever seen. On the other hand I've got a few inlaws who are rural Coloradoans, one of whom is a bear hunter. His method is, find a den, wait till one's hybernating in it, crawl in, wack it on the butt, then scoot back out to where your rifle is leaning against a tree, and wait -- usually not for long. Not as creepy as noodling, maybe, but he gets an extra star for the brass.
A lof of those moonbat weenies have at least found themselves to be productive in the burgeoning marijuana industry though, so at least Colorado finds a place for them. Great place for hunting too, but I've only gone once (tasty venison)!
I've only been to Texas twice, once driving through, and man, that sure is one state that looks like a different country altogether. Just... different. Very nice people though, it's true what they say about "southern hospitality."
Well "an armed society is a polite society" after all... Hey, maybe you and I could sit down for a brewsky sometime when I'm out... BTW what is in that fudge, pard? ... ::))
That fudge contains only the finest legal "Colorado-grown" ingredients available, of course! ;-)
The Springs is full of Fundies. It is very behind the times. Culturally, it is stuck in the '80s. Richard Dawkins made it a point to shoot 1/2 of his 2003 anti-religion documentary in Colorado Springs.
Im thinking of a word that rhymes with Douchebag.
erm, pus rag, swamp hag, shiteatin fag...moose gag
that's all i got
From a prepper's perspective, I've never heard such a wonderful strategic relocation endorsement.
so who does the 'Orwellian dystopia' gov't go to? their facebook, amazon, or bloomberg for propagandizing those nasty proletariet red/white/blueneck peasants, that want a 'pop gun' and a sm?ke?
they get their orders from the zionist AIPAC... not your everyday jewry by a long shot, whom despise zionism, period!
"Six Jewish Families Control 96% of the World's Media"
read it, an weep for the eviscerated "Fourth Estate"!
here: http://theunjustmedia.com/
link to top navigation home page under 'Media' and your there. please realize that this site will get taken down as most i've posted, so make a hard copy. jmo
thankyou Tyler
Resource rich states like Colorado, Utah, Texas, etc. don't know who this fascist oligarch is, much less give a shit what he thinks.
Oh no! We know JUST who they are! Bloomturd planned to get a few of his gun grabber phony boll weevil politician buddies in here, and we promptly threw them out on their asses when they showed their true colors! This is what Bloomturd is pisses about, we reject his shit!
We recalled the phony politicians here an elected them out on their asses, and this really pisses off Bloomturd because we saw thru his bullshitting phonies....well GOOD!
I'll THINK about giving up my guns (rhetorically) when Bloomberg gives up his. Fuck him, parading around with an armed-to-the-teeth private securitry detail, no doubt crossing city and state lines without niggling legal concerns, and then trying to disarm us, the lowly prols. FUCK HIM FUCK HIM FUCK HIM Aside from that no strong feelings.
You don't understand. His life is much more valuable than yours.
I'll THINK about giving up my guns (rhetorically) when Bloomberg gives up his. Fuck him, parading around with an armed-to-the-teeth private securitry detail, no doubt crossing city and state lines without niggling legal concerns, and then trying to disarm us, the lowly prols. FUCK HIM FUCK HIM FUCK HIM Aside from that no strong feelings.
Send the beaners to NY!
Send that fuker to Idaho and maybe he will get lost in the wilderness and ate by a wolf......
If Mike Bloomberg comes to my house, looks me straight in the eyes, and asks me to give up my guns, I will personally hand them over to him. I know this will never happen though....I'm 6'1".
If he showed up on my doorstep I would club him like a baby seal, then celebrate by going shooting and having a Super Big Gulp.
He's simply another government control freak.....wishes to dictate what you can and cannot do from the size of your soda to your self defense.
I am glad we have him since he so clearly states the position of these east coast liberal socialists. There is no way to misunderstand what he is all about.
Ive never been to NY, but my impression is its a 3rd world ghetto where I'd never want to live, NY would collapse with immigration enforcement.
If you have Gordon Gekko dollars then it's a great place to live. For the avg middle class worker, it's hell. I could only last there for 6 years. Leaving there and heading back west was one of the best decisions I ever made. The money was great, but the work hours and quality of lif was sh*t.
