Rudy Giuliani - Asshole

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]bradley wrote:
As usual, Jeff can’t respond to the issues and facts, so he lamely lashes out against the person… a sure sign of a losing argument.[/quote]

Hello, bradley (husky voice).

Hey pot, kettle is calling.

REALLY?!? Ok, I have to admit to more joy when reading this.

However, I must temper my enjoyment with the near certainty that when I smack you around, again, you won’t read it.

So, I’m torn. Do I post some of the 1992 and 1996 and beyond bill clinton “national security” campaign slogans and win, again.

Or, do I just laugh at you.

Tell you what, I’ll meet you half way. If you prove to me that you are reading this I’ll smack you around a little.

Therefore, let’s remove any wiggle room.

Answer these questions directly.

  1. Did the various bill clinton campaigns stress that he would be and has been strong on national defense?

  2. Did bill clinton seek to reassure the public that he wasn’t a total wimp?

  3. If he did either of the first two, would you admit that you were wrong?

Answer all three, and I’ll be happy to refute you.

Seriously, bradley. Even you MUST have a hard time typing this.

Your hypocrisy makes me so pleased.

Oh, everyone raise their hand if they believe that rodham would be tougher on crime, terrorrism, and immigration than Rudy?

No one? Anyone? bradley?

[quote]That’s why Rudy is going to have a problem.

It’s kind of like Mitt Romney talking about being a “life-long hunter” even though he’s never had a hunting license… it’s the kind of bullshit that won’t stand up to five seconds of intelligent scrutiny.

But you keep blindly lapping it up, Jeffy. It’s a real hoot.[/quote]

bradley, you bring me joy. Please answer the above questions.

You are the gift that keeps on giving,

JeffR

22

Jeffy, you’re ducking the issues. This isn’t about Bill Clinton. But if you want to dig up some campaign material where he described himself as a national security expert, be my guest.

In fact I challenge you to do it.

Second, this isn’t a comparison of Rudy and Hillary. But again, the point is that Hillary does not base her campaign around some imaginary national security credentials, like Rudy does.

Like Mitt “The Hunter” Romney, the issue here is credibility. Five seconds of intelligent analysis will shoot holes in Rudy’s alleged security credentials.

I can see this topic strikes a raw nerve, by your histrionic responses.

Poor Jeffy…!

Now go ahead and try to change the subject again, Jeffy… anything to avoid talking about Rudy, I guess.

23

[quote]bradley wrote:
Jeffy, you’re ducking the issues. This isn’t about Bill Clinton. But if you want to dig up some campaign material where he described himself as a national security expert, be my guest.

In fact I challenge you to do it.

Second, this isn’t a comparison of Rudy and Hillary. But again, the point is that Hillary does not base her campaign around some imaginary national security credentials, like Rudy does.

Like Mitt “The Hunter” Romney, the issue here is credibility. Five seconds of intelligent analysis will shoot holes in Rudy’s alleged security credentials.

I can see this topic strikes a raw nerve, by your histrionic responses.

Poor Jeffy…!

Now go ahead and try to change the subject again, Jeffy… anything to avoid talking about Rudy, I guess.[/quote]

Hello, bradley.

You left out the key sentence: “Yes, Jeffy, I’ll admit my error if you can show that billy boy did indeed run on his National Security credentials.”

Without that key sentence, I’m not going to wade through billy’s “I’m a modern day jfk” clinton’s crap.

Thanks, in advance,

JeffR

P.S. Rudy yesterday: I love it!!!

24

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Jeffy, you’re ducking the issues. This isn’t about Bill Clinton.
[/quote]

Indeed. Jeff, can you defend your man Rudy on any of these grounds:

  1. As pro-gay as you can be.

  2. Didn’t just cheat on his wife, and have his first marriage annulled, but paraded his mistress around town. Rudy didn’t even attend his own son’s college graduation a couple months ago. That the kind of person you want as our President? An out and out bastard?

  3. Supported PUBLIC FUNDING of abortions.

  4. Against gun rights.

  5. Bernie Kerik and the mob.

Don’t slam Bill Clinton, who hasn’t been in the White House in six years, or his wife, or any Democrats, just try to defend Rudy. Any time now.

