Failed Billionaires

Bloomberg and Steyer have wasted tens of millions of dollars trying to corrupt Colorado politics.

Bloomberg saw Colorado as a good place to start destroying the 2nd Amendment. All he got for his millions was losing the Colorado Senate for Democrats and nearly losing the governorship. Gun shops in Colorado ignore the new laws which Obama and Bloomberg pushed for.

Tom Steyer spent millions of dollars accusing Cory Gardner of causing hurricanes and tornadoes and floods, and managed to lose a US Senate seat for the Democrats.

Apparently free people don’t like progressive billionaires trying to steal their money and freedom. Hopefully Steyer will do a repeat in 2016, and wipe out whatever is left of the Democratic Party.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Failed Billionaires

  1. ren says:

    “The pattern, which is likely to linger into the first part of May, could also bring a round or two of frost,” Pastelok said.
    How widespread the frost will be will depend on the extent of nighttime cloud cover.
    Where skies are clear and winds are light at night, parts of the Midwest and Northeast could experience a frost. A frost is possible in a portion of the Midwest during the middle of next week. The risk could expand into part of the interior Northeast late in the month and into early May.

  2. gator69 says:

    Well, they must pick their battles. Soros spent 33 million whipping up the Ferguson riots and got about that much in damages to businesses and infrastructure. Several good men had their careers ruined, and Soros’ minions now run the city.

    And now we have Rutgers’ professors like Brittney Cooper…

    … writing racist and bigoted articles in national publications, with titles like, “The right’s made-up God: How bigots invented a white supremacist Jesus”.

    And quotes like, “white, blond-haired, blue-eyed, gun-toting, Bible-quoting Jesus of the religious right is a god of their own making. I call this god, the god of white supremacy and patriarchy.”

    Her Facebook and Twitter accounts are filled with hate as she does her best to destroy race relations in this country.

    Some demographics are more maleable, especially to certain messaging.

  3. omanuel says:

    Legalization of pot will complete the job.

    • gator69 says:

      Right. Just like the 21st Amendment which sent the US into chaos.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Outlawing drugs, except for the poisons approved by the FDA, is exactly what the borg have in mind. Regulation of your Vitamin D is next.

      • gator69 says:

        Ben Carson said the best thing we could do to advance medicine and medical care in the US, would be to abolish the FDA.

        • darrylb says:

          For some reason, my name must have gotten on Ben Carson’s list, because I have received emails from him, the support me please with your campaign contributions, type.

          He indicated he is making a serious run at the presidency.. and has nearly 50,000 donors so far. I would like to see him as a V.P. first.

          Well, I might be number 50,000. I am not sure about all of his qualifications. But I can say that I completely admire, respect and trust him..

        • gator69 says:

          His run is likely a strategy to get himself picked as a running mate. I have followed him with great interest, as his personal story alone is inspiring, and one every school kid should learn.

          I have seen him ineterviewed in depth a couple of times, once for a full hour. He has one glaring issue that concerns me, and that is his belief that there should be more restrictions on the Second Amendment.

    • omanuel says:

      Opium was used to subjugate the Chinese to slavery.

      Marijuana was used to subjugate those in Colorado.

      Stalin’s propaganda artists feed our selfish addictions to control us:
      Opium, pornography, gambling casinos and lotteries, alcohol, gladiator sports, reality TV, pseudo-news, video games, cocaine, pseudo-science, heroine, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

      • gator69 says:

        Who was alcohol used to subjugate?

        • Dan_Kurt says:

          re: Who was alcohol used to subjugate?

          Alcohol, especially Beer and Mead, are foods. Their use antedates agriculture and the domestication of food and work animals. MIND ALTERING drugs are not food. Big difference in the two.

          Roughly 10% of whites are prone to alcoholism as opposed to more than 80% of American Indians. (Heard this in College during a Psychology class in the early 60s.) This differential explains how booze was used to work over the Indians in America and Canada. Read about the Whiskey Forts used to conquer Canada as the Canadians didn’t kill off their Indians as much as turned them into drunks. Plenty of “fire water” was used as well in the lower 48 to tame our Indians. I live out West and still see Alcohol ravaged Indians both on reservations and cities to this day.

