T Nation

Rudy, Very Bad Week

Poor Rudy JulieAnnie!

He had a awful week!

His campaign manager in South Carolina was busted for dealing cocaine.

Everybody found out Rudy was kicked off the Iraq Study Group in 2006 because he didn’t attend a single meeting. (He was too busy making money giving speeches about what a foriegn policy expert he was.)

Everybody found out that Rudy’s company had hired a Catholic priest who was suspended from the Catholic church over molestation charges (Rudy’s boyhood friend, oh what a pickle!)

Former EPA head Christie Todd Whitman kinda placed the blame on Rudy for all the 911 rescue workers who heard the government say “the air is safe to breathe” and are now dying.

Bloomberg quit the GOP and may run for President. Bloomberg is more popular in New York than Rudy is, stealing any ‘home court advantage’ Rudy might have pretended to have. Bloomberg is about the same on social issues as Giuliani is (apart from the cross-dresser thing. Bloomberg is straight).

Fred Thompson passed Rudy in the polls, even though Thompson hasn’t even announced that he’s a candidate yet, let alone start his campaign.

The good news is that Rudy’s going to unveil his new campaign platform “The Twelve Commandments” this Summer. I bet that will go over great with the Christian Conservatives… a candidate who made up his own version of the Commandments. Great idea!

Poor Rudy!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070626/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_s_woes

You may mean “Twelve Commitments”, which is not “Commandments”, but thanks for playing.

Oh, and congratulations. We were just needing an infusion of troll-like behavior in the political forum: starting a bunch of threads in rapid-fire fashion, responding to existing ones with useless partisan blather, etc.

What, is there like some kind of a troll “bat signal” that someone fires up just as all the adults start talking sensibly?


Damn trolls.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
His campaign manager in South Carolina was busted for dealing cocaine.
[/quote]

There’s a campaign out where I live. It’s called “Drugs destroy dreams.”

: /

Why would anyone vote for this guy anyways? I had to sringe when I saw him on the other day and in his speech he said “if there is one thing that this presidential campaign should be about, it’s staying on the offensive against terrorism” Is this really the most important thing we should look at for the leader of our country? Are we that fear based as a society?

Now to some that means invading countries where terrorists are harbored but it doesn’t have to. We have been “on the offensive” for several years now, depending on your definition of that.

[quote]bradley wrote:
Poor Rudy JulieAnnie!

He had a awful week!

His campaign manager in South Carolina was busted for dealing cocaine.

Everybody found out Rudy was kicked off the Iraq Study Group in 2006 because he didn’t attend a single meeting. (He was too busy making money giving speeches about what a foriegn policy expert he was.)

Everybody found out that Rudy’s company had hired a Catholic priest who was suspended from the Catholic church over molestation charges (Rudy’s boyhood friend, oh what a pickle!)

Former EPA head Christie Todd Whitman kinda placed the blame on Rudy for all the 911 rescue workers who heard the government say “the air is safe to breathe” and are now dying.

Bloomberg quit the GOP and may run for President. Bloomberg is more popular in New York than Rudy is, stealing any ‘home court advantage’ Rudy might have pretended to have. Bloomberg is about the same on social issues as Giuliani is (apart from the cross-dresser thing. Bloomberg is straight).

Fred Thompson passed Rudy in the polls, even though Thompson hasn’t even announced that he’s a candidate yet, let alone start his campaign.

The good news is that Rudy’s going to unveil his new campaign platform “The Twelve Commandments” this Summer. I bet that will go over great with the Christian Conservatives… a candidate who made up his own version of the Commandments. Great idea!

Poor Rudy!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070626/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_s_woes[/quote]

hello, bradley.

As usual, it brings a large smile to my face to read clinton ball-swingers accuse others of weakness in their personal lives.

HYPOCRITES!!!

As to the other “charges” my pal bradley is trying to level, here is THE MAN, RUDY:

Next, I hope bloomberg runs. If he says he’s against the Iraq War, he’ll pull the nutcases from the dem vote.

I liked the homophobic “straight” line, bradley.

Again, if you dems weren’t such hypocrites, that kind of talk would land you in some hot water.

Maybe, Rudy being on the ticket shows that we are more tolerant than you silly, little dems.