25

[quote]JeffR wrote:
gDollars37 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
mick28 wrote:

Hey Jeff, do you believe independents exist, or does everyone fall into one of two camps, and cheerlead for their team, right or wrong? Just curious, do you believe in independent voters, or does everyone have to fall into one of two easy boxes for you? Saves you a lot of thinking, doesn’t it?

And I’ll happily vote for almost any of the Republicans (especially McCain, Huckabee, and Hagel) against any potential Democratic nominee. But if it’s Giuliani or Romney, I’ll be voting Libertarian.

Hey, gdol,

I believe there are independent voters. Independent voters split the vote between differing parties. They vote the person and their particular ideas. They take the time to investigate the merits of each candidate.

They never vote straight democrat in “protest.”
[/quote]

Far more distinguished conservatives than the internet’s “JeffR” thought the GOP deserved to be tossed out of power for how corrupt and incompetent it was. Joe Scarborough, Andrew Sullivan, Bruce Bartlett, probably Will and Buckley at heart…

I sincerely doubt it, because Christian conservatives are going to wake up to the fact that this guy is as bad as the Democrats on their issues.

Yup, because he’s pro-choice and because he’d make Bush’s abuse of power look like kid’s stuff.

“My way”? What do you know about my way? I honestly can’t decide whether you’re just incredibly obtuse or whether you think you’re somehow unmasking closet America-hating Democrats on the internet and saving the country. It’s got to be one or the other, idiocy or delusion. Why would I lie about my politics on a BODYBUILDING FORUM?

To save myself the time, my views mostly fit under this description, from Dallas Morning News columnist Rod Dreher:

I am not a Democrat because I am a religious and social conservative, a Catholic, and the things that are most important to me are the things that the Democratic Party despises my kind for.

Broadly speaking, I’m most concerned about sanctity of life issues (from abortion to biotechnology), as well as various things that I consider a threat to the traditional family (gay marriage, certain economic policies, etc.). I believe, with Russell Kirk, that the family is the institution most necessary to conserve.

And I don’t believe that religious faith is something to be driven out of the public square, as the Democratic Party leadership class seems to. People like me can get a hearing in the GOP. The Dems think we’re the enemy (really, you can check it out).

That said, I am a traditionalist conservative, which is necessarily going to put me at odds with the mainstream of the Republican Party. I don’t share the mainline GOP’s reflexive fear and loathing of environmentalists and their concerns.

I’m a Hobbit-con; I am disturbed by Saruman’s hiring Jack Abramoff to buy off Republicans so that he could turn the shire into Mordor-mart. I also do not share mainline GOPdom’s exaltation of commerce; I’m a Chesterbelloc-con, and put my trust in small business owners, family farmers, and artisans.

And in any case, big business, like big government, is a thing to be viewed with suspicion, because any time you give that much power to human beings, especially those so abstracted from the lives of real people, there is danger.

And on Iraq, I have this quaint, old-fashioned belief that if we are to send young men and women away from their families to kill and maybe even to die, it should be done with utmost deliberation and care. That is not the view of the Bush administration and its Defense Secretary, wedded to his abstractions.

I’d add that I used to trust the Republicans to protect us far more than the Democrats, but this administration’s complete incompetence has made that nearly a wash.

I think that’s the last attempt I’ll make at getting through to your fevered brain, Jeffrey.

26

Lets recap, shall we? Rudy is running on phony, fake-ass, national security “credentials” which are completely fictional, as fake as a Mitt Romney hunting license. Rudy has no security credentials and has made major security fuckups which I already outlined.

But Jeffy (who has severe Clinton Derangement Syndrome) said President Clinton also ran on his national security credentials. But he can’t provide any proof.

Jeffy can’t back up his own bullshit. I challenged you to back up your statements, and you backed down with excuses. So lame, Jeffy!

Jeffy likes Rudy because Rudy talks tough, and phony tough talkers like Rudy make Jeffy all gooey in his pants. If Jeffy is an indication, Rudy has the Chickenhawk vote locked up tight!

How exciting.

27

[quote]bradley wrote:
Lets recap, shall we? Rudy is running on phony, fake-ass, national security “credentials” which are completely fictional, as fake as a Mitt Romney hunting license. Rudy has no security credentials and has made major security fuckups which I already outlined.

But Jeffy (who has severe Clinton Derangement Syndrome) said President Clinton also ran on his national security credentials. But he can’t provide any proof.

