Rudy, Very Bad Week

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]SouthernBrew wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Hey, brew,

Who do you favor and why?

Thanks in advance,

JeffR

That is a good question and I am not sure what the answer is…

I am a libertarian however no libertarian has much of a shot of winning…I will still probably vote for one simply because I don’t believe voting based on who you think will win is constructive.

Rudy- I think we already know why I would not vote for him, if he would quit lying and changing his positions as well as stop running on things he has no business running on…but he would never do that.

Romney- Changes positions as much as Rudy does, supports invasion of civil liberties with domestic surveillance, wants to double the size of Guantanamo and prevent them from seeing lawyers…not to mention he treats his dogs like shit.

McCain- Pro-Illegal immigration and pro-amnesty…the farthest “left” republican candidate on immigration followed by Rudy. Anti-Gun…Pro-Abstinence only education…anti-birth control…wants to get even more hawkish on drugs which I believe should be legal to consenting adults.

Clinton- First she comes off as bad to me as Rudy, both seem to me to be lying pricks who will say whatever it takes to become president…She wants more restrictions on the economic market(despite the fact most of the problems are caused by government interference)She refuses to look at Israel from an objective standpoint and falls into the category that 99% of Americans fall into, which is blind support for a foreign nation. If you wish to support Israel, fine…but don’t do so blindly and ignore the fact that they are “playing” us for our support and we are just blindly giving it to them. She is also another who supports “amnesty” for illegals, is extremely hawkish and believes that we need to prevent Iran from going nuclear because they would be a threat to Israel(alarm bells going off anyone? We are now doing security work for a foreign country that has proven it can protect itself?)…wants to make flag burning illegal, is for gun control…in short I really do not like Hillary

Edwards- Pro illegal immigration, was a scummy ambulance chaser who got rich off tragedy and then has the nerve to act like he is still “one of the people” despite his obvious wealth and life of luxury

Obama- Pro gun control, pro illegal immigrant, another blind Israeli ally…I don’t agree with most of his positions but at the same time he tends to stand out from the crowd since he seems to be honest and actually seems to believe what he is saying.

In short, I don’t know who I will vote for but I DO know who I will NOT vote for.[/quote]

Easy answer for you: Ron Paul.

42

[quote]JeffR wrote:
SouthernBrew wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Hey, pal, would you make sure to use the quote function? I may have missed some of the comments you made.

My apologies, I forgot to add one end-quote which rendered my post gibberish

JeffR wrote:
Now, let’s cut to the quick about the main grievance: Do you think Rudy is ignorant or callous to the point where he decided to dishonor the dead and damn the consequences?

I think Rudy made a calculated decision to place the importance of a speedy cleanup over the importance of recovering the human remains…

It had nothing to do with safety, that much is obvious…if it wasn’t safety why else did he do it but to speed up the cleaning process?

JeffR wrote:
Seriously. If the man has .00000001 of a politician in him and .00000001 of a heart, then he has got to know that the WTC cleanup would be a charged atmosphere.

You could say the same thing about everything Bush/Cheney have done…but they certainly are politicians.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy(blame some jackass from another post who accused me of this fallacy for reminding me of it..he was wrong)

JeffR wrote:
Just in case you think that the union leadership of the IAFF are the only voice, here’s Lee Ielpi FDNY, Retired.

His son Jonathon was killed in the WTC attacks.

from: Best Mother’s Day Gifts 2021 | 31 Unique Mother’s Day Gift Ideas | Observer

To America’s Firefighters: No American will ever forget the terrorist attacks of September 11th. As a firefighter, I know the courage and sacrifice the firefighters and first responders showed that day to rescue our friends and loved ones. I also greatly respect the leadership by our public officials. One of those people was Mayor Rudy Giuliani. There is no one who respects firefighters and first responders more than Rudy Giuliani. That’s why I was deeply disappointed and disheartened to learn of the recent partisan political activities by the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF). Those of us who have worked with him know that Rudy Giuliani has always been a steadfast and unrelenting supporter of firefighters and first responders. The IAFF’s accusations in its “draft letter,” which made its way into the hands of the media, flies in the face of the facts. It is offensive and inaccurate. Firefighters have no greater friend and supporter than Rudy Giuliani and I am proud to join thousands of firefighters across the country in supporting him. Sincerely,

Lee Ielpi FDNY, Retired

Note the word he used about the leadership: PARTISAN.

