NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's my poorly researched, short endorsement of him. He may not even run, and he doesn't have a great chance of winning. But it's only a matter of time until we elect a third party candidate for president, and Bloomberg is certainly much more qualified than Ross Perot, the last major contender. Anyhow, Bloomberg is fiscally conservative, financially liberatarian, and socially moderate. He has proven his smarts as a self-made billionaire, and is one of the best mayors NYC has had in a long time. Best of all, he's a billionaire. He doesn't need to steal anyone's money or waste time fundraising or anything like that. And conflict of interests should be kept down to a minimal with him as our Commander-in-Chief.
So who's with me?

Here's my poorly researched, short endorsement of him. He may not even run, and he doesn't have a great chance of winning. But it's only a matter of time until we elect a third party candidate for president, and Bloomberg is certainly much more qualified than Ross Perot, the last major contender. Anyhow, Bloomberg is fiscally conservative, financially liberatarian, and socially moderate. He has proven his smarts as a self-made billionaire, and is one of the best mayors NYC has had in a long time. Best of all, he's a billionaire. He doesn't need to steal anyone's money or waste time fundraising or anything like that. And conflict of interests should be kept down to a minimal with him as our Commander-in-Chief.
So who's with me?

I don't trust rich people.

I think the argument that we're going to have a third party president eventually so why not this guy is more than a little weak. I also think it's based on a faulty assumption, namely that a third party candidate is eventually going to win--sure, assuming the US exists another thousand years, it's probably going to happen, but there's nothing that makes it probable in our lifetimes. Hasn't happened yet, after all.

I need to do a bit more research on Bloomberg, but I'm a party partisan--no surprise there--because the Presidency is more than just a person. It's a branch, and the people you'll bring along matter. Witness the transformation of the courts in the last 6 years, or the Justice department for that matter, for an example of what I'm talking about. A Democratic party president is going to put people more in line with what I want in those positions, and that matters a lot.

I don't trust rich people.
But you do trust poor people, who have a much greater incentive to use their office to make a few dollars on the side?

I support Bloomberg because he smokes weed.

But you do trust poor people, who have a much greater incentive to use their office to make a few dollars on the side?

I'd rather have a little honest graft than a guy who's trying to subvert the very essence of the nation.

I'd rather have a little honest graft than a guy who's trying to subvert the very essence of the nation.
Grand words indeed.

In Bloomberg's case however his wealth seems to be an indication of his intelligence and management skills. He graduated from uni, got into finance and ended up starting a financial news service, which he managed very well and came out on top.

I think that sort of career gives him the skills that I would personally want every politician to have. I'm always amazed at how people would put their tax money into the hands of people with no proven ability to actually handle finances. So while I think wealth isn't a decisive factor, wealth and the ability to manage organisations and/or large amounts of money are certainly correlated.

Plus, all other things being equal, a poor person is more likely to accept a bribe than a rich person.

But you do trust poor people, who have a much greater incentive to use their office to make a few dollars on the side?

Who has the greater chance of committing a crime? One with experience in the field or just a common joe?

What I am saying is that people with money,know what money gives them. Its their high, their god. They are more likely to abuse situations with money, then say someone thats never had that money.

What I am saying is that people with money,know what money gives them. Its their high, their god. They are more likely to abuse situations with money, then say someone thats never had that money.
Well, let's hope you never win the lottery. I'd hate for you to get corrupted. :rolleyes:

Here's my poorly researched, short endorsement of him. He may not even run, and he doesn't have a great chance of winning. But it's only a matter of time until we elect a third party candidate for president, and Bloomberg is certainly much more qualified than Ross Perot, the last major contender. Anyhow, Bloomberg is fiscally conservative, financially liberatarian, and socially moderate. He has proven his smarts as a self-made billionaire, and is one of the best mayors NYC has had in a long time. Best of all, he's a billionaire. He doesn't need to steal anyone's money or waste time fundraising or anything like that. And conflict of interests should be kept down to a minimal with him as our Commander-in-Chief.
So who's with me?

Bullshit.

The man is an incompetent.

Bullshit.

The man is an incompetent.

New Yorkers seem to like him. He won re-election by the largest margin in history--20 points.