Whereas Bloomberg is "urban" and "mindless".
I was in Colorado Springs for the Pike's Peak Rodeo in 1972.
They had roads then.
Guess somethin' must have happened.
Too bad Bloomberg is such a dick. Bloomberg TV has the best looking and smartest women hosts. Emily Chang, Stephanie Ruhle, Haslinda Amin, Trish Regan, Deirdre Bolton, Willow Bay and Betty Liu are hot and have brains.
What a pig. I only wish him the worst.
If Michael thinks this about Colorado, the most left-leaning of the southwestern states, his head will fucking explode when he discovers Arizona...
As a Colorado resident, I have nothing bad to say either about the "front range liberals" OR the "mountain-men conservatives." In a weird, holisitic kind of way, they both complement each other, even though they disagree on a lot of points. After all, would marijuana have been legalized without strong support from BOTH groups? Of course not.
I know this will earn me some hatred on this forum, but I'm also supportive of the recent ruling of the Denver federal district court regarding Utah's gay marriage ban. In the libertarian spirit of this state, it was the right thing to do. Also, should the issue of Colorado's gay marriage ban make its way up to the Colorado Supreme Court, the Court will almost surely invalidate that law. Having previously worked for the Colorado Supreme Court and personally having known Justice Marquez (who IS gay), I doubt even her conservative colleagues on the Court would have the balls to tell her she shouldn't have the right to marry on the basis of her sexual orientation.
Oh, and fuck Michael Bloomberg, what an ass.
As a native Coloradan living in NYC... fuck this guy.
All these anti-American, anti-constitution, New Bolsheviks, Bloomjew, Feinstein, et al need to be deported or gassed. Period.
+ New Bolsheviks - good term for these fuckers
- gassing comment - really?
Bitter Irony
I suggest that Jewtopia free of guns is the Oligarchs set, Fabian style, using NGO's, plan. Recall, however, that it was an organized, armed national occupation, military force, spying fascists, that rounded up your ancestors for mass murder, Brownshirt, Germany. There, they had banned guns! That is the direction we are headed in here. See the NDAA. The well off, Oligarch Jews, got away that time. This time, the same, every day, Non-oligarchical, Jew is safer, that's right, safer and likely to be defended, as a neighbor and family, by fat, gun wielding, western oriented, middle class, Americans. Think about that before you push, again, for the gun roundup. Then, as now, you have solidarity with the wrong group. Restore the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Long Live the People of America, including all races.
I confess: I live in Colorado Springs, but in the mountains .
Semper Fudge, below, was correct about COS being a bedroom community for the military. The military here is killing the city because of their 1) dependence on government-provided housing/food/medical/education, 2) trained, but not educated, 3) cluelessness about how an individualistic, independent and self-assured capitalism works, but too blinkered to realize their own stupidity, 4) clannishness and fear of new ideas from outsiders, 5) anti-intellectualism (the Air Force Academy is a pathetic, academic joke), and 7) the utter lack of social and cultural curiousity or sophistication. This, along with the corrupt and incompetent elitists who rule this place like their own feifdom, such as the Republican party hacks (Dems are irrelevant) and desperate developers. While they diddle each other, potholes don't get filled and storm water backs up in gulleys. All of these "takers" engage in rent-seeking behavior.
The phrase I've heard used to describe the way COS works is "dependence on the dependent." They're just not hungry enough to be entrepreneurial, even if they had the gumption, intelligence and courage to do something on their own. Which they don't.
Having said that, the mountains are breathtakingly beautiful and the view from up here, over the flat plains of the "valley" is just gorgeous. The weather is close to perfect, if you like four-seasons. The accelerating decline of COS mirrors the decline of California in that its a beautiful place without a viable economy because of all the government-paid dependents, mostly in the military.
I want out.
Fuck that douchebag. Deport his ass over to France.
Hey Mike - come on out! We would love to take you for a walk down a little bitty old rural dirt trail the way to the end, where there's a big tree waiting just for you. No guns either - just some rope.
in the civil rights issue of marijuana legalization.