So the union of 280,000 firefighters is partisan but this guy is not?

Here is a mother of a fallen firefighter,to prove this guy does not speak for all of them(or most of them)

In December 2006, Sally Regenhard, mother of firefighter Christian Regenhard who died on September 11, and co-founder of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, vowed to expose the truths of Giuliani’s actions on 9/11 before 2008, stating, “I can’t see why any 9/11 family member who knows the truth about the failures of the Giuliani administration . . . would not be outraged.”[82] She said in April 2007, “The bitter truth is that Rudy Giuliani is building a path to the White House over the bodies of 343 firefighters.”[81]

JeffR wrote:
If you believe that Rudy was purposefully trying to anger the firefighters or desecrate the graves, then why don’t we stop talking?

If you believe the above, then you have an axe to grind and are not open to another viewpoint.

In that case vote for ron paul, hillary, or whatever other freak turns you on.

I think Guiliani made a decision to speed up the process and placed more importance on speed than safety or respect for the fallen.

JeffR wrote:
I’ll stick with the guy who is dedicated to destroying the terrorists, securing the border, and fighting crime.

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/index.php?section=2

JeffR

Destroying the terrorists? By not reading the 9/11 commission report(or simply not understanding a damn thing it said), by dropping off the Iraqi Study Group so he could make money in speaking engagements?

By placing the cities emergency command center in a known terrorist target sitting on “pool of diesel fuel”?

By regularly refusing requests by emergency workers for funding for replacement radios known to be defective?

By claiming he knew the 93’ WTC attacks were the first of many attacks when he did not even ask candidates for his police chief about terrorism?

By not knowing who Osama Bin Laden was despite “knowing they would attack again” and having to ask for a book to read up on the terrorist who he claimed to know would attack again?

Securing the Border? This is just one more change of position…Before he began running for President he fought to prevent educational and health benefits for illegals from being curtailed…

Michelle Malkin–
“When Congress enacted immigration reform laws that forbade local governments from barring employees from cooperating with the INS, Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed suit against the feds in 1997. He was rebuffed by two lower courts, which ruled that the sanctuary order amounted to special treatment for illegal aliens and were nothing more than an unlawful effort to flaunt federal enforcement efforts against illegal aliens. In January 2000, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, but Giuliani vowed to ignore the law.”

Rudy- “Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens. If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair.”

He is anti-deportation for illegals currently living here, pro"path to citizenship" etc…

In short, Rudy is pro-illegal, anti-gun, anti free speech etc…which is only made worse since he has repeatedly changed his opinions on these issues based on what job he is running for and who he is talking to…

Hey, brew,

Who do you favor and why?

Thanks in advance,

JeffR
[/quote]

Ah, the old JeffR diversion: instead of answering substantive and damning evidence against his guy, he wants to know who you plan to vote for. Because that magically invalidates whatever you have to say, regardless of how intelligent it may be.

43

[quote]gDollars37 wrote:

Ah, the old JeffR diversion: instead of answering substantive and damning evidence against his guy, he wants to know who you plan to vote for. Because that magically invalidates whatever you have to say, regardless of how intelligent it may be.[/quote]

Hey, gdol,

I gave this some thought. I think it’s fair to say that I NEVER dodge anything.

I think I’ve taken enough contrary stances, defended them, and stuck to them to earn this right.

When I stop discussing a subject, there are only two reasons: 1. I’m bored and it’s going nowhere 2. The person I’m debating is either so far gone or the bridge between us is so great that it’s a waste of time to discuss.

With brew, it’s number 2.

Let me repeat, if someone bests me in a argument or I’m wrong, I man up. If you doubt that, look up my name and read the posts.

