Rudy-2008

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]JeffR wrote:
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.

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

JeffR

[/quote]

It isn’t a matter of being brave from a distance; it’s about knowing what to fear. I’m a hell of a lot more afraid of some cop kicking my door down without a good reason, or some BATFE thug coming for my legal firearms than I am of some jihadi getting to me.

I’m prepared for the jihadis, but I can’t shoot the police even after they’re hauling me off for refusing Real ID. Want an example?

mike

42

[quote]kroby wrote:
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.[/quote]

If fear you’re part of a small minority among Republicans. Elections have become extremely close calls these past years, with small special interest groups becoming important if they can produce large numbers of voters. Just look at how many times Rove has mentioned the importance of the evangelical vote in getting Bush elected and then re-elected.

Pro-abortion and pro-gay rights disqualifies you from any evangelical support; can the Republican candidate win the election without it?

Luckily for the Reps; it seems the Democrats will be running with either a woman, or a black man. Neither of which has a snowball’s chance in Hell of being elected POTUS.

We saw this phenomenon right here in extremely leftist and “liberal” Quebec. One of the main parties elected an openly gay man as party chief; and he would’ve been prime minister in the event his party won the elections. They got creamed. They got the smallest amounts of seats ever for that party during an election. While his homosexuality was no big deal in the larger cities like Montreal, Laval or Quebec, he simply got no votes in the rural regions.

I think that, unfortunately, the same is true for a large part of rural America. They’re not voting a woman or a black man into the Whitehouse.

Well he’s said nothing about how he intends to implements his policies; maybe he’s a misunderstood genius. My feeling about the man is that he’s an opportunistic bastard who’ll ride 9/11 as far as he can.

44

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

It isn’t a matter of being brave from a distance; it’s about knowing what to fear. I’m a hell of a lot more afraid of some cop kicking my door down without a good reason, or some BATFE thug coming for my legal firearms than I am of some jihadi getting to me.

I’m prepared for the jihadis, but I can’t shoot the police even after they’re hauling me off for refusing Real ID. Want an example?

mike

[/quote]

I need to know more details about that story before I can tell if that is a good or bad thing.

If the guy was a punk and a trouble maker I am glad he was disarmed and arrested.

Why did the cops investigate him? Were there complaints? Were the complaints legitimate?

As to your point of personal safety, I do not feel threatened in the slightest by jihadists and completely agree with you on a personal level.

On a larger scale I think it is completely sensible to give the police more latitude to keep an eye on the foreign nationals that come into out country and wish to do harm to it.

The trick is to make sure our true rights are not infringed.

45

[quote]orion wrote:
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

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![/quote]

orion,

Sorry about that. You are quite correct. I’m guilty of lumping you two together. Your posting styles and attitudes are quite similar.

I haven’t come up with a name for you that I like. I thought of the bicycler, or anschluss.

But, I’m not satisfied with those.

I’ll work on it.

Sorry, again.

JeffR

46

[quote]pookie wrote:
kroby wrote:
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.

If fear you’re part of a small minority among Republicans. …[/quote]

He is among the majority. You have a poor understanding of American politics. Not really your fault, you are just seeing it through the lens of the media.

If you want to see a Republican win without the religous right you need look no further than Arnold.

The religous right only wields any power in the primaries and even that is waning. Who are they going to support besides Rudy? A Mormon?

48

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
It isn’t a matter of being brave from a distance; it’s about knowing what to fear. I’m a hell of a lot more afraid of some cop kicking my door down without a good reason, or some BATFE thug coming for my legal firearms than I am of some jihadi getting to me.

I’m prepared for the jihadis, but I can’t shoot the police even after they’re hauling me off for refusing Real ID. Want an example?

mike

[/quote]

Hey, Mike.

I don’t think we’d be friends in real life. Your hostility to police would be a real barrier.

Be that as it may.

I’m not sure you quite understand just how dangerous some of the jihadist weaponry could be.

For instance the dirty nuclear weaponry that I’ve been discussing could have devastating immediate and long term effects. Not to mention that whole areas would have to be shut down to decontaminate (if we could).

The physical, psychological, and financial effects could be catastrophic. As I linked rectently, they could kill 2000 people outright and God only knows how many secondary side effects would occur.

As with all other WMD, it’s a matter of dosage and placement. It’s frightening how easily some of these weapons could be made. Worse there is wide access to some of the materials.

Finally, having only one health center in the U.S. trained for this is downright scary.

In summary, your guns wouldn’t do anything against this sort of attack.

As is repeatedly shown, the jihadists usually attack via stealth.

Hard to shoot every briefcase or box.

