PDA

View Full Version : Social conservatives bite bullet, back Rudy


recxjake
05-29-2007, 03:40 PM
Social conservatives bite bullet, back Rudy
By: David Paul Kuhn
May 29, 2007 11:06 AM EST


Rudy Giuliani, whose positions on abortion and homosexuality mark him as the most socially liberal Republican presidential candidate in more than a generation, is so far winning the contest for the support of social conservatives, according to a new analysis of recent polls.

Widespread perceptions that Giuliani is the most electable Republican in this year's field are driving his support among social conservatives, according to the analysis by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

If the trend holds, this apparent willingness to support a candidate who fails what were once regarded as litmus-test issues would mark a landmark shift in the political behavior of a constituency that has been a pillar of the modern GOP. Already the shift is spurring sharp debate among prominent Christian conservative leaders, some of whom warn that Giuliani backers are abandoning core principles.

Forty-four percent of social conservatives in the Pew analysis believe that the former New York mayor has the "best chance" of becoming president in 2008. Less than half that figure, 19 percent, regard Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) as the most viable, despite twice as many social conservatives stating that McCain “comes closest” to their view on abortion. All other Republican candidates lagged far behind.

These calculations about electability are helping propel Giuliani over McCain among social conservatives, even though the Arizonan shares the opposition of most of these voters to abortion rights.

Giuliani is winning 30 percent of the social conservative bloc, compared to 22 percent for McCain. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney captured just 8 percent — a figure that puts Romney in fourth place, behind former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is currently not a declared candidate.

No supporter of abortion rights has run competitively in GOP nominating contests since 1976, when Gerald Ford defeated Ronald Reagan.

"A significant number of social conservatives have adopted a pragmatic line," says John Green, a senior fellow at Pew who compiled the polling. "Pragmatism can be seen on the one hand as a good thing, because it produces results, and on other the hand it can be seen as a bad thing because it involves compromising one's principles, and that's just a tension social conservatives have had since the days of Ronald Reagan."

Green carried out his analysis at the request of The Politico using data from Pew's March and April polls of the general electorate. To capture the mood of social conservatives, he focused on white, Republican or Republican-leaning Christians who attend church at least weekly. Social conservatives make up about 42 percent of the total Republican vote.

Some Christian conservative leaders acknowledge the willingness to back a candidate with opposing views on basic principles is a major moment — and for some, a traumatic one — in the history of their movement.

"I would not vote for [Giuliani]," says Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "My conscience will not allow me to do it. I'm not saying that others won't. I think there are a lot of evangelicals who would look on Giuliani as the lesser of two evils."

It is a calculation that has frustrated one of this year's GOP candidates, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has been counting on his own socially conservative views and background as a minister to be a political springboard.

"If social conservatives don't coalesce around issues that brought them in, then they really do no longer serve a political constituency that has clout. If they become just another Republican special interest group then they really are no different than the Republican women of Pulaski County, Ark.," Huckabee says.


Social conservative support has proven central to the making of the modern Republican president since 1980. That year Jerry Falwell, who died this month, rallied millions of social conservatives from the political hinterlands to play a vital role in Reagan's election.

Twenty-four years later, George W. Bush won social conservatives by equally large margins. Three in four Baptists or evangelicals also backed Bush nationally when he ran for reelection in 2004, according to exit polls.

"I would think that the Republican Party would want to hesitate before changing a formula that has brought them incredible political success from 1980 until now," says Gary Bauer, a former domestic adviser to Reagan and longtime social conservative leader.

With the primaries a half year away, the pushback within evangelical leadership may still trickle down to the grass roots. But thirty-one percent of social conservatives have given the 2008 presidential candidates "a lot" of thought. Only 23 percent of other Republicans have given the race the same level of scrutiny.

Giuliani has tried to appeal to social conservatives, embracing their agenda by pledging to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court, using Justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. as examples. Conservatives expect "strict constructionists" to determine that the Constitution does not mandate abortion rights.

But, like Dwight Eisenhower's in 1952, Giuliani's national security stature after the Sept. 11 attacks more likely explains his continued popularity within the religious right, whose voters have long held hawkish positions on the issue.