I don’t stop talking (ala bradley/lixy) when I’ve been bested. I give the other guy the courtesy of acknowledging fine work.

Regarding the substance of brew’s criticism, I’m addressed most if not all of that before. Some is just utter nonsense that comes off as bitterness.

Finally, I thought I did a far more effective job showing that there is a disconnect between rank and file firefighters and their union leadership. He responded with a Rudy hate quote from a mother who lost a son.

I had trumped that with a father who lost a son AND was a firefighter.

There really wasn’t anything else to say. Therefore, I didn’t.

I hope I’ve cleared this up for you.

JeffR

44

[quote]southernBrew wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Hey, brew,

Who do you favor and why?

Thanks in advance,

JeffR

That is a good question and I am not sure what the answer is…

I am a libertarian however no libertarian has much of a shot of winning…I will still probably vote for one simply because I don’t believe voting based on who you think will win is constructive.

Rudy- I think we already know why I would not vote for him, if he would quit lying and changing his positions as well as stop running on things he has no business running on…but he would never do that.

Romney- Changes positions as much as Rudy does, supports invasion of civil liberties with domestic surveillance, wants to double the size of Guantanamo and prevent them from seeing lawyers…not to mention he treats his dogs like shit.

McCain- Pro-Illegal immigration and pro-amnesty…the farthest “left” republican candidate on immigration followed by Rudy. Anti-Gun…Pro-Abstinence only education…anti-birth control…wants to get even more hawkish on drugs which I believe should be legal to consenting adults.

Clinton- First she comes off as bad to me as Rudy, both seem to me to be lying pricks who will say whatever it takes to become president…She wants more restrictions on the economic market(despite the fact most of the problems are caused by government interference)She refuses to look at Israel from an objective standpoint and falls into the category that 99% of Americans fall into, which is blind support for a foreign nation. If you wish to support Israel, fine…but don’t do so blindly and ignore the fact that they are “playing” us for our support and we are just blindly giving it to them. She is also another who supports “amnesty” for illegals, is extremely hawkish and believes that we need to prevent Iran from going nuclear because they would be a threat to Israel(alarm bells going off anyone? We are now doing security work for a foreign country that has proven it can protect itself?)…wants to make flag burning illegal, is for gun control…in short I really do not like Hillary

Edwards- Pro illegal immigration, was a scummy ambulance chaser who got rich off tragedy and then has the nerve to act like he is still “one of the people” despite his obvious wealth and life of luxury

Obama- Pro gun control, pro illegal immigrant, another blind Israeli ally…I don’t agree with most of his positions but at the same time he tends to stand out from the crowd since he seems to be honest and actually seems to believe what he is saying.

In short, I don’t know who I will vote for but I DO know who I will NOT vote for.[/quote]

brew,

Thanks for your insights. You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on Rudy.

I have a better sense of where you are coming from.

I do hope you end up voting for someone (even if they have no chance).

In all sincerity it’s unfortunate that you don’t feel there is a candidate with a realistic chance that mirrors your views.

I rank the leading Republicans: Rudy > Thompson > Romney > McCain.

Leading dems: edwards > obama > clinton. Only one in the field (he has no chance, unfortunately) that I’d look seriously at would be Richardson.

JeffR

45

[quote]gDollars37 wrote:
Easy answer for you: Ron Paul.[/quote]

I like Thunder’s characterization of ron paul. He’s the preferred candidate of adolescents angry with their father.

I also appreciate Mick’s destruction of paul in the ron paul thread.

However, I’d rather someone write in paul than not vote.

JeffR

46

[quote]JeffR wrote:

I also appreciate Mick’s destruction of paul in the ron paul thread.

[/quote]

You`d also be the only one beside him that thinks that he has made one argument in this thread besides “he cannot win for lack of money and name recognition”.

Destroyed Ron Paul?

Since I do know your standards for what you think is a “debate”, I understand where you come from though.

Your Mother does not know how to cook.

Not even egg-white omelets…

Nanananana!

See, I just “destroyed” you, with my mad debating skills!

47

[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:

I also appreciate Mick’s destruction of paul in the ron paul thread.