JeffR

49

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
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?

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

mike[/quote]

Mike,

Rudy is very hands on. I see him being quite aggressive in defending his agenda.

That’s the great shame of George W. Bush.

Rudy won’t make the same mistake.

I disagree with the dictator bit. However, he’d be hard to push around.

JeffR

50

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
kroby wrote:
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.

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.

That’s a blanket statement. More of a wish on your part. Yea, we all hope that Hillary NEVER becomes President.

BUT…

I can see how she would, and you can’t counter that with any reasonable argument.

So…

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.

Yes, but she did beat a popular state Senator for that seat by the name of Lazio. He was born and raised in NY and was expected to win easily over such a controversial person with such high negative numbers.

Not only did Hillary win in liberal NYC she also won in republican upstate New York. And she won by 12 points! Not what anyone expected.

Do not underestimate this woman’s “star power.” And her ability to organize and say exactly what she has to say in order to win votes.

Please. You give her far too much credit. She will run and she will fall

You don’t give her enough credit. As I stated she can beat candidates like Rudy and Paul. And perhaps a couple of others.

Rudy will not be able to bring the conservatives to the voting booth. They will be staying home. While the left will turn out in high numbers to see Hillary sitting in the oval office.

I’ll make another prediction: Rudy won’t even win his home state of New York. She won by a landslide in NY as Senator. Those people are used to voting for her and will do so again.

She picks up every blue state that Kerry had. And in addition to this the red states will have low voter turnout giving her a few of those too.

Rudy cannot beat her.

Romney, Thompson, McCain…they can all beat her.

But not Rudy.

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.

If she loses to one of the three above I agree. The left would say that the country was not ready for a woman President.

And between you and I, let’s hope that we get to hear them say that.

[/quote]

Hey, Mick.

I appreciate your fear of hillary. However, I welcome the challenge. She MUST be beaten.

At least for me, it has nothing to do with her gender.

She must be defeated to destroy this “mystique” around her.

She will do and say anything to further her own ends.

Once she is beaten, she’ll be finished forever.

I’ll say one thing for dems, when a candidate loses a national election, said person doesn’t get a second chance.

Finally, it’s truly hard to extrapolate what happens in New York to the rest of the country. At last count, they had 3 million more registered dems on their rolls.

I have my suspicions about how Republican the upstate people are.

But, that’s another discussion.

Remember also that Lazio didn’t have enough time to get up to steam. He was a last minute entry.

I’m not underestimating rodham. However, I think you are underestimating the mountain of hatred she inspires.

JeffR

51

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If you want to see a Republican win without the religous right you need look no further than Arnold.

The religous right only wields any power in the primaries and even that is waning. Who are they going to support besides Rudy? A Mormon?
[/quote]

I saw Arnold on “The Hour of Power” before he was elected.

He wrote when young how he didn’t believe in God. He refuted this on that Sunday morning church program. I’m sure it did wonders for his election campaign.

Do you think the religious right will sit home and allow a “godless leftie” take control? You’ve seriously underestimated them. They will pinch their noses to save the country. Then they will proclaim that they won the election for “him” and that he should now listen to them.

Mick28, all we have right now are blanket statements. As things go on, start a Hillary thread. I’d participate and analyze every statement she makes. That would be a lot of fun. Maybe then you’d see the underlying beat of America - and it’s disdain for her.

52

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
He is among the majority. You have a poor understanding of American politics. Not really your fault, you are just seeing it through the lens of the media.[/quote]

That’d be great. There are things where it’s good to be proven wrong, and this is one of them.

That leaves the explanation of how could Bush be elected twice by those “reasonable” republicans? Is the suckiness of the alternative choice enough to explain it?

Ok, good example. He did get elected in California, though, which is not exactly the best representative of “Red America.”

The perceived lesser of two evils, I would think.

53

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
That’s a brash statement.

You are claiming that no matter the opponent neither can win.

I strongly disagree.[/quote]

Here’s another opinion I’d love to see proven wrong.

I still believe that a large portion of America is not ready for a woman president or a black president, and that the proportion is sufficiently large to give the election to the white male opponent, pretty much regardless of his platform, unless he makes a colossal blunder a few days before the vote.

54

[quote]pookie wrote:
That leaves the explanation of how could Bush be elected twice by those “reasonable” republicans? Is the suckiness of the alternative choice enough to explain it?[/quote]

I’ve stated more than once that yes, it was the suckiness of the others that got Bush elected and re-elected.

If Bush had to run on his accomplishments, he’d lose. Big time.