I read an article, and I can't find it right now, that Bloomberg is positioning himself not so much as a real candidate, but as a king maker-suggesting that if he focused on a key few states (and I believe it even noted that he's only trying to get on the ballot in a few, or something...take that with a shaker of salt), that he could pull enough to deny anyone the 270 electoral votes and then could work a deal with the Republicans (presuming that they do not regain majority in the congress) to throw his votes their way to avoid having congress select.

I don't know or remember what that deal might be.

EDIT: Well, if I actually tried...
NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/weekinreview/24healy.html?ex=1184299200&en=116bb8eb7802f04c&ei=5070)
Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/21/wbloomberg121.xml)

I don't know or remember what that deal might be.

He will then sell his votes for.... ONE. MILLION. DOLLARS.

He is an enemy of liberty vis-a-vis his rabid anti-second-amendment stance.

If he doesn't respect that amendment, why should he be trusted to respect another?

New Yorkers seem to like him. He won re-election by the largest margin in history--20 points.

Popularity =/= competence

Honestly, I don't know why he won. It may be because he was "better" than his opponent. At any rate, he's out of touch with the common New Yorker.

As a native new yorker I must say we've been lucky to have two great mayors the past two rounds. I might support Bloomberg if he were to run.

As a native new yorker I must say we've been lucky to have two great mayors the past two rounds. I might support Bloomberg if he were to run.

Let me honestly ask you: What New York are you living in?

Popularity =/= competence

Yes, but when all a person says is "he's incompetent" and nothing more, then I as a non-New Yorker, have to look at how the people he governs feel about him, and they seem to like him. And while a competent governor may not be well-liked, the reverse is rarely the case. Few incompetent governors are well-liked.

Bloomberg would be an even more egregious case of money buying the office than we get from a Democrat or Republican.

No thanks.

Hasn't happened yet, after all.

...

Uh, yes it has. Remember Honest Abe? At the time, the Republican party was a third party, and yet he won.

So it's happened before. Theodore Roosevelt almost did it again, but he lost at the last minute.

It's happened before, and it will happen again. It's just a question...of when...

Bloomberg's never impressed me in interviews. His personality is also a bit grating - it's best to at least run a candidate who can win, after all. We don't need to run a Republican (or independent) John Kerry, with the personality of an onion sandwich. :p Give us someone who can win first. ;)

Bloomberg won some points with me for his "Get a life" comments after the JFK airport plot got busted up. It's refreshing to see a politician who doesn't encourage unreasoning fear in his voters.

Let me honestly ask you: What New York are you living in?

Not that I know anything much about Bloomberg but just a couple days ago Kiryu-shi, who's from Brooklyn, said Bloomberg was "the mayor of Manhattan" and a horrible mayor to the rest of the city.

(since Kiryu-shi's on vacation right now and can't post I figured I'd just throw this out there :p)

Not that I know anything much about Bloomberg but just a couple days ago Kiryu-shi, who's from Brooklyn, said Bloomberg was "the mayor of Manhattan" and a horrible mayor to the rest of the city.

(since Kiryu-shi's on vacation right now and can't post I figured I'd just throw this out there :p)

To be fair, that probably goes for most mayors of New York. :p

...

Uh, yes it has. Remember Honest Abe? At the time, the Republican party was a third party, and yet he won.

So it's happened before. Theodore Roosevelt almost did it again, but he lost at the last minute.

It's happened before, and it will happen again. It's just a question...of when...

By that point in time, the Republican party was the second major party in the country. The Whigs had folded up shop, and the Democrats were splitting. The third party candidate in that race was John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party, or Stephen Douglas of the non-Southern Democrats.

Why I don't support Bloomberg for president:

I live in New York City. His money making schemes have included encouraging the police to ticket the hell out of people for no reason (including a pregnant woman who had to sit down on the stairs in the subway because she was dizzy -- HORROR! old people feeding pigeons in the park -- SCANDAL!!!! a woman who felt sick and stopped her car in a no standing zone -- OBVIOUSLY A TERRORIST!!!), trying to give away a rail yard to the Jets to build a stadium that frankly, the residents of Manhattan don't want and the infrastructure could not handle on game days rather than, oh, sell it and develop it into housing and business space. His latest brainchild: charge people eight bucks morefor driving in Manhattan, above and beyond the tolls they already pay on the bridges and tunnels. Including trucks making deliveries. (Does this make sense? if it's more expensive to get the produce and products here, his 'congestion pricing' gets passed right on to everyone and his brother.)

