I just threw up a little in my mouth.

 

Anti-Gun Liberal Jackass

QUOTE: “I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me.” Hypocrite DEMOCRAT Dianne Feinstein

The Top 7 Anti-Gun Liberal Jackasses Who’re Heavily Armed! :: Clash Daily
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

 

I find it interesting that she did not seem to consider self-defense, deterrent, saving innocents, disarming the attacker, etc. She just went full Rambo. That very "wild west" thing "they" warn us "we" will be. Very telling about how she thinks.

What were we talking about?

Matt B

 

Anti-Gun Liberal Jackass on the left and a Anti-soda pop Conservative Jackass on the right:

”It’s inevitable you will lose your freedoms. Resistance is futile. Just accept it.”

While hosting his weekly radio show this past Friday, Your Royal Highness Mayor Michael Bloomberg explained to the serfs of NYC that privacy is dead and that you just "can't keep the tide" of the surveillance state from coming in. His quotes perfectly demonstrate the attitude he takes toward his subjects and are quite revealing. For instance:
As if that isn’t bad enough, it also become 100% crystal clear that this guy wants to fill the skies of NYC with “freedom birds.” He sees absolutely no problem with it at all. In his own words:
Here’s how you stop it. It’s called The Constitution of the United States of America, a document I’m not convinced you have ever bothered to read.

This whole thing comes across as a gigantic Jedi mind trick to me. ”It’s inevitable you will lose your freedoms. Resistance is futile. Just accept it.” Sadly, unlike the proud citizens of Seattle, New Yorkers are still too traumatized from 9/11 to get off their knees.

Finally, we discover who and what Bloomberg is really trying to protect with all the cameras:
So is dinner at your place or the Dimons’ tonight?

A few good articles covering this can be found here, here and here.

Mayor Bloomberg On Drones: "Oh It's Big Brother, Get Used To It" | Zero Hedge

I guess we need cameras everywhere to make sure no one is drinking a large soda and having a cigarette... and we need face recognition to know where to send the violation in the mail.

 

If you think Bloomberg is a "conservative" you really have been taking a lot of drugs....

 

Bloomberg may call himself a conservative but his Nanny State politics, stands on moral issues, stands on guns, and stands on general freedoms prove he's a modern full-fledged liberal-I'm from the government and I know what's best for you-leftie.

 

Actually, aren't conservatives for a nanny state? Ever since Bush's war against privacy with the Patriot Act, that's the impression I had.

Nixon started the war on drugs (a nanny policy) and Reagan got on full-bore.

Prohibition of the 20's was started by a conservative, Andrew Volstead in the Volstead Act. Democrat Woodrow Wilson vetoed it, but it was overridden.

The reason nanny won't let me have a drink on sunday, that's a conservative thing. What liberal would give a flip what I do on sunday?

It doesn't matter. Both parties are an assault on freedoms. You could take the road to the left or the road to the right, but they still lead to the same place in the end. In the mean time you just have to decide if your gun or your whisky is more important.

 

Enough blame to go around from both sides on several issues. Reagan(whom I respected in a lot of ways) started taxing SS benefits in 1983 up to 50% of your total benefits if you made over a certain amount,Clinton jumped that up to 85% of your total benefits that could be taxable. So who's the more likely one to blame?? One or both??

 

Oh boy I don't know. Our legal system is based on precedents. When arguing a case, you quote other decisions made in the past and that somehow means something. In that light, Reagan would be to blame. He set the precedent. But that begs the question if Reagan hadn't set the precedent, would Clinton?

It does sound like a fiscally conservative thing to do. If you're making too much money, then the gov can take some back that they had given you in the 1st place. That's what it is, right?

 

I look at it as more of a liberal action than conservative. FDR (A much beloved democrat) started SS as a means to supplement elderly people's income when they retired. It wasn't meant to be the sole support,but to help in their assistance. Maybe I'm looking at it through rose colored glasses,but when a person reaches retirement age,their "golden years" so to speak, any additional income they should come across should be tax free. They've worked 40-50 years or more,paid taxes and shouldn't have to have to worry about whether they can afford medicine or eat(as many have to do)or worry about the roof over their heads.This was the original intent of SS. Yes SS funds have been misappropriated, rob from Peter to pay Paul and severely underfunded for any future generations. I paid taxes for the "Great Generation" WW2 and Korean war aged people such as my father who actually received more than he put in as many of his generation did. There's just no easy answer on this complex problem. As I keep telling my almost 34 year old son,don't assume it will be there for you when you might need it. Save all you can in your 401K,IRA,etc because your "Golden Years" will hit you quick like a brick wall! At least it did for me.