          Dan Kurt

        • gator69 says:

          Thanks Dan!

          Alcohol is an extremely dangerous drug. You can easily overdose on your first encounter.

          Harmful use of alcohol results in the death of 2.5 million people annually, causes illness and injury to millions more, and increasingly affects younger generations and drinkers in developing countries.

          Repeal the 21st Amendment?

      • gator69 says:

        Governments can only take away things, they cannot force opium, pornography, gambling casinos and lotteries, alcohol, gladiator sports, reality TV, pseudo-news, video games, cocaine, pseudo-science, heroine, etc., etc., ad infinitum on a population.

        Only a weak willed person would believe this.

        • shazaam says:

          And yet…… The progressively educated seem to think government is the answer for every problem. They don’t get that the government has nothing and creates nothing. All the goodies the government gives away were first taken from the productive.

          This guy has a great handle on why all the government “help”, doesn’t.

        • gator69 says:

          No argument from me, our founders had it right.

          Change it back!

        • darrylb says:

          As part of our confirming our belief in pro-life, my wife and I were foster parents and adoptive parents of special needs children.
          Of all the substances a pregnant woman can consume, the worst remains to be alcohol.
          Crack babies, babies addicted to heroin, and all the rest of the gamut of drugs consumed while a baby is the womb, will give the baby a rough start.
          However, the baby can recover.

          Fetal alcohol, unfortunately, is a problem for life if the mother has consumed a certain amount. We were actually trained to observe children to determine when during the nine months, the mother may have an extensive drunk. There are so many terrible outcomes that may happen regardless, but which will often manifest itself most assuredly when alcohol is consumed extensively and probably even very moderately.

          Therefore, cultures in which there is heavy and prolonged alcohol use will continue in the same manner. Alcoholism begets alcoholism. A terrible disease. It is completely different from light recreational use and it appears to have some benefits when used in (very small) moderation later in life.

      • gator69 says:

        There is a well known pub in Boston, which goes all the way back to Colonial times. As most colonists did not read, the pub was marked by a copper sculpture of a dragon above the door. It did not take very long for the Boston climate to corrode the dragon a bright shade of green, so quickly that the pub’s owners did not waste the effort to keep the dragon sculpture polished. The pub came to be popularly known as the”Green Dragon”.

        During the birth of our country, many of the founding fathers would gather at the Green Dragon to hoist a tankard of ale and invent a new nation, along with deciding if this was the week they got to dump some tea into yon harbor.

        Yes, alcohol subjugated us.

        • rah says:

          Which reminds me that I need to pick up some Samuel Adams Summer Ale. A good lawn mowing brew for a hot day. Oh, Besides ole Samuel Adams and his beer, George Washington had his own distillery at Mt. Vernon. It was the largest in the country at the time, and with the help of a Scot that worked for him, developed his own formula for rye whiskey to make with it.

          These days it seems there aren’t too many fans of rye whiskey so Georges original brew isn’t made there in the rebuilt old distillery. But they do make whiskey that fits more modern taste.

        • gator69 says:

          I have visited Washington’s distillery, along with his hemp farm, but sampled neither.

          Mt Vernon should be on everyone’s “must see” list. It was nearly lost to history but saved by a women’s club, the “Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association”, who raised enough money to buy the estate and start the restoration.

          Standing at the entrance to Washington’s tomb, and seeing the sarcophagus that holds his remains, is something indescribable for me.

      • gator69 says:

        April 18, 2015 at 3:16 pm

        Governments can only take away things, they cannot force opium, pornography, gambling casinos and lotteries, alcohol, gladiator sports, reality TV, pseudo-news, video games, cocaine, pseudo-science, heroine, etc., etc., ad infinitum on a population.

        Only a weak willed person would believe this.

        Your comment is real disappointment me, as I’d thought you had modified your position somewhat.

        Governments can and do intentionally force upon us people who are addicted to destructive vices such as recreational drug use.

        Such people are certainly plied with these vices intentionally with one of the purposes being to saddle the rest of us with their dysfunctions, their suffering, and their strife. This is a form of warfare. It continues to surprise me that you seem unable to see this fact, which to me is overwhelmingly obvious.