His answer to a crippling transit strike was to tell people to pick up hitchhikers and take them to work (WTF?!) and to show how much he was like the common man by buying a mountain bike that most NYers couldn't afford.

Why I don't support Bloomberg for president:

I live in New York City.
And you'd have to give him up if he won. :D

His answer to a crippling transit strike was to tell people to pick up hitchhikers and take them to work (WTF?!) and to show how much he was like the common man by buying a mountain bike that most NYers couldn't afford.

That was especially awesome.

He is, unquestionably, the greatest mayor ever.

Bloomberg for president? Oh god. The only things worse would be Blumenthal (CT Attorney General, for those that don't know) for president, or Blumenthal as Bloomberg's running mate.

Any of the above scenarios would motivate me to donate money to their opponents.

Also, Bloomberg said the police shouldn't ticket people with wine and a proper picnic during an event at central park, only those people with beer in paper bags.

That was awesome too.

And you'd have to give him up if he won. :D

You think I want that boob in the White House? I wish he'd get bored and go back to making money instead of handing the city over to his rich buddies and making it impossible for the middle class to stay.

That was especially awesome.

He is, unquestionably, the greatest mayor ever.

For encouraging people to put their lives at risk? You have an odd sense of "awesome".

By that point in time, the Republican party was the second major party in the country. The Whigs had folded up shop, and the Democrats were splitting. The third party candidate in that race was John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party, or Stephen Douglas of the non-Southern Democrats.

...

Really? I need to investigate my sources better next time. In the mean time, I shall enjoy the taste of this lovely foot in my mouth.

Since so much of this arguement seems to hinge on his record as mayor, as a disclaimer, I live far Upstate NY. So far upstate, that it's cheaper for me to fly to the city than to drive down. Anyhow, a fair amount of New Yorkers really hate Bloomberg. I think the main reason, however, is because he's not a snake-charmer, like most NYC politicians going back to Tammany Hall. They talk big, campaign like hell, then get elected, and do nothing except act real bitchy. That's what's happening with native New Yorkers Spitzer and Schumer, and that is why no politician down there ever gets farther than the governor's mansion.
I actually supported Giulliani before because he's done far more for New York City than Bloomberg ever can. What scared me away, however, is that his rhetoric sounds eerily similar to Bush's. The main difference between Giulliani and Bush, however, is that Bush is at least a gentleman.

For encouraging people to put their lives at risk? You have an odd sense of "awesome".

How's that now?

Also, Bloomberg said the police shouldn't ticket people with wine and a proper picnic during an event at central park, only those people with beer in paper bags.

That was awesome too.

Just out of curiosity, do you live down there? Because I never knew that you could picnic in Central Park.

At this point, I'm basically a litmus-test voter.

No Republican will get my vote. Period. Far as I'm concerned, they're the party of corrupt sex offenders who would rather spend their time sniffing at my panties and jerking off to pictures of big hard missiles than actually run the country. Doesn't matter how great a person you are; if you've got an 'R' by your name you're not getting my vote, because you are choosing to ally yourself with the people who have been plundering and disgracing my country. If you are sad that the Republican party has a shitty rep, you can thank your pitiful boy-king and his henchmen for that.

The Democrats are well on their way to earning that status as well. Primarily because their top priority for the last decade has been seeing who can felate the radical religious right with the greatest enthusiasm.

At this point, I've given up on actually getting a good leader in any area of politics, so instead I'm just voting for my special interests.

Anybody with an 'R' is out.
Anybody who opposes the right to choose is out.
Anybody who opposes gay marriage is out.
Anybody who supports the War On Terra is out.
Anybody who supports cutting taxes for the wealthiest 0.5% of Americans is out.

I've got more items on the list, but after those five I'm pretty much reduced to voting only for my pet rabbit or Paul Wellstone's ghost anyhow.

Just out of curiosity, do you live down there? Because I never knew that you could picnic in Central Park.

Yeah, you can picnic there. Just no alcoholic beverages! Unless its wine and teh mayor says that's fine and people should get a life about stuff.

Oooh yah. He was instrumental in getting liquor sold on sunday too.

Go bloomberg.

At this point, I'm basically a litmus-test voter.