Oh, bradley. We’ll see what happens with Thompson. Your little mind doesn’t factor in what happens when light is shined on a person.

Rudy is more appealing to a wider array of people than anyone on either ticket.

Time will prove me correct.

It isn’t even July of 2007.

JeffR

P.S. I noticed the other silly, little attacks. I’ll respond if they end up being anything important.

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Why would anyone vote for this guy anyways? I had to sringe when I saw him on the other day and in his speech he said “if there is one thing that this presidential campaign should be about, it’s staying on the offensive against terrorism” Is this really the most important thing we should look at for the leader of our country? Are we that fear based as a society?

Now to some that means invading countries where terrorists are harbored but it doesn’t have to. We have been “on the offensive” for several years now, depending on your definition of that.[/quote]

Fear based?

Man, you are beyond help.

Of course you want to stay on the offensive.

Defensive (circa 1990’s) led to 9/11/01.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I liked the homophobic “straight” line, bradley.
[/quote]

Jeffy, I’m sure you aren’t implying that Rudy is homophobic. Everybody knows he’s pro-Gay Rights. I’m a liberal, so I am pro-Gay rights too. I do like some of Rudy’s positions on social issues. I don’t know how popular that will make Rudy with the average Republican voter, though.

One good thing for Rudy that came out of all these scandals… everybody stopped talking about Rudy’s positions on abortion, gun control and gay rights (so they could talk about him getting kicked off the Iraq Study Group).

I can’t wait to see the Clash of the Titans… Rudy JulieAnnie vs. Fred Thompson. See, Fred Thompson is a man’s man. A manly man’s man. He spends his days doing manly man’s work… like Washington Lawyerin’ and Washington Lobbyin’ and Hollywood Actin’. You know, the real manly stuff. And at the end of the day, Fred’s just a regular guy who likes to relax with a good steak at the Country Club, a Cuban cigar, and a Scotch. Nothing fancy, maybe a 12 year old single malt.

Pretty soon Fred will hitch up the red pickup truck and throw on a flannel shirt, and hit the campaign trail, like true cowboy. And when this tough hombre takes on Rudy JulieAnnie, look out!!!

Now in Rudy’s defense, you’d get a pretty good First Wife and co-President, along with the deal (Judy Nathan). Plus a First Ex-Wife and a Second Ex-Wife, too. And Rudy makes a pretty good First Lady himself, I don’t need to show you the photos again (Fred will be doing that later). So, a lot of estrogen there.

The thing about Rudy is that even though his kids hate him now, he is very very “pro family” and that’s going to be important come photo-op time at the White House. I guess a wide angle lens will work. Electing Rudy will show America’s committment to marriage, because you gotta admit Rudy didn’t give up. He kept on trying with the marriage thing until he got it right, and that shows a lot of resolve in the face of adversity.

Say, maybe the Republican ex-wives can have their own debate this time, so we can find out where they stand on the issues?

[quote]bradley wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I liked the homophobic “straight” line, bradley.

Jeffy, I’m sure you aren’t implying that Rudy is homophobic. Everybody knows he’s pro-Gay Rights. I’m a liberal, so I am pro-Gay rights too. I do like some of Rudy’s positions on social issues. I don’t know how popular that will make Rudy with the average Republican voter, though.

One good thing for Rudy that came out of all these scandals… everybody stopped talking about Rudy’s positions on abortion, gun control and gay rights (so they could talk about him getting kicked off the Iraq Study Group).

I can’t wait to see the Clash of the Titans… Rudy JulieAnnie vs. Fred Thompson. See, Fred Thompson is a man’s man. A manly man’s man. He spends his days doing manly man’s work… like Washington Lawyerin’ and Washington Lobbyin’ and Hollywood Actin’. You know, the real manly stuff. And at the end of the day, Fred’s just a regular guy who likes to relax with a good steak at the Country Club, a Cuban cigar, and a Scotch. Nothing fancy, maybe a 12 year old single malt.

Pretty soon Fred will hitch up the red pickup truck and throw on a flannel shirt, and hit the campaign trail, like true cowboy. And when this tough hombre takes on Rudy JulieAnnie, look out!!!

Now in Rudy’s defense, you’d get a pretty good First Wife and co-President, along with the deal (Judy Nathan). Plus a First Ex-Wife and a Second Ex-Wife, too. And Rudy makes a pretty good First Lady himself, I don’t need to show you the photos again (Fred will be doing that later). So, a lot of estrogen there.

The thing about Rudy is that even though his kids hate him now, he is very very “pro family” and that’s going to be important come photo-op time at the White House. I guess a wide angle lens will work. Electing Rudy will show America’s committment to marriage, because you gotta admit Rudy didn’t give up. He kept on trying with the marriage thing until he got it right, and that shows a lot of resolve in the face of adversity.

Say, maybe the Republican ex-wives can have their own debate this time, so we can find out where they stand on the issues?
[/quote]

Hello, bradley.

I laughed one of those rib-splitting, can’t get air, laughs when a clintonite was discussing family values.

Marriage!!!

You have absolutely no shame.

I laughed when you admitted that Rudy shared some of your values. Then you went on to try to disparage him.

Politics above principle. It’s the dem way.

Hello, bradley is numero uno!!!

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
storey420 wrote:
Why would anyone vote for this guy anyways? I had to sringe when I saw him on the other day and in his speech he said “if there is one thing that this presidential campaign should be about, it’s staying on the offensive against terrorism” Is this really the most important thing we should look at for the leader of our country? Are we that fear based as a society?

Now to some that means invading countries where terrorists are harbored but it doesn’t have to. We have been “on the offensive” for several years now, depending on your definition of that.

Fear based?

Man, you are beyond help.

Of course you want to stay on the offensive.

Defensive (circa 1990’s) led to 9/11/01.

JeffR

[/quote]

What I meant is that it should be a given that we are and have been on the offensive regardless if people like yourself think so or not. Also the definition of offensive is interpretive. I’m assuming that you have neither worked in or read a great deal on clandestine services but if you asked some of those former operators, they might disagree about just how “defensive” their missions were.

Being on the offensive doesn’t have to mean invading countries, although that is one tactic. Of course you are admitting then that by circa 1990’s that the policies of former president Bush contributed to 911.

911 was not a result of ‘defensive’ approach, it was a result of Bush and Cheney’s complete incompetence. 20 scrubs with box cutters defeated the world’s most powerful, well-trained and well-equipped military, and that can’t be blamed on anyone but the idiots helming the ship.

It only takes 5 minutes for an ICBM strike to hit the US. George W. Bush sat frozen in a Florida classroom for 7 minutes. We’re damn lucky that 911 wasn’t worse than it was, because nobody was in charge that day.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
As usual, it brings a large smile to my face to read clinton ball-swingers accuse others of weakness in their personal lives.[/quote]

It is not possible in your conception of reality for someone who is against Giuliani to be anything but a Clinton supporter?

I have seen some of the world, and it is immensely broad and complex. I see you, and you are extremely narrow and simple-minded. What an interesting fact of nature it is that people like you exist in every part of the world, and that they are generally oblivious to each other’s presence.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Defensive (circa 1990’s) led to 9/11/01.[/quote]

Except that prior to 9/11, the U.S. had tens of thousands of troops stationed overseas, in dozens of countries, and had repeatedly invaded and/or interfered with governments in every part of the world. Iraq was being bombed almost every day while Clinton was in office. Not tough enough for you, though, right?

Just the same as it is doing now, and has been doing since 9/11. In other words, some things have been escalated, but nothing has really “changed”.

Given the above premise, the logical endpoint of your argument for “staying on the offensive” would seem to be perpetual American military occupation of every major territory in the world. Am I wrong in drawing this conclusion? If so, where is my critical mistake? Let’s take the neocon assertion for granted that, “the terrorists will go to every corner of the earth to evade justice, and we must rightly pursue them there.” I don’t see how it would be possible to arrive at anything BUT a perpetual global police state if those premises are used as your starting point. Prove me wrong.

[quote]bradley wrote:
911 was not a result of ‘defensive’ approach, it was a result of Bush and Cheney’s complete incompetence. 20 scrubs with box cutters defeated the world’s most powerful, well-trained and well-equipped military, and that can’t be blamed on anyone but the idiots helming the ship.

It only takes 5 minutes for an ICBM strike to hit the US. George W. Bush sat frozen in a Florida classroom for 7 minutes. We’re damn lucky that 911 wasn’t worse than it was, because nobody was in charge that day.[/quote]

Hello, bradley:

Remember when the 9/11 plot was hatched, the majority of the training was undergone, and when they were recruited?

Was it before or after W. took office?

Thanks,

JeffR

P.S. With clinton’s “family values” it seems he didn’t have time to tend to important matters.

[quote]np wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Defensive (circa 1990’s) led to 9/11/01.

Except that prior to 9/11, the U.S. had tens of thousands of troops stationed overseas, in dozens of countries, and had repeatedly invaded and/or interfered with governments in every part of the world. Iraq was being bombed almost every day while Clinton was in office. Not tough enough for you, though, right?

Just the same as it is doing now, and has been doing since 9/11. In other words, some things have been escalated, but nothing has really “changed”.

Given the above premise, the logical endpoint of your argument for “staying on the offensive” would seem to be perpetual American military occupation of every major territory in the world. Am I wrong in drawing this conclusion? If so, where is my critical mistake? Let’s take the neocon assertion for granted that, “the terrorists will go to every corner of the earth to evade justice, and we must rightly pursue them there.” I don’t see how it would be possible to arrive at anything BUT a perpetual global police state if those premises are used as your starting point. Prove me wrong.[/quote]

Sorry, n.p.,

Going to have to wave off. When I see that Iraq was being bombed nearly every day, I know I won’t be able to impact you in a positive way.

Sorry.

JeffR

[quote]np. wrote:
JeffR wrote:
As usual, it brings a large smile to my face to read clinton ball-swingers accuse others of weakness in their personal lives.

It is not possible in your conception of reality for someone who is against Giuliani to be anything but a Clinton supporter?

I have seen some of the world, and it is immensely broad and complex. I see you, and you are extremely narrow and simple-minded. What an interesting fact of nature it is that people like you exist in every part of the world, and that they are generally oblivious to each other’s presence.[/quote]

n.p.,

I’ve given a quick glance to the reaming you’ve been taking from mick.

It’s apparent your understanding of the real world is embryonic and needs quite a bit of seasoning.

I’ll break it down: For many years democrats were screaming, “It’s his personal life. It’s not relevant.”

I’m just blowing the hypocrites a nice, little kiss.

They need to be reminded of their own words.

Oh, I’ll wave off on this one too, n.p., as Mick has you well in hand.

JeffR

[quote]storey420 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
storey420 wrote:
Why would anyone vote for this guy anyways? I had to sringe when I saw him on the other day and in his speech he said “if there is one thing that this presidential campaign should be about, it’s staying on the offensive against terrorism” Is this really the most important thing we should look at for the leader of our country? Are we that fear based as a society?

Now to some that means invading countries where terrorists are harbored but it doesn’t have to. We have been “on the offensive” for several years now, depending on your definition of that.

Fear based?

Man, you are beyond help.

Of course you want to stay on the offensive.

Defensive (circa 1990’s) led to 9/11/01.

JeffR

What I meant is that it should be a given that we are and have been on the offensive regardless if people like yourself think so or not. Also the definition of offensive is interpretive. I’m assuming that you have neither worked in or read a great deal on clandestine services but if you asked some of those former operators, they might disagree about just how “defensive” their missions were.

Being on the offensive doesn’t have to mean invading countries, although that is one tactic. Of course you are admitting then that by circa 1990’s that the policies of former president Bush contributed to 911.[/quote]

Nah, storey.

The offensive you speak of wasn’t very effective, see 9/11.

Further, see post 9/11. How many attacks on U.S. soil again?

I’m talking about going to the root of the issue and not playing defense.

If you would like to discuss the multitude of intelligence failures and tepid to no response to obvious threats that occurred during the 1992-2000 time period, I’d be happy to discuss it.

Oh, I know a couple of guys who are pissed as hell that they were hamstrung in their efforts during said years.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Going to have to wave off. When I see that Iraq was being bombed nearly every day, I know I won’t be able to impact you in a positive way.

Sorry.
[/quote]
That’s okay, I don’t mind in the least. It only makes you look worse.

