This morning the AM radio news station WINS announced that the RICHEST MAN
IN NEW YORK, Billionaire Bloomberg, has already spent a record EIGHTY FIVE
MILLION dollars on his ILLEGAL campaign. His campaign is technically not
illegal of course because his money and influence, not the will of the
voters, determine its legality. The voters of New York TWICE clearly
rejected an end to the term limits laws that prohibited his present bid for
re-election. But arrogant, elitist Billionaire Bloomberg gives not a whit
for the will of the people - if his money and power enable him to act in
defiance of the voters, that's just what he does, and will do! After all he
is a Republican, and democracy has little meaning to Republicans. That's why
they are not Democrats!

The first airing of this story did not sound favorable for Billionaire
Bloomberg at all, quoting someone that such campaign spending was "OBSCENE."
Bloomberg or his office must have then intervened, as within a few hours the
story was given a more favorable slant. The "obscene" quote was gone, and it
was asserted that Bloomberg's spending and election propaganda bombardment
was something New Yorkers did not mind. All the money he spends with the
"news" stations on his campaign ads obviously entitles Bloomberg to call the
shots on what is and is not "news!"

--------------------------------------------
Posted: Friday, 23 October 2009 5:23PM
Bloomberg Breaks Spending Record, Drops $85.2M on Campaign

NEW YORK (AP/ 1010 WINS) -- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has
broken his own spending record from four years ago, dropping $85.2 million
on his campaign for a third term with 11 days to go until Election Day.

The popular billionaire was ahead of Democrat William Thompson Jr. in a poll
released this week but has been spending at a rate of more than $850,000 a
day.

A finance report filed by his campaign for a Friday deadline covers
Bloomberg's expenses since Sept. 29. He spent $20.4 million in that period,
helping him shatter his $85 million record from 2005. He spent $74 million
on his first run in 2001.

Thompson, who had been having trouble raising money, reported raising
$270,000. He has spent about $6 million of the $8 million he has collected
in donations and matching funds.

The mayor, whose estimated $17.5 billion fortune makes him the wealthiest
person in New York City, does not take donations and can spend his money as
he wishes. He must report his expenditures to the city's Campaign Finance
Board.

He defends his exhorbitant spending as a cost of running on the GOP line in
a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a ratio of 5 to 1.

He sought to portray Thompson as having the advantage.

``This city is overwhelmingly Democratic, and so he does start out with an
awful lot of people who will vote the party line ... and I have to deal with
that,'' Bloomberg said this week.

``I'm not trying to spend money that I don't think is necessary,'' added
Bloomberg, who is not registered with a party but is running on the
Republican and Independent Party lines.

I don't know but it appears Bloomberg is running scared,

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:05:34 -0400, "Freedom Man"
liberty at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

This morning the AM radio news station WINS announced that the RICHEST MAN
IN NEW YORK, Billionaire Bloomberg, has already spent a record EIGHTY FIVE
MILLION dollars on his ILLEGAL campaign. His campaign is technically not
illegal of course because his money and influence, not the will of the
voters, determine its legality. The voters of New York TWICE clearly
rejected an end to the term limits laws that prohibited his present bid for
re-election. But arrogant, elitist Billionaire Bloomberg gives not a whit
for the will of the people - if his money and power enable him to act in
defiance of the voters, that's just what he does, and will do! After all he
is a Republican, and democracy has little meaning to Republicans. That's why
they are not Democrats!

The first airing of this story did not sound favorable for Billionaire
Bloomberg at all, quoting someone that such campaign spending was "OBSCENE."
Bloomberg or his office must have then intervened, as within a few hours the
story was given a more favorable slant. The "obscene" quote was gone, and it
was asserted that Bloomberg's spending and election propaganda bombardment
was something New Yorkers did not mind. All the money he spends with the
"news" stations on his campaign ads obviously entitles Bloomberg to call the
shots on what is and is not "news!"

--------------------------------------------
Posted: Friday, 23 October 2009 5:23PM
Bloomberg Breaks Spending Record, Drops $85.2M on Campaign

NEW YORK (AP/ 1010 WINS) -- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has
broken his own spending record from four years ago, dropping $85.2 million
on his campaign for a third term with 11 days to go until Election Day.

The popular billionaire was ahead of Democrat William Thompson Jr. in a poll
released this week but has been spending at a rate of more than $850,000 a
day.

