[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Are you trying to say that Ronald Reagan was great?

One of the greatest modern presidents, thank you.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Turias 

I am surprised that some of you Republicans in this thread seem so happy about this. Not all of you, but there are some people on this board who I didn't think would ever support Giuliani. He is pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-same-sex civil unions, and pro-embryonic stem cell research.

He is also Pro letting the states decide on it instead of the Gov mandating it.

These issues will have little to do with him and the Presidency as he believes the state should decide.

[Turias]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

He is also Pro letting the states decide on it instead of the Gov mandating it.

These issues will have little to do with him and the Presidency as he believes the state should decide.

Maybe ideally it should have little to do with him and his run for presidency. However, I bet you anything it will still influence many, many Republican votes.

[stupendousman]

I think it's way too early to be predicting a Guiliani Vs. Clinton match-up.
Personally, I don't think either will get the nominiation.

I don't think that Guiliani will win over the base he'll need in order to get the nomination since he's so liberal on so many issues (he makes McCain look like a far-right wacko), though I think he would easily beat any Democrat in the general election if he did get the nomination.

I don't think Hillary will get the nomination because it's clear that a LOT of the Dem. power elite don't think she can win, and don't want her to win because they can see that's she's 100% phony. Trust me...more Hillary skeletons will be jumping out of the closet before 08, and probably a lot of the old ones will be doing a jive back into the news cycle. I think that once people are reminded nationally of what an embarassment those two boobs where (Clinton wasn't a bad president, just not something we need more of) I think her goose will be cooked. She'll come off REAL bad in the debates. She's got even more problems than Gore as far as that's concerned.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Oh no, something just occured to me. Hillary could choose Bill Clinton as her Vice President. Then if something happens to her, he will become President again.

This is really bad.

That's not possible. I remember it being talked about a few years ago. You can not choose a Vice President who is ineligible to serve as a President himself.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Turias 

Maybe ideally it should have little to do with him and his run for presidency. However, I bet you anything it will still influence many, many Republican votes.

Truthfully there are more middle repubs than far right ones. One only has to get those middle votes.

Bush was a bit further right than the middle, but the choices at the time were even further left.

The US usually votes for someone in the middle of the spectrum. Clinton was a middle dem.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

He is also Pro letting the states decide on it instead of the Gov mandating it.

These issues will have little to do with him and the Presidency as he believes the state should decide.

He's also on record as recently as his last interview that as far as appointing justices and judges he will be looking for strict constructionists in the same vein as Scalia, Roberts and Alito. As I said, he is conservative in principal and a realist in terms of where the body politic is.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Truthfully there are more middle repubs than far right ones. One only has to get those middle votes.

Bush was a bit further right than the middle, but the choices at the time were even further left.

The US usually votes for someone in the middle of the spectrum. Clinton was a middle dem.

Bush was farther right than McCain, and that's why he won. Guiliani is farther left than either. All it will take is a half-way viable candidate to the right of Guiliani (McCain for instance) and Rudy will be history.

Bill Clinton wasn't all that liberal. He really had few core values other than to do whatever he needed to do in order to get elected. Hillary on the other hand is fairly liberal, and she's having a hell of a time reconciling her political positions when it's clear she won't be able to get elected if she's honest about them. She's either going to alienate her base and not get the nominiation, or she's going to have to be even more transparently phony and get the nomination and not get elected. I don't see how it works any other way, and apparently neither do people like her ex-Hollywood friends who back her and Bill for years, but now are betting on younger, stronger horses.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Guiliani's fame came about when he cleaned up NYC and it became a decent place to live and for tourists to visit. Before that he almost single handedly reduced orgazined crime until it wasn't much more than a club for aging Italians just waiting to rat each other out.

Guiliani has as much foreign affairs experience as Hillary, is better liked than Hillary by most and actually got to where he is based on his own accomplishments instead of riding his spouse's coat tails.

I personally don't think that Guiliani is the best candidate for the job, but if it's between him or Hillary, I don't think HIllary (who has her own walk-in closet full of skeletons - some of them possibly real corpses) has much of a chance. Neither do her traditionally loyal Hollywood leftists who are backing other horses.

While I like Guiliani I don't think he's electable. He's too liberal for most conservatives. He's also not very well known outside of NYC. Also like someone posted above he's got too many skeletons in his closet.