        Your position seems to be that we have no business complaining if we are overwhelmed with such problems to the point where we ourselves can no longer function at the level we need to in order to regain our past blessings.

        These vices we are plied with are also aimed at our children, and it is getting nigh on impossible to keep them from being exposed to the manipulative and deceptive sales efforts, which are put out with the conscious intent of destroying our children. In fact governments seem to be increasingly prepared to declare people unfit parents for even attempting to do prevent access to both the information and to the vices themselves.

        Laws are being reinterpreted to mean that if a parent restricts access to some of these vices, and the child objects, and it’s a behavior the government approves of, the child’s preference is held to trump the parent’s preference.

        As a libertarian, is this all what you believe in? Is this the direction you want to see us be dragged in, against our will? (Is that the new libertarianism?)

        Do you really believe in the tyranny of the majority?? This is just Marx’ “dictatorship of the proletariat” by another name!

        • And Gator, your statement that government cannot force pseudo-science or pseudo-news on us is something that I find really inexplicable as to how you can believe that.

        • gator69 says:

          The government does not control my mind. How about yours? 😆

        • gator69 says:

          False logic alert!

          There are laws that prohibit vagrancy, public intoxication, and general nuisances as well as vilolence and threats therof. Etc, etc, etc…

          Here is my position…

          The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.
          -Thomas Jefferson

          So you and your property are protected. Mind your own business.

        • I’m going to divide my response into several segments, each focusing on a different aspect of this issue.

          The government controls many minds. And it wields the weaker individuals whom it controls as a weapon to destroy the stronger minds, and also the children of the stronger minds who would otherwise act to keep those children from being exposed to the lies and deceptions an traps. And it deliberately subverts its own laws in order prevent our being protected from these deliberate attacks.

          All of this is certainly my business, just as it is yours, even if you refuse to admit it.

          I am not the slightest bit protected, because I’m one of the ones who is being victimized and attacked by a hostile government. I have family who have been attacked for such issues. I have been attacked over such issues, and I’m not talking about verbally. You are part of the problem because you are supporting all of this, whether or not you understand what the underlying motivation is.

          Your lack of response to my statement about “tyranny of the majority” speaks strongly about which side you’re coming from with your ideas. Many libertarians I’ve known (granted I haven’t known that many) would bend over backwards to avoid being associated with that concept. You not only fell silent before the charge, but you actually seem pleased with the association.

          There’s a more basic issue underlying this disagreement.

          The country was founded on a set of shared principles as to what is good and what is evil. Those who agreed to the former principles are now being told by the majority, after their consent to be governed by that majority was obtained, that there are no immutable principles regarding what’s good and what’s evil, and that the restrictions on changing the founding principles that they thought they agreed to are actually subject to change without their consent … in some cases, without even any notice. Well, guess what? We did agree to those restrictions on modifications to founding principles. For example, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and no size of majority can change it into one by fiat.

          You are, perhaps without realizing it, trampling on sacred ground, which consists of principles that were agreed to in writing from the foundation. You seek to tell all the citizens that no matter if a certain group of them want to unite in action to try to defend their way of life and their children from an existential threat posed by malignant outsiders, that they have no right to do that because there are adequate existing remedies that they can call upon. Your basis for this claim seems to be twofold:

          1) That existing remedies function as they should, even in the hands of a hostile government that has been almost completely taken over by the enemy.

          1) That in at least some cases, you perceive no harm from what I’m complaining about, and that you and you alone are the sole and final judge of what harms and does not harm your neighbors. (All however-many million of them.) This attitude is completely unacceptable to true conservatives, who by definition believe that some principles are sacred and not subject to change.

          You also totally punted on the opportunity to address another question, which is that of the morality of self-destructive behavior. All you seem to want to talk about when the issue of vice comes up is whether it should be legal for delusional individuals to deliberately destroy themselves. But you are totally silent about the moral conclusions to be drawn about it. You seem to think that my freedom of speech ends at publicly criticizing behaviors that are destructive or that I believe to be destructive — even if they are engaged in in public, no less.

