Rudy-2008

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Hey, renny.

You and I don’t agree on much. However, I think regarding illegal immigration we have some common ground.

Second, strong work in your personal life. I have zero problem with immigrants playing by the rules and earning citizenship.

Good for you.

Third, I agree that the specifics are not listed. This is his broad covenant with the people.

He has promised specifics.

If he seems like he has a credible plan and appears dedicated to curbing illegal immigration, would you think about voting for him?

JeffR
[/quote]

I think he needs to get some specifics, and fast. He has given all his opponents a free chance to “one up” him on his commitments, as I am sure a couple of them have their “Rudy says this, but I ACTUALLY have a real plan for it” speeches ready to go. I know I would.

While illegal immigration is a topic that I and the Mexicans working at Wendy’s hold dear to our hearts, I would not for him if his foreign and economic policies are not up to scratch.

I know you liked his pouncing on Ron Paul in the first debate, but to me it showed that he is still working on the old catchphrase of “They hate us for our freedoms.” As someone, and I forget who said, if they really hated the freedoms of the West, the Netherlands would have been wiped out already!!

For me to give him some recognition he needs to come across with the following:

  1. An accurate understanding of how the rest of the world views America, and why they do so.

  2. A sign that he has read the 9/11 commission report, Ron Paul’s reading list is quite good, I would be VERY impressed if he took the time to read any of the books on that list and articulated that knowledge into his foreign policy ideas.

  3. The plan for battling terrorists. Is he going to refocus efforts back into Afghanistan and the Pakistani mountainous areas to finally get Bin Laden? Or is more of the same dick-waving and tongue-wagging against Iran and NK and whoever else he wants to call a bad guy?

  4. HOW THE FUCK IS HE GOING TO BALANCE THE BUDGET!?!?!? Seriously, cut taxes? We need to restore confidence back in the almighty dollar. Let us see some of that much-remembered conservative fiscal responsibility.

  5. How is he going to fix the borders? People keep on saying if we leave the Middle East they will follow us home. Well, if we had secure borders we could stand on the other side of the fence and laugh at the wankers. We can’t even keep a guy with TB, who was flagged out of the country, how we gonna keep the sneaky fuckers that wanna build TNT in bathtubs out?

So there, a few of the more important issues that I genuinely do care about and hold a lot of merit too. We should start seeing a bit more substance over the next few months to go with the hot air the candidates have been feeding us, and then the fun really starts!

22

LOL on that biting satire, pookie. It’s golden.

thunderbolt23, Rudy is mirroring the Contract with America Newt Gingrich’s republican congress had. It worked, because they did have plans behind the promises. If Rudy has this (actual legitimate, responsible plans), too… along with the strength to back them up with results (like a dictator, JeffR)… He would be the best president in nearly 20 years.

And JeffR: a dictator would not allow himself to be deposed, let alone freely relinquish power. The rose colored glasses I see through are looking for a strong candidate. I won’t take anyone seriously until I get something more than campaign promises. Maybe I should have said “Iron Will” instead of dictator, but that connotates Soviet Russia and Putin - whom I have grievances with… I digress…

Needless to say, the very best person for the job of President of the United States would never take it. So what do we have left? Choices, and I am going to be quite informed before I make mine.

Mick28, you’re funny, and I don’t think you mean to be. Hillary WIN?!? I can barely contain the laughter.

23

[quote]JeffR wrote:
pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I’m actually surprised I’m the only Good Guy on this forum pushing hard for Rudy.

Here’s another Good Guy™ to push with you.

Several weeks back the following exchange occurred.

I asked.

Quick question: Are dirty nuclear weapons WMD?

To which pookie replied:

In my opinion, no. They’re weapons of terror. They scare a lot of people, but they don’t kill or destroy much.

Quick distribution of iodine pills will go a long way in preventing long term effects such as cancers.

As far as I can tell, pookie has never apologized for nor amended that staggeringly insensitive and factually wrong statement.

Until this happens, said poster should realize that he won’t be taken seriously. Further, responses to him will probably be few and far between outside of Canada, sweden, or austria.

JeffR[/quote]

Dirty bombs are not WMDs… The point was addressed and clarified in the same thread.

You’re just annoyed because all your ridiculous arguments were being shot down one after the other. All your half-truths and omissions were being pointed out to you, and you simply jumped on the first thing that let you run away with a semblance of fake indignation. Not that many people around here are stupid enough to fall to that…

Turning that misunderstanding (between “dirty bombs” and “dirty nuclear bombs”) into a mountain let you run away from addressing the main points: 1) Why did you go from crying about 2 tons of nuclear material to 50kg and 2) How could anyone produce “a variety” of nuclear weaponry from 50kg. Science hasn’t figured it out, they’d probably be interested in your methods. We could add 3) How can a country who had a nuclear reactor bombed 20 odd years ago be expected to be entirely free from nuclear material? Might as well invade Ukraine because Chernobyl’s reactor 4 still contains nuclear material.

As for me getting responses, quit your worrying, they’ve been doing just fine. Getting ignored by clowns is supposed to be some kind of punishment? I’ll take a lifetime’s worth, please.

Clown on, Good Guy(tm*) Jeffro.

  • Here, ™ stands for Total Moron.
24

[quote]Ren wrote:
…
So there, a few of the more important issues that I genuinely do care about and hold a lot of merit too. We should start seeing a bit more substance over the next few months to go with the hot air the candidates have been feeding us, and then the fun really starts![/quote]

Hear, hear!

25

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Look Jeff you don’t seem to understand, or don’t want to face the facts.

Hillary wins in a Hillary vs Rudy election.

In fact, Rudy is the only candidate that Hillary can beat. I’m not counting nut balls like Ron Paul of course.

Why?

The left will turn out in droves to put their main squeeze in the oval orifice…err I mean office.

On the other hand…

the right will stay home if Rudy is the parties nominee.

She will win by the shear low turnout of her opposition.

Please point out even one Presidential election that was won by either party when they failed to motivate their base to go to the polls?

Sure Hillary has high negatives. But many republicans will rationalize her possibility of winning by claiming that they didn’t vote for her.

Staying home is not voting for the opposition…it’s basically stating that you are not happy with your parties candidate.

Come Jeff, can you picture the Bible belt voting for a man who is pro choice, pro gay marriage and has been married THREE TIMES?

LOL

And on top of all that he’s for gun control.

In your quest to boost another republican for the White House you are not seeing the facts as they line up.

Rudy spells disaster for the republicans. In fact, I don’t see any candidate on the republican side who will win. Bush pretty much took care of that.

But the best choice for a fighting chance would be Romney. The geography lines up well for him. And he has charisma and experience.

But he even he loses to Edwards…I think.
[/quote]

Mick,

I understand clearly what you are contending.

I simply disagree with you.

You must understand few things would motivate the base more than a hillary clinton Presidential ticket. I want to keep relatively quiet until the dem convention, but, I hope she wins.

Let me ask you: Given the opportunity to vote for either Rudy, hillary, or staying home, what happens?

If you say “stay home” then you totally underestimate the power of the advertising, commercials, and the negative response from hillary clinton up close.

If you think john kerry’s flip flopping “for and against…” was effective…

Just freaking wait.

It’s going to be a perfect storm.

Second, Rudy has cross-over appeal. This doesn’t happen much.

Third, how exactly does hillary win, again?

I’ve asked this question twenty times, “What Southern state will hillary win?”

Fourth, wouldn’t you guys like to be competitive in the Northeast?

Rudy is the only one that puts some of those states in play.

I just don’t think Romney has the name, the backing, or the prestige, to pull that off.

Finally, friend, the Bible Belt isn’t enough to win an election–see Bob Dole.

Rudy needs to attract some centrists and some leftist voters. hillary will take care of getting the Conservatives to the polls.

JeffR

P.S. ron paul and john edwards have exactly the same chance to win the Presidency.

26

[quote]kroby wrote:

thunderbolt23, Rudy is mirroring the Contract with America Newt Gingrich’s republican congress had. It worked, because they did have plans behind the promises. If Rudy has this (actual legitimate, responsible plans), too… along with the strength to back them up with results (like a dictator, JeffR)… He would be the best president in nearly 20 years. [/quote]

It’s not that I disagree with that - it’s that the principles listed here would apply to practically every Republican candidate until we know how each would implememt or try to achieve the goals.

27

[quote]kroby wrote:
LOL on that biting satire, pookie. It’s golden.[/quote]

It’s pretty weak and cliched actually, but Rudy is nothing more than a bad joke. And like most of the other candidates, he’s simply putting out what his team tells him polls well in focus groups. He’s going to run on his mayorship and 9/11 all the way. 9/11 is the best thing that’s happened for his career.

I’d bet he’ll backtrack more and more on his unrepublican opinions concerning abortion, gun control and gay rights. He’s going to nuance his positions (it’s already started, trying to spin his pro-abortion stance into “pro-adoption” instead). The only candidate who seems honest is Ron Paul, but he won’t be around after the primary; he’s much too honest to make it as a presidential candidate.

I also find it pretty amusing that he’s said “lift our vision from the rear view mirror to the road ahead of us - the future.” when all he keeps talking about is 9/11 and being mayor of New York… all in the past.

28

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I’m actually surprised I’m the only Good Guy on this forum pushing hard for Rudy.

Here’s another Good Guy™ to push with you.

Several weeks back the following exchange occurred.

I asked.

Quick question: Are dirty nuclear weapons WMD?

To which pookie replied:

In my opinion, no. They’re weapons of terror. They scare a lot of people, but they don’t kill or destroy much.

Quick distribution of iodine pills will go a long way in preventing long term effects such as cancers.

As far as I can tell, pookie has never apologized for nor amended that staggeringly insensitive and factually wrong statement.

Until this happens, said poster should realize that he won’t be taken seriously. Further, responses to him will probably be few and far between outside of Canada, sweden, or austria.

JeffR

Dirty bombs are not WMDs… The point was addressed and clarified in the same thread.

You’re just annoyed because all your ridiculous arguments were being shot down one after the other. All your half-truths and omissions were being pointed out to you, and you simply jumped on the first thing that let you run away with a semblance of fake indignation. Not that many people around here are stupid enough to fall to that…

Turning that misunderstanding (between “dirty bombs” and “dirty nuclear bombs”) into a mountain let you run away from addressing the main points: 1) Why did you go from crying about 2 tons of nuclear material to 50kg and 2) How could anyone produce “a variety” of nuclear weaponry from 50kg. Science hasn’t figured it out, they’d probably be interested in your methods. We could add 3) How can a country who had a nuclear reactor bombed 20 odd years ago be expected to be entirely free from nuclear material? Might as well invade Ukraine because Chernobyl’s reactor 4 still contains nuclear material.

As for me getting responses, quit your worrying, they’ve been doing just fine. Getting ignored by clowns is supposed to be some kind of punishment? I’ll take a lifetime’s worth, please.

Clown on, Good Guy(tm*) Jeffro.

  • Here, ™ stands for Total Moron.
    [/quote]

Response:

Easy for the peanut gallery in la la land to dismiss.

Said dinks don’t have to worry about the long and short term effects of said weapons.

“Daddy, why is uncle dead?”

“Daddy, why am I coughing up blood?”

Those of us who plan against and fear that our families could be a targeted, aren’t so cavalier and callus.

JeffR

29

[quote]pookie wrote:
I’d bet he’ll backtrack more and more on his unrepublican opinions concerning abortion, gun control and gay rights. [/quote]

But… I’m republican with those same values. They don’t make me un-republican. I don’t like abortion, but it’s worse having them performed in alley ways. There’s too many fools and irresponsible morons with guns. Those people shouldn’t have them. And gay rights? Let 'em be gay, what do I care? They pay their taxes and are good people. I know this to be true.

You see, there is at least one rep that isn’t a bible thumping freak. I don’t want to tell another person what morals they must live by.

And this is why Rudy is (initially) palatable. I’m giving him a chance. It’s his to blow it.

Like Bush did (post election, sadly).

31

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Hillary beats Rudy one on one.

I told you how it can happen. And I can go into further detail if you care to read it.

But first I’d like you to tell me how Rudy beats Hillary, and be specific.

[/quote]

I can’t tell you how Rudy would beat Hillary. I’ll tell you how Hillary will get beat by America.

I can’t see the general public voting for Hillary with all we have learned about her during the Clinton years.

Remember Connie Chung’s infamous chat with Newt’s mother? You know, the one that ruined her career as a journalist? That sentiment is shared by a great many. She’s a senator due to the fact that Moynihan GAVE her the seat. Gave her the machine that was his political warchest to beat everyone. In a hotbed of democratic party power.

Please. You give her far too much credit. She will run and she will fall - and all the apologists will say that the country wouldn’t vote for her because she was a woman. Bah! It’s because she’s too socialist.

32

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Response:

http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n2/dirtybomb.htm [/quote]

From your own link: “While radiological attacks would result in some deaths, they would not result in the hundreds of thousands of fatalities that could be caused by a crude nuclear weapon.”

Some deaths vs. hundred of thousands of fatalities. Dirty bombs are not WMDs. You asked for my opinion, I gave it to you. It depends on how you define “mass destruction.” Is a loaded AK-47 in a crowded shopping mall a WMD?

In Jeffroland, you can redefine words to mean what they want when it suits you. I’m sure that’s quite practical, but the rest of us in the real world prefer using real arguments instead of childish word games.

Keeping your foot in your mouth 24/7 protects you well from calluses, I’m sure.

33

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Response:

From your own link: “While radiological attacks would result in some deaths, they would not result in the hundreds of thousands of fatalities that could be caused by a crude nuclear weapon.”

Some deaths vs. hundred of thousands of fatalities. Dirty bombs are not WMDs. You asked for my opinion, I gave it to you. It depends on how you define “mass destruction.” Is a loaded AK-47 in a crowded shopping mall a WMD?

In Jeffroland, you can redefine words to mean what they want when it suits you. I’m sure that’s quite practical, but the rest of us in the real world prefer using real arguments instead of childish word games.

Those of us who plan against and fear that our families could be a targeted, aren’t so cavalier and callus.

Keeping your foot in your mouth 24/7 protects you well from calluses, I’m sure.
[/quote]

Again, it’s easy to be brave from a distance.

JeffR

34

When I read the 12, my first thought was that Rudy was puffing a pipe somewhere in Chinatown. I’d be interested in how he’d accomplish ANY of those things. The government is broke, the military can’t even smash a bunch of ragtag savages, a lot of the states are up to their eyeballs in debt, and a lot of Americans have to abandon their foreclosed homes.

The stock market is a bubble, with China esp having a bubble market. The Chinese and Arabs own one whole hell of a lot of our t-bonds.

Rudy’s in fantasyland.

35

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Mick,

I’m actually surprised I’m the only Good Guy on this forum pushing hard for Rudy.

[/quote]

Are the “Good Guys” like the Mafia?

Are you made?

Was there blood involved?

Did you have to kiss a picture of Muss…, um , Guliani?

36

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Again, it’s easy to be brave from a distance.

JeffR

[/quote]

All of us know that, which is what makes some of your posts so hilarious.

You cannot even be brave from a distance yet you accuse other people because they do not lose their head so easily.

37

[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Again, it’s easy to be brave from a distance.

JeffR

All of us know that, which is what makes some of your posts so hilarious.

You cannot even be brave from a distance yet you accuse other people because they do not lose their head so easily.[/quote]

Hey, muffin man.

I always appreciate you chiming in.

Wait, that’s a gross exaggeration.

Let me try again: I’m always amused at you chiming in.

I’ve done a few brave things in my life.

If you are comparing me to the guys/gals in combat, I agree I’m not as brave.

However, compared to you, I’m absolutely heroic.

Back to your muffins.

JeffR

38

[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Mick,

I’m actually surprised I’m the only Good Guy on this forum pushing hard for Rudy.

Are the “Good Guys” like the Mafia?

Are you made?

Was there blood involved?

Did you have to kiss a picture of Muss…, um , Guliani?

[/quote]

Hey, muffin,

That was cute. Sorry, I exaggerated.

That was stupid.

I’d think you’d know more about vicious dictators as your go to move is to side with them.

I can’t tell you how much I enjoy getting you and the rest of the snakes riled up by the using simple phrase: Good Guys.

It hits all your moral relativism buttons.

A cheap thrill. But, well worth it.

JeffR

39

[quote]JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Again, it’s easy to be brave from a distance.

JeffR

All of us know that, which is what makes some of your posts so hilarious.

You cannot even be brave from a distance yet you accuse other people because they do not lose their head so easily.

Hey, muffin man.

I always appreciate you chiming in.

Wait, that’s a gross exaggeration.

Let me try again: I’m always amused at you chiming in.

I’ve done a few brave things in my life.

If you are comparing me to the guys/gals in combat, I agree I’m not as brave.

However, compared to you, I’m absolutely heroic.

Back to your muffins.

JeffR[/quote]

I thought Muffin man was Wreckless?

Gotta keep track of the voices in your head man…

Can I be Schnitzel Man?

You could be Doughnut Boy, my arch nemesis!

40

[quote]kroby wrote:
If he does half the things on this list, it will be twice as much as the last two presidents had done.

All I ask for in a president is the strength of personal convictions, the power to enact them, and the ability to shame the rest of the government to do what’s right for the majority of americans. A popular dictator that will leave after eight (hell, or four) years. I mean, hey, if Iran, Venezuela, et. al. can have theirs, why can’t we?[/quote]

Well, if it’s a dictator you want, Rudy is your man!

mike