You`d also be the only one beside him that thinks that he has made one argument in this thread besides “he cannot win for lack of money and name recognition”.

[/quote]

Indeed. Paul’s viability as a candidate has nothing to do with his fitness for the office or the wisdom of the policies he proposes. Indeed, given the increasingly plutocratic nature of our national politics, where someone like Romney, whose foreign policy ideas are rank idiocy, can raise tens of millions of dollars to be a factor, the opposite might well be true.

By any real measure Ron Paul is the most conservative politician in the race.

48

[quote]gDollars37 wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:

I also appreciate Mick’s destruction of paul in the ron paul thread.

You`d also be the only one beside him that thinks that he has made one argument in this thread besides “he cannot win for lack of money and name recognition”.

Indeed. Paul’s viability as a candidate has nothing to do with his fitness for the office or the wisdom of the policies he proposes. Indeed, given the increasingly plutocratic nature of our national politics, where someone like Romney, whose foreign policy ideas are rank idiocy, can raise tens of millions of dollars to be a factor, the opposite might well be true.

By any real measure Ron Paul is the most conservative politician in the race.[/quote]

He may be the most “Conservative.” However, he’s giving them a bad name.

Sorry, his foreign policy isolationism crap wouldn’t be relevant nor practical in 1916 let alone 2007.

Now, it’s very dangerous.

There’s more, but, I don’t want to go off on another tangent about a guy who will soon be forgotten.

JeffR

49

[quote]JeffR wrote:
gDollars37 wrote:

Ah, the old JeffR diversion: instead of answering substantive and damning evidence against his guy, he wants to know who you plan to vote for. Because that magically invalidates whatever you have to say, regardless of how intelligent it may be.

Hey, gdol,

I gave this some thought. I think it’s fair to say that I NEVER dodge anything.

I think I’ve taken enough contrary stances, defended them, and stuck to them to earn this right.

When I stop discussing a subject, there are only two reasons: 1. I’m bored and it’s going nowhere 2. The person I’m debating is either so far gone or the bridge between us is so great that it’s a waste of time to discuss.

JeffR
[/quote]

Nope. I’ve seen you wisely duck out of threads when someone points out that you’re out of your depth on something, generally Iraq/security issues. I’m not gonna go dig through a thousand or so posts to find it, but I can remember this happening in the past.

Like your man Rudy, you’re good at the easy rabble-rousing points, but when there’s a hint of nuance or complexity you kind of run out of steam.

I can completely understand boredom or preaching to a stone wall though, ultimately arguing on the internet is kind of retarded.

50

[quote]JeffR wrote:
gDollars37 wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:

I also appreciate Mick’s destruction of paul in the ron paul thread.

You`d also be the only one beside him that thinks that he has made one argument in this thread besides “he cannot win for lack of money and name recognition”.

Indeed. Paul’s viability as a candidate has nothing to do with his fitness for the office or the wisdom of the policies he proposes. Indeed, given the increasingly plutocratic nature of our national politics, where someone like Romney, whose foreign policy ideas are rank idiocy, can raise tens of millions of dollars to be a factor, the opposite might well be true.

By any real measure Ron Paul is the most conservative politician in the race.

He may be the most “Conservative.” However, he’s giving them a bad name.

Sorry, his foreign policy isolationism crap wouldn’t be relevant nor practical in 1916 let alone 2007.

[/quote]

Non-interventionism is not isolationism. Do you understand the difference?

51

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

Ah, the old JeffR diversion: instead of answering substantive and damning evidence against his guy, he wants to know who you plan to vote for. Because that magically invalidates whatever you have to say, regardless of how intelligent it may be.

Hey, gdol,

I gave this some thought. I think it’s fair to say that I NEVER dodge anything.

I think I’ve taken enough contrary stances, defended them, and stuck to them to earn this right.

When I stop discussing a subject, there are only two reasons: 1. I’m bored and it’s going nowhere 2. The person I’m debating is either so far gone or the bridge between us is so great that it’s a waste of time to discuss.

