Michael Bloomberg Spammed Me (Clarification)
Just got this bizarre and annoying Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE, also known as SPAM) apparently-from the campaign of Mike Bloomberg, by way of mrcampaign.com. Way to alienate voters, Mike!
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:13:38 -0600 (MDT)
From: Mayor Mike Bloomberg <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Mayor Mike Bloomberg <[email protected]>
To: DAILY HEIGHTS <[email protected]>
Subject: Securing Our Future
Dear DAILYHEIGHTS,
I have spent the last four years working hard to earn your support. Together, we have accomplished so much: good jobs, safe streets, affordable housing, and most importantly, better schools for our kids. In every neighborhood in the City and among every community, we are bringing a brighter future to all New Yorkers.
As a New Yorker, you know that our City is moving in the right direction. But I want to give you a chance to learn more about what we have accomplished, and what we are going to do in the next four years to keep New York moving forward. I hope you will take the opportunity to read this e-mail and explore the issues that matter to you.
Sincerely,
Mike Bloomberg
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:13:38 -0600 (MDT)From: Mayor Mike Bloomberg <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Mayor Mike Bloomberg <[email protected]>
To: DAILY HEIGHTS <[email protected]>
Subject: Securing Our Future
Dear DAILYHEIGHTS,
I have spent the last four years working hard to earn your support. Together, we have accomplished so much: good jobs, safe streets, affordable housing, and most importantly, better schools for our kids. In every neighborhood in the City and among every community, we are bringing a brighter future to all New Yorkers.
As a New Yorker, you know that our City is moving in the right direction. But I want to give you a chance to learn more about what we have accomplished, and what we are going to do in the next four years to keep New York moving forward. I hope you will take the opportunity to read this e-mail and explore the issues that matter to you.
Sincerely,
Mike Bloomberg
Comments
-
I voted sucks with an asterisk.
The spam e-mail thing is totally lame and earned him the "sucks". However, you have to respect that he's faced some hard choices, and made some unpopular but necessary decisions that didn't always favor the wealthy (such as raising property taxes). If he didn't have this ridiculous obsession with stadiums, he would have been a pretty decent mayor (definitely better than the evil and devisive Rudy).
That said, I'm still not voting for him. -
Subject: Bloomberg sucks.
(I couldn't vote in the poll -- it's only showing results.)
Bloomberg sold us out last August when the Republicans invaded our fair city. Remember the protests? The inconvenience? The holding pens? Remember his unwillingness to let the pre-war protest take place the previous year?
Plus, the feds STILL owe us $10 billion for September 11th relief/rebuilding. He pretended to be a Republican to get the Giuliani vote, and then couldn't get us the money we were promised.
I love 311, but for me, the Republican convention negated everything positive he's done. I didn't vote for him in 2001, and I will never vote for him.
Bloomberg sucks. -
I got it too! I'm trying to figure out how he got my e-mail address.....
-
Whoops. I had to log in to vote. Still a newbie, I guess.
-
Subject: Re: Bloomberg sucks.
iowagirl wrote: (I couldn't vote in the poll -- it's only showing results.)
All excellent points. FWIW, I didn't vote for him in 2001 either.
Bloomberg sold us out last August when the Republicans invaded our fair city. Remember the protests? The inconvenience? The holding pens? Remember his unwillingness to let the pre-war protest take place the previous year?
Plus, the feds STILL owe us $10 billion for September 11th relief/rebuilding. He pretended to be a Republican to get the Giuliani vote, and then couldn't get us the money we were promised.
I love 311, but for me, the Republican convention negated everything positive he's done. I didn't vote for him in 2001, and I will never vote for him.
Bloomberg sucks. -
When Congress wrote the Can Spam act they carved out political spam (ostensibly for First Amendment reasons)--but that means politicos can spam to their heart's content and are not even required to include ways to get off the list.
There are several commercial sources of registered voters' emails, some even cross-indexed with other demographic data. Bloomberg might be using Advocacy Inc., an outfit in DC, that's probably the most advanced campaign spammer. -
Subject: Re: Bloomberg sucks.
Carnivore wrote: [quote=iowagirl](I couldn't vote in the poll -- it's only showing results.)
All excellent points. FWIW, I didn't vote for him in 2001 either.
Bloomberg sold us out last August when the Republicans invaded our fair city. Remember the protests? The inconvenience? The holding pens? Remember his unwillingness to let the pre-war protest take place the previous year?
Plus, the feds STILL owe us $10 billion for September 11th relief/rebuilding. He pretended to be a Republican to get the Giuliani vote, and then couldn't get us the money we were promised.
I love 311, but for me, the Republican convention negated everything positive he's done. I didn't vote for him in 2001, and I will never vote for him.
Bloomberg sucks.
Ugh. Totally agree. Also I'm pretty suspicious of the whole lifelong-Democrat-becomes-a-Republican-to-avoid-a-crowded-ticket thing. I mean...come on. -
Subject: He still sucks
And, as my husband pointed out when I mentioned this poll to him, Bloomberg's hosting of the Republicans in the city of September 11 -- so close to the anniversary -- made it appear that we New Yorkers approved of Bush and his handling of that event. Merely appearing in this city reminded people of September 11, and that alone probably helped him.