A finance report filed by his campaign for a Friday deadline covers
Bloomberg's expenses since Sept. 29. He spent $20.4 million in that period,
helping him shatter his $85 million record from 2005. He spent $74 million
on his first run in 2001.

Thompson, who had been having trouble raising money, reported raising
$270,000. He has spent about $6 million of the $8 million he has collected
in donations and matching funds.

The mayor, whose estimated $17.5 billion fortune makes him the wealthiest
person in New York City, does not take donations and can spend his money as
he wishes. He must report his expenditures to the city's Campaign Finance
Board.

He defends his exhorbitant spending as a cost of running on the GOP line in
a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a ratio of 5 to 1.

He sought to portray Thompson as having the advantage.

``This city is overwhelmingly Democratic, and so he does start out with an
awful lot of people who will vote the party line ... and I have to deal with
that,'' Bloomberg said this week.

``I'm not trying to spend money that I don't think is necessary,'' added
Bloomberg, who is not registered with a party but is running on the
Republican and Independent Party lines.

I don't know but it appears Bloomberg is running scared,
else why spend so much money? If his popularity figures
were as high as reported, he was a shoo in, shoo ins just
have no need to spend so much. What gives?

Why in the world did he go onto the republican ticket?
Knowing what we now know about republicans, shouldn't that
have precluded him from doing so? Then he reaches out to
Giuliani, the man who made Kerik possible, who made Roy
Harding news. The man who said "the air is safe to breathe"
when it wasn't. Why welcome such baggage aboard? Next up
Colin Powel, the man who, by his own words, could find no
justification, for the case he made at the U.N. but made
that case anyway. It would be one thing if he were
speaking about charter schools, but he wasn't! He was
making the case that tens of thousands of people had to die,
millions more be dislocated, families broken up, and the
entire fabric of a nation rendered, all because there was
some monsterous threat lingering out there, that was so
devastatingly dangerous that any and all costs were
justified to abate it. Colin Powel knew that he was a
civilian, he knew that the President was asking him to do
something that he knew was wrong! Make it appear that he
had evidence that he did not have and could not find. He
should have resigned and left the task to a smaller man.
Instead he became the smaller man the President needed.
Now Bloomberg welcomes him aboard his "popular" campaign.
Who next? Roman Polansky?

If I didn't know better I'd be thinking; gee, he really
doesn't want another term after all, but he's somehow
trapped and must run. I mean, he could certainly have done
with welcoming aboard all these damaging characters. It's
as if someone wants him in there to do something he finds
objectionable and would rather not do. How could anyone
have anything to hold over this good mans head? Puzzling to
be sure, eh?

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:05:34 -0400, "Freedom Man"
liberty at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

This morning the AM radio news station WINS announced that the RICHEST MAN
IN NEW YORK, Billionaire Bloomberg, has already spent a record EIGHTY FIVE
MILLION dollars on his ILLEGAL campaign. His campaign is technically not
illegal of course because his money and influence, not the will of the
voters, determine its legality. The voters of New York TWICE clearly
rejected an end to the term limits laws that prohibited his present bid
for
re-election. But arrogant, elitist Billionaire Bloomberg gives not a whit
for the will of the people - if his money and power enable him to act in
defiance of the voters, that's just what he does, and will do! After all
he
is a Republican, and democracy has little meaning to Republicans. That's
why
they are not Democrats!

The first airing of this story did not sound favorable for Billionaire
Bloomberg at all, quoting someone that such campaign spending was
"OBSCENE."
Bloomberg or his office must have then intervened, as within a few hours
the
story was given a more favorable slant. The "obscene" quote was gone, and
it
was asserted that Bloomberg's spending and election propaganda bombardment
was something New Yorkers did not mind. All the money he spends with the
"news" stations on his campaign ads obviously entitles Bloomberg to call
the
shots on what is and is not "news!"

--------------------------------------------
Posted: Friday, 23 October 2009 5:23PM
Bloomberg Breaks Spending Record, Drops $85.2M on Campaign

NEW YORK (AP/ 1010 WINS) -- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has
broken his own spending record from four years ago, dropping $85.2 million
on his campaign for a third term with 11 days to go until Election Day.

The popular billionaire was ahead of Democrat William Thompson Jr. in a
poll
released this week but has been spending at a rate of more than $850,000 a
day.