Jeffy can’t back up his own bullshit. I challenged you to back up your statements, and you backed down with excuses. So lame, Jeffy!

Jeffy likes Rudy because Rudy talks tough, and phony tough talkers like Rudy make Jeffy all gooey in his pants. If Jeffy is an indication, Rudy has the Chickenhawk vote locked up tight!

How exciting. [/quote]

Hello, bradley.

This is the last time I’m going to ask. Will you admit error if I prove that clinton highlighted his national security “credentials” during the campaigns?

If you duck it again, the answer is obvious: You cannot admit error.

Is that clear enough?

JeffR

28

[quote]gdol wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Jeffy, you’re ducking the issues. This isn’t about Bill Clinton.

Indeed. Jeff, can you defend your man Rudy on any of these grounds:[/quote]

Hey, gdol. I wanted to tell you in advance that I appreciate you asking what I thought about these issues. I’m tired of nitwits assuming things.

Let’s begin.

Let’s discuss what he has said about this in the past. I’ll have to look it up as I think my understanding of his position is incomplete.

If he’s for non-discrimination, I agree 100%.

You may or may not believe this. This will probably fly in the face of the cartoon caricature that nitwits use to avoid thinking.

His personal life (short of crime) doesn’t mean that much to me.

I want a BASTARD as President. I’m tired of George sitting there taking the abuse from the bad guys. I want a guy who comes on all the talk shoes and aggressively defends his positions.

As I’ve said before, the great failure of George Bush is not his strategic or tactical decisions, it’s his inability or unwillingness to prosecute the War of public opinion.

The current democrats are as WEAK and disorganized as any President could realistically hope for.

Yet, George isn’t engaging them with 1/100,000 the vigour that he needs.

TO ALLOW THAT TOAD, harry reid, TO ANNOUNCE THE WAR IS LOST AND NOT pillory him up and down, day after day until he is forced to step down, is inexcusable.

I would be on that guy like stink on shit.

I disagree with this one.

Please flesh this out. I’ll look it up as well. I don’t think my understanding is complete on this issue either.

As I’ve indicated, I’m not totally against a limited form of gun control if it’s done in an forthright, transparent, and thoughtful manner.

Yes, I read bradley’s flailing on the subject. If Rudy broke some laws, I’d be concerned. Do you have some credible (aka not bradley) information on this?

billy boy is brought up to highlight bradley’s hypocrisy. For him to attack someone’s character or draft status is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy.

It beautifully illustrates that bradley and his ilk put party before priniciple.

JeffR

29

[quote]gdol wrote:
JeffR wrote:
gDollars37 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
mick28 wrote:

Hey Jeff, do you believe independents exist, or does everyone fall into one of two camps, and cheerlead for their team, right or wrong? Just curious, do you believe in independent voters, or does everyone have to fall into one of two easy boxes for you? Saves you a lot of thinking, doesn’t it?

And I’ll happily vote for almost any of the Republicans (especially McCain, Huckabee, and Hagel) against any potential Democratic nominee. But if it’s Giuliani or Romney, I’ll be voting Libertarian.

Hey, gdol,

I believe there are independent voters. Independent voters split the vote between differing parties. They vote the person and their particular ideas. They take the time to investigate the merits of each candidate.

They never vote straight democrat in “protest.”

Far more distinguished conservatives than the internet’s “JeffR” thought the GOP deserved to be tossed out of power for how corrupt and incompetent it was. Joe Scarborough, Andrew Sullivan, Bruce Bartlett, probably Will and Buckley at heart…

I like your preemptive strike against the Republican nominee. It will be Rudy.

I sincerely doubt it, because Christian conservatives are going to wake up to the fact that this guy is as bad as the Democrats on their issues.

You’ve already removed him from consideration.

Yup, because he’s pro-choice and because he’d make Bush’s abuse of power look like kid’s stuff.

Hey, it beats thinking.

Oh, an independent would take a look at Rudy as he has many viewpoints that aren’t straight party line.

You won’t. You’ll vote for rodham.

It’s your way.

JeffR

“My way”? What do you know about my way? I honestly can’t decide whether you’re just incredibly obtuse or whether you think you’re somehow unmasking closet America-hating Democrats on the internet and saving the country. It’s got to be one or the other, idiocy or delusion. Why would I lie about my politics on a BODYBUILDING FORUM?