So the degree to which Mike Bloomberg is responsible for the (questionable) re-election of Bush is yet another reason we won't vote for him. -
are you sure the spam originated with his campaign? i mean its not too far off the mark to think that people in politics would play dirty tricks.
-
A. I think this poll is flawed ... I think that there should have been a range of at least 1 to 5, with Rocks and Sucks far ends of the curve. I will out myself here as having voted "rocks" (although I think that is way too extreme, but I had no choice).
B. Overall (and highly simplistically I know), I think Michael Bloomberg has (for the most part) had the best interests of the entire city at heart; he has done a very good job in transitioning NYC into the post-9/11, post-giuliani era, and I think he's going to be tough to beat in the next election.
:shock:
Postscript: And no, I did NOT vote for him in the last election. I have been surprised, over time, with his resilience. -
I think it's legit. I should clarify that it did NOT come to the public Daily Heights e-mail address, which gets mail from nearly every politician covering the area, some solicited, some unsolicited (but at least the non-solicited ones were consciously sent to "media" outlets). This came to an old personal address that's now about 75% spam, so the headers go like this:
Subject: Penis Growth Extreme
Subject: They laughed when I said I make $1500 a day
Subject: What is Viagra Soft Tabs?
Subject: Mike Bloomberg Securing our Future
Subject: $B$"$$$K-K$Fv(B
Subject: Send 200K Advertisements for Pennies -
FLUTE wrote: A. I think this poll is flawed ... I think that there should have been a range of at least 1 to 5, with Rocks and Sucks far ends of the curve. I will out myself here as having voted "rocks" (although I think that is way too extreme, but I had no choice).
Flute and I are pretty much in agreement here. Bloomberg can be ham-fisted and outright wrong (see: teachers' union negotiations and position on Atlantic Yards project), but this city was in the financial crapper when he took office. Like Clinton, Bloomberg understands that you can't accomplish squat without cash, so he's gotten our financial house in order. That alone gets my vote.
B. Overall (and highly simplistically I know), I think Michael Bloomberg has (for the most part) had the best interests of the entire city at heart; he has done a very good job in transitioning NYC into the post-9/11, post-giuliani era, and I think he's going to be tough to beat in the next election.
:shock:
Postscript: And no, I did NOT vote for him in the last election. I have been surprised, over time, with his resilience.
FWIW, my last three presidential votes:
Nader
Nader
Kerry
As for spam, if you haven't seen it yet, check this out:
http://spamusement.com/ -
i'm definately in the minority here, but i'll vote for him because i think he's a pretty damn good financial manager. its not glamorous, and he's made SO many faux pas, but he brought the city into a very good financial position, which keeps things stable etc. boring and pragmatic, i know, but that's the way i like government. i like freddy ferrer, and i'd probably cast my vote for him otherwise. (can i say that i was FURIOUS about what mark green did to him in 2001? ugh man, i had just moved here and didn't know who mark green was from adam, but he just came off so slimy that i wanted to puke.)
i was rather pissed about the convention, but on the otherhand, i got to take out my aggressions by throwing a few 'bows and a couple of shoulderchecks upon a few visiting republicans who were hogging the sidewalk, and i got a week off to "work from home." i don't think that bloomberg's allowing them to have it in the city clinched the election for rove and co. i think its our nations' complete lack of critical thinking skills that led to that
. i think his work towards greater access to reproductive healthcare in this country sort of balances the convention thing out though. -
As I live in NY State I haven't voted in a presidential election in a long time. The Electoral College thing makes my vote kind of moot.
-
Oiseau wrote: The Electoral College thing makes my vote kind of moot.
I don't entirely agree with you on that ... but anyway, I assume, then, that you vote in state and local elections, where your vote "counts." :?: -
t-fal wrote: but he brought the city into a very good financial position, which keeps things stable etc.
JamesonVandy wrote: but this city was in the financial crapper when he took office
I was just wondering how you guys got to this statement, Its my feeling that the city , even before Bloomberg, has incurred unprecedented monies due to the last "boom" and this has made his job easy to produce the results he has, if anything else. However this money has not translated to impovements to schools and infrastructure (aka MTA) but rather handouts to developers and city contractors. -
Captain M wrote: [quote=t-fal]but he brought the city into a very good financial position, which keeps things stable etc.
JamesonVandy wrote: but this city was in the financial crapper when he took office
I was just wondering how you guys got to this statement, Its my feeling that the city , even before Bloomberg, has incurred unprecedented monies due to the last "boom" and this has made his job easy to produce the results he has, if anything else. However this money has not translated to impovements to schools and infrastructure (aka MTA) but rather handouts to developers and city contractors.