55

[quote]pookie wrote:
I still believe that a large portion of America is not ready for a woman president or a black president, and that the proportion is sufficiently large to give the election to the white male opponent, pretty much regardless of his platform, unless he makes a colossal blunder a few days before the vote.
[/quote]

Sadly, I agree with you, though I know of two individuals I’d vote for, one being black and the other female. Not because of their minority status, but the ideals the represent - through their actions in the past.

I’ve transcended gender or race. I want the best. There will come a day when the rest of the country turns the corner. I have to believe this, for there are too many individuals that can do some real good for the nation that would otherwise… not.

56

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:

Hey, Mike.

I don’t think we’d be friends in real life. Your hostility to police would be a real barrier.

Be that as it may.

I’m not sure you quite understand just how dangerous some of the jihadist weaponry could be.

For instance the dirty nuclear weaponry that I’ve been discussing could have devastating immediate and long term effects. Not to mention that whole areas would have to be shut down to decontaminate (if we could).

The physical, psychological, and financial effects could be catastrophic. As I linked rectently, they could kill 2000 people outright and God only knows how many secondary side effects would occur.

As with all other WMD, it’s a matter of dosage and placement. It’s frightening how easily some of these weapons could be made. Worse there is wide access to some of the materials.

Finally, having only one health center in the U.S. trained for this is downright scary.

In summary, your guns wouldn’t do anything against this sort of attack.

As is repeatedly shown, the jihadists usually attack via stealth.

Hard to shoot every briefcase or box.

JeffR[/quote]

It is too bad that I come off overly hostile to police since on a personal level I have no ill will toward them. I also have a very few friends who are cops. On a professional level on the other hand…It isn’t so much that I don’t like them as it is that I don’t trust them. I have also been harassed multiple times for open carry as I think they see it as an insult that and a lack of trust in their ability to protect me. I don’t really feel that way, I just know that most the time cops show up AFTER the crime as been committed. It isn’t their fault, they just can’t be everywhere.

I didn’t always feel this way about cops. Hell I wanted to be a cop until I got back from Iraq. I don’t see how military men and police can line up idealogically. It’s funny because lots of cops are former military. But I went to Iraq to promote freedom; cops are on the front lines supressing freedom in the name of safety. But as William Pitt said, “Necessity is the creed of tyrants and the plea of slaves.”

Secondly, I am quite aware of the weaponry the jihadis can bring to bear against us. I’m not some wacky libertarian who thinks that we need a soft foreign policy and that one man and his rifle will save the world. It may sound heartless but a couple dozen 9/11’s aren’t worth putting the constitution to rest in order to make me safe.

When I say that I am not afraid of the jihadis I am not saying that I will “shoot every suitcase”. I mean that my home has a couple “oh shit” packs for my fiancee and I. We have gas masks, ammo, chow, water purifiers, ect. It isn’t paranoia, just preparation. As an eagle scout I took the boy scout motto to heart.

I’m just saying that you have to play the odds here. The odds are greater that I will be jailed for refusing to cow down and accept what is universally agreed upon as a constitution that has been all but ignored. I won’t shuffle softly into 1984. I will refuse REAL ID. When it gets to that level I will refuse microchipping my kids the way they do with animals now. I am a man, a sovereign flesh and blood man, not a number. Besides, if the jihadis wanted to kill me so bad, they had a year to do it. Problem is that these guys are LOSERS. We might have several more big terrorist attacks, but they cannot defeat us. Only we can do that to ourselves. I have to die someday. Be it rotting in jail, or by a nuke I will die as a free man, not a soft fat and safe little old slave.

mike

57

[quote]JeffR wrote:
OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
Guliani is a moron. He came across as extremely stupid during the debates.

Guiliani= more of the same Bush bullshit

MORON?

Are you serious?

That is one thing that he most certainly is not.

JeffR
[/quote]

Only a moron could have such a stupid response to Ron Paul’s factual statement regarding terrorism. The fact that he was mayor when 9/11 happened and he STILL doesn’t understand terrorism is just reprehensible. So yeah he is a moron.

58

The whole list is weak. You can forget about Rudy, he’s not going to get the nomination Jeffy.

59

[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
Guliani is a moron. He came across as extremely stupid during the debates.

Guiliani= more of the same Bush bullshit

MORON?

Are you serious?

That is one thing that he most certainly is not.

JeffR

Only a moron could have such a stupid response to Ron Paul’s factual statement regarding terrorism. The fact that he was mayor when 9/11 happened and he STILL doesn’t understand terrorism is just reprehensible. So yeah he is a moron.

[/quote]

I love how he said that he was insulted, “As someone who survived the September 11th attacks.” You know, like he was actually in the twin towers.

mike