Yes He did Clean up New York City and make it a better place, He also was very unifying after 9/11 but I still don't think he's electable. Then again if it was Guiliani vs ANY democrat I'd vote for Guiliani in a heartbeat.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by typoon 

While I like Guiliani I don't think he's electable. He's too liberal for most conservatives. He's also not very well known outside of NYC. Also like someone posted above he's got too many skeletons in his closet.

Yes He did Clean up New York City and make it a better place, He also was very unifying after 9/11 but I still don't think he's electable. Then again if it was Guiliani vs ANY democrat I'd vote for Guiliani in a heartbeat.

I really don't think people realize how popular Guiliani is in the South. He's a hero down there.
He campaigned quite extensively for other candidates accross the naton last year and he was the one they came to see. Likely voters are pretty savvy these days. Most know who he is. He will take the male Democrat by by a large margin over Hillary or Obama. I've already done some informal polling myself. He is seen in a very favorable light by some pretty hard core democrats here in Maryland. The abortion issue is a real stumbling block for Republicans. He will leave it to the states to decide and let the court overturn Roe vs Wade. The abortion industry can move to the states which want it.

[spindler]

What can and should Giuliani do about health care? His strongest quality is that he can Get Things Done. If he said "I am determined to implement some kind of national health care plan." he is most certainly the most believable person in the field. 0bama is too knew, Clinton is another John Kerry, and Republicans aren't expected to create government programs.

So If Rudy made health care his strong suit, he could definitely win the election, but he should save it until after the primary of course to not sound too big government. What does everyone think he can and should do about health care?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by spindler 

What can and should Giuliani do about health care? His strongest quality is that he can Get Things Done. If he said "I am determined to implement some kind of national health care plan." he is most certainly the most believable person in the field. 0bama is too knew, Clinton is another John Kerry, and Republicans aren't expected to create government programs.

So If Rudy made health care his strong suit, he could definitely win the election, but he should save it until after the primary of course to not sound too big government. What does everyone think he can and should do about health care?

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=4051
This is the best I've seen. Vouchers for the poor so they can buy into the system>

[OldManMac]

Well, it looks like Rudy won't be our next pres after all. You have to give him credit for speaking his mind though. Even when he's wrong, he sticks by his guns; sound familiar?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...itics-national

Giuliani praises Bush's Iraq policy, foresight
He disparages a Senate nonbinding rebuke on a visit to California to build a GOP campaign base for the presidency.
By Michael Finnegan, Times Staff Writer
February 11, 2007

SACRAMENTO — Republican presidential hopeful Rudolph W. Giuliani praised President Bush's war leadership on Saturday and mocked supporters of a nonbinding congressional resolution condemning the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq.

The former New York City mayor came to Bush's defense as he promoted his White House candidacy at a California Republican convention. Drawing parallels between Iraq and America's Civil War, Giuliani compared Bush's political troubles to Abraham Lincoln's. When the Civil War was unpopular, Giuliani said, Lincoln "kept his eye ahead."

"He was able to say, 'I know my people are frustrated, and I know my people are angry at me.' " But after weighing public opinion, Lincoln had "that ability that a leader has — a leader like George Bush, a leader like Ronald Reagan — to look into the future," Giuliani said.

Giuliani's defense of the currently unpopular president comes as he is portraying himself as a decisive leader unafraid to buck public opinion.

Several potential Republican presidential candidates, including Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as well as Giuliani, have supported Bush's plan to add more than 20,000 troops to U.S. forces in Iraq.

The major Democratic candidates have opposed the move. Several are senators who have advocated a nonbinding resolution condemning the buildup.

"In the business world, if two weeks were spent on a nonbinding resolution, it would be considered nonproductive," Giuliani told the lunch crowd, setting off a burst of laughter.

He called the concept "a comment without making a decision." America, he added, is "very fortunate to have President Bush."

"Presidents can't do nonbinding resolutions. Presidents have to make decisions and move the country forward, and that's the kind of president that I would like to be, a president who makes decisions."

Giuliani, who takes liberal stands on abortion, guns and gay rights, avoided those issues in his speech to party delegates, many of whom are staunch social conservatives. They warmly applauded him, giving him several standing ovations for a speech that emphasized tough rhetoric on terrorism and repeated invocations of Reagan and other Republican icons.