JeffR

Nope. I’ve seen you wisely duck out of threads when someone points out that you’re out of your depth on something, generally Iraq/security issues. I’m not gonna go dig through a thousand or so posts to find it, but I can remember this happening in the past.

Like your man Rudy, you’re good at the easy rabble-rousing points, but when there’s a hint of nuance or complexity you kind of run out of steam.

I can completely understand boredom or preaching to a stone wall though, ultimately arguing on the internet is kind of retarded.[/quote]

gdol,

I wish you’d research my posts. You might come up with some surprises.

Do I troll: sometimes.

Do I offer substatitive posts on things I find interesting: Yes.

Am I afraid of conflict: No.

Do I think people get nuance mixed up with indecision: Yep.

Do I admit when I am wrong: Yes.

Again, if you aren’t willing to research my posting history, kindly keep the uninformed commentary to a minimum.

Thanks,

Signed,

Everyone.

52

[quote]gDollars37 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
gDollars37 wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:

I also appreciate Mick’s destruction of paul in the ron paul thread.

You`d also be the only one beside him that thinks that he has made one argument in this thread besides “he cannot win for lack of money and name recognition”.

Indeed. Paul’s viability as a candidate has nothing to do with his fitness for the office or the wisdom of the policies he proposes. Indeed, given the increasingly plutocratic nature of our national politics, where someone like Romney, whose foreign policy ideas are rank idiocy, can raise tens of millions of dollars to be a factor, the opposite might well be true.

By any real measure Ron Paul is the most conservative politician in the race.

He may be the most “Conservative.” However, he’s giving them a bad name.

Sorry, his foreign policy isolationism crap wouldn’t be relevant nor practical in 1916 let alone 2007.

Non-interventionism is not isolationism. Do you understand the difference?[/quote]

Sure.

However, your mind fails to understand that the credible threat of violence is the ONLY language some sociopaths respect.

Pulling out of Iraq while simutaneously trying to “understand bin laden” is a recipe for disaster on an epic scale.

You don’t seem to understand that there are groups who try to make their name from spitting in America’s eye.

“Look at me, I defied America and lived.”

That’s their “street cred/recruiting bonanza.”

JeffR

53

[quote]gDollars37 wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:

I also appreciate Mick’s destruction of paul in the ron paul thread.

You`d also be the only one beside him that thinks that he has made one argument in this thread besides “he cannot win for lack of money and name recognition”.

Indeed. Paul’s viability as a candidate has nothing to do with his fitness for the office or the wisdom of the policies he proposes. Indeed, given the increasingly plutocratic nature of our national politics, where someone like Romney, whose foreign policy ideas are rank idiocy, can raise tens of millions of dollars to be a factor, the opposite might well be true.

By any real measure Ron Paul is the most conservative politician in the race.[/quote]

gdol,

It’s obvious that some of the attraction of ron paul is his “non-establishment” credentials.

It draws juveniles and starry eyed idealists like flies to shit.

However, I have enormous issues with his thinking.

Again, stating publically that we should pull of Iraq because of the terrorist attacks, is giving the act of terrorism legitimacy.

It’s encouraging more attacks.

If you put ron paul as the “establishment” candidate, I guarantee you and the other “rage against the machiners” would tear apart his “logic” mercilessly.

JeffR

54

[quote]JeffR wrote:
You don’t seem to understand that there are groups who try to make their name from spitting in America’s eye.

“Look at me, I defied America and lived.”

That’s their “street cred/recruiting bonanza.”

JeffR[/quote]

Interesting.

Tell me more about this “they” you speak of. Who are they? Where are they from?

Point one of these groups out for me.

55

[quote]JeffR wrote:
If you put ron paul as the “establishment” candidate, I guarantee you and the other “rage against the machiners” would tear apart his “logic” mercilessly.
[/quote]
WRONG! We want him part of the establishment because then he would be taken more seriously by people who regard polls as fact and the news media might actually cover him more frequently. Thompson gets more coverage and he isn’t even a declared candidate…how is that possible?

The “establishment” label is just a tool to legitimize ideas and opinions.