No Republican will get my vote. Period. Far as I'm concerned, they're the party of corrupt sex offenders who would rather spend their time sniffing at my panties and jerking off to pictures of big hard missiles than actually run the country. Doesn't matter how great a person you are; if you've got an 'R' by your name you're not getting my vote, because you are choosing to ally yourself with the people who have been plundering and disgracing my country. If you are sad that the Republican party has a shitty rep, you can thank your pitiful boy-king and his henchmen for that.

The Democrats are well on their way to earning that status as well. Primarily because their top priority for the last decade has been seeing who can felate the radical religious right with the greatest enthusiasm.

At this point, I've given up on actually getting a good leader in any area of politics, so instead I'm just voting for my special interests.

Anybody with an 'R' is out.
Anybody who opposes the right to choose is out.
Anybody who opposes gay marriage is out.
Anybody who supports the War On Terra is out.
Anybody who supports cutting taxes for the wealthiest 0.5% of Americans is out.

I've got more items on the list, but after those five I'm pretty much reduced to voting only for my pet rabbit or Paul Wellstone's ghost anyhow.

I don't think that the left, or at least the more center-left, should exclude Republicans wholesale. The slate is far more centrist than at least since Reagan, and they are returning to what I feel is the true spirit of Republicanism: liberty and justice for all. Not this wishy-washy social engineering stuff that wastes time and doesn't really work, anyhow.

I don't think that the left, or at least the more center-left, should exclude Republicans wholesale.

I'm not "the left." In America, "the left" is far too conservative and reactionary for my taste.


The slate is far more centrist than at least since Reagan, and they are returning to what I feel is the true spirit of Republicanism: liberty and justice for all.

Thanks for making my point. If Reagan counts as anything approaching "centrist," then we're in a sad place indeed.

As for the "true spirit of Republicanism," perhaps you'd like to tell us the last time "true Republicanism" dominated in the USA.


Not this wishy-washy social engineering stuff that wastes time and doesn't really work, anyhow.
If you don't like big government sticking its nose into your private life at every turn, don't vote Republican. If you choose to vote Republican, don't cry about "wishy-washy social engineering." You're getting exactly what you voted for.

I don't think that the left, or at least the more center-left, should exclude Republicans wholesale. The slate is far more centrist than at least since Reagan, and they are returning to what I feel is the true spirit of Republicanism: liberty and justice for all. Not this wishy-washy social engineering stuff that wastes time and doesn't really work, anyhow.

Which slate is this you're describing? Because it certainly doesn't apply to the people running for President.

Thanks for making my point. If Reagan counts as anything approaching "centrist," then we're in a sad place indeed.
I'm sorry. I was trying to say before Reagan.
As for the "true spirit of Republicanism," perhaps you'd like to tell us the last time "true Republicanism" dominated in the USA.
The 1920s. I think our ideology enjoyed a great run from the Civil War until FDR, punctuated only by Roosevelt, and maybe Wilson. And this country became a great power during those decades. Yet we've never had a true revival of that spirit. Ike tried, I think, and so did Goldwater, but we never came there. Reagan came the closest, and was certainly the most libertarian Republican since the Great Depression, but didn't have the will to go any further. I'm optimistic, however, that society at large is returning to that spirit, even if our leadership is not.

If you don't like big government sticking its nose into your private life at every turn, don't vote Republican. If you choose to vote Republican, don't cry about "wishy-washy social engineering." You're getting exactly what you voted for.
The Democrats do it, too. The main difference is that they tend to be more successful, because they tend to go the same direction of society at large. But that's just as bad, IMO. The Republicans will probably still do it, as will any politician, but I think that party in particular will realize that it's useless.
And social engineering, as much as I abhor it, does not affect me in any way, shape or form. It's just enough to be annoying.

Which slate is this you're describing? Because it certainly doesn't apply to the people running for President.
To me, the current crowd sounds precisely the same as the last election cycle, with perhaps a bit more lip service being paid to religious special interest and concerns about The Brown Menace(tm).

Which slate is this you're describing? Because it certainly doesn't apply to the people running for President.

I think it does. Giulliani is the most laissez-faire socially, but McCain and Romney are also far more moderate than our current president. There are those running on a social engineering platform, but they lack the support of the others.