I stopped here. Anyone who considers smoking pot a civil right is not worthy of reading. If you want to have the discussion about legalizing pot, so be it. Rights are God given, not sure where He talked about pot.
I once had someone try to make the case that the burning bush in Exodus when God spoke to Moses was a pot plant. Yea sure.
1 Peter 4:7 Therefore be alert and of sober mind so that you may pray.
sschu
The first solid evidence of the Hebrew use of cannabis was established in 1936 by Sula Benet, a little known Polish etymologist from the Institute of Anthropological Sciences in Warsaw.'
The word cannabis was generally thought to be of Scythian origin, but Benet showed that it has a much earlier origin in Semitic languages like Hebrew, and that it appears several times throughout the Old Testament. Benet explained that "in the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament there are references to hemp, both as incense, which was an integral part of religious celebration, and as an intoxicant."
Benet demonstrated that the word for cannabis is kaneh-bosm, also rendered in traditional Hebrew as kaneh or kannabus. The root kan in this construction means "reed" or "hemp", while bosm means "aromatic". This word appears five times in the Old Testament; in the books of Exodus, the Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.
...
The first mention of kaneh-bosm in the Old Testament appears with the prophet-shaman Moses. At the beginning of his shamanic career, Moses discovered the angel of the Lord in flames of fire from within a bush.
It is later in his life however, that a definite reference to cannabis is made. Sula Benet explains this reference as follows:
This first reference to kaneh-bosm is the only that describes it as an ointment to be applied externally. However, anointing oils made with cannabis are indeed psychoactive and have been used by such seemingly diverse groups as 19th century occultists and medieval witches.''
Closer to Moses' own time, cannabis was used as a topical hallucinogen by the ancient worshippers of Asherah, the Queen of Heaven. Asherah has also been referred to as the Hebrew Goddess.'"
...
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1090.html
Cannabis may have been used in OT times, but that is not the same as suggesting that it is sanctioned by God. Anything that distorts our mental capacity is a sin, Gallations 5:22.
sschu
I couldn't agree with you more, EXCEPT that while that is my belief about weed and sin, we are not living in a theocracy. We tried the whole prohibition thing with alcohol, which is far more destructive in my opinion, and it didn't work. We've had the 'war on drugs' for years and it also hasn't worked. If an individual wants to imbibe of alcohol or weed, and can stay within the boundaries of the law, then I don't see a problem except possible personal ones for the user.
Bottom line is, when we start treating grown adults like children and telling them arbitrarily what they can or can't do based on our religious beliefs, how are we different than the liberals? (their religion being the supremacy of the state).
Where did Jesus say "thou shalt impose bans within this jurisdiction on the consumption of marijuana?"
Still looking for that passage. Apparently, to Christians, "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" actually means "petition Caesar for a redress of your grievances."
Christians misinterpret the meaning of the Bible regularly. Jesus nowhere in the Bible calls on people to advocate legislation, or to impose rules and regulations on unwilling, non-Christians. He merely invites those to follow Him, and that's it. Otherwise, whether someone smokes weed, imbibes liquor, or gay marries is hardly something He would have banned. The most forceful act Jesus undertook in the Bible was to kick the moneychangers out of the temple, and I sure as fuck don't see Christians attempting to prohibit usury -- which actually IS admonished in the Bible, on many, many more occasions than homosexual activity.
Christians need to stop attempting to impose their will on non-believers in the form of binding legislation permitting the government to regulate private conduct. That's about the least Christian thing a person can contemplate.
I agree with you also. I slightly disagree with the statement "and I sure as fuck don't see Christians attempting to prohibit usury -- which actually IS admonished in the Bible, on many, many more occasions than homosexual activity. " Basically, a sin is a sin, and how many times it's admonished in the bible is not really relevant. Homosexuality is no less a sin, or more a sin, than usery or adultery or murder. Without getting all religious on you, this is why people need a Savior. It is impossible for people not to sin, especially in light of the fact even thoughts can be sinful. A careful reading of Romans 1 starting around verse 18 cleary establishes God's thinking on homosexuality. To not point out to people that this behaviour is sinful is not a loving thing. Nor is promotion of sin, homosexuality in this case, something Christians should be turning a blind eye to or winking away. Whether a person chooses to take that warning in to consideration or not is up to them.