"The great moral issue of Ronald Reagan's time was defeating communism, and he understood that," said Giuliani, whose national popularity burgeoned after he led New York through the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "The great moral issue of our time is defeating terrorism."

Giuliani spent a good deal of time in Sacramento courting Republican lawmakers, part of his early effort to build the foundation of a political operation in California.

The state, long an afterthought in races for parties' presidential nominations, California is likely to play a much larger role in 2008 because lawmakers are on the verge of advancing the state's primary to Feb. 5.

That could benefit Giuliani, since California's Republicans are somewhat more accommodating to socially moderate candidates than those in other states. He plans to spend Monday and Tuesday in California as well, raising money and introducing himself to key voter groups.

Giuliani made the rounds of Republican constituency groups at the convention, attending small meetings of women, Jews, Asian Americans and lawyers.

But he canceled a plan to take questions from members of the conservative California Republican Assembly. The group's president, Mike Spence, called it "your basic snub."

"His problem is that his views on so many issues are out of the mainstream of the Republican Party," Spence said. "He has a lot of explaining to do."

But Bruce L. Bialosky, a moderate Republican fundraiser in Los Angeles, called Giuliani "an excellent candidate" after hearing his speech.

"He can really connect with the American people," Bialosky said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, he can connect, but not in a positive way.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Well, it looks like Rudy won't be our next pres after all. You have to give him credit for speaking his mind though. Even when he's wrong, he sticks by his guns; sound familiar?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...itics-national

Giuliani praises Bush's Iraq policy, foresight
He disparages a Senate nonbinding rebuke on a visit to California to build a GOP campaign base for the presidency.
By Michael Finnegan, Times Staff Writer
February 11, 2007

SACRAMENTO — Republican presidential hopeful Rudolph W. Giuliani praised President Bush's war leadership on Saturday and mocked supporters of a nonbinding congressional resolution condemning the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq.

The former New York City mayor came to Bush's defense as he promoted his White House candidacy at a California Republican convention. Drawing parallels between Iraq and America's Civil War, Giuliani compared Bush's political troubles to Abraham Lincoln's. When the Civil War was unpopular, Giuliani said, Lincoln "kept his eye ahead."

"He was able to say, 'I know my people are frustrated, and I know my people are angry at me.' " But after weighing public opinion, Lincoln had "that ability that a leader has — a leader like George Bush, a leader like Ronald Reagan — to look into the future," Giuliani said.

Giuliani's defense of the currently unpopular president comes as he is portraying himself as a decisive leader unafraid to buck public opinion.

Several potential Republican presidential candidates, including Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as well as Giuliani, have supported Bush's plan to add more than 20,000 troops to U.S. forces in Iraq.

The major Democratic candidates have opposed the move. Several are senators who have advocated a nonbinding resolution condemning the buildup.

"In the business world, if two weeks were spent on a nonbinding resolution, it would be considered nonproductive," Giuliani told the lunch crowd, setting off a burst of laughter.

He called the concept "a comment without making a decision." America, he added, is "very fortunate to have President Bush."

"Presidents can't do nonbinding resolutions. Presidents have to make decisions and move the country forward, and that's the kind of president that I would like to be, a president who makes decisions."

Giuliani, who takes liberal stands on abortion, guns and gay rights, avoided those issues in his speech to party delegates, many of whom are staunch social conservatives. They warmly applauded him, giving him several standing ovations for a speech that emphasized tough rhetoric on terrorism and repeated invocations of Reagan and other Republican icons.

"The great moral issue of Ronald Reagan's time was defeating communism, and he understood that," said Giuliani, whose national popularity burgeoned after he led New York through the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "The great moral issue of our time is defeating terrorism."

Giuliani spent a good deal of time in Sacramento courting Republican lawmakers, part of his early effort to build the foundation of a political operation in California.

The state, long an afterthought in races for parties' presidential nominations, California is likely to play a much larger role in 2008 because lawmakers are on the verge of advancing the state's primary to Feb. 5.

That could benefit Giuliani, since California's Republicans are somewhat more accommodating to socially moderate candidates than those in other states. He plans to spend Monday and Tuesday in California as well, raising money and introducing himself to key voter groups.