To save myself the time, my views mostly fit under this description, from Dallas Morning News columnist Rod Dreher:

I am not a Democrat because I am a religious and social conservative, a Catholic, and the things that are most important to me are the things that the Democratic Party despises my kind for.

Broadly speaking, I’m most concerned about sanctity of life issues (from abortion to biotechnology), as well as various things that I consider a threat to the traditional family (gay marriage, certain economic policies, etc.). I believe, with Russell Kirk, that the family is the institution most necessary to conserve.

And I don’t believe that religious faith is something to be driven out of the public square, as the Democratic Party leadership class seems to. People like me can get a hearing in the GOP. The Dems think we’re the enemy (really, you can check it out).

That said, I am a traditionalist conservative, which is necessarily going to put me at odds with the mainstream of the Republican Party. I don’t share the mainline GOP’s reflexive fear and loathing of environmentalists and their concerns.

I’m a Hobbit-con; I am disturbed by Saruman’s hiring Jack Abramoff to buy off Republicans so that he could turn the shire into Mordor-mart. I also do not share mainline GOPdom’s exaltation of commerce; I’m a Chesterbelloc-con, and put my trust in small business owners, family farmers, and artisans.

And in any case, big business, like big government, is a thing to be viewed with suspicion, because any time you give that much power to human beings, especially those so abstracted from the lives of real people, there is danger.

And on Iraq, I have this quaint, old-fashioned belief that if we are to send young men and women away from their families to kill and maybe even to die, it should be done with utmost deliberation and care. That is not the view of the Bush administration and its Defense Secretary, wedded to his abstractions.

I’d add that I used to trust the Republicans to protect us far more than the Democrats, but this administration’s complete incompetence has made that nearly a wash.

I think that’s the last attempt I’ll make at getting through to your fevered brain, Jeffrey.[/quote]

Hey, gdol.

Thanks for that (mostly) thoughtful reply.

The problem, as I’ve been pointing out, is that you’d be hard pressed to find a significant number of Conservatives who responded the way you did: voted straight democratic in 2006.

To vote for one party to the exclusion of all else, puts the lie to your “independent” claim.

It indicates that you didn’t look at individuals. You cast an entire party with a broad, unthinking brush.

Now, what would you call your actions in the voting booth?

Thoughtful? Reasoned? Informed? Independent?

JeffR

30

Okay, Jeff. You show me the evidence that Bill Clinton also campaigned for president as a national security expert, and I’ll “admit error”.

I’m moving so I may be offline for a couple of days.

I can’t wait to see what you’ll come up with next.

Bawk.

31

[quote]JeffR wrote:
clinton highlighted his national security “credentials” during the campaigns?
[/quote]

“Highlighting” is not enogh, Jeffy.

You have to show that Clinton claimed his security credentials are superior to the other candidates. And you have to show that Clinton made his security credentials a central issue in his campaign. Just like Rudy.

Don’t try to weasel out on me, Jeffy.

32

[quote]bradley wrote:
JeffR wrote:
clinton highlighted his national security “credentials” during the campaigns?

“Highlighting” is not enogh, Jeffy.

You have to show that Clinton claimed his security credentials are superior to the other candidates. And you have to show that Clinton made his security credentials a central issue in his campaign. Just like Rudy.

Don’t try to weasel out on me, Jeffy.

[/quote]

Hello, bradley.

I hope your move upstairs goes well.

Here is billy boy discussing the “triumphs” of his First Administration. Notice him taking credit for peace.

Debate 1 with Bob Dole:

www.debates.org/pages/trans96a.html

"But I believe the evidence is that our deployments have been successful, in Haiti, in Bosnia, when we moved to Kuwait to repel Saddam Hussein’s threatened invasion of Kuwait. When I have sent the fleet into the Taiwan straits. When we’ve worked hard to end the Northern Korean nuclear threat.

I believe the United States is at peace tonight in part because of the disciplined, careful, effective deployment of our military resources."

I’m going to keep adding things over the next few days.

I’ll make sure you can’t worm your way out.

I will anticipate you trying to redefine national security.

So, I’ll nip that in the bud by dealing with domestic security and how billy boy bragged at his accomplishments.