No, we are not a theocracy, so we shouldn't be imposing our will on people but nor should non-Christians be able to impose theirs on us. Only in matters of life or death perhaps, but again individuals are pretty much going to do what they are going to do.
That is why I lean libertarian. Minimal laws, treat adults as adults, and let there be real consequences for bad behaviors.
You might find the context of the "Render unto Caesar.." parable interesting given the current times.
Pharisees - interpreters of Judean religious Law - were hostile to Jesus as he was a threat to their power and authority. The Romans demanded tribute, which the judeans saw as a form of slavery. There was a tax revolt going on.
The Pharisees contrived to proclaim Jesus to be a Rabbi, as such he had to answer and answer coherently under the Torah. This was a trap because udner the Ten Commandments Judeans were to 'make no graven image' and put no God before their God .
The Tax revolt was religiously inspired.
Yet if the Pharisees could get Jesus to refuse to answer, his status as Rabbi - much less as King - would be in question.
Alternatively, if he answered that dealing in the graven image was acceptable, and putting caesar before God was acceptable - then his religious status would be destroyed.
And finally, if they could get him to openly side with the tax revolt - as such a commanding presence in Jerusalem at the time - then he was sure to be arrested and executed by the Romans.
And so the Pharisees named Jesus a Rabbi, and asked him whether it was lawful to pay tribute to caesar.
So Jesus asked to see a Denarius - a silver coin with graven image of Tiberius and the inscription ""Tiberius Caesar Divi August Fili Augustus" which means "Tiberius Caesar Worshipful Son of the God, Augustus" - Which is to say a graven image, and an inscription worshipping a supposed 'God'.
So, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars" told them to give away the graven image with the worshiping inscription in accordance with Judean Religious Law, while avoiding the trap set by the Pharisees.
It is interesting context to something that most people either chant like a mantra or bromide, or read using King James English in a monotone, with little understanding.
Distorts or enhances?
I thought Timothy Leary was dead. Drugs do not enhance your ability to reason.
sschu
no, no, no, no, he's outside looking in.
"Cannabis may have been used in OT times, but that is not the same as suggesting that it is sanctioned by God."
The 11th Commandment was "Thou shall not smoke dope". However Moses was so stoned by breathing the fumes from that "burning bush", he fell asleep and forgot what he was doing after penning the first ten.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4?BCE - 61CE)
Then there's this:
"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."
Contemplation and a gentle demeanor aren't that bad. I never saw a bunch of potheads jump bad, pull knives and start to slashin.
Just sayin. Now the drunkards bear considerable watching.
edit: And the Lord did turn the water into wine, didn't He? The best wine at the wedding, too.
Butt, Jesus was a wino as was everyone then. I don't think that was "purple drank" at the last supper. And didn't he turn fish into wine or something.
Constantine the zoman emperor killed the vedic priest in the vatica (vatican) who wrote the bible and distorted most of the ancient texts was the bloomberg of his day. It is also distorting your mental capacity.
There is some truth left in the bible, but there is also very much distortion.
"Rights," by their nature, are priviliges that, when given to one group, are taken away from another. This is the classical understanding of what a "right" is. For example, when the slaves were freed in the South and the 13th Amendment signed into law, slaves gained a "right" to be free, while white slaveowners lost a "right" to keep black people as property. When people are given a "right" to free speech, the government correspondingly loses a right to suppress speech.
While being allowed to smoke marijuana isn't a "right" in and of itself (because it doesn't directly take the rights of others away it's actually a "permission," which is different than a right), that doesn't mean its current prohibition in many states has no impact on civil rights issues, including incarceration policies. Thousands of people are put in jail, denied student loans, and denied meaningful employment opportunities because of some stupid mistake they made when they were in high school. Minorities are disproportionately affected. So, to that extent, this is a civil rights issue (and white people actually use drugs just as much but have the benefit of being free of roving packs of cops patrolling their communities).