"These voters care about moral issues, and many of them are conflicted because understandably they see the defense of Western civilization being perhaps the most important moral issue of all," Bauer says.

Perhaps the strongest variable favoring Giuliani thus far among his party's conservative wing is that none of his competitors have caught fire.

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson could be an appealing figure to the religious right, but he has yet to enter the race. Romney and McCain, the other two top-tier GOP candidates, have yet to energize social conservatives.

"McCain is about as pro-life as you can get, but the problem with him is his unpredictability," Land says. McCain has challenged social conservatives in the past. In 2005, McCain infuriated conservative Christians when he led an effort to block the "nuclear option," a conservative effort to ensure conservative Supreme Court appointments.

In Romney's case, Bauer and Land say many social conservative leaders accept his recent conversion to the antiabortion fight. But Romney, who has also been accused of suddenly veering right on issues like gay marriage, still has failed to win over conservative Christian voters. But polls indicate Romney leads among Republicans in Iowa and may still gain ground among social conservative voters there.

Giuliani's early success with the religious right has brought dire warnings about what his nomination could mean. Huckabee believes it is a "very likely scenario" that if Giuliani is the nominee a significant portion of the social conservative base will not mobilize for Republicans in the general election.

Land doubts such an outcome.

"The perfect is not the enemy of the good," he says, arguing that Giuliani is still significantly closer to social conservatives on key issues than leading Democrats. After all, Land adds, social conservatives "understand they are voting for commander in chief, not Baptist in chief."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4226.html

Mr. Kotter
05-29-2007, 04:07 PM
Keep dreamin', recxjake. ROFL

It may happen in the general election, when real votes are cast; it's gonna be really tough until that day though.

:)

Adept Havelock
05-29-2007, 04:34 PM
ROFL
<a href='http://www.noolmusic.com' target'_blank'><b>Aerosmith - Dream On via Noolmusic.com</a><br><embed src='http://lads.myspace.com/videos/vplayer.swf' flashvars='m=996994098&type=video&c=1' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' width='430' height='346'></embed><br><a href='http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=996994098&n=2'></a><hr border='0' height='1' width='10' align='left'><b><a href='http://www.noolmusic.com/blogs/YouTube_Music_Videos_80s_90s_-_Aerosmith_-_Dream_On.shtml' target='_blank'>Get Video Code For YouTube Music Videos 80s 90s - Aerosmith - Dream On</a></b><br>

jAZ
05-29-2007, 05:27 PM
This thread should read... Politico tries to shape future by rewriting Rudy's Past
But, like Dwight Eisenhower's in 1952, Giuliani's national security stature after the Sept. 11 attacks more likely explains his continued popularity within the religious right, whose voters have long held hawkish positions on the issue.
Eisenhower-esque National Security Stature!?!

ROFL ROFL

*out* *of* *breath*


Politico is trying their damnest to bluster up Rudy in the one area that (if reframed deceptively enough) he'll have a shot at appealing more broadly in the primary. I understand their agenda here. But PLEASE!!!

Drawning comparisons to Eisenhower!!!!!?!

Are you kidding me!?!!!

Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II, and was the first supreme commander of NATO.

Rudy was a Mayor.

Rudy is a vast cavern of inexperience when it comes to foreign policy and national security issues. And while that in and of itself isn't a deal breaker (Obama is the same way)... Rudy is repeating Bush's failed strategy of surrounding himself with blustering NeoCons and hoping that their "tough talk" rhetoric will over come his inexperience. That's a deadly combination (quite literally in Bush's case).

But the suggestion that Rudy has any credibility on National Security is a joke.

Adept Havelock
05-29-2007, 05:40 PM
Comparing a passable Mayor like Rudy to Ike, IMO one of the greatest leaders in US History?

That's not funny. That's just pathetic. They must be getting a bit desperate over at Team Rudy. Granted, if the rest of his supporters respond to folks like jake did to htismaque the other day, that's easily understandable.

Mr. Kotter
05-29-2007, 05:50 PM
This thread should read... Politico tries to shape future by rewriting Rudy's Past

Eisenhower-esque National Security Stature!?!

ROFL ROFL

*out* *of* *breath*


Politico is trying their damnest to bluster up Rudy in the one area that (if reframed deceptively enough) he'll have a shot at appealing more broadly in the primary. I understand their agenda here. But PLEASE!!!