Here is billy saying that if you vote for Dole, you won’t be getting the benefit of “his” Brady Bill:

“I want to talk about your responsibility, and your responsibility. Your responsibility is to show up on November the 5th. Because you’re going to decide whether we’re going to balance the budget now, but protect Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment. You will decide whether we’re going to keep fighting crime with a Brady Bill, assault weapons and finish putting those 100,000 police.”

www.debates.org/pages/trans96b.html

Vote for me (billy) and you fight crime. Vote for Dole, and you don’t.

Let me know if these two examples suffice. I wanted these quotes to be easily accessible and well known.

There are plenty more campaign speeches from 1992 and 1996 to choose from.

JeffR

33

[quote]JeffR wrote:
bradley wrote:
JeffR wrote:
clinton highlighted his national security “credentials” during the campaigns?

“Highlighting” is not enogh, Jeffy.

You have to show that Clinton claimed his security credentials are superior to the other candidates. And you have to show that Clinton made his security credentials a central issue in his campaign. Just like Rudy.

Don’t try to weasel out on me, Jeffy.

Hello, bradley.

I hope your move upstairs goes well.

Here is billy boy discussing the “triumphs” of his First Administration. Notice him taking credit for peace.

Debate 1 with Bob Dole:

www.debates.org/pages/trans96a.html

"But I believe the evidence is that our deployments have been successful, in Haiti, in Bosnia, when we moved to Kuwait to repel Saddam Hussein’s threatened invasion of Kuwait. When I have sent the fleet into the Taiwan straits. When we’ve worked hard to end the Northern Korean nuclear threat.

I believe the United States is at peace tonight in part because of the disciplined, careful, effective deployment of our military resources."

I’m going to keep adding things over the next few days.

I’ll make sure you can’t worm your way out.

I will anticipate you trying to redefine national security.

So, I’ll nip that in the bud by dealing with domestic security and how billy boy bragged at his accomplishments.

Here is billy saying that if you vote for Dole, you won’t be getting the benefit of “his” Brady Bill:

“I want to talk about your responsibility, and your responsibility. Your responsibility is to show up on November the 5th. Because you’re going to decide whether we’re going to balance the budget now, but protect Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment. You will decide whether we’re going to keep fighting crime with a Brady Bill, assault weapons and finish putting those 100,000 police.”

www.debates.org/pages/trans96b.html

Vote for me (billy) and you fight crime. Vote for Dole, and you don’t.

Let me know if these two examples suffice. I wanted these quotes to be easily accessible and well known.

There are plenty more campaign speeches from 1992 and 1996 to choose from.

JeffR

JeffR,
It’s obvious by your defense of Little Boy Bush that you are totally a man that has no life, no woman, no anything. You really need to go out, get yourself a hooker, like the others in D.C., and stay offline for awhile. You are a useless basher, and have WAY too much time on your hands. Get off the keyboard, and get in the gym, or at least a massaga parlor. Punk.

34

[quote]micromuscle wrote:
JeffR wrote:
bradley wrote:
JeffR wrote:
clinton highlighted his national security “credentials” during the campaigns?

“Highlighting” is not enogh, Jeffy.

You have to show that Clinton claimed his security credentials are superior to the other candidates. And you have to show that Clinton made his security credentials a central issue in his campaign. Just like Rudy.

Don’t try to weasel out on me, Jeffy.

Hello, bradley.

I hope your move upstairs goes well.

Here is billy boy discussing the “triumphs” of his First Administration. Notice him taking credit for peace.

Debate 1 with Bob Dole:

www.debates.org/pages/trans96a.html

"But I believe the evidence is that our deployments have been successful, in Haiti, in Bosnia, when we moved to Kuwait to repel Saddam Hussein’s threatened invasion of Kuwait. When I have sent the fleet into the Taiwan straits. When we’ve worked hard to end the Northern Korean nuclear threat.

I believe the United States is at peace tonight in part because of the disciplined, careful, effective deployment of our military resources."

I’m going to keep adding things over the next few days.

I’ll make sure you can’t worm your way out.

I will anticipate you trying to redefine national security.

So, I’ll nip that in the bud by dealing with domestic security and how billy boy bragged at his accomplishments.