A finance report filed by his campaign for a Friday deadline covers
Bloomberg's expenses since Sept. 29. He spent $20.4 million in that
period,
helping him shatter his $85 million record from 2005. He spent $74 million
on his first run in 2001.

Thompson, who had been having trouble raising money, reported raising
$270,000. He has spent about $6 million of the $8 million he has collected
in donations and matching funds.

The mayor, whose estimated $17.5 billion fortune makes him the wealthiest
person in New York City, does not take donations and can spend his money
as
he wishes. He must report his expenditures to the city's Campaign Finance
Board.

He defends his exhorbitant spending as a cost of running on the GOP line
in
a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a ratio of 5 to 1.

He sought to portray Thompson as having the advantage.

``This city is overwhelmingly Democratic, and so he does start out with an
awful lot of people who will vote the party line ... and I have to deal
with
that,'' Bloomberg said this week.

``I'm not trying to spend money that I don't think is necessary,'' added
Bloomberg, who is not registered with a party but is running on the
Republican and Independent Party lines.

I don't know but it appears Bloomberg is running scared,
else why spend so much money? If his popularity figures
were as high as reported, he was a shoo in, shoo ins just
have no need to spend so much. What gives?

Why in the world did he go onto the republican ticket?
Knowing what we now know about republicans, shouldn't that
have precluded him from doing so?

Then he reaches out to
Giuliani, the man who made Kerik possible, who made Roy
Harding news. The man who said "the air is safe to breathe"
when it wasn't. Why welcome such baggage aboard?

Next up
Colin Powel, the man who, by his own words, could find no
justification, for the case he made at the U.N. but made
that case anyway. It would be one thing if he were
speaking about charter schools, but he wasn't! He was
making the case that tens of thousands of people had to die,
millions more be dislocated, families broken up, and the
entire fabric of a nation rendered, all because there was
some monsterous threat lingering out there, that was so
devastatingly dangerous that any and all costs were
justified to abate it. Colin Powel knew that he was a
civilian, he knew that the President was asking him to do
something that he knew was wrong! Make it appear that he
had evidence that he did not have and could not find. He
should have resigned and left the task to a smaller man.
Instead he became the smaller man the President needed.
Now Bloomberg welcomes him aboard his "popular" campaign.
Who next? Roman Polansky?

If I didn't know better I'd be thinking; gee, he really
doesn't want another term after all, but he's somehow
trapped and must run. I mean, he could certainly have done
with welcoming aboard all these damaging characters. It's
as if someone wants him in there to do something he finds
objectionable and would rather not do. How could anyone
have anything to hold over this good mans head? Puzzling to
be sure, eh?

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:47:34 -0500, Obwon <Obwon at (no spam) real.com> wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:05:34 -0400, "Freedom Man"
liberty at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

This morning the AM radio news station WINS announced that the RICHEST MAN
IN NEW YORK, Billionaire Bloomberg, has already spent a record EIGHTY FIVE
MILLION dollars on his ILLEGAL campaign. His campaign is technically not
illegal of course because his money and influence, not the will of the
voters, determine its legality. The voters of New York TWICE clearly
rejected an end to the term limits laws that prohibited his present bid for
re-election. But arrogant, elitist Billionaire Bloomberg gives not a whit
for the will of the people - if his money and power enable him to act in
defiance of the voters, that's just what he does, and will do! After all he
is a Republican, and democracy has little meaning to Republicans. That's why
they are not Democrats!

The first airing of this story did not sound favorable for Billionaire
Bloomberg at all, quoting someone that such campaign spending was "OBSCENE."
Bloomberg or his office must have then intervened, as within a few hours the
story was given a more favorable slant. The "obscene" quote was gone, and it
was asserted that Bloomberg's spending and election propaganda bombardment
was something New Yorkers did not mind. All the money he spends with the
"news" stations on his campaign ads obviously entitles Bloomberg to call the
shots on what is and is not "news!"

--------------------------------------------
Posted: Friday, 23 October 2009 5:23PM
Bloomberg Breaks Spending Record, Drops $85.2M on Campaign

NEW YORK (AP/ 1010 WINS) -- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has
broken his own spending record from four years ago, dropping $85.2 million
on his campaign for a third term with 11 days to go until Election Day.

The popular billionaire was ahead of Democrat William Thompson Jr. in a poll
released this week but has been spending at a rate of more than $850,000 a
day.