Giuliani made the rounds of Republican constituency groups at the convention, attending small meetings of women, Jews, Asian Americans and lawyers.

But he canceled a plan to take questions from members of the conservative California Republican Assembly. The group's president, Mike Spence, called it "your basic snub."

"His problem is that his views on so many issues are out of the mainstream of the Republican Party," Spence said. "He has a lot of explaining to do."

But Bruce L. Bialosky, a moderate Republican fundraiser in Los Angeles, called Giuliani "an excellent candidate" after hearing his speech.

"He can really connect with the American people," Bialosky said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, he can connect, but not in a positive way.

Can you explain how he wrong? On the wrong side of certain conservative issues or wrong defending Bush's policy on the war?

[OldManMac]

He's wrong in defending Bush's policies, as is McCain, and every other "conservative" and "liberal" with the same stance, and that's why Clinton, McCain, Guliani, and any one else who supports the war won't get the nomination of their party. We still have a long time to go before the election, and people are getting more upset daily at the carnage we started there, and at counting the number of our sons and daughters who are dying there in vain. Anyone who still believes this is a "winnable" war is seriously delusional, and never understood, from day one, what was involved and why it was wrong.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Edit: Oh, and Arnie can't be president. You need to have been born in the US...]
[Edit 2: But I don't think I'd mind Arnie all that much either. Most of the stuff he's done in California hasn't been too horrible.]

I'd vote for Schwarzenegger if he could run.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

He's wrong in defending Bush's policies, as is McCain, and every other "conservative" and "liberal" with the same stance, and that's why Clinton, McCain, Guliani, and any one else who supports the war won't get the nomination of their party. We still have a long time to go before the election, and people are getting more upset daily at the carnage we started there, and at counting the number of our sons and daughters who are dying there in vain. Anyone who still believes this is a "winnable" war is seriously delusional, and never understood, from day one, what was involved and why it was wrong.

So from day one, you personally were out front on this issue, thought it was wrong, despite the information we had on weapons of mass destruction and and obligation to defend UN resolutions.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

So from day one, you personally were out front on this issue, thought it was wrong, despite the information we had on weapons of mass destruction and and obligation to defend UN resolutions.

Well, most of the world was so why is that so hard to believe?

[ebuddy]

I may not be voting this time around. I don't know that I want to meet America's next President.

I'll be here to complain though... know that.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

So from day one, you personally were out front on this issue, thought it was wrong, despite the information we had on weapons of mass destruction and and obligation to defend UN resolutions.

Yes, I was out front on this issue, and I'm reasonably sure I said so here, although it was for different reasons. From day one, I pointed out that we invaded a sovereign nation pre-emptively (which is wrong), that the different factions have a long history of some animosity towards each other (which is now being proven), and that we couldn't trust our government to tell us the truth (which has also been proven). As to the U. N. resolutions, that's just a convenient excuse; if we (our government) hadn't agreed with them, we would have attacked anyway. Our "leaders" now look like exactly what they are: a group of old rich white men, whose sole purpose is to build an empire based on military strength, while not seeing the forest for the trees, in that we have now hastened our decline in importance on the world stage, as India and China's economies slowly, but surely, pass our own in importance, and we become a pariah that fewer and fewer countries will want to associate with. Unfortunately, my children and grandchildren will have to pay for this tragedy, in more ways than just financially.

[macintologist]

The only anti-war Republican running so far is Ron Paul.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Yes, I was out front on this issue, and I'm reasonably sure I said so here, although it was for different reasons. From day one, I pointed out that we invaded a sovereign nation pre-emptively (which is wrong), that the different factions have a long history of some animosity towards each other (which is now being proven), and that we couldn't trust our government to tell us the truth (which has also been proven). As to the U. N. resolutions, that's just a convenient excuse; if we (our government) hadn't agreed with them, we would have attacked anyway. Our "leaders" now look like exactly what they are: a group of old rich white men, whose sole purpose is to build an empire based on military strength, while not seeing the forest for the trees, in that we have now hastened our decline in importance on the world stage, as India and China's economies slowly, but surely, pass our own in importance, and we become a pariah that fewer and fewer countries will want to associate with. Unfortunately, my children and grandchildren will have to pay for this tragedy, in more ways than just financially.