The 1920s. I think our ideology enjoyed a great run from the Civil War until FDR, punctuated only by Roosevelt, and maybe Wilson. And this country became a great power during those decades. Yet we've never had a true revival of that spirit. Ike tried, I think, and so did Goldwater, but we never came there. Reagan came the closest, and was certainly the most libertarian Republican since the Great Depression, but didn't have the will to go any further. I'm optimistic, however, that society at large is returning to that spirit, even if our leadership is not.

You'll forgive me for not sharing your fondness for the good old days back before I'd have been permitted to vote.

If you're prepared to claim that the glory days of "liberty and justice for all" were the days when 51% of the population was denied most of the fundamental rights of citizenship, then it sounds to me like the same empty Republican nonsense I've heard a million times before. Oh, for the grand freedom of American Past, when womenfolks were kept to the home and the darkies weren't allowed on our golf courses...


The Democrats do it, too.

And if the Democrats all jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?


The main difference is that they tend to be more successful, because they tend to go the same direction of society at large.

You'd better let the GOP know that, because they've been campaigning on the strength of their anti-choice, anti-gay "family values" efforts for years now.

Though I am more than willing to believe that every last one of them is a big fat liar, in any subject area.


But that's just as bad, IMO. The Republicans will probably still do it, as will any politician, but I think that party in particular will realize that it's useless.

Then you've got a lot of history to catch up on. It took the Republican party decades to finally accept that brown people would get to go to school with their clean white daughters. They're not exactly swift on the uptake.


And social engineering, as much as I abhor it, does not affect me in any way, shape or form. It's just enough to be annoying.
Convenient for you, I'm sure. Hopefully you will never be unlucky enough to have a child who is gay or female or of mixed ethnicity, so you can continue to avoid personal discomfort from Republican social engineering.

The 1920s. I think our ideology enjoyed a great run from the Civil War until FDR, punctuated only by Roosevelt, and maybe Wilson. And this country became a great power during those decades. Yet we've never had a true revival of that spirit. Ike tried, I think, and so did Goldwater, but we never came there. Reagan came the closest, and was certainly the most libertarian Republican since the Great Depression, but didn't have the will to go any further. I'm optimistic, however, that society at large is returning to that spirit, even if our leadership is not.

The true spirit of economic collapse. Fascinating.

The 1920s. I think our ideology enjoyed a great run from the Civil War until FDR, punctuated only by Roosevelt, and maybe Wilson. And this country became a great power during those decades. Yet we've never had a true revival of that spirit. Ike tried, I think, and so did Goldwater, but we never came there. Reagan came the closest, and was certainly the most libertarian Republican since the Great Depression, but didn't have the will to go any further. I'm optimistic, however, that society at large is returning to that spirit, even if our leadership is not.
If it's all the same to you, I'd rather not relive the Gilded Age. We're painfully close to it now as it is.

Why I Support Bloomberg for President?Because he reminds you of Silvio Berlusconi?
or maybe because you just like Pro-war Media Magnates?

At this point, I'm basically a litmus-test voter.

No Republican will get my vote. Period. Far as I'm concerned, they're the party of corrupt sex offenders who would rather spend their time sniffing at my panties and jerking off to pictures of big hard missiles than actually run the country. Doesn't matter how great a person you are; if you've got an 'R' by your name you're not getting my vote, because you are choosing to ally yourself with the people who have been plundering and disgracing my country. If you are sad that the Republican party has a shitty rep, you can thank your pitiful boy-king and his henchmen for that.

The Democrats are well on their way to earning that status as well. Primarily because their top priority for the last decade has been seeing who can felate the radical religious right with the greatest enthusiasm.

At this point, I've given up on actually getting a good leader in any area of politics, so instead I'm just voting for my special interests.

Anybody with an 'R' is out.
Anybody who opposes the right to choose is out.
Anybody who opposes gay marriage is out.
Anybody who supports the War On Terra is out.
Anybody who supports cutting taxes for the wealthiest 0.5% of Americans is out.

I've got more items on the list, but after those five I'm pretty much reduced to voting only for my pet rabbit or Paul Wellstone's ghost anyhow.

Yeah, that's true. Buti Giuliani sounds okay. Who sniffs panties?

Anybody who supports cutting taxes for the wealthiest 0.5% of Americans is out.
Even if he or she supports cutting taxes for everyone else as well? Strange logic.

