Bloomberg issues definite "no" on the presidential thing

[LadyT]

After the invasion, when asked if it was the right thing to do, he replied, "If you take out a tyrant who clearly gassed tens of thousands of his own people, if you can stabilize a whole part of the world where, tragically, terrorism goes on every day, then it will have been the right decision."

I think here he's hinting at Bush's failure given the obvious instability of the region.

He also backed Lieberman over Lamont.

That does trouble me. As did Hilary's support for him and her continued support of this debacle.

He has both raised and cut taxes

He has been for and against unions

Again, I'm actually reassured by this because I think it implies that he takes things on a case by case basis and manages to get out of the petty two party bullshit.

He has both republicans and democrats in his administration and has given money to both.

So he can work with both sides. I think we need someone like that.

He may be a bit too calculating for my tastes. I'd prefer someone who recognizes the crisis America is in and leads straightfowardly, not having to guess where he stands.

Well I started to look up his stance on illegal immigration, but truthfully if he's not going to run, it really is an excercise in futility.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

He said that border enforcment is probably futile, and he opposes most measures because they break up families.

You know, the world's a different level from an individual perspective, with your life on the line, and government beaurocrat's above you instituting policies to push society this way or that and wiping out the lives of those in between.

But I digress...