Are you deliberately foregetting our first black president Bill Clinton? Or are you including him in the white man's club? Oh and by the way, is it the black man's club who will finance the Obama campaign? You do yourseldf a diservice by spouting such tripe. We'll reserve pre-emption for the terrorists. A suitcase nuke here or there may give the legitamacy we require to muster a national defense. And I agree, there's never been a bigger excuse than the United Nations. It's a shame it has taken advantage of our idealism and become what is it has. Just another welfare recipient biting the hand which feeds it. I also agree, it's disappointing the Iraqi's could not gather enough strength in a timely manner to grab the hand up we offered them. We'll give it one more shot with the troop surge but I'm not hopeful. It's difficult to overcome the fear, the years of repression and the radical fundamentalists who have no qualm about eating their own. It's a sad situation. But sadder still, are people like you. People like you who don't recognize that the United States is in the position it is by default, not by some imperlalist urge to dominate the world. We are in the position we are because of natural gifts, our idealism,
our pluralism, our largesse. I'll ask you a simple question. Were the United States to pull back and let the locals take care of themselves ( I include Europe ). Would the world be a safer place? Just how far would the Europeans let the genocide of the muslims go
in eastern Europe before they stopped it? Who would stop the Russians from doing the same? Who would again be the first to step in and stop it? Swallow real hard my friend when I tell you it will not be the Black Congressional Caucus.

[OldManMac]

Your attitude is exactly the reason we're in the mess we're in! You no doubt believe that we have some god-given right to tell the rest of the world how to behave and how to believe, whether they want to or not. That's called bullying, and it doesn't work, as we are finding out.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Your attitude is exactly the reason we're in the mess we're in! You no doubt believe that we have some god-given right to tell the rest of the world how to behave and how to believe, whether they want to or not. That's called bullying, and it doesn't work, as we are finding out.

Insightful, you addressed all the main points.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I hope Rudy does get the nomination; then almost anyone the Dems put up can win. Rudy is a one-trick pony, who's fame came about only after 9/11. He probably does deserve a lot of the credit for being active in the clean/up, etc., but he has no broad political experience, especially in foreign affairs. He also has some skeletons in his closet.

You're portrayal of Rudy as a "one-trick pony" demonstrates your sheer ignorance on the topic. It's obvious you have no clue what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Nah. He's got too many skeletons in his closet from the time he was mayor of NYC . . . before 9/11.

Last i heard, Rudy wasn't getting his cock sucked by an underage intern while Yassir Arafat was waiting for him in the rose garden. So I think America can deal with his "skeletons".

Educate yourself on what he's accomplished. It's only about a million time more impressive than anything Hillary, Obama, and Edwards have done...

When Giuliani was elected mayor, New York City was Exhibit A in failed liberal governance. Crime was out of control. Public spaces were marred by a combination of omnipresent graffiti; so-called "squeegee men" who preyed on motorists; and raving homeless people who took up residence on sidewalks and in building entrances. Public employee unions had shaken down the city government for years. The tax base was eroding. The city government was deeply in debt, and fully one in eight New Yorkers was on welfare.

Giuliani transformed a city whose budget and workforce were larger than those of all but five or six states. He and police chief William Bratton famously cracked down first on quality of life crimes like panhandling and public urination. Teenagers who leaped over the turnstiles at subway entrances were arrested — a departure from the practice under Mayor David Dinkins. Giuliani later quipped that the police under his predecessor had become "highly skilled observers of crime." Those turnstile jumpers turned out to possess a huge number of illegal guns, which were confiscated, and criminals throughout the city discovered that the New York police were breathing down their necks. The number of murders dropped from 1,960 in Dinkins's final year in office to 640 in Giuliani's last year. The overall crime rate dropped 64 percent, to levels not seen since the 1960s.

Giuliani accomplished this in the teeth of a genuinely ferocious assault from liberals, so-called "civil rights" figures like Al Sharpton (with whom Giuliani declined to meet), the New York Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times. Actors and artists protested in the streets, and leading chin pullers in national magazines pronounced themselves troubled by Giuliani's "tactics." He was steadfast — and the greatest beneficiaries were poor New Yorkers who lived in formerly dangerous neighborhoods.