A finance report filed by his campaign for a Friday deadline covers
Bloomberg's expenses since Sept. 29. He spent $20.4 million in that period,
helping him shatter his $85 million record from 2005. He spent $74 million
on his first run in 2001.

Thompson, who had been having trouble raising money, reported raising
$270,000. He has spent about $6 million of the $8 million he has collected
in donations and matching funds.

The mayor, whose estimated $17.5 billion fortune makes him the wealthiest
person in New York City, does not take donations and can spend his money as
he wishes. He must report his expenditures to the city's Campaign Finance
Board.

He defends his exhorbitant spending as a cost of running on the GOP line in
a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a ratio of 5 to 1.

He sought to portray Thompson as having the advantage.

``This city is overwhelmingly Democratic, and so he does start out with an
awful lot of people who will vote the party line ... and I have to deal with
that,'' Bloomberg said this week.

``I'm not trying to spend money that I don't think is necessary,'' added
Bloomberg, who is not registered with a party but is running on the
Republican and Independent Party lines.

I don't know but it appears Bloomberg is running scared,
else why spend so much money? If his popularity figures
were as high as reported, he was a shoo in, shoo ins just
have no need to spend so much. What gives?

Why in the world did he go onto the republican ticket?
Knowing what we now know about republicans, shouldn't that
have precluded him from doing so? Then he reaches out to
Giuliani, the man who made Kerik possible, who made Roy
Harding news. The man who said "the air is safe to breathe"
when it wasn't. Why welcome such baggage aboard? Next up
Colin Powel, the man who, by his own words, could find no
justification, for the case he made at the U.N. but made
that case anyway. It would be one thing if he were
speaking about charter schools, but he wasn't! He was
making the case that tens of thousands of people had to die,
millions more be dislocated, families broken up, and the
entire fabric of a nation rendered, all because there was
some monsterous threat lingering out there, that was so
devastatingly dangerous that any and all costs were
justified to abate it. Colin Powel knew that he was a
civilian, he knew that the President was asking him to do
something that he knew was wrong! Make it appear that he
had evidence that he did not have and could not find. He
should have resigned and left the task to a smaller man.
Instead he became the smaller man the President needed.
Now Bloomberg welcomes him aboard his "popular" campaign.
Who next? Roman Polansky?

If I didn't know better I'd be thinking; gee, he really
doesn't want another term after all, but he's somehow
trapped and must run. I mean, he could certainly have done
with welcoming aboard all these damaging characters. It's
as if someone wants him in there to do something he finds
objectionable and would rather not do. How could anyone
have anything to hold over this good mans head? Puzzling to
be sure, eh?


I don't get Thompson. He could be running a campaign pointing out the
police brutality, real estate scandals, building inspector arrests and
construction accidents, a one way ticket out of town program for the
homeless, over 500,000 people caught up in stop and frisk, the Sean
Bell murder, and Bloomberg increasing his fortune while mayor from 4
to 16 billion dollars- now how did he do that? It's time to get dirty
and expose Bloomberg's warts.

"Obwon" <Obwon at (no spam) real.com> wrote in message
news:sbh8e5h44857l2t4ce5b62vi0pgr2e8r6n at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:05:34 -0400, "Freedom Man"
liberty at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

This morning the AM radio news station WINS announced that the RICHEST MAN
IN NEW YORK, Billionaire Bloomberg, has already spent a record EIGHTY FIVE
MILLION dollars on his ILLEGAL campaign. His campaign is technically not
illegal of course because his money and influence, not the will of the
voters, determine its legality. The voters of New York TWICE clearly
rejected an end to the term limits laws that prohibited his present bid
for
re-election. But arrogant, elitist Billionaire Bloomberg gives not a whit
for the will of the people - if his money and power enable him to act in
defiance of the voters, that's just what he does, and will do! After all
he
is a Republican, and democracy has little meaning to Republicans. That's
why
they are not Democrats!

The first airing of this story did not sound favorable for Billionaire
Bloomberg at all, quoting someone that such campaign spending was
"OBSCENE."
Bloomberg or his office must have then intervened, as within a few hours
the
story was given a more favorable slant. The "obscene" quote was gone, and
it
was asserted that Bloomberg's spending and election propaganda bombardment
was something New Yorkers did not mind. All the money he spends with the
"news" stations on his campaign ads obviously entitles Bloomberg to call
the
shots on what is and is not "news!"