Here is billy saying that if you vote for Dole, you won’t be getting the benefit of “his” Brady Bill:

“I want to talk about your responsibility, and your responsibility. Your responsibility is to show up on November the 5th. Because you’re going to decide whether we’re going to balance the budget now, but protect Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment. You will decide whether we’re going to keep fighting crime with a Brady Bill, assault weapons and finish putting those 100,000 police.”

www.debates.org/pages/trans96b.html

Vote for me (billy) and you fight crime. Vote for Dole, and you don’t.

Let me know if these two examples suffice. I wanted these quotes to be easily accessible and well known.

There are plenty more campaign speeches from 1992 and 1996 to choose from.

JeffR

JeffR,
It’s obvious by your defense of Little Boy Bush that you are totally a man that has no life, no woman, no anything. You really need to go out, get yourself a hooker, like the others in D.C., and stay offline for awhile. You are a useless basher, and have WAY too much time on your hands. Get off the keyboard, and get in the gym, or at least a massaga parlor. Punk. [/quote]

Hello, micro.

Thanks for the kind post.

It made me smile. It would be quite amusing to see the look on your face if we met.

Needless to say, everything you wrote was false.

However, I’d like you to keep posting.

You make your side look horrible and drive moderates away.

Keep it up.

JeffR

35

A catholic huh… You don’t like Guiliani because he is pro-abortion. You have no right to tell a female, or a couple, whether they should abort a fetus! Your mom should’ve had an abortion, maybe we wouldn’t have to read your rants.

36

[quote]micro wrote:
A catholic huh… You don’t like Guiliani because he is pro-abortion. You have no right to tell a female, or a couple, whether they should abort a fetus! Your mom should’ve had an abortion, maybe we wouldn’t have to read your rants. [/quote]

Hey, micro:

Since you are new, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

You must be confusing me with someone else.

I’m pro-choice and am very glad I never had to make a choice. I’m not sure what I would have done. Second, I’m for non-discrimination of gays.

Third, your abortion comment was out of line.

Fourth, where did you get “catholic?”

This month I worship Hadad. He’s the God of storms. He is the Lord of the sky and his particular interest is the germination of plants.

Here’s a link: Hadad - Wikipedia

JeffR

37

[quote]JeffR wrote:
gdol wrote:
JeffR wrote:
gDollars37 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
mick28 wrote:

Hey Jeff, do you believe independents exist, or does everyone fall into one of two camps, and cheerlead for their team, right or wrong? Just curious, do you believe in independent voters, or does everyone have to fall into one of two easy boxes for you? Saves you a lot of thinking, doesn’t it?

And I’ll happily vote for almost any of the Republicans (especially McCain, Huckabee, and Hagel) against any potential Democratic nominee. But if it’s Giuliani or Romney, I’ll be voting Libertarian.

Hey, gdol,

I believe there are independent voters. Independent voters split the vote between differing parties. They vote the person and their particular ideas. They take the time to investigate the merits of each candidate.

They never vote straight democrat in “protest.”

Far more distinguished conservatives than the internet’s “JeffR” thought the GOP deserved to be tossed out of power for how corrupt and incompetent it was. Joe Scarborough, Andrew Sullivan, Bruce Bartlett, probably Will and Buckley at heart…

I like your preemptive strike against the Republican nominee. It will be Rudy.

I sincerely doubt it, because Christian conservatives are going to wake up to the fact that this guy is as bad as the Democrats on their issues.

You’ve already removed him from consideration.

Yup, because he’s pro-choice and because he’d make Bush’s abuse of power look like kid’s stuff.

Hey, it beats thinking.

Oh, an independent would take a look at Rudy as he has many viewpoints that aren’t straight party line.

You won’t. You’ll vote for rodham.

It’s your way.

JeffR

“My way”? What do you know about my way? I honestly can’t decide whether you’re just incredibly obtuse or whether you think you’re somehow unmasking closet America-hating Democrats on the internet and saving the country. It’s got to be one or the other, idiocy or delusion. Why would I lie about my politics on a BODYBUILDING FORUM?

To save myself the time, my views mostly fit under this description, from Dallas Morning News columnist Rod Dreher:

I am not a Democrat because I am a religious and social conservative, a Catholic, and the things that are most important to me are the things that the Democratic Party despises my kind for.