Though he inherited a budget deficit, Giuliani declined to raise taxes on New Yorkers nearly bled white. He closed the budget gap with a combination of spending reductions (what a concept!) and modest tax cuts. Business boomed.

Giuliani attacked another sacred cow when he ended "open admissions" and remedial courses at the City University of New York. He was called lots of names by the usual suspects for this principled move. The result was to revive the university — SAT scores of incoming students rose 168 points.

New York's welfare system was among the most bloated in the nation. Giuliani first culled the ranks for cheats and frauds — eliminating 20 percent of the caseload. The mayor then introduced a workfare requirement — able-bodied adults would be expected to do 20 hours of work in municipal offices in exchange for a welfare check. There were howls from the New York Times. The mayor was undeterred. Giuliani transformed welfare offices from check distribution centers into employment offices, where welfare workers coached clients on how to read the classifieds, how to dress for interviews and how to prepare a resume.

[Atomic Rooster]

I wonder if any of his three wives would support him.

Probably has too many skeletons in his closet. Jeez, with three wives anyone would.

He's also too skinny and sickly looking. Big minus on that for the world stage. He's also a liberal Republican. Evangelicals that got Shrubster in will be in a conundrum.

2 centavos

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

I wonder if any of his three wives would support him.

Probably has too many skeletons in his closet. Jeez, with three wives anyone would.

He's also too skinny and sickly looking. Big minus on that for the world stage. He's also a liberal Republican. Evangelicals that got Shrubster in will be in a conundrum.

2 centavos

Probably has, too skinny, Evangelicals. Another insightful, cogent analyses from the peanut gallery. Obama, black, muslim, Hussein, who knows what kind kind of democrat.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Probably has, too skinny, Evangelicals. Another insightful, cogent analyses from the peanut gallery. Obama, black, muslim, Hussein, who knows what kind kind of democrat.

Now were getting into racist and bigotry territory. I don't think anyone wants to go there except maybe those slimy people at Fox.

Also I'd rather have popcorn. Is 2 centavos enough?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Insightful, you addressed all the main points.

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. There's enough of that here already. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Now were getting into racist and bigotry territory. I don't think anyone wants to go there except maybe those slimy people at Fox.

Also I'd rather have popcorn. Is 2 centavos enough?

Just pointing out the shallowness of your position. You don't even watch Fox so how can you make that kind of slur?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. There's enough of that here already. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe.

Pissing match? I ask you some important questions which address legitimate strategic security concerns relating to Middle East and Europe which you can't respond to because your beliefs get in the way of your sillly position and you call it a pissing match.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Bush was farther right than McCain, and that's why he won.

Bush was also liked more. Just like Rudy.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Just pointing out the shallowness of your position. You don't even watch Fox so how can you make that kind of slur?

They're all bigots at Fox...even the guy who owns it. He's the biggest bigot.

That's a fair and balanced slur thank you.

Let's keep this thread on it's rails Orion27...OK.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

They're all bigots at Fox...even the guy who owns it. He's the biggest bigot.

That's a fair and balanced slur thank you.

Let's keep this thread on it's rails Orion27...OK.

You call people bigots, and your lecturing me on keeping topical?
Name calling is the stock and trade of those who can't defend their position.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

You call people bigots, and your lecturing me on keeping topical?
Name calling is the stock and trade of those who can't defend their position.

Please don't cry, it makes me sad.

As for position...I prefer the bottom and have the babe doing the work.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I really don't think people realize how popular Guiliani is in the South. He's a hero down there.
He campaigned quite extensively for other candidates accross the naton last year and he was the one they came to see. Likely voters are pretty savvy these days. Most know who he is. He will take the male Democrat by by a large margin over Hillary or Obama. I've already done some informal polling myself. He is seen in a very favorable light by some pretty hard core democrats here in Maryland. The abortion issue is a real stumbling block for Republicans. He will leave it to the states to decide and let the court overturn Roe vs Wade. The abortion industry can move to the states which want it.

I didn't know how popular he was in the south. actually I'm surprised because of his Pro Choice stance and Gun Control Stance. I liked him as Mayor of NYC He also in the 80's helped bring down some of the largest mob families in the city. Like I said before He's a little too liberal for me on certain issues but IF he became the candidate for the republicans I would vote for him over ANY democrat any day.

