TexasCHLforum.com

Mr. Bloomberg on the heels of restricting the size of your sugary beverage has decided that generous and selfless individuals of NY can no longer provide food to homeless shelters and the poor all willy nilly without the express permission of his fat, fiber and salt content Gestapo.

This man is off the charts looney and needs a padded room. I think he may be going the way of Howard Hughes. OR, he is an avid unchecked control freak who has not been challenged.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/ ... -homeless/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That dude needs some serious medication!

Well, we can't have churches and private individuals going about diluting Big Brother's power over the poor and down-trodden.

Warhammer wrote:Well, we can't have churches and private individuals going about diluting Big Brother's power over the poor and down-trodden.

You hit the nail on the head. Leftists like bloomberg and his ilk believe the only moral way to help someone is to use the force of govt to rob someone else. After all, it's for this other guys benefit!

Bloomberger, like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al, did not elect themselves. The people put them in power. It's the people who...{fill in the blank___________}.

Oldgringo wrote:Bloomberger, like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al, did not elect themselves. The people put them in power. It's the people who...{fill in the blank___________}.

Sir, I have to take exception to what you say there...Hitler, okay, I'll give you that one...but Stalin or Pol Pot? Not a chance...if you want to equate those sham votes to an election, then I might say something equally outrageous and call the man occupying the White House a president.

Seriously, Stalin was "elected" by a Communist Party "machine" as the heir of Lenin (and because some folks got bumped off to clear the field for him)...Bloomberg, likewise, got elected by a political "machine", just of a different type...

Oldgringo wrote:Bloomberger, like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al, did not elect themselves. The people put them in power. It's the people who...{fill in the blank___________}.

EXACTLY!!! See if they were as outraged as I and many others who think similar to my beliefs do they would simply use the ballot box and make him irrelevant and unemployed. The problem is the quasi-socialist inhabitants of these city's see nothing wrong with this as long as they don't have to intermingle with these "lower than" individuals. But, they can still feel as if they're helping by letting the nanny's control how they dole out the exorbitant taxes and thus the problem is out of sight and out of mind. But, as above, what better way to keep the downtrodden under the thumb. Heck, I wouldn't be too surprised if they handed them a tray of food and an already filled out absentee ballot ready for a signature.

Weird duplicate post mix-up...

Heartland Patriot wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Bloomberger, like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al, did not elect themselves. The people put them in power. It's the people who...{fill in the blank___________}.

Sir, I have to take exception to what you say there...Hitler, okay, I'll give you that one...but Stalin or Pol Pot? Not a chance...if you want to equate those sham votes to an election, then I might say something equally outrageous and call the man occupying the White House a president.

Seriously, Stalin was "elected" by a Communist Party "machine" as the heir of Lenin (and because some folks got bumped off to clear the field for him)...Bloomberg, likewise, got elected by a political "machine", just of a different type...

I wouldn't even give him Hitler. I don't know anything about how Pol Pot came to power, but Hitler and Stalin both rose to the top by assassinations and terror.

A simular ordinance passed in Houston making it illegal to provide "charitable meals" to groups of more than 5 people on public or private property without the consent of the property owner.

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:A simular ordinance passed in Houston making it illegal to provide "charitable meals" to groups of more than 5 people on public or private property without the consent of the property owner.

Sort of similar, yet way different.

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:A simular ordinance passed in Houston making it illegal to provide "charitable meals" to groups of more than 5 people on public or private property without the consent of the property owner.

Okay, I can see your point but if the establishment is truly providing a benevolent service I can't see them denying the charitable donation. I would surmise the problem arises when someone takes it upon themselves to start their own meals on wheels service thus having homeless persons congregating in front of say, a buc-ees to receive the offerings. But, judging by the left leanings within the city government of Houston I could be wrong... But I hope not.