"Rights," by their nature, are priviliges that, when given to one group, are taken away from another.
I fail to see how the Bill of Rights (such as free speech or guns) somehow reduces the rights of others.
Rights are NOT priviliges. Rights are not granted by man, but are to be protected by a government from those who would usurp them.
Also, rights are individual, not grouped.
You are very confused.
sschu
I'm a lawyer, and I know perfectly well what I'm talking about. Just because you love the Constitution doesn't mean you know anything about it, which, unfortunately, I find to be true in regard to a number of the "Constitutionalists" out there. Just reading the Constitution doesn't mean you understand the rulings and laws interpreting the Constitution. Of course we are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights," but you're missing the point entirely. You have rights against certain actors, including the government. Did you ever think of that? Rights are balanced against opposing parties who have conflicting interests.
Just because you believe in Jesus and God doesn't make you a Constitutional scholar. Get lost with your hatred towards marijuana legalization. You're going to find yourself increasingly isolated and afraid of the changes all around the world coming in the years ahead with your attitude.
Of course we are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights," but you're missing the point entirely. You have rightsagainst certain actors, including the government. Did you ever think of that? Rights are balanced against opposing parties who have conflicting interests.
If our rights are granted by God, that is inalienable, then why is there a counter party to these rights? What is the "conflicting interest" to my right of free speech?
I do not hate marijuana, but one cannot visit the rehab centers and talk to these guys about how they got started on the path to addiction (often marijuana) and think legalization is a good idea. It is a gateway drug, much lke alcohol. Do we need more addicts?
1 Corintians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing
sschu
I see what you're saying. Your rights, even to speak freely, aren't absolute in nature. I'm sure you're aware of the ruling that states free speech doesn't include yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Likewise, you can't make defamatory statements, threaten the well-being of another person, etc. Those are all considered "exceptions" to the 1st Amendment, and rightfully so. Who wants to live in a society where a person can freely threaten to kill someone's family?
There are always countervailing interests against rights. Although a person has a right to "bear arms," we certainly don't interpret that to include chemical weapons/nerve agents, nuclear weapons, etc.
All I was saying initially is that you're right -- smoking weed isn't really a "right" in any traditional sense, but it does have an indirect bearing on certain other rights (such as, for example, whether a police officer has a "right" to search your car because he smells unburnt marijuana, which was recently decided by the Massaschusetts Supreme Judicial Court, interestingly enough). While being able to legally smoke marijuana isn't a right, it has an effect on other "rights" that are enshrined in the Constitution (like my 4th Amendment/Massachusetts example), and thus implicates civil rights concerns. It's a little complicated I know, but it's the truth.
As for rehab, I've known friends and family alike who have had problems with addiction, as I'm sure we all do. But I think rehab is a better alternative to incarceration, and provides people a chance to at least get back out in the workforce again, unlike incarceration, which just makes it impossible for people to find employment (even making our economy less efficient in the process as well).
Anywhow, I respect your opinion now having had this discussion with you. Cheers.
Rights imply responsibility. Just because I have the "right" to say what I please does not mean it is responsible to do so. Yelling "fire" infringes on other people by threatening their safety. A responsible person would not yell "fire".
The idea of responsibility is often lost on those claiming rights. By yelling "fire" I may be within my God given rights, but society should hold me accountable if someone is hurt by this irresponsibility.
I live in Washington State and live the legalization issue every day in my business. Time will tell, but this idea that there are no consequences to this legalization are foolishness. Like alcohol, many will use pot responsibly. But do you really want you kids thinking that using drugs is OK by society?
Having seen what can happen, I do not.
sschu
But it's not just a matter of responsibility -- legally speaking, you don't have a 1st Amendment right to say certain things.
You're right that only time will tell regarding legalization, but I'm cautiously optimistic. I used pretty much every drug in the book growing up, but the difference with me is that I didn't smoke pot regularly until I was in college. By then, my brain had developed enough, and I was active enough that my pasttime didn't really hold me back. The problem is people who take bong rips every day from the age of 14, and lo and behold -- they're couch-potatos later in life. Research has shown that the younger a person uses drugs, the more likely they are to become addicted to it, whether that be heroin, alcohol, marijuana, etc.