[ink]

From the looks of it, I wouldn't mind a Guiliani presidency. I just don't understand how a person can support both Guiliani and Bush. They are so completely different, they shouldn't even be in the same party. So, unless you just want an "R" in front of your leader, I don't get it.

[nonhuman]

My only problem with Giuliani is that he supported the USA PATRIOT Act, and he seem to have fully bought into the 'with us or against us' mentality in the war on terror. Of course he could just be doing that because of the political pressures of being a high profile New Yorker.

[himself]

Originally Posted by ink 

I just don't understand how a person can support both Guiliani and Bush. They are so completely different, they shouldn't even be in the same party. So, unless you just want an "R" in front of your leader, I don't get it.

Tell me about it.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

It's disappointing the Iraqi's could not gather enough strength in a timely manner to grab the hand up we offered them. We'll give it one more shot with the troop surge but I'm not hopeful. It's difficult to overcome the fear, the years of repression and the radical fundamentalists who have no qualm about eating their own. It's a sad situation.

How is invading a country and leaving it worse off than before we invaded giving the people of that country a hand up?. (ALL major infrastructure services like electricity, clean water, transportation, and fuel supplies are operating at levels LOWER than before we invaded.)

Originally Posted by Orion27 

But sadder still, are people like you. People like you who don't recognize that the United States is in the position it is by default, not by some imperlalist urge to dominate the world. We are in the position we are because of natural gifts, our idealism, our pluralism, our largesse.

Ahh, good ole American Exceptionalism. We are special because of something intrinsic to our cultural make-up. Almost like we are chosen in some way. There isn't much more to say on this point, is there?

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I'll ask you a simple question. Were the United States to pull back and let the locals take care of themselves (I include Europe). Would the world be a safer place?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Just how far would the Europeans let the genocide of the muslims go
in eastern Europe before they stopped it?

I don't know. But it is Europe's problem, not the United States' problem.

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Who would stop the Russians from doing the same? Who would again be the first to step in and stop it?

I don't know. But if you are referring to the situation in Chechnya might I remind you we--the United States--have done nothing yet to help the Chechens in their battle with Russia. They want independence, why aren't we supporting their cause if we are so gung-ho about supporting burgeoning democracies?


I think acting as saviour to the world is NOT the proper geo-political role the United States should play. But, if we are going to play that role--promoting democracy and spreading freedom--I can think of a lot more places where there is a higher need for that then Iraq. If US soldiers are to die in combat to help a country over-throw a tyrant and develop a democratic system of governing I would much rather have our troops do that dying in Darfur and Somalia than in Iraq. Hell, I would support a major invasion of Myanmar (Burma) to over-throw the dictator there before I would support an invasion of Iraq. But, I would still prefer that the US get out of the "business" of invading countries to bring freedom.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Last i heard, Rudy wasn't getting his cock sucked by an underage intern while Yassir Arafat was waiting for him in the rose garden. So I think America can deal with his "skeletons".

You do know some of Rudy's "skeletons" have to do with infidelity in his second marriage. (He quickly settled with his second wife when tape recordings and other evidence of his infidelity were about to be made public.) So, out of curiosity, how do you see that as different from Clinton's infidelity?

[Orion27]

"I don't know. But it is Europe's problem, not the United States' problem."

The true conservative alternative. Very Buchanan of you. Now I would suggest, you are at most discriminating in your choice of battles to be fought but least nuanced in such battles as they relate to our national security. So I trust you would like to expand the war on terror to Africa to save Christians from the marauding Islamists?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

"I don't know. But it is Europe's problem, not the United States' problem."

The true conservative alternative. Very Buchanan of you. Now I would suggest, you are at most discriminating in your choice of battles to be fought but least nuanced in such battles as they relate to our national security. So I trust you would like to expand the war on terror to Africa to save Christians from the marauding Islamists?

I prefer the term isolationist.

And note, I said if I *have* to choose a country to invade to spread democracy there would be others that had a higher priority in my mind. But do remember, I concluded my post with the statement "I would still prefer that the US get out of the "business" of invading countries to bring freedom".