Drawning comparisons to Eisenhower!!!!!?!

Are you kidding me!?!!!

Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II, and was the first supreme commander of NATO.

Rudy was a Mayor.

Rudy is a vast cavern of inexperience when it comes to foreign policy and national security issues. And while that in and of itself isn't a deal breaker (Obama is the same way)... Rudy is repeating Bush's failed strategy of surrounding himself with blustering NeoCons and hoping that their "tough talk" rhetoric will over come his inexperience. That's a deadly combination (quite literally in Bush's case).

But the suggestion that Rudy has any credibility on National Security is a joke.While I agree with your general sentiment....your over-the-top characterization that....strains your own credibility.... But the suggestion that Rudy has any credibility on National Security is a joke. By the standard you put forth, Guliani has at least as much credibility on National Security as.....Obama, or Hillary. Or Bush and Bill....for that matter. :rolleyes:

Is Guliani as qualified as Ike? Of course not. But neither is anyone you will be supporting.

mlyonsd
05-29-2007, 06:02 PM
While I agree with your general sentiment....your over-the-top characterization that....strains your own credibility. By the standard you put forth, Guliani has at least as much credibility on National Security as.....Obama, or Hillary. Or Bush and Bill....for that matter. :rolleyes:

Is Guliani as qualified as Ike? Of course not. But neither is anyone you will be supporting.

The left fears Rudy. You'll consistently see that in this forum until the primaries are over.

Funny thing is, if Rudy was running as a dem many posters here would be falling all over him.

Logical
05-29-2007, 06:23 PM
The left fears Rudy. You'll consistently see that in this forum until the primaries are over.

Funny thing is, if Rudy was running as a dem many posters here would be falling all over him.

As long as he supports troops occupying Iraq I am not sure that is true. For that matter moderate conservatives have the same problem with him.

jAZ
05-29-2007, 06:25 PM
By the standard you put forth...
What "standard" did I put forth? Certainly not the standard of Eisenhower. That was the Rudy-Politico-rexcjake camp. I merely mocked them for doing so. It's beyond absurd.
Guliani has at least as much credibility on National Security as.....Obama
Did you read my post? You might have skimmed past this.
Rudy is a vast cavern of inexperience when it comes to foreign policy and national security issues. And while that in and of itself isn't a deal breaker (Obama is the same way)... Rudy is repeating Bush's failed strategy of surrounding himself with blustering NeoCons and hoping that their "tough talk" rhetoric will over come his inexperience. That's a deadly combination (quite literally in Bush's case).

Guliani has at least as much credibility on National Security as.....Hillary. Or Bush and Bill....for that matter. :rolleyes:
I hope you are comparing Rudy (today) to Bush or Bill (pre Presidency). Assuming you aren't saying a bunch of nonsense (Rudy has as much Credibility as Bill or GWB *today*)... then your point is accurate. However, as I pointed out, Rudy is championing his GWB-esque policies and falling into the I'll-Let-The-NeoCons-Fill-My-Cavern model that Bush did. That alone seperates himself from Bill and lumps him in with GWB (not in a good way).

Hillary has by far the most experience of all 4 at this point in their careers (pre election).

The comparison between Rudy and Hillary is a resounding defeat for Rudy on the facts.

The point here is that the media is actively working to frame Rudy as the "national security" president. And it's a complete JOKE!

mlyonsd
05-29-2007, 06:29 PM
As long as he supports troops occupying Iraq I am not sure that is true. For that matter moderate conservatives have the same problem with him.

That's probably true. But if you think back to 04, if Rudy would have run against Kerry in the dem primary I bet he would have won.

jAZ
05-29-2007, 06:36 PM
The left fears Rudy. You'll consistently see that in this forum until the primaries are over.

Funny thing is, if Rudy was running as a dem many posters here would be falling all over him.
Actually, it's quite the opposite.

Based upon their historic position on issues, all 3 of the leading GOP candidates are vastly preferable in my (and many Dems) eyes to GWB. As I've said before, his positions are closer to mine than the GOP that he is courting. By a LONG WAY.

That said, Rudy scares me because he's demonstrating a few Bush-like characteristics. He is an empty shell of a candidate who's decided that the NeoCon way is key to electability. That's frightening to me.

That's starting to outweigh my confidence in his moderate position on social issues. Although, I do suspect that he'll likely nominate someone closer or left of Roberts (rather than Alito) and claim that the guy is a "strict constructionist" (a term without any solid meaning).

jAZ
05-29-2007, 06:39 PM
That's probably true. But if you think back to 04, if Rudy would have run against Kerry in the dem primary I bet he would have won.
Rudy in the Dem party would take positions exactly like Hillary, IMO. He's just as calculated as her... and he'd stake out the pro-war, anti-execution then... and get-out-safely ground today.

mlyonsd
05-29-2007, 06:56 PM
Actually, it's quite the opposite.

Based upon their historic position on issues, all 3 of the leading GOP candidates are vastly preferable in my (and many Dems) eyes to GWB. As I've said before, his positions are closer to mine than the GOP that he is courting. By a LONG WAY.

That said, Rudy scares me because he's demonstrating a few Bush-like characteristics. He is an empty shell of a candidate who's decided that the NeoCon way is key to electability. That's frightening to me.

That's starting to outweigh my confidence in his moderate position on social issues. Although, I do suspect that he'll likely nominate someone closer or left of Roberts (rather than Alito) and claim that the guy is a "strict constructionist" (a term without any solid meaning).

Fair observations. Although I have a hard time believing there is any rep candidate you would ever vote for, as a matter of principle. JMO, nothing to back it up.

As for acting "NeoCon", well, he lived through and was looked upon for leadership during the worst attack on our homeland. I guess his opinion matters a bit to me.

I still say if he ran as a dem he'd get more primary votes than Hillary or Edwards.

mlyonsd
05-29-2007, 06:57 PM
Rudy in the Dem party would take positions exactly like Hillary, IMO. He's just as calculated as her... and he'd stake out the pro-war, anti-execution then... and get-out-safely ground today.

I don't disagree....and he'd whip her hands down.

jAZ
05-29-2007, 07:32 PM
Fair observations. Although I have a hard time believing there is any rep candidate you would ever vote for, as a matter of principle. JMO, nothing to back it up.
I've voted for McCain repeatedly.

jAZ
05-29-2007, 07:39 PM
I still say if he ran as a dem he'd get more primary votes than Hillary or Edwards.
You are right, but you can't equate that to him running as a Rep. He'd stake vastly different starting ground. He'd be easier to support, not because of actual party affiliation, but because the impact that affiliation has on the positions he'd need to take in order to be in the party.

It's a legit difference.

All of that said, if Rudy were to take an Obama-like stance on the war (and reject the NeoCon radicalism) I'd have a LOT more confidence in him. But he can't take such a position since he's in the GOP. Look at what they do to Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel.

htismaqe
05-29-2007, 07:43 PM
The left fears Rudy. You'll consistently see that in this forum until the primaries are over.

Funny thing is, if Rudy was running as a dem many posters here would be falling all over him.

Rudy SHOULD be running as a dem.

He's more liberal than some of them.

He's running on the GOP ticket solely on the War on Terror.

Logical
05-29-2007, 08:15 PM
That's probably true. But if you think back to 04, if Rudy would have run against Kerry in the dem primary I bet he would have won.

Very possible.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 08:42 PM
Keep dreamin', recxjake. ROFL

It may happen in the general election, when real votes are cast; it's gonna be really tough until that day though.

:)
Well I hope you're right for other reasons...but jake may be onto something being young and perhaps a bit more in touch with that demographic. I just came across this interesting Lew Rockwell article on the Rude-y phenomena within the right, including the RR. It's a bit of a read but I thought of you Kotter as well as jake. Claims that even young evangelicals are different, more comfortable with Rude-y's social issues including the gay issue.