The point going forward is to teach kids the truth, and nothing more. The ends don't justify the means. No, if you smoke marijuana once, you're not going to become a lazy stoner for all time. But if all you do is smoke pot, you might find that you accept being lazy instead of learning some new skill or discipline. That's what we should be teaching kids, instead of this "just say no" tripe that really isn't effective, productive, OR truthful.
Rights imply no such thing.
A right is a right. No more no less.
I bought my son a toy robot. He thought it was cool. It could spin around. It could do a little dance. It could talk - well at least a list of phrases it would repeat in response to certain stimuli.
The robot was incapable of doing anything but the list of actions in its programming. It didn't make choices.
He left it running on the driveway while he went to get drink. It spun, danced and talked its way on to the road, was run-over and crushed.
It had no choices, no rights. But it was not immune to consequences for the lack. The consequences existed totally independent of rights or choices.
And in point of fact you DO have a Right to yell 'Fire' in a theater at any time you choose.
Specifically it is RIGHT to yell "Fire!" when the theater is ON FIRE.
But in order to yell "Fire!" at the RIGHT time you must first have the option of yelling it period. Hmmm??
If the totalitarians amongst us are successful in their attempts at controlling us by neural implants - whether delivering shocks or whatever means - then the 'conditioned' person would not be able to yell, "FIRE!" even when we all agree they ought to do so. They would be like my son's robot.
This is the inherent fallacy and internal contradiction in the attempt to control others. When you eliminate Choice, you necessarily eliminate the ability to choose rightly as well as wrongly.
A Right is the ability to make a choice and act on that choice. Put simply you have the Right to be Wrong. It is a license to experiment in order to determine causation. It is natural to humans because we are physically and mentally able to do it. More importantly it is a necessity for the continuance of life.
CONSEQUENCES exist wholly separate from Rights. You have the RIGHT to jump off a cliff whilst flapping your arms if you think it beneficial. The CONSEQUENCES of your choice are wholly external to the existence of the choice.
Gravity works whether you acknowledge it or not, whether you are there to experience it or not, and regardless of what choice you make about jumping.
CONSEQUENCES are built into the nature of the universe as the inseparable corollary of the principle of CAUSATION. They exist regardless of what humans choose, or even whether or not humans exist at all.
SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES exist because your rights are not exclusive. Your right to yell, "Fire!" does not outweigh someone else's right not to be trampled.
Thus CONSEQUENCES are a feature of reality, of nature, that are the constant context when rights are exercised, as well as at all other times. Rights are your non-exclusive physical and mental abilities to react to the conditions you perceive.
A lawyer? Well, if you say so.
Know what you are talking about? Clearly not.
You are simply parroting a jaundiced and cynical view that was taught to you. And even A CURSORY review of Locke - the source of the 'classical' understanding your refer to - will reveal it as a totally false assertion.
Locke based his theory of rights on his observation of the actual physical world, not on some theoretical Hegelistic Determinism. That's why they are called 'Natural' rights. Saying they are balanced against others is an easily provable falsehood.
Does your ability to write preclude others ability to write? NO? What about to speak? No? Where's the balance then? It doesn't exist.
You would have been right to say is that a human choice can't be a right if it is self-contradictory. Humans can't both have the right to murder and the right to live because the two are antithetical - not because they are balanced. Nor can humans simultaneously have the right to steal and to own property. The two are antithetical.
Moreover we can know which of the two antithetical choices is the one that is not a right because it is contradictory in and of itself because its antithesis is part of its definition.
Stealing is the attempt to have property that is taken from others. Stealing includes its anti-thesis in its definition - property.
Slavery, too is an example -for a person to make property of an othe person. It can't be a right because it encompases its antithesis. A person can't simultaneously BE property and OWN property because all his nominal possessions pass, by definition, to his owner. Asserting it as a right would be a contradition in terms.
Same with murder and with all other malum in se activities.
