Bigger Money in Virginia


Mike Bloomberg is putting nearly $3 million into Virginia’s elections across different races now. Politico is also reporting that Bloomberg has made smaller investments in lower level legislative races.

For those gun owners who say that they aren’t concerned about the gubernatorial winner because the legislature will keep the gun control threat at bay, this may possibly change your calculations.

20 thoughts on “Bigger Money in Virginia”

  1. Read the article, and here we go again with the “war on women” bullshit. The fetish that the female portion of this population has with abortions is in historical parallel with Communist China in 1960’s. The communist democrats have almost made abortions into something of deity type of practice, or a civil and necessary duty for women to engage in. Take a look at Cass Sunstein, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Michael Bloomburgler, all of the other so called feminists, and Deng Xiaoping, and what do you have; a group of Marxist Socialist control freaks to believe in the same type of Stalinist tyranny that put 150 million people into body bags and mass graves. They all believe that humans are a pollution on the planet and that they need to be culled. After the “right to choose bullshit” dind’t work in China, in 1973 (the same year as Roe V. Wade. LOLOLOL, no coincidence there, right?)Xiaoping and the Chinese Commies dropped the hammer and instituted forced abortions (An offer a woman can’t refuse). A woman in china gives birth, she is tube tied, or has her ovaries yanked, but these practices can’t fly in an armed society. The Bloomberg model is, take the guns, then control the quantity of the population. END OF STORY! Useful idiots can’t see the forest for the trees, and the GOP refuses to take a stand for our freedoms.

    1. Nice take. It’s one I hadn’t thought of too much, either. No, forced abortions couldn’t really happen in a society where women (or their husbands/boyfriends) are armed.

      I also don’t believe it’s all women that are obsessed with protecting a right to kill children (really what it’s getting to with partial birth abortions). Actually, there are usually more women than men at the pro-life events I go to.

    2. You talk about control freaks while also demanding that government step in to prevent a woman and her doctor from making their own medical decisions.


      I think the fetish that women have, is not letting religious do-gooders take away their access to medical practices that conflict with said do-gooders’ so-called “Good Book”. Just like everyone’s position on guns should be “If you don’t want one, don’t buy one”, their position on abortions should be “If you don’t want one, don’t get one.” Instead, for both guns and abortion, people say to themselves “I don’t agree with this, so NOBODY should have one.”

      Everyone should lay off restricting other peoples’ freedoms because they’re afraid of something – or worse, because they think their Bronze Age mythology tells them to.

        1. Except that slaves are actual people and fetuses are potential people – kinda like unfertilized eggs, eggs the moment after fertilization occurs, eggs a week after fertilization occurs, and so on until it becomes viable, which is pretty far along into the pregnancy.

          And, FWIW, most fertilized eggs are flushed out naturally anyway (ie, naturally aborted). So why is it any different to do what nature does on its own?

          Of course, there’s the other aspect of right-wing conservative types trying their hardest to ensure that liberals can’t keep their population growth in check. Yeah, think that through a little – then get back to your actual War on Women.

          1. I fail to see the distinction to that twisted statement. In that time, black folks were considered less than human, much like your backhanded use of the term “fetus” to describe a child at any given stage of growth. What magic age does a “fetus” become life then, under your chosen definition? During birth? Five minutes before? Five minutes after?

            Many of the abortions in the world include a sizable number of women, too. Take China for instance. The real war on women happens in the womb. It’s a war that has taken more lives than gun violence.

            1. Simple question: at what point does life begin, in your opinion? To save us both time, I’ll provide the answer you were obviously going to give: At the moment of conception. Ok, so that’s when one egg and one sperm cell meet. To you, that’s a “human”, whereas in actuality it can’t even be called a “fetus” yet.

              Ok, so given that most fertilized human eggs are discarded naturally, how can someone take issue with abortion on religious grounds if yahweh or whoever else designed women to flush out the majority of fertilized eggs, er, “people”? The guy *obviously* didn’t have a problem with it if he made it a feature, not a bug.

  2. The “war on women” BS only goes so far and tends to reaonate on bimbo low information voters. Same thing with “tighter gun safety laws.”

  3. Oops…

    Slave: If you don’t want one, don’t own one.

    Please don’t associate this mentality with the bill of rights.

  4. Mike is one of the fools who can’t see the forest for the trees. These Stalinist tyrants want forceful population control,and you don’t acknowledge the historical parallels I pointed out with regards to Communist China in the 1960’s. We could cut off immigration in this country and still have positive population growth. The “war on women” crusaders are like Deng Xiaoping; they want abortion to be almost mafioso like, as in being “an offer you CAN’T refuse”.