He also only takes a $1/year salary.

He also only takes a $1/year salary.

Gov. Corzine takes zero for his salary.

Even if he or she supports cutting taxes for everyone else as well? Strange logic.

If we were overtaxed in this country, perhaps, but most people, especially those at the top 0.5%, are not.

Just out of curiosity, do you live down there? Because I never knew that you could picnic in Central Park.

...

Why wouldn't you be able to? It's a park, right? You can picnic in parks.

Bottle: I'm with you on all of those requirements. Sadly I'll probably be voting for Obama.

Unsadly, I will--hopefully--only have to vote for U.S. President a couple more times before I'm in Canada and I no longer care.

You'll forgive me for not sharing your fondness for the good old days back before I'd have been permitted to vote.

If you're prepared to claim that the glory days of "liberty and justice for all" were the days when 51% of the population was denied most of the fundamental rights of citizenship, then it sounds to me like the same empty Republican nonsense I've heard a million times before. Oh, for the grand freedom of American Past, when womenfolks were kept to the home and the darkies weren't allowed on our golf courses...
Well, there were glaring exceptions, largely in the South. I don't feel like offending them, tonight:). Anyhow, I see the female suffrage movement of particular interest there. They were only starting to gain civil liberties, and yet it took them many, many decades to get the vote. Kind of like Southern blacks in this country. But I'm more interested in the economic freedoms of the era. The government, except in the South and under Roosevelt, stayed out of most national affairs, and was just small enough to drown in a bathtub if need be. Society at large may have been a bit more conservative than today's, but with the glaring exception of the South, the government stayed out of it. And that is true liberty, a liberty lost on most people.

You'd better let the GOP know that, because they've been campaigning on the strength of their anti-choice, anti-gay "family values" efforts for years now.

And what have they done about it? Reinstituted witchhunts? They haven't even managed to overturn Roe vs. Wade. They're certainly not going to take society back to the Puritan days.
Though I am more than willing to believe that every last one of them is a big fat liar, in any subject area.

I've learned to appreciate liars. Take our President. He's one of the most sincere politicians we've ever had. But he's also highly incompotent. I think the two go hand-in-hand.
Then you've got a lot of history to catch up on. It took the Republican party decades to finally accept that brown people would get to go to school with their clean white daughters. They're not exactly swift on the uptake.
That's because the parties reverse on issues every so often. The Republicans could safely rely on the black vote (at least the Northern black vote) until FDR. Then they parted ways on that issue. The Democrats did a similar thing. Civil Rights wasn't so much a party thing as it was a north/south issue.

Convenient for you, I'm sure. Hopefully you will never be unlucky enough to have a child who is gay or female or of mixed ethnicity, so you can continue to avoid personal discomfort from Republican social engineering.
The point I was trying to make is that it is insignificant. It's just a waste of time, and I'm sick of it. Both of our parties collectively drag America down the shitter. I just hope that the one doing it slower will realize that they are doing it, and why.

...

Why wouldn't you be able to? It's a park, right? You can picnic in parks.


I don't know. It almost feels sacred to me, I guess, and I guess I thought New Yorkers felt the same way. There truly isn't another park like it in the world.

The true spirit of economic collapse. Fascinating.

And rapid economic growth. The US economy outgrew the UK's by 1896, and by WWI, the US had the highest industrial production rate per capita.

I've got more items on the list, but after those five I'm pretty much reduced to voting only for my pet rabbit or Paul Wellstone's ghost anyhow.

Bottle's Pet Rabbit '08

Yeah, you can picnic there. Just no alcoholic beverages! Unless its wine and teh mayor says that's fine and people should get a life about stuff.

Oooh yah. He was instrumental in getting liquor sold on sunday too.

Go bloomberg.

Where have you been living? I could get liquor on Sunday for the past 15 years.

How's that now?

The whole "Pick up total strangers/get into cars with total strangers" suggestion during the transit strike.

In the world I live in, that's risking robbery, rape or your life.

I don't know. It almost feels sacred to me, I guess, and I guess I thought New Yorkers felt the same way. There truly isn't another park like it in the world.

As long as you clean up after yourself, why not?

Picnics: Special Event Permit Application Form or call NYC/Parks & Recreation, at (212) 408-0226