I'm not sure how what I said was "cynical" or even "jaundiced." It's actually a quite harmonious understanding of the nature of rights, and hardly conflicts with anything Locke, de Tocqueviile, or anyone else said. They are "natural," and that's perfectly fine. How you think what I'm saying is an "easily provable falsehood" is also a fairly haughty statement, seeing as how this is widely debated by many jurists and philosophers.
Take property rights, for example. If you have ownership of property (meaning you have valid title to it free of any liens/encumbrances), that means you are entitled to use, possess, waste, or even destroy it. Also, you have a right to exclude others from the use or possession of your property. Your right to your property takes away every other person's potential right to own it themselves.
Logically, you can't just keep giving people more, and more, and MORE rights without taking away certain other rights. If I provide a person the right to do "whatever he wants," suddenly he's free to murder someone, infringing upon the murdered person's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." You give one person rights, and the exercise of that person's rights will conflict with another's. That's just how things work.
Name one "right" that you don't think obeys this principle, this "tug of war" between rights, if you will, and I'll show you exactly how it does. Any "right" under the Constitution or under the laws of this country.
A lawyer? Hmm. Perhaps then you could draw a distinction between "Civil Rights" and "Civil Liberties". Throw in an analysis of the concept of both individual and collective sovereignty along with the distinctions of both and then tie those concepts to both forms of rights.
And as for the 13nth and the freeing of the Slaves. "Oz didnt give the tin man something that he didnt already have.
sschu troll alert
Thanks for the reply. I note that you have been a member for all of 11 weeks now. I have been here over 4 years. My opinions are not always popular or well received, but many here are not, so be it. I usually try to think before I write.
My world view is Biblical, and in this case my ideas concerning drug/pot legalization as well as rights are well founded, logical and shared by many.
If you have a specific point to make, please do so and we can engage in a reasonable dialog.
sschu
Black slaveowners lost their property, too. Laws are written by and for profiteers, to exploit. Mary Jane was criminalized under FDR, right after Prohibition was ended. Gee, I wonder why? /sarc/
""Rights," by their nature, are priviliges that, when given to one group, are taken away from another. This is the classical understanding of what a "right" is".
No, this is a progressive interpretation of rights. Slave owners did not lose a right that they never had to begin with. A narrow, knowingly wrong interpretation of property law was the excuse used but they never had the right under the constitution to own another human. And people are not "given" a right to free speech. They are natural rights already there prior to the constitution recognizing them. Nor does the government lose a right to suppress speech. They never had this to begin with.
As far as marijuana is concerned it boils down to a prior restraint argument. Because you may restrain someones rights in use of this substance, prohibition is legal. Of course this is complete authoritarian non-sense. If that's the case then every substance known to man can be "controlled". Rocks, steel, sand, glass, glue you name it.
It's not that you have a right to smoke weed, it's that the government really has no authority to prohibit it's use. If they do, then they can prohibit you from anything they wish for almost any reason they make up.
You claim to be a lawyer...I would never hire you to represent me, even for a traffic ticket.
Slaveowners were deprived of property rights that existed in law prior to the Emancipation Proclamation and the enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment. Case closed, counselor. I charge over $300 per hour so suffice it so say I won't be representing you in traffic court.
It's obvious you aren't legally trained because your "prior restraint" argument has nothing to do with what an actual "prior restraint" is.
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
If you are physically and mentally capable of doing it, and doing doesn't violate someone else's rights, then it is a 'God-Given' right - ie one that you are naturally able to do.
To state otherwise would proclaim that God was mistaken in given the right. But, if mistaken, then He isn't God, now is he? And if it were given against His will then the same. It would be like saying you had a Natural ability to perform an Unnatural act - an oxymoron, a contradiction.
You also have the 'God-Given' which is to say 'Natural' right to Choose.
You can Choose without anyone's intervention or permission. You can Choose even when permission is withheld.
Even the choice to submit to coercion is a choice. It literally cannot be taken from you by any force, only disincentiveized through violence.
Having the Right to Choose, or the Right to do a thing is not the same thing as being Wise to choose a thing, or to do a thing. But if we hadn't the Choice, we would have no opportunity to learn what is wise, but only what is permitted.
Without choice there can be no learning or understanding. And without Rights to act on your understanding, rightly or wrongly, there can be no life.