    1. You want to give more reproductive control to the government, at the expense of personal freedom and lossing the ability to make private medical decisions, while saying it’s to combat statism/tyrany/whatever – and I’m the fool?


  5. They are putting a lot of money into Virginia. If they lose just one race, they will have lost. Here’s to hoping they lose all three and then some…

    As for Mike- the same logic has been applied to removing the “undesirables” from society. That’s history. Private medical is for yourself, not a life that doesn’t share your genes. Where is their voice? Conveniently absent. There is no “medical choice” afforded, and that is a violation of their rights. Rights don’t apply to one or the other because it suits me or you or the guy down the street. They apply because they are human. A fetus is human, as much as you are and were once. Determining where to cut that line gets to be murder/genocide in a hurry. Who’s to say you are “undesirable” now because of age or injury or gene expression?

    No “Good Book” (as you deride it) used in this explanation, only base logic that what applies to one must apply to all. You don’t get to pick and chose. That is the whole point here, one you fail to grasp as you troll along…

    1. Great, and I assume you also push for socially conservative politicians – like Cuccinelli – who will keep losing to people like McAuliffe. I wonder how McAuliffe is on abortion? Isn’t it funny (and sad) how folks like McAuliffe are only elected because of people like Cuccinelli? Yet folks keep pushing the War on Women with guys like Cuccinelli, expecting the outcome to change.

      Hey, why don’t you push harder for an erosion of abortion rights? It’ll just expand them that much faster. That’s kinda how it works out. Or did you somehow miss that over the past 40 years?

      Disagree with me all you want, but reality isn’t on your side.

  6. “They apply because they are human.”

    No, rights apply because people think they do. Rights come from the human mind, and come to prevail as givens once enough people are persuaded that they are something intuitive. Slavery wasn’t wrong until enough people agreed it was; today its evil is intuitive. People used (and some still use) Scripture to argue that slavery comes from God. Eventually a vast majority chose to ignore or reject that argument. What once as true ceased to be true, so it was concluded it never had been true.

    The problem with your statement of rights is it can easily be extended. Animal rights activists, in their own minds, have already done so. At that point we are left with nothing to do but refer to the bible for authority, and just as with the issue of slavery, that can be set aside once enough people believe it should be. “Dominion over the earth and all therein” becomes less and less compelling as time goes on.

    Sadly, rights reduce to, something you believe you have, in good conscience, and have the wherewithal to defend. I have occasionally quipped that as Americans, none of us has any more rights than we can purchase in court. The metaphysical aspects are just a comforting invention to aid our application of conscience to what we choose to do.

    Please understand I am addressing pragmatism, as opposed to “the way things ought to be.” I know everything should be as I think it should be.

    1. Nope- the troll is still here. Apparently a dense one at that.

      You aren’t advancing pragmatism, Mike. You are advancing your progressive concept and not bothering to understand the other person’s argument or point of view. For example, you state:
      “No, rights apply because people think they do. Rights come from the human mind, and come to prevail as givens once enough people are persuaded that they are something intuitive.”

      Lets apply that. Internet trolls are universally derided on the net. According to your assertion, I can claim it is my right to hunt and kill internet trolls because they are bothersome. No one can then claim my action is wrong, because I claim it as my right. Obviously this is an example designed to press the point to an extreme. Only “rights” that are imagined within a person, or group of people, can be extended to weird and wacky things, like animals and personal preference. Rights extended to the person because they are a human are inalienable (meaning inseparable), and thus outside my personal preference, or yours. Relativistic progressives fail basic logic tests in that a good many things are objective. If that were not the case, physical laws (as in Physics) and mathematics would not be universal. Gravity would be subjective, as would most matter and interpretation of the world. However, simple life experiments show this to not be the case and there is an objective world with objective rules. Unfortunately for modern chic “philosophy”, the Greek philosophers figured this out many millennia ago, before the “Good Book” was canonized. This is why you aren’t being pragmatic, just ignorant and derisive towards others. Stop, think, and learn.

      Done playing with the troll.

  7. “For example, you state:. . .”

    No, just for clarity, I said that. And I stand by it.

    There is a difference between metaphysics, which are an invention (not a discovery) of the human intellect, and natural physics which are immutable and infinitely testable (and that I made my living from.) The former will always be subjective, the latter always objective. Someone claiming Isaac Newton’s seat cannot decide that from now on, Force is not necessarily equal to Mass times Acceleration. As we have seen in history, rights are turned on and off in the popular view with great regularity.

Comments are closed.