Mmm no. The boom ended early/mid-2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com). By the time Bloomberg took office, he inherited spending and expectations predicated on boom revenue, but with a revenue slowdown resulting in a projected budget deficit of several hundred million per year. Normal politicking would have killed him, especially in regards to union contract negotiations. But thanks to hard bargaining, the city is doing ok financially (although I personally am unemployed, which is an even bigger problem among black men in the city).
I'm not suggesting that he doesn't scratch backs *cough* Atlantic Yards *cough* or conveniently put civil rights on hold when expedient (RNC), but he's an effective manager at a time when it matters. See Bush for an example of where poor management gets you. -
and there was the small matter of 9/11 temproarily tanking the city's economy and tax revenue production. i was peeved when he cut out recycling, but he brought it back.
-
JamesonVandy wrote: [quote=Captain M][quote=t-fal]but he brought the city into a very good financial position, which keeps things stable etc.
JamesonVandy wrote: but this city was in the financial crapper when he took office
I was just wondering how you guys got to this statement, Its my feeling that the city , even before Bloomberg, has incurred unprecedented monies due to the last "boom" and this has made his job easy to produce the results he has, if anything else. However this money has not translated to impovements to schools and infrastructure (aka MTA) but rather handouts to developers and city contractors.
Mmm no. The boom ended early/mid-2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com). By the time Bloomberg took office, he inherited spending and expectations predicated on boom revenue, but with a revenue slowdown resulting in a projected budget deficit of several hundred million per year. Normal politicking would have killed him, especially in regards to union contract negotiations. But thanks to hard bargaining, the city is doing ok financially (although I personally am unemployed, which is an even bigger problem among black men in the city).
I'm not suggesting that he doesn't scratch backs *cough* Atlantic Yards *cough* or conveniently put civil rights on hold when expedient (RNC), but he's an effective manager at a time when it matters. See Bush for an example of where poor management gets you.
The "boom" did end around then but major income for the city has to be major companies, real estate, and taxes, so I'll give you major companies having less revenue to tax but still more than pre-boom days and real estate has continued to go up ever since and unemployment has supposedly gotten better. So yes, perhaps he has less money than say Guiliani and perhaps my beef starts there but I dont see how Bloomberg has had less money than any pre-Guliani Mayor. -
t-fal wrote: and there was the small matter of 9/11 temproarily tanking the city's economy and tax revenue production. i was peeved when he cut out recycling, but he brought it back.
You're right the recycling was corrupt and he did fix that however I'm not so sure how any Bloomberg policies bounced back the citys economy. I'd like to be wrong but I need you to explain to me how you go to your statement of howt-fal wrote: he brought the city into a very good financial position
Originally I was a Bloomberg supporter and I'm kind of on the fence, but I just dont think he's delivered they was he should have. I think a lot of people give props to mayors base on the properity of the city economy but I think the results really have little to do with the mayor himself and its more of a national matter, I'd like a mayor who makes sure NYC is a great place to live. -
Subject: Re: Bloomberg sucks.
bluedove wrote: Ugh. Totally agree. Also I'm pretty suspicious of the whole lifelong-Democrat-becomes-a-Republican-to-avoid-a-crowded-ticket thing. I mean...come on.
if I ever move back to Houston, this is going to be my tactic for winning cases. I'll register Republican and be all smiles to Republicans, but totally vote Democrat and only give money to Democratic stuff. should work -- they're not too bright down there. -
FLUTE wrote: [quote=Oiseau]The Electoral College thing makes my vote kind of moot.
I don't entirely agree with you on that ... but anyway, I assume, then, that you vote in state and local elections, where your vote "counts." :?:
The electoral college effectively disenfranchises half of the population. -
pensodyssey wrote: [quote=FLUTE][quote=Oiseau]The Electoral College thing makes my vote kind of moot.
I don't entirely agree with you on that ... but anyway, I assume, then, that you vote in state and local elections, where your vote "counts." :?:
The electoral college effectively disenfranchises half of the population.
Or the majority if you voted for Gore. -
Captain M wrote: [quote=pensodyssey][quote=FLUTE][quote=Oiseau]The Electoral College thing makes my vote kind of moot.
I don't entirely agree with you on that ... but anyway, I assume, then, that you vote in state and local elections, where your vote "counts." :?:
The electoral college effectively disenfranchises half of the population.
Or the majority if you voted for Gore.
now now now lets be fair, it was the supreme court that did the disenfranchising that time -
t-fal wrote: [quote=Captain M][quote=pensodyssey][quote=FLUTE][quote=Oiseau]The Electoral College thing makes my vote kind of moot.
I don't entirely agree with you on that ... but anyway, I assume, then, that you vote in state and local elections, where your vote "counts." :?:
The electoral college effectively disenfranchises half of the population.
Or the majority if you voted for Gore.
now now now lets be fair, it was the supreme court that did the disenfranchising that time
Touché -
Subject: And public enemy number one is...bicycles?
On the other hand, this type of bullshit makes my blood boil. Police disregard for civil liberties here is getting stupid.
http://villagevoice.com/news/0538,fergusonshee,67983,2.html
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds