Another Rudy classic fuck up:
He’s a classic,this boy…
Rudy really wants to hype The Fear, the same way that Bush did. Bush won reelection in 2004 by tweaking the terror alerts and so on. It’s a winning formula, preying on peoples’ fears.
Rudy appeals to all the boot-lickers, the folks who love stern authoritarians, people who wet the bed at night worrying about a terrorist attack even though they live in Kansas or Idaho, the people who love being ordered around. A lot of people are like that. Shit, it’s easier to follow orders than it is to think for yourself. Trying to think things through is stressful. It’s easier to do what you’re told.
I believe that Rudy didn’t in fact know it was going on, but it does speak volumes for the image he has created for himself.
mike
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Another Rudy classic fuck up:
He’s a classic,this boy…[/quote]
It appears as though his campaign is not involved with it, nor did Giuliani have prior knowledge of it. Big deal.
The story will be how he handles this, and if he actually collects the money from it.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I believe that Rudy didn’t in fact know it was going on, but it does speak volumes for the image he has created for himself.
mike[/quote]
Precisely.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Rudy really wants to hype The Fear, the same way that Bush did.[/quote]
No, I don’t believe that he does want to “hype the fear”. I do believe however that managing the aftermath of 9/11 has left an indelible mark on him. He realizes that dropping the hands means getting socked in the mouth again.
I breathlessly anticipate your proof of this. Can’t wait.
OK, here you go off on a strange tangent. Care to expound on your thoughts here? How is it that Rudy appeals to the “boot lickers”. I seriously don’t get how you draw this conclusion. The opposite could have been said of Clinton. His supporters liked having someone with a slick smile, a quick hand shake, and a hug for the enemy. Peace at any cost.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Rudy really wants to hype The Fear, the same way that Bush did.
No, I don’t believe that he does want to “hype the fear”. I do believe however that managing the aftermath of 9/11 has left an indelible mark on him. He realizes that dropping the hands means getting socked in the mouth again.
Bush won reelection in 2004 by tweaking the terror alerts and so on. It’s a winning formula, preying on peoples’ fears.
I breathlessly anticipate your proof of this. Can’t wait.
Rudy appeals to all the boot-lickers, the folks who love stern authoritarians, people who wet the bed at night worrying about a terrorist attack even though they live in Kansas or Idaho, the people who love being ordered around. A lot of people are like that. Shit, it’s easier to follow orders than it is to think for yourself. Trying to think things through is stressful. It’s easier to do what you’re told.
OK, here you go off on a strange tangent. Care to expound on your thoughts here? How is it that Rudy appeals to the “boot lickers”. I seriously don’t get how you draw this conclusion. The opposite could have been said of Clinton. His supporters liked having someone with a slick smile, a quick hand shake, and a hug for the enemy. Peace at any cost.
[/quote]
Bigflamer,
Excellent post. It occurs to me that the people who are opposing Rudy so vehemently are in danger pushing people into his camp.
You can look no further than this board and see some pretty unsavory characters foaming at the mouth.
If they are so threatened by him, he must be hitting pretty close to the mark.
JeffR
Rudy doesn’t have a chance in 08.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
OK, here you go off on a strange tangent. Care to expound on your thoughts here? How is it that Rudy appeals to the “boot lickers”. I seriously don’t get how you draw this conclusion. The opposite could have been said of Clinton. His supporters liked having someone with a slick smile, a quick hand shake, and a hug for the enemy. Peace at any cost.
[/quote]
Actually I think that you’re both right. Peace at any cost seems to be a pretty sweet idea lately to the bulk of the cowardly citizens of Western society.
Problem is that I don’t know which one is more insidious. With Clinton we want peace at any cost so long as he keeps money in our wallets. He does this by selling us out and leaving us unsafe. With Bush or Rudy we want peace so long as they make us safe. They accomplish this by trampling our liberties.
What people don’t seem to realize is that peace can be accomplished only one way. Your choices are simply slavery or mass bloodshed, then conformity. Once willing conformity is achieved, we will have peace.
mike
You can have security without trampling liberties. It is doable.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
You can have security without trampling liberties. It is doable.[/quote]
No you can’t. It is always a tradeoff. There are plenty of ill intentioned people out there.
The thread title demands this pic.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
No you can’t. It is always a tradeoff. There are plenty of ill intentioned people out there.[/quote]
Yes, you are correct but it isn’t for the government to decide what the trade-off is to be. That is the whole meaning of the word liberty. The government does not make anyone safer–individuals acting in their own best interest do.
In a free society I get to decide what liberties I will trade for; for example, whether or not to wear my seatbelt; whether or not I smoke or drink; whether or not I carry a gun; whether or not I lock my doors. I decide what liberties I am willing to resign for my own security.
Individual responsibility is the only right and proper way to act and to force people to abide by some random and arbitrary rules managed by an inefficient bureaucracy is not ethical.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No you can’t. It is always a tradeoff. There are plenty of ill intentioned people out there.
Yes, you are correct but it isn’t for the government to decide what the trade-off is to be. That is the whole meaning of the word liberty. The government does not make anyone safer–individuals acting in their own best interest do.
In a free society I get to decide what liberties I will trade for; for example, whether or not to wear my seatbelt; whether or not I smoke or drink; whether or not I carry a gun; whether or not I lock my doors. I decide what liberties I am willing to resign for my own security.
Individual responsibility is the only right and proper way to act and to force people to abide by some random and arbitrary rules managed by an inefficient bureaucracy is not ethical.[/quote]
It is government or gangs that will decide.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is government or gangs that will decide.
[/quote]
That is Rudy rhetoric.
Gangs are no more efficient at affecting safety either and I think rational people would discourage it, while heavily armed. It will happen spontaneously, voluntarily and cooperatively as the need becomes evident.
People do not need to be told to rise to an occasion they are capable of making it happen on their own. Just look at all the voluntary disaster relief efforts taken on by individual people and organizations. Government agencies are largely ineffective in this area.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is government or gangs that will decide.
That is Rudy rhetoric.
Gangs are no more efficient at affecting safety either and I think rational people would discourage it, while heavily armed. It will happen spontaneously, voluntarily and cooperatively as the need becomes evident.
People do not need to be told to rise to an occasion they are capable of making it happen on their own. Just look at all the voluntary disaster relief efforts taken on by individual people and organizations. Government agencies are largely ineffective in this area.[/quote]
It is reality. Look around the world at anyplace with a non functional government.
Like Burma?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Like Burma?[/quote]
Somolia?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Like Burma?[/quote]
Is it a government or a gang?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Like Burma?
Somolia?[/quote]
Funny you bring up Somalia…I just read something really interesting about their “legal system”.
I found this to be very enlightening:
Customary laws develop in a country like Somalia in the absence of a central legislating body. Rules “emerge spontaneously as people go about their daily business and try to solve the problems that occasionally arise in it without upsetting the patterns of cooperation on which they so heavily depend” (Van Notten, 15: 2005). Van Notten contends that the Somali customary law closely follows the natural law and therefore should be preserved…