I don't think the United States should be involved in a war on terror . . . at all. I think we should have been involved in ONLY a war which retaliated against those who attacked us on 9/11. I think we should have gone into Afghanistan and destroyed the Taleban, leveled the mountain hide-outs around Tora Bora--that would have been the perfect opportunity to use MOAB's or nuclear-tipped deep-penetration bombs--and killed every last member of al Qaeda. I do mean killed, as in no taking prisoners or holding trials just killing every last one of them and burying their bodies in neatly marked graves topped with an American flag. Then we could have set about helping to re-build the country and returned home to our little corner of the world. Imagine TV footage of grave-sites all over the Afghani country-side being beamed around the world to those who might have considered attacking us next: They would know that any response would lead automatically to their death.

I am not opposed to war just un-necessary war. And attacking a country that didn't attack us is un-necessary.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I prefer the term isolationist.

And note, I said if I *have* to choose a country to invade to spread democracy there would be others that had a higher priority in my mind. But do remember, I concluded my post with the statement "I would still prefer that the US get out of the "business" of invading countries to bring freedom".

I don't think the United States should be involved in a war on terror . . . at all. I think we should have been involved in ONLY a war which retaliated against those who attacked us on 9/11. I think we should have gone into Afghanistan and destroyed the Taleban, leveled the mountain hide-outs around Tora Bora--that would have been the perfect opportunity to use MOAB's or nuclear-tipped deep-penetration bombs--and killed every last member of al Qaeda. I do mean killed, as in no taking prisoners or holding trials just killing every last one of them and burying their bodies in neatly marked graves topped with an American flag. Then we could have set about helping to re-build the country and returned home to our little corner of the world. Imagine TV footage of grave-sites all over the Afghani country-side being beamed around the world to those who might have considered attacking us next: They would know that any response would lead automatically to their death.

I am not opposed to war just un-necessary war. And attacking a country that didn't attack us is un-necessary.

That was probably one of the options on the table, no doubt. Remember the criticism when we destroyed the Iraqi army fleeing Kuwait? How dare we have used such deproportional force on the enemy? And there is another logic to reckoned with. Bush chose another strategy, just so the point be taken, we were going to take out the biggest guy on the block and deal with Afghanistan while hoping ( who could know? war is that way) to liberate a people from repression few in the west fathom. Idealistic, for sure. Poorly implemented, no doubt as you agree, limited and timid force, running counter to the Powel Doctrine, a passionate conservative, magnanimous Christian application of force proved a debacle. But being the idealists we are perhaps we can salvage something from ashes. If we cut and run, we'll never know. The price is high no doubt, but it could change history for a millenia.

[ink]

Interesting Giuliani article from (by the looks of it) a neocon:

FOXNews.com - Why I -- a Staunch Pro-Lifer -- Am Voting for Giuliani - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Unfortunately, in 2008, we Americans do not have the luxury of focusing our votes towards any domestic agenda. That we have some very large, ever-looming domestic problems — health care crisis, out-of-control entitlement programs, an irresponsible deficit, to name a few — goes without belaboring. But to give any of those center stage right now is, in my view, pure folly. Whether we like it or not, we are in a war, a war we neither asked for, nor started. And, no matter what happens in the short run in Iraq, we are going to be at war for a long time.

The last thing we need in the White House is an equivocating, sloganeering, poll-obsessed politician worried about his/her image. This time around — when we are fighting for our very way of life — we do not need a president who cares more about his coiffure than his message. The time for smooth-talking, carefully-stepping, popularity-wooing candidates bit the dust on 9/11/2001. And, in my opinion, the one person we have in America right now who fits the bill is Giuliani.

In a nutshell: Yeah, he sucks on "domestic issues", but he'll kick terrorist ass, so vote for him.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You do know some of Rudy's "skeletons" have to do with infidelity in his second marriage. (He quickly settled with his second wife when tape recordings and other evidence of his infidelity were about to be made public.) So, out of curiosity, how do you see that as different from Clinton's infidelity?

Was he doing it while "on the job" then did he lie about it under oath?

I really CARED LESS that Clinton was getting a hummer really.

But the fact he tried to make those he was put into office to protect out to be liars over a petty blow job is what ticked me.

If he'd have just said "Yeah I got a hummer and put his thumb up" he'd have been the coolest president EVER (not by my standards)