          I would point out that your position that government has no power to force the practice of destructive vices on the public completely falls apart if the behavior is going on in public, with the government’s blessing and encouragement, and even worse, with the government enforcing punishment on those who would object.

          I would also point out that your positions imply that you believe the government has the power to make value judgments in its laws (e.g., what is “public intoxication”, what is a public nuisance, etc.), but apparently only if the judgments they would make or the values they would support are those you believe in. If you disagree with them, then your position is that they are violating fundamental human rights by legislating.


        • gator69 says:

          Oh boy! Lots of hand waving, and advocacy for government control of our lives.

          Good job!

          Mind your own business, busybody.

          “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may
          be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than
          under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes
          sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for
          our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
          their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same
          time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with
          intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which
          we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet
          reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants,
          imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

          – CS Lewis

        • Actually, I’ve been advocating less government control. You’re not even trying to understand my arguments. Your mind’s already made up, and you’re not interested in being further informed about what’s happening. You’re ignoring my statements about people being harmed by government’s intentional acts of violence against us.

          Two questions, how can I be a tyrant if I reject the doctrine of retribution? (Evidently, you don’t!)

          And how can you call me one, when you are the one defending the illegal attacks on people for their beliefs?

          If you wanted to be left alone, you didn’t have to respond to Oliver’s comment. But you chose to, and in so doing raised a number of additional issues for discussion. Are you saying that only people who agree with you are entitled to express their view on these matters?

        • gator69 says:

          RTF, respectfully, you are a busybody. The worst kind of tyrant, as CS Lewis so aptly described.

          The current “War on Drugs” has been a massive failure, and actually made things worse. I worked in an office that demanded thorough background checks, and talented respectable family men were turned away, because when they were Honor Students they got busted for possession of a plant. It ruined their lives and wasted the time of the cop who could have been protecting rights of you and me, and stopping real crimes.

          Live your own life, and mind your own business.

        • This is incredible. You won’t answer a simple question. How can I be a tyrant if I don’t believe in retribution? What am I doing or advocating that is tyrannical? Complaining about war and destruction?? Is that the new tyranny!?

          Why aren’t the people who are advocating the war and the destruction tyrants?

          And how can you say I’m in favor of the War on Drugs when I’ve explicitly said I’m against it and against all federal involvement in recreational drug use??

          And I see where you’ve implied that I’m trying to forcibly “cure” people from their undesired habits. I’ve not advocated that, and I don’t believe in it. So this is another false accusation against me.

          Do you actually believe that I want to live in a place where the government claims omnipotence over me? Is that consistent with your overall experience of my comments? If so, then I would like suggest you’re not paying the slightest bit of attention!

        • gator69 says:

          You also totally punted on the opportunity to address another question, which is that of the morality of self-destructive behavior.

          You are a contradiction RTF. What business is it of yours if someone wants to engage in self destructive behaviours? Who are you, to or anyone else, to judge “morality”?

          Let me quote my favorite founder again…

          The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.
          -Thomas Jefferson

          If I choose to drink myself to death, or even end my own life with a gun, that is nobody’s business but my own. It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg. Our founders did not endorse invasions of privacy, and again, if you agree with me, what is your problem?

        • It seems as if you believe that if I call certain acts evil, which you don’t consider to be evil, I am invading someone’s privacy.

          Regarding agreeing with you about other things, I didn’t mean to suggest that I generally agree with you, but I don’t entirely disagree.

          I believe I made clear (four times, twice here and twice in the past) that I don’t endorse the kind of government powers of retribution that even you do, because it’s in violation of The New Covenant.

          There is law, and there is retribution. They are two different things. One we have authority over, the other we don’t. I really don’t have the time right now to go over the details of all this. Perhaps tomorrow, but I’d suggest that since we’re a bit off-topic, Tony might prefer if we did that at my blog.

          As to what my “problem” or disagreement is, I’ve tried to articulate that there is a war being waged against conservatives, but if you didn’t understand before, I don’t suppose it will help if I repeat myself. Since you are quoting Jefferson in your defense, it seems to me that you’re a little bit confused as to from what quarter this very recent (last 65 years) destructive push is originating.