--------------------------------------------
Posted: Friday, 23 October 2009 5:23PM
Bloomberg Breaks Spending Record, Drops $85.2M on Campaign

NEW YORK (AP/ 1010 WINS) -- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has
broken his own spending record from four years ago, dropping $85.2 million
on his campaign for a third term with 11 days to go until Election Day.

The popular billionaire was ahead of Democrat William Thompson Jr. in a
poll
released this week but has been spending at a rate of more than $850,000 a
day.

A finance report filed by his campaign for a Friday deadline covers
Bloomberg's expenses since Sept. 29. He spent $20.4 million in that
period,
helping him shatter his $85 million record from 2005. He spent $74 million
on his first run in 2001.

Thompson, who had been having trouble raising money, reported raising
$270,000. He has spent about $6 million of the $8 million he has collected
in donations and matching funds.

The mayor, whose estimated $17.5 billion fortune makes him the wealthiest
person in New York City, does not take donations and can spend his money
as
he wishes. He must report his expenditures to the city's Campaign Finance
Board.

He defends his exhorbitant spending as a cost of running on the GOP line
in
a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a ratio of 5 to 1.

He sought to portray Thompson as having the advantage.

``This city is overwhelmingly Democratic, and so he does start out with an
awful lot of people who will vote the party line ... and I have to deal
with
that,'' Bloomberg said this week.

``I'm not trying to spend money that I don't think is necessary,'' added
Bloomberg, who is not registered with a party but is running on the
Republican and Independent Party lines.

I don't know but it appears Bloomberg is running scared,
else why spend so much money? If his popularity figures
were as high as reported, he was a shoo in, shoo ins just
have no need to spend so much. What gives?

The usual lies, happily disseminated by the lying media he spends so much
money with.

Why in the world did he go onto the republican ticket?
Knowing what we now know about republicans, shouldn't that
have precluded him from doing so?

There's no hiding that he is a Republican at heart. He just wants us to
believe he is really a Republican liberal, or a Republican democrat, with
the peoples' interests at heart. But WHAT sort of heart do
RepubliKKKan-KKKon$ervative$ have? By evading term limits he has clearly
told the people he couldn't care less for them or for the democratic process
itself.

Then he reaches out to
Giuliani, the man who made Kerik possible, who made Roy
Harding news. The man who said "the air is safe to breathe"
when it wasn't. Why welcome such baggage aboard?

The support of money and power, which some ignorant Sheeple consider
God-like.

Next up
Colin Powel, the man who, by his own words, could find no
justification, for the case he made at the U.N. but made
that case anyway. It would be one thing if he were
speaking about charter schools, but he wasn't! He was
making the case that tens of thousands of people had to die,
millions more be dislocated, families broken up, and the
entire fabric of a nation rendered, all because there was
some monsterous threat lingering out there, that was so
devastatingly dangerous that any and all costs were
justified to abate it. Colin Powel knew that he was a
civilian, he knew that the President was asking him to do
something that he knew was wrong! Make it appear that he
had evidence that he did not have and could not find. He
should have resigned and left the task to a smaller man.
Instead he became the smaller man the President needed.
Now Bloomberg welcomes him aboard his "popular" campaign.
Who next? Roman Polansky?

Bloomberg would accept endorsement from Charles Manson if he thought it
would bring him more votes than it lost him.

If I didn't know better I'd be thinking; gee, he really
doesn't want another term after all, but he's somehow
trapped and must run. I mean, he could certainly have done
with welcoming aboard all these damaging characters. It's
as if someone wants him in there to do something he finds
objectionable and would rather not do. How could anyone
have anything to hold over this good mans head? Puzzling to
be sure, eh?

The only thing to be sure of is, these neocons haven't

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:39:00 -0400, "Freedom Man"
liberty at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

The only thing to be sure of is, these neocons haven't
left the stage! They're working ever the harder to get
people they can control into positions of power. That much
is obvious since there is no real Republican party left. At
least not one that agrees with and supports the
Constitution. It's all about money and power in some mad
"us against them" design that would make America a feudal
fifedom with socialism for the rich. We've never had this
before, where we had to be concerned about people of means.
Never before have they been so desperate that they no longer
see this as a nation rather than a mere scheme to be used.
Where are our statesmen?