Broadly speaking, I’m most concerned about sanctity of life issues (from abortion to biotechnology), as well as various things that I consider a threat to the traditional family (gay marriage, certain economic policies, etc.). I believe, with Russell Kirk, that the family is the institution most necessary to conserve.

And I don’t believe that religious faith is something to be driven out of the public square, as the Democratic Party leadership class seems to. People like me can get a hearing in the GOP. The Dems think we’re the enemy (really, you can check it out).

That said, I am a traditionalist conservative, which is necessarily going to put me at odds with the mainstream of the Republican Party. I don’t share the mainline GOP’s reflexive fear and loathing of environmentalists and their concerns.

I’m a Hobbit-con; I am disturbed by Saruman’s hiring Jack Abramoff to buy off Republicans so that he could turn the shire into Mordor-mart. I also do not share mainline GOPdom’s exaltation of commerce; I’m a Chesterbelloc-con, and put my trust in small business owners, family farmers, and artisans.

And in any case, big business, like big government, is a thing to be viewed with suspicion, because any time you give that much power to human beings, especially those so abstracted from the lives of real people, there is danger.

And on Iraq, I have this quaint, old-fashioned belief that if we are to send young men and women away from their families to kill and maybe even to die, it should be done with utmost deliberation and care. That is not the view of the Bush administration and its Defense Secretary, wedded to his abstractions.

I’d add that I used to trust the Republicans to protect us far more than the Democrats, but this administration’s complete incompetence has made that nearly a wash.

I think that’s the last attempt I’ll make at getting through to your fevered brain, Jeffrey.

Hey, gdol.

Thanks for that (mostly) thoughtful reply.

The problem, as I’ve been pointing out, is that you’d be hard pressed to find a significant number of Conservatives who responded the way you did: voted straight democratic in 2006.

To vote for one party to the exclusion of all else, puts the lie to your “independent” claim.

It indicates that you didn’t look at individuals. You cast an entire party with a broad, unthinking brush.

Now, what would you call your actions in the voting booth?

Thoughtful? Reasoned? Informed? Independent?

JeffR

[/quote]

I’d call it the reaction of a conservative spurned by his party. I would have made an exception for my senator, John Sununu, whose campaign I once worked for and who has been one of the most principled conservatives on the Hill. But I think the Republican party deserved a wake up call, after their tremendous mismanagement of damn near everything, and especially the way Congress was supine in the face of Bush’s breathtaking incompetence.

I know plenty of Republicans who did just what I did, including a Vietnam vet whose son is a Marine in Iraq now, and a political consultant who works for the GOP the vast majority of the time. What’s curious is why you felt like rewarding the GOP at the polls was the best way to curb its descent into corruption and incompetence.

38

[quote]micromuscle wrote:
A catholic huh… You don’t like Guiliani because he is pro-abortion. You have no right to tell a female, or a couple, whether they should abort a fetus! Your mom should’ve had an abortion, maybe we wouldn’t have to read your rants. [/quote]

That’s me, though I’m a Protestant, not a Catholic. I’m sorry, I just have this little thing about killing babies in the womb. Rudy doesn’t, and was even in favor of partial birth abortion (infanticide) during his 2000 Senate race against Hillary. Clever retort though.

39

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey, micro:

Since you are new, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

You must be confusing me with someone else.

I’m pro-choice and am very glad I never had to make a choice. I’m not sure what I would have done. Second, I’m for non-discrimination of gays.

Third, your abortion comment was out of line.

Fourth, where did you get “catholic?”

This month I worship Hadad. He’s the God of storms. He is the Lord of the sky and his particular interest is the germination of plants.

Here’s a link: Hadad - Wikipedia

JeffR

[/quote]

What happened to ALL HAIL SET!!!?

40

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hey, micro:

Since you are new, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

You must be confusing me with someone else.

I’m pro-choice and am very glad I never had to make a choice. I’m not sure what I would have done. Second, I’m for non-discrimination of gays.

Third, your abortion comment was out of line.

Fourth, where did you get “catholic?”

This month I worship Hadad. He’s the God of storms. He is the Lord of the sky and his particular interest is the germination of plants.

Here’s a link: Hadad - Wikipedia

JeffR

What happened to ALL HAIL SET!!!?[/quote]

I was misguided. Call me a born again Hadadad.

JeffR