          Another disagreement is that the laws you cited as supposedly protecting me and others are not, by far, being enforced in the way you suggest. But again, I’m just repeating myself.

          Another disagreement arises from the your statement that I have no right to judge behavior. I don’t necessarily see a need to bring Scripture into this question, but I’d just say that I’m pretty sure I see some judgment emanating from at least some of your comments!

          And the question of the right to judge goes right to the question of freedom of expression of one’s views, on which your recent comments are in stark contrast to what I would have thought you would support.

          Truly, I’m not contradicting myself. My comments are entirely New-Testament-based, and if you just read through the comments carefully and with a good-faith effort to understand how it all fits together, you should be able to see how.

        • gator69 says:

          Are you as confused as you sound? Yes, I make judgements about behaviour that harms innocents, in keeping with this quote…

          The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.
          -Thomas Jefferson

          What part of “mind your own business” in this context do you not get?

          Invasion of privacy is disgusting, again when kept in context of this quote…

          The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.
          -Thomas Jefferson

          Where do you derive your “right” to interfere in personal affairs?

          What exactly is your point?

          Keep it to three sentences or less. Simplicity is the hallmark of honesty

        • omanuel says:

          Me thinks gator 69 objects too much.

        • gator69 says:

          Me thinks you would not pass a background check.

      • omanuel says:

        I speak only for myself and have no right to decide whether or not anyone else should avoid any or all of the above list of addictions.

        The fact that they would interfere with my conscious awareness of reality does not mean they would interfer with yours.

    • Allan says:

      Oliver, can you please, elaborate a bit – what is it you are referring here?
      “Pot” was prohibited in 1937 because it causes jazz/swing music and interracial sex, do you really think it was a reasonable law?
      Since then, they have made an enormous effort to find whatever “medical” reason to keep it illegal and actually found nothing to talk about. Or even “worse” – while looking for harmful effects, because only for that purpose were there grants available from NIDA, they have actually found a wide variety of possible benefits…(you can try pubmed, if you don’t believe me or even better, do not believe me and read some of the 21000 articles about this plant).

      Is there something wrong with jazz?

      • omanuel says:

        I speak only for myself. I personally need to:

        1. Maintain conscious awareness of reality, and
        2. Avoid addictions that isolate me from reality.

        For me, the battle of life is the battle against self.

        The government already controled air waves and could have prevented TV from becoming a vast wasteland of escape from reality.

        Generally, I agree: “He governs best who governs least.”

        It is my responsibility to avoid addictions.

      • omanuel says:

        I am especially concerned that television (TV) was used to:

        1. Isolate mankind from reality, rather than
        2. Improve human contact with reality, e.g,,

        _ a.) Einstein’s 1905 discovery that mass (m) is stored energy (E)

        _ b.) Masses (m) of the two forms of one fundamental particle (ordinary hydrogen atoms and neutrons – the more compacted electron-proton pair Chadwick discovered in 1932)

        Could have been communicated to the public by showing masses (m) of H-atoms, neutrons and every atom of every element on the “Chart of the Nuclides.”

        Instead our government used TV to isolate humanity from reality (God) and promote LIES: Second hand smoke is more dangerous than cell phones or microwaved foods, eggs and butter are poisons, H-fusion powers the Sun, A Big Bang made the Hydrogen and started the Universe, etc., etc.

        We cannot have government by the people, for the people if the government collects and uses public funds to deceive the people.

  4. R. Shearer says:

    Speaking of Colorado, the Spring skiing doesn’t get better. Yesterday, the snow exceeded the gauge at Loveland. Here’s a time lapse.

  5. Scott M says:

    Bloomberg also spent about $80 million on getting rid of coal and has had good success in the US……When you have billions, you have lots to sprinkle around..

  6. rah says:

    The boneheads in coal states that elect democrats deserve what ever the they get but unfortunately the rest of us will suffer too.

    • gator69 says:

      Don’t blame the states, blame the citiots. It is the pablum, and government cheese consuming urban and coastal dwellers, that are the problem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s