Giuliani and the Religious Right
Giuliani's image as a simultaneous crusader against crime, pornography, and sacrilegious "art" but staunch supporter of abortion, gay marriage, gun control and open borders is a curious one, but one that makes perfect sense once his role in American political life becomes more clearly understood. On one end, Giuliani is a continuation of the program of neoconservatism: the use of religion, nationalism, jingoism and a veneer of social or moral conservatism as a means of rallying support for a militarist foreign policy and an ever more obtrusive state domestically among heartland Republican voters, while clandestinely furthering the agenda of social leftism. On the other end, Giuliani symbolizes the continued drift of the Republican Party towards the cultural Marxism displayed in an even more uninhibited manner by the Democrats

Some have argued that Giuliani's social liberalism makes it improbable that he will acquire the nomination of the Republican Party. I suspect this assumption is a bit naïve. After all, the socially conservative base of the Republicans has remained steadfastly loyal to President Bush in spite of his frequently strident liberal policies. A recent poll indicated that Giuliani is the favored candidate of conservative gun owners in spite of his pro-gun control positions. While some religious right leaders, such as Dr. James Dobson, have disavowed Giuliani because of his pro-abortion views, it needs to be understood that the religious right in particular and social conservatism in general is about much more than clichéd right-wing opinions on the question of abortion and homosexuality. As America has continued to move leftward culturally, so has its evangelical Christian subculture.


The Significance of Rudy Guiliani

Mr. Kotter
05-29-2007, 09:34 PM
Well I hope you're right for other reasons...but jake may be onto something being young and perhaps a bit more in touch with that demographic. I just came across this interesting Lew Rockwell article on the Rude-y phenomena within the right, including the RR. It's a bit of a read but I thought of you Kotter as well as jake. Claims that even young evangelicals are different, more comfortable with Rude-y's social issues including the gay issue.


The Significance of Rudy Guiliani
Thanks for the post, BEP.

I'm well aware of the trend. It's evident at my own church. It's one of the reasons WHY I've said, IF Guliani wins the nomination ... evangelicals will surprise many folks, by voting for him in larger numbers than many anticipate--at least in the general election.

There are many, including several on here who don't believe Evangelicals will vote for him in the general (oldandslow, Cochise, TJ, BL, and others IIRC...) even if he wins the nomination. My contention all along has been, and remains, winning the nomination will be Guliani's real struggle--especially if Gingrich or Thompson join in the race, as I expect.

If he emerges from that, I expect him to surprise many folks in the general election--by having a good shot at winning it all. Of course, the situation in Iraq could change that....but if Obama/Hillary/other Democrats think Guliani and the Reps will be easy to defeat in that election (because of their own misjudgments of the magnitude or "commitment" by "evangelicals" to Guliani)....they are in for a surprise, IMHO.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 09:40 PM
Yeah, it's fuzzy but now that you mention it what you said is coming back. IIRC, I didn't believe you....but this seems to agree with your original take.

Taco John
05-29-2007, 10:40 PM
The left fears Rudy. You'll consistently see that in this forum until the primaries are over.


Why would the left fear another lefty? Doesn't make any sense.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 10:59 PM
Why would the left fear another lefty? Doesn't make any sense.
LMAO That cracked me up.
I think some folks get into the whole competition between Dems/Reps but not all of them. I think many Dems could well live with NeoConservative Rude-y.

ClevelandBronco
05-29-2007, 11:58 PM
...if Rudy were to take an Obama-like stance on the war (and reject the NeoCon radicalism) I'd have a LOT more confidence in him...

Rats. If only Rudy would finally tell us that he's just pretending not to be Obama, jAZ would have confidence.

Is there any other way, jAZ? Your vote is too important for us to lose.

recxjake
05-30-2007, 06:26 AM
Why would the left fear another lefty? Doesn't make any sense.

Tell me when cutting taxes and spending was a lefty issue? When was being on the offensive on terror a lefty issue? He is a moderate on a few issues, he is no lefty.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 06:35 AM
Tell me when cutting taxes and spending was a lefty issue? When was being on the offensive on terror a lefty issue? He is a liberal on a few issues, he is no lefty.
FYP


He will not cut spending, you watch. He's no deficit hawk.

Cochise
05-30-2007, 07:28 AM
LMAO keep saying it over and over, and it'll come true :spock:

HolmeZz
05-30-2007, 07:38 AM
RUDY RAN NEW YORK CITY

THE REST OF THE COUNTRY SHOULD BE A PIECE O' CAKE

Cochise
05-30-2007, 07:39 AM
RUDY RAN NEW YORK CITY

THE REST OF THE COUNTRY SHOULD BE A PIECE O' CAKE

You are becoming more shrill by the minute around here.

HolmeZz
05-30-2007, 07:41 AM
You are becoming more shrill by the minute around here.

I'LL TRY TO TONE IT DOWN

StcChief
05-30-2007, 11:46 AM
Rep right would be for Rudy as an "anyone but sHillary/Obama"

Believer
05-30-2007, 06:55 PM
im still laughing at the comparison of Rudy to Eisenhower.

I havent heard anything that idiotic since i saw someone call Donnie Wahlberg "the John Lennon of the group ( New Kids on the Block)"

Baby Lee
05-30-2007, 07:08 PM
Rudy SHOULD be running as a dem.

He's more liberal than some of them.

He's running on the GOP ticket solely on the War on Terror.
Are you talking social issues or fiscal, or both?
Any info on Rudy's big govt entitlement history?

Baby Lee
05-30-2007, 07:11 PM
There are many, including several on here who don't believe Evangelicals will vote for him in the general (oldandslow, Cochise, TJ, BL, and others IIRC...) even if he wins the nomination. My contention all along has been, and remains, winning the nomination will be Guliani's real struggle--especially if Gingrich or Thompson join in the race, as I expect.
Where did you get that idea?
I have two aspirations driving support of Giuliani,

1. The religious right gets pragmatic and dials back it's social engineering efforts, or
2. If not 1, the Republican party proves they can survive without them.

I haven't said anything about which way it'll turn, just that either outcome is good in my book.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-30-2007, 07:27 PM
Where did you get that idea?
I have two aspirations driving support of Giuliani,

1. The religious right gets pragmatic and dials back it's social engineering efforts, or
2. If not 1, the Republican party proves they can survive without them.

I haven't said anything about which way it'll turn, just that either outcome is good in my book.

Given the current voter demographics, how is #2 even feasible in the next few election cycles??

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2007, 07:38 PM
Where did you get that idea?
I have two aspirations driving support of Giuliani,

1. The religious right gets pragmatic and dials back it's social engineering efforts, or
2. If not 1, the Republican party proves they can survive without them.

I haven't said anything about which way it'll turn, just that either outcome is good in my book.

For some reason I recalled you in the same camp. I stand corrected.

htismaqe
05-30-2007, 07:48 PM
Are you talking social issues or fiscal, or both?
Any info on Rudy's big govt entitlement history?

He's strongly anti-gun. In and of itself, I don't really have a problem with it. But when you combine it with some of the stuff he's said about "freedom" and "authority" it doesn't sit well with me. In addition, along the way he's made comments about Bush policies that lead many to believe he's okay with torture of enemy combatants and illegally spying on innocent American citizens. He made comments during the Iraq funding debate that President Bush should just ignore Congress and move forward without their blessing.

mlyonsd
05-30-2007, 07:52 PM
Why would the left fear another lefty? Doesn't make any sense.

That was my point. If it weren't for the Iraq war position he could run as a dem and beat both Hillary and Obama.

If he were to win the rep nod he'd take enough dem and independents to beat any dem IMO. That's why the party fears him, not so much the public.

HolmeZz
05-30-2007, 08:05 PM
If Rudy wasn't running as a Republican, he wouldn't have anything to run on. He's the product of 9/11 and wanting to continuing this war. Those aren't enticing things to democrats.

recxjake
05-31-2007, 06:40 AM
He's strongly anti-gun. In and of itself, I don't really have a problem with it. But when you combine it with some of the stuff he's said about "freedom" and "authority" it doesn't sit well with me. In addition, along the way he's made comments about Bush policies that lead many to believe he's okay with torture of enemy combatants and illegally spying on innocent American citizens. He made comments during the Iraq funding debate that President Bush should just ignore Congress and move forward without their blessing.

Wrong.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 08:35 AM
Wrong.

Care to elaborate, Poindexter?

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 09:27 AM
Care to elaborate, Poindexter?

He won't elaborate because he knows what a quick search with the Google will produce as far as quotes from Rudy.