This morning the AM radio news station WINS announced that the RICHEST MAN
IN NEW YORK, Billionaire Bloomberg, has already spent a record EIGHTY FIVE
MILLION dollars on his ILLEGAL campaign. His campaign is technically not
illegal of course because his money and influence, not the will of the
voters, determine its legality. The voters of New York TWICE clearly
rejected an end to the term limits laws that prohibited his present bid for
re-election. But arrogant, elitist Billionaire Bloomberg gives not a whit
for the will of the people - if his money and power enable him to act in
defiance of the voters, that's just what he does, and will do! After all he
is a Republican, and democracy has little meaning to Republicans. That's why
they are not Democrats!

The first airing of this story did not sound favorable for Billionaire
Bloomberg at all, quoting someone that such campaign spending was "OBSCENE."
Bloomberg or his office must have then intervened, as within a few hours the
story was given a more favorable slant. The "obscene" quote was gone, and it
was asserted that Bloomberg's spending and election propaganda bombardment
was something New Yorkers did not mind. All the money he spends with the
"news" stations on his campaign ads obviously entitles Bloomberg to call the
shots on what is and is not "news!"

--------------------------------------------
Posted: Friday, 23 October 2009 5:23PM
Bloomberg Breaks Spending Record, Drops $85.2M on Campaign

NEW YORK (AP/ 1010 WINS)  -- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has
broken his own spending record from four years ago, dropping $85.2 million
on his campaign for a third term with 11 days to go until Election Day.

The popular billionaire was ahead of Democrat William Thompson Jr. in a poll
released this week but has been spending at a rate of more than $850,000 a
day.

A finance report filed by his campaign for a Friday deadline covers
Bloomberg's expenses since Sept. 29. He spent $20.4 million in that period,
helping him shatter his $85 million record from 2005. He spent $74 million
on his first run in 2001.

Thompson, who had been having trouble raising money, reported raising
$270,000. He has spent about $6 million of the $8 million he has collected
in donations and matching funds.

The mayor, whose estimated $17.5 billion fortune makes him the wealthiest
person in New York City, does not take donations and can spend his money as
he wishes. He must report his expenditures to the city's Campaign Finance
Board.

He defends his exhorbitant spending as a cost of running on the GOP line in
a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a ratio of 5 to 1.

He sought to portray Thompson as having the advantage.

``This city is overwhelmingly Democratic, and so he does start out with an
awful lot of people who will vote the party line ... and I have to deal with
that,'' Bloomberg said this week.

``I'm not trying to spend money that I don't think is necessary,'' added
Bloomberg, who is not registered with a party but is running on the
Republican and Independent Party lines.

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:10:00 -0400, peeko at (no spam) internet.com
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:47:34 -0500, Obwon <Obwon at (no spam) real.com> wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:05:34 -0400, "Freedom Man"
liberty at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

This morning the AM radio news station WINS announced that the RICHEST MAN
IN NEW YORK, Billionaire Bloomberg, has already spent a record EIGHTY FIVE
MILLION dollars on his ILLEGAL campaign. His campaign is technically not
illegal of course because his money and influence, not the will of the
voters, determine its legality. The voters of New York TWICE clearly
rejected an end to the term limits laws that prohibited his present bid for
re-election. But arrogant, elitist Billionaire Bloomberg gives not a whit
for the will of the people - if his money and power enable him to act in
defiance of the voters, that's just what he does, and will do! After all he
is a Republican, and democracy has little meaning to Republicans. That's why
they are not Democrats!

The first airing of this story did not sound favorable for Billionaire
Bloomberg at all, quoting someone that such campaign spending was "OBSCENE."
Bloomberg or his office must have then intervened, as within a few hours the
story was given a more favorable slant. The "obscene" quote was gone, and it
was asserted that Bloomberg's spending and election propaganda bombardment
was something New Yorkers did not mind. All the money he spends with the
"news" stations on his campaign ads obviously entitles Bloomberg to call the
shots on what is and is not "news!"

--------------------------------------------
Posted: Friday, 23 October 2009 5:23PM
Bloomberg Breaks Spending Record, Drops $85.2M on Campaign

NEW YORK (AP/ 1010 WINS) -- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has
broken his own spending record from four years ago, dropping $85.2 million
on his campaign for a third term with 11 days to go until Election Day.