56

More bad news for Rudy: the IAFF has launched their website, Rudy Giuliani Urban Legend. Check out the video, it’s pretty powerful.

Also, there’s Senator David Vitter from Louisiana, who was just exposed today as being a client of the DC Madame. Turns out that Senator Vitter is Rudy Giuliani’s Southern Regional campaign manager. Rudy sure can pick 'em.

57

[quote]JeffR wrote:
gDollars37 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
gDollars37 wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:

I also appreciate Mick’s destruction of paul in the ron paul thread.

You`d also be the only one beside him that thinks that he has made one argument in this thread besides “he cannot win for lack of money and name recognition”.

Indeed. Paul’s viability as a candidate has nothing to do with his fitness for the office or the wisdom of the policies he proposes. Indeed, given the increasingly plutocratic nature of our national politics, where someone like Romney, whose foreign policy ideas are rank idiocy, can raise tens of millions of dollars to be a factor, the opposite might well be true.

By any real measure Ron Paul is the most conservative politician in the race.

He may be the most “Conservative.” However, he’s giving them a bad name.

Sorry, his foreign policy isolationism crap wouldn’t be relevant nor practical in 1916 let alone 2007.

Non-interventionism is not isolationism. Do you understand the difference?

Sure.

However, your mind fails to understand that the credible threat of violence is the ONLY language some sociopaths respect.

Pulling out of Iraq while simutaneously trying to “understand bin laden” is a recipe for disaster on an epic scale.

[/quote]

Who is trying to “understand Bin Laden”? Give me one example from America, just one. Otherwise that is the biggest and stupidest strawman I have ever seen.

What you don’t seem able to comprehend is that we’re not winning in Iraq, to the point where the definition of victory is changing daily. Pulling out of Iraq would be a bad thing, especially for the Iraqis. Terrorists will be emboldened, absolutely.

But Iraq has been the best gift Bin Laden could ask for. He has American troops sitting in the Middle East, driving recruits into his arms, while a few hundred AQ terrorists in Iraq can get obscene ROIs (return on investment - i.e. September 11 cost Al Qaeda about $500,000, and did between $80 and $500 billion in damage to the U.S. economy. Good ROI).

We can hang around Iraq, with far too few troops to win the war (examine historical counterinsurgency force ratios, or just read General Shinseki’s testimony in 2002), and bleed ourselves dry. Or we can do what Baker and Hamilton proposed, and realize that any kind of success is going to have to come primarily through regional diplomacy, because the military option isn’t working.

58

[quote]gDollars37 wrote:

Who is trying to “understand Bin Laden”? Give me one example from America, just one. Otherwise that is the biggest and stupidest strawman I have ever seen.

[/quote]

You bore me.

JeffR

59

[quote]bradley wrote:
More bad news for Rudy: the IAFF has launched their website, Rudy Giuliani Urban Legend. Check out the video, it’s pretty powerful.

Also, there’s Senator David Vitter from Louisiana, who was just exposed today as being a client of the DC Madame. Turns out that Senator Vitter is Rudy Giuliani’s Southern Regional campaign manager. Rudy sure can pick 'em.[/quote]

Hello, bradley.

Sounds like the firefighter union leadership and bradley would get along.

Unthinking, dem fanatics.

From: http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_192162447.html

[quote]Calling the video a “mockumentary,” Giuliani campaign spokesman Michael McKeon said, “The union leadership makes Michael Moore look like Edward R. Murrow.”

Former New York firefighter Lee Ielpi, whose son died on Sept. 11, and former Office of Emergency Management Commissioner Richard Sheirer appeared with McKeon, calling the video full of “half-truths.”

“I was there. I saw it. I experienced it,” said Ielpi, who worked at ground zero for the nine-month cleanup. “I’m not going to let lies like this go.”[/quote]

Oh, as far as vitter goes, I want to continuously reiterate just how HILARIOUS it is that you keep pointing out personal life problems.

Anyone who voted for clinton and employs this tactic is a HYPOCRITE!!!

In other news, go rodham!!!

JeffR