N.Y. mayor bloomberg just announced that despite term limits he intends
to seek re-election to a third term. The city can't do without him in
these bad times. How come during the crises of 9/11 a very popular mayor
Guilliani didn't feel it was necessary to consider himself above the law.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:39:14 -0500, Ken Marino wrote:

N.Y. mayor bloomberg just announced that despite term limits he intends
to seek re-election to a third term. The city can't do without him in
these bad times. How come during the crises of 9/11 a very popular mayor
Guilliani didn't feel it was necessary to consider himself above the
law.

Giuliani did.

http://www.nydailynews.com/
ny_local/2008/09/30/2008-09-30_rudy_giuliani_backs_mayor_bloombergs_pla.html

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:39:14 -0500, Ken Marino
wrote:

N.Y. mayor bloomberg just announced that despite term limits he intends
to seek re-election to a third term. The city can't do without him in
these bad times. How come during the crises of 9/11 a very popular mayor
Guilliani didn't feel it was necessary to consider himself above the law.

Actually, he DID. Rudy tried very hard to have his term extended, and
not let the newly elected mayor take office until things settled down.
At least Blomberg is willing to be elected by the people, rather than
retaining office by fiat.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:39:14 -0500, Ken Marino wrote:

N.Y. mayor bloomberg just announced that despite term limits he intends
to seek re-election to a third term. The city can't do without him in
these bad times. How come during the crises of 9/11 a very popular mayor
Guilliani didn't feel it was necessary to consider himself above the
law.

And, of course, you do know Bloomberg isn't a Democrat, don't you?

Democrat, Republican it really doesn't matter. 99.9% of all elected
officials are concerned with one thing and one thing only -power.

Those who seek to live your lives for you, to take your liberty in return
for relieving you of yours, those who elevate the state and downgrade the
citizen, must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be
substituted for divine will. And this nation was founded upon the rejection
of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.
Now, those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they
regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version
of heaven on earth, and let me remind you they are the very ones who always
create the most hellish tyranny.

Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must
be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions, ladies and
gentlemen, of equality. Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers
understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative
differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time,
it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.

And I cherish the day when our children once again will restore as heroes
the sort of men and women who, unafraid and undaunted, pursue the truth,
strive to cure disease, subdue and make fruitful our natural environment,
and produce the inventive engines of production-science and technology.

This nation, whose creative people have enhanced this entire span of
history, should again thrive upon the greatness of all those things which
we-we as individual citizens-can and should do.

We see in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private
property the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man
rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property
the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society.

And beyond all that we see and cherish diversity of ways, diversity of
thoughts, of motives, and accomplishments. We don't seek to live anyone's
life for him. We only seek to secure his rights, guarantee him opportunity,
guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those
needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be
performed.

That, let me remind you, is the land of liberty built by decentralized
power. On it also we must have balance between the branches of government at
every level.

Today, as then, but more urgently and more broadly than then, the task of
preserving and enlarging freedom at home and safeguarding it from the forces
of tyranny abroad is great,enough to challenge all our resources and to
require all our strength.

Anyone who joins us in all sincerity, we welcome. Those, those who do not
care for our cause, we don"t expect to enter our ranks, in any case. And let
our love of liberty so focused and so dedicated not be made fuzzy and futile
by unthinking and stupid labels.

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no
virtue!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGDBA...eature=related











"Ken Marino" wrote in message
m...
N.Y. mayor bloomberg just announced that despite term limits he intends
to seek re-election to a third term. The city can't do without him in
these bad times. How come during the crises of 9/11 a very popular mayor
Guilliani didn't feel it was necessary to consider himself above the law.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:39:14 -0500, Ken Marino
said:

N.Y. mayor bloomberg just announced that despite term limits he intends
to seek re-election to a third term.

The Times today carried an editorial on the subject of term limits, and
probably representing a new low in their typically muddled thinking. Bear
in
mind that City voters have twice voted for term limits. The Times
acknowledged that it would be feasible to extend or abolish term limits by
a
vote before the next election. But, it argued, the turnout would likely be
low in such an election, so it would be more "democratic" for the City
Council to just repeal the term limits law without asking voters. What
they
really meant by the reference to a low turnout, of course, was that those
favoring term limits would be more likely to turn out to vote than those
opposing term limits, so the City Council should just decide what the
people
want, and not bother with something so messy as a vote by the people.

Surely people only turn out to vote if they care what the result of the vote
is going to be?
Unless perhaps they think the vote is fixed and their vote will make no
difference anyway.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:39:14 -0500, Ken Marino
said:

N.Y. mayor bloomberg just announced that despite term limits he intends
to seek re-election to a third term.

The Times today carried an editorial on the subject of term limits, and
probably representing a new low in their typically muddled thinking. Bear
in
mind that City voters have twice voted for term limits. The Times
acknowledged that it would be feasible to extend or abolish term limits by
a
vote before the next election. But, it argued, the turnout would likely be
low in such an election, so it would be more "democratic" for the City
Council to just repeal the term limits law without asking voters. What
they
really meant by the reference to a low turnout, of course, was that those
favoring term limits would be more likely to turn out to vote than those
opposing term limits, so the City Council should just decide what the
people
want, and not bother with something so messy as a vote by the people.


Then, I suppose the people should vote the bums out of office. I don't see
why Bloomberg needs to be there another term, but I'm not up on NYC
politics.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:39:14 -0500, Ken Marino
said:


so the City Council should just decide what the people
want, and not bother with something so messy as a vote by the people.


It's a good idea. The people would not suffer inconvenience and government
would be more effective and streamlined.

Now if they could only get rid of that annoying jury duty.

And the hindrance of filling out income tax forms.


"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because
I wasn't a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one
left to speak up."