The popular billionaire was ahead of Democrat William Thompson Jr. in a poll
released this week but has been spending at a rate of more than $850,000 a
day.

A finance report filed by his campaign for a Friday deadline covers
Bloomberg's expenses since Sept. 29. He spent $20.4 million in that period,
helping him shatter his $85 million record from 2005. He spent $74 million
on his first run in 2001.

Thompson, who had been having trouble raising money, reported raising
$270,000. He has spent about $6 million of the $8 million he has collected
in donations and matching funds.

The mayor, whose estimated $17.5 billion fortune makes him the wealthiest
person in New York City, does not take donations and can spend his money as
he wishes. He must report his expenditures to the city's Campaign Finance
Board.

He defends his exhorbitant spending as a cost of running on the GOP line in
a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a ratio of 5 to 1.

He sought to portray Thompson as having the advantage.

``This city is overwhelmingly Democratic, and so he does start out with an
awful lot of people who will vote the party line ... and I have to deal with
that,'' Bloomberg said this week.

``I'm not trying to spend money that I don't think is necessary,'' added
Bloomberg, who is not registered with a party but is running on the
Republican and Independent Party lines.

I don't know but it appears Bloomberg is running scared,
else why spend so much money? If his popularity figures
were as high as reported, he was a shoo in, shoo ins just
have no need to spend so much. What gives?

Why in the world did he go onto the republican ticket?
Knowing what we now know about republicans, shouldn't that
have precluded him from doing so? Then he reaches out to
Giuliani, the man who made Kerik possible, who made Roy
Harding news. The man who said "the air is safe to breathe"
when it wasn't. Why welcome such baggage aboard? Next up
Colin Powel, the man who, by his own words, could find no
justification, for the case he made at the U.N. but made
that case anyway. It would be one thing if he were
speaking about charter schools, but he wasn't! He was
making the case that tens of thousands of people had to die,
millions more be dislocated, families broken up, and the
entire fabric of a nation rendered, all because there was
some monsterous threat lingering out there, that was so
devastatingly dangerous that any and all costs were
justified to abate it. Colin Powel knew that he was a
civilian, he knew that the President was asking him to do
something that he knew was wrong! Make it appear that he
had evidence that he did not have and could not find. He
should have resigned and left the task to a smaller man.
Instead he became the smaller man the President needed.
Now Bloomberg welcomes him aboard his "popular" campaign.
Who next? Roman Polansky?

If I didn't know better I'd be thinking; gee, he really
doesn't want another term after all, but he's somehow
trapped and must run. I mean, he could certainly have done
with welcoming aboard all these damaging characters. It's
as if someone wants him in there to do something he finds
objectionable and would rather not do. How could anyone
have anything to hold over this good mans head? Puzzling to
be sure, eh?


I don't get Thompson. He could be running a campaign pointing out the
police brutality, real estate scandals, building inspector arrests and
construction accidents, a one way ticket out of town program for the
homeless, over 500,000 people caught up in stop and frisk, the Sean
Bell murder, and Bloomberg increasing his fortune while mayor from 4
to 16 billion dollars- now how did he do that? It's time to get dirty
and expose Bloomberg's warts.

Hmmm... A carefully orchestrated "roll over"???

"Obwon" <Obwon at (no spam) real.com> wrote in message
news:f1abe5dd1ei95efh3sh6mvp6s5s7r3r7b2 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:39:00 -0400, "Freedom Man"
liberty at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

snip

The only thing to be sure of is, these neocons haven't
left the stage! They're working ever the harder to get
people they can control into positions of power. That much
is obvious since there is no real Republican party left. At
least not one that agrees with and supports the
Constitution. It's all about money and power in some mad
"us against them" design that would make America a feudal
fifedom with socialism for the rich. We've never had this
before, where we had to be concerned about people of means.
Never before have they been so desperate that they no longer
see this as a nation rather than a mere scheme to be used.
Where are our statesmen?

The potential statesmen and patriots loyal to the Constitution have either
been disempowered or assassinated, as was Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone
not long ago. These mass-murdering neo-con fascists are as deranged and
desperate as were any of the Third Reich! Due to this, I fear for President
Obama's safety. And due to the ignorance and inaction of the brainwashed
Sheeple, I fear for the future of America and the world.

Putin is laughing at America, since he of all people, would

Sheeple, I fear for the future of America and the world.