[quote]In the aftermath of Operation Desert Fox during December 1998, Iraq announced it would no longer respect the no-fly zones and resumed its efforts in shooting down Allied aircraft. Saddam Hussein offered a $14,000 reward to anyone who could accomplish this task, but no manned aircraft were ever shot down by Iraq. Airstrikes by the British and Americans against Iraqi claimed anti-aircraft and military targets continued weekly over the next few years.

The operation continued until it transitioned to Operation Southern Focus in June of 2002. The United States and its allies carried out military strikes against Iraqi targets after being fired on by Iraqi anti-aircraft installations. The Iraqi government in turn, claimed the NFZ were illegal. The NFZ operations had the effect of reducing Iraqi ability to counter air strikes prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In retaliation for the Iraqi’s now-daily air defense attacks on coalition aircraft, the September attacks included a 5 September 100-aircraft attack on the main air defence site in western Iraq.[/quote]

====

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’ve given a quick glance to the reaming you’ve been taking from mick.

It’s apparent your understanding of the real world is embryonic and needs quite a bit of seasoning.

I’ll break it down: For many years democrats were screaming, “It’s his personal life. It’s not relevant.”

I’m just blowing the hypocrites a nice, little kiss.

They need to be reminded of their own words.

Oh, I’ll wave off on this one too, n.p., as Mick has you well in hand.

JeffR[/quote]

Who the hell are you “reminding”? In my last post, I asked you who the Democrats were, and you just dodged the question. There are no Democrats on this forum, dumbass. The fact that someone disagrees with you/doesn’t like Bush/doesn’t like Rudy/doesn’t support the war does NOT imply that they are left-leaning. There are plenty of conservatives to whom all of the above apply.

Go here:

As conservative as you can get. Read it and stop spouting this idiocy.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
The offensive you speak of wasn’t very effective, see 9/11.[/quote]

That’s a logical fallacy, see circular argument.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Further, see post 9/11. How many attacks on U.S. soil again?[/quote]

I won’t dodge your question the way that you dodge everyone else’s. There have been no attacks on American soil. There have been several attacks on the soil of those nations who participated in the war effort, and even Don Rumsfeld admits that the number of terrorist attacks, worldwide, has increased. By pure luck, we haven’t been hit again (yet). This can hardly be considered a victory.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’m talking about going to the root of the issue and not playing defense.[/quote]

I don’t see you going to the root of any issue. In fact, I see you deliberately avoiding such discussions whenever they are brought up. As far as our foreign policy is concerned, we haven’t had a “national defense” since pre-WWI. It’s been purely offensive since then. And if you consider the pre-9/11 level of offense to be insufficient, then to what level should it be escalated, in your estimation? Are you not advocating perpetual military occupation? Answer the question this time.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
If you would like to discuss the multitude of intelligence failures and tepid to no response to obvious threats that occurred during the 1992-2000 time period, I’d be happy to discuss it.[/quote]

I’d rather hear you try to reconcile the numerous wars and military conflicts started by Democratic admins with your notions of the Dems being a bunch of “peaceniks, sissys, appeasers, etc…” Was Clinton a pussy for bombing Serbia in 1999? Should he have gone ahead and put boots on the ground, as was being considered at the time? Where were you in 1999 and what were you doing? How about Wilson, the ideological grandfather of today’s neocons. Was that guy a pussy, too? These are tough questions and you’re about to ignore them all. Yipeee

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Oh, I know a couple of guys who are pissed as hell that they were hamstrung in their efforts during said years.[/quote]

You don’t know anybody. Name names or piss off.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I laughed one of those rib-splitting, can’t get air, laughs when a clintonite was discussing family values.

Marriage!!!

You have absolutely no shame.[/quote]

Should we talk about marriages? Okay Jeffy, you seem to be an expert on Rudy JulieAnnie. Did Rudy marry his first cousin, or was it his second cousin?

Also, is that technically considered “incest”, or not? I thought you might have some personal expertise that you could draw from, on this issue. Would the specific state of residence make a difference?

I wonder what Rudy’s family reunions are like. Uncomfortable, probably?

You’re absolutely right about 911 though, George W. Bush did a heckuva job keeping America safe on that day.

Oh, wait…