Mayor Bloomberg: Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’

“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said. Blomberg

Yeah, Mike, like you. Quit trying to scare people.

 

Man, some of you guys have a whole lifetime in front of you...and if you're a fan of this NYC jerk, can you imagine what you're life will look like in 20?

 

CCTV was a huge winner in cracking the Boston case. I still hate that feeling in London that I'm always being watched, but that's the one thing most people can probably live with, provided that those cameras are (like in the UK) privately owned. Those are here to stay, unfortunately and are a hell of a lot cheaper and less intrusive than a cop on every corner.

Bloomberg's Hobbesian worldview is a mirror image of Dick Cheney's. The main difference being that the two speak to their own separate constituencies of privileged people. And worse, in the Venn diagram of those two constituencies, Wall Street is a one hell of an overlap. The man is no FDR.

I can agree with the mayor on what America's ills are...but I sure don't jive with his proposed solutions. If I was a New Yorker, I'd sooner vote for Dinkins.

 

I could not disagree more. I hope you're joking. The "possibilities" do indeed go on. Great for China and Singapore, call me crazy but I don't think that should be our model.

Reading your post makes me almost as queasy as reading what Bloomberg was selling.

 

Bloomberg sounds just like W: take our freedoms away.

Yeah, nice Wilsonian rhetoric.

 

Man, you REALLY hate America don't you?

 

The issue started prior to 9/11, when Timothy McVeigh engaged in terrorism, and he was about as American and you can get.

Is America a more dangerous place since 9/11? I suppose possibly marginally, but realistically the likelyhood of anyone of us suffering in a terrorist attack is minute.

Americans did have more rights and freedoms prior to 9/11, but some of that is an over reaction by the government to keep us "safe".... when really if they were that concerned about it, they would solve the gang killings and dietary issues in this country that kill far more people.

You are an interesting guy, and I appreciate your perspective, not living in the United States.

 

No Bloomberg, I will not trade freedom for fascism just to feel a little bit safer. On behalf of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, go #### yourself.

 

Drama king. You rule your domain.

 

Why is that Wilsonian?

 

Someone start a petition.

 

http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/vie...1;toc.id=dv1-78;brand=default;query=woodrow#1

Woodrow Wilson also made remarks regarding the need to defend and protect civil liberties in his push to go to war. He claimed that there were violation of rights in his pleadings to form the League, if I am not mistaken.

This was similar to Bush and the media prior to the Iraq war, especially regarding the Kurds. Some media outlets claimed Saddam had 'murdered his own people' during the Kurdish rebellion. Does it matter that he murdered his own people or someone else's?

 

So anytime someone talks about protecting freedom they are Wilsonian? Seems misguided, especially since "Wilsonianism" is completely foreign policy focused while Bloomberg is talking about domestic law enforcement efforts. Or that's why it struck me as off.

 

Fair point, there is always a rallying-cry rhetoric. Now that I think about it, Bush used the "democracy" rhetoric to justify the war in its early days. The idea was that America would "liberate" Iraq and give them the "freedom" of "democracy". At least that is how I remember it.

Then again, I am not sure why I care this much about the opinion of the billionaire mayor of the country's largest city.

 

Yeah, I don't know what the 20th century looks like economically with our biggest trading partners destroying each other's infrastructure for 30 or 40 years in favor of Germany and then the Soviet Union; even notwithstanding that our Caucasian and Anglo-Saxon plurality would have ultimately demanded that we support our cultural and philosophical ancestors. I just think our involvement in WWI was a lot more inevitable, and the opportunities and advantage in WWII too hard to pass up, for us to have evaded either on strategic or moral grounds. Distinct from the second Gulf War and Vietnam, which were both built on fully fabricated lies about adversaries that were never tangible threats.

 

Idiotic statement.

 

Yes, I'm quite protective of the Bill of Rights. I consider it a virtue.

 

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." Benjamin Franklin

 

Understood...but those have ALWAYS been subject to interpretation.