It's all a matter of public record.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 09:41 AM
He's strongly anti-gun. In and of itself, I don't really have a problem with it. But when you combine it with some of the stuff he's said about "freedom" and "authority" it doesn't sit well with me. In addition, along the way he's made comments about Bush policies that lead many to believe he's okay with torture of enemy combatants and illegally spying on innocent American citizens. He made comments during the Iraq funding debate that President Bush should just ignore Congress and move forward without their blessing.
Wow! He really is deserving of being called Il Duce.
Someone said if we think what we have up in the WH right now is bad some of the current candidates (both sides) will be much worse. Rude-y downright scares me if this is true. Plus I read he actually framed people to build his reputation as a govt prosecuter. Totally, a big govt guy.

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 09:46 AM
Wow! He really is deserving of being called Il Duce.
Someone said if we think what we have up in the WH right now is bad some of the current candidates (both sides) will be much worse. Rude-y downright scares me if this is true. Plus I read he actually framed people to build his reputation as a govt prosecuter. Totally, a big govt guy.

At one point when he was cleaining up New York City he paraded around the fact that they had over 35,000 police officers on the street. People thought is was great. What they didn't know is that he also employed almost 800 lawyers as well.

He gets all the credit for cleaning up the mob in NYC, but nobody mentions that he used mob-like tactics to do it.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 09:50 AM
At one point when he was cleaining up New York City he paraded around the fact that they had over 35,000 police officers on the street. People thought is was great. What they didn't know is that he also employed almost 800 lawyers as well.

He gets all the credit for cleaning up the mob in NYC, but nobody mentions that he used mob-like tactics to do it.
Yeah! This stuff is startin' to come out about him. See'in it on tv too. He even used these tactics on the street artists? BFD. They showed a gestapo-style false arrest on a shopkeeper and his employees, had them down on the floor and all.
Rude-y is an authoritarian, and a Guilius Caesar. There will be a massive WW if he's elected. He just lucked out with 9/11 and it's associated with all kinds of emotionalism.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 10:28 AM
...Rude-y is an authoritarian, and a Guilius Caesar. There will be a massive WW if he's elected. He just lucked out with 9/11 and it's associated with all kinds of emotionalism.

Come on, BEP. :rolleyes:

I understand the concerns some have of him, but that's over-the-top hyperbole. I'd expect it from jAZ or penchief....but not you. :shake:

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 10:32 AM
Come on, BEP. :rolleyes:

I understand the concerns some have of him, but that's over-the-top hyperbole. I'd expect it from jAZ or penchief....but not you. :shake:

I've seen alot of bloggers and pundits refer to him as "Adolf" Giuliani or Rudy "Mussolini".

I won't go that far, but I'll leave it at this:

He reminds me of Bush.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 10:35 AM
I've seen alot of bloggers and pundits refer to him as "Adolf" Giuliani or Rudy "Mussolini".

I won't go that far, but I'll leave it at this:

He reminds me of Bush.

And WHO is making those sorts of charges? Typically....NY/East Coast Liberal Whiney Bitches.

Trent Green's relatives, maybe? :hmmm:

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 10:36 AM
I've seen alot of bloggers and pundits refer to him as "Adolf" Giuliani or Rudy "Mussolini".

I won't go that far, but I'll leave it at this:

He reminds me of Bush.
That's right. That's exactly who he reminds me of.
And I am seeing the same perjoratives used by right-libertarian pundits and some paleo-conservative ones. I think his tendencies are toward a macho-patriarchal authoritarian who is too quick to resort to force ( knee-jerk kind) and the police powers for petty crimes.

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 10:37 AM
And WHO is making those sorts of charges? Typically....NY/East Coast Liberal Whiney Bitches.

Trent Green's relatives, maybe? :hmmm:

Not just liberals.

Conservatives too. Especially libertarians.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 10:38 AM
That's right. That's exactly who he reminds me of.
And I am seeing the same perjoratives used by right-libertarian pundits and some paleo-conservative ones. I think his tendencies are toward a macho-patriachal authoritarian who is too quick to resort to force and the police powers for petty crimes.

Not just liberals.

Conservatives too. Especially libertarians.


Who? :shrug:

FTR, I'm not saying they aren't....I just haven't seen it. But I don't live in the People's