You need to stop thinking about God as though thinking of the Wizard of Oz - a fallible but powerful Man hidden from view - when talking about Rights. That is not how the conceptualizers of the term thought.
The Lockean view of Rights is rooted in theology, yes. But the theology in which it is rooted is itself rooted in the real world, not the nonumenal one. Those who described the Rights of Man did not claim to know the full true nature of God. They were Deists. Faith, for them, was not an act of willful blindness, but of reasoned observation. They simply observed the order of things and declared that which caused it to be the Creator - God.
Interrestingly, this does not conflict with a scientific view at all. Science can explain HOW things work, but is at a loss to expain WHY such an order exists. The modern view is to simply disregard or avoid the question. The ancient view is to assign the answers to the question 'Why?' a name, "Because God wills it."
Try it your self. Ask a physicist how Gravity works and you'll get an interresting discussion. Ask him why it works and you'll get silence and shrugs or a long stream of BS and conjecture. It is so because 'Science' is actually a process. It is the process of following the scientific method - which is a deductive method. A deductive method can only ever tell you WHAT is happening and perhaps HOW it is happening...but never WHY.
Good thing McCain/Feingold got 'the money out of politics'. Fuck all these megalomaniacs.
guns don't kill people. People with sugary fountain drinks with guns kill people.
"Michael Bloomberg Calls Colorado A "Rural and Roadless" Backwater"
Go north of NYC and New York State is largely rural, though it has some large cities like Buffalo or Rochester.
Bloomie, just LEGALIZE IT! Transfats, weed and 5 gallon sodas!
The article didn't go as far as to say the mayor profits from criminal drugs, but I've read more than one article that says NYC banksters profit greatly from laundering drug money. So, decriminalization puts a dent into their illicit gains. Then, there's the heroin from Afghanistan.
the former mayor said this:
“The NRA went after two or three state Senators in a part of Colorado where I don’t think there’s roads. It’s as far rural as you can get. And, yes, they lost recall elections. I’m sorry for that. We tried to help ‘em. But the bottom line is, the law is on the books, and being enforced. You can get depressed about the progress, but on the other hand, you’re saving a lot of lives.”
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229181
Denninger:
Well That Didn't Take LongLeave your guns at home, they say.
Well, the good guys did. The bad guys? Not so much.
Never start a ground war in Flyoverstan!
Rural and roadless is where I plan to build my underground, well-stocked, bunker.
First, anyone who is trying to disarm you is trying to kill you.
I wish it weren't true, but it is: there is apparently a very organized and purposeful effort to disarm Americans.
http://thezog.wordpress.com/who-is-behind-gun-control/
Further, I love how bloomberg, the ultimate crony, wants to disdainfully dismiss anyone who disobeys his edicts as being unintelligent. The man himself isn't special: he doesn't have talent, acumen or intelligence. All he has is access to the Free Money Machine. Nice!
Nanny Boohooberg better keep his sissified @$$ safely in his own festering $#!+#01e with the other meddling do-gooder statists (who are anything BUT "liberal"), surrounded by his armed guards. Of course, this modern day "loyalist" knows better than the framers of the U.S. constitution:
A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression. - James Madison
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government. - Alexander Hamilton
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. - George Washington
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. - George Washington
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. - George Washington
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. - Patrick Henry
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. - Noah Webster
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government. - Alexander Hamilton
And alexander Hamilton was Rothschild's son in law who was shot by Jackson's vice president. Jackson began printing gold backed money once again. Hamilton had to talk out of both sides of his mouth due to the complexity of the times.
Who's Michael Bloombug?
Is this the same Napoleonic psychopathic dwarf that roams around Bermuda with his heavily armed bodygards?
(He forced special dispensation from the Bermuda government, which has a no-guns-period policy).
I wonder if this buffoonish tiny bitch has any clue how much he is despised in this country.
The typical elitist billionaire asshole who has no fucking idea about how the average American in what he calls "flyover country" lives, or what they think.
What does a fascist billionaire know about back waters anyway?
Just another rich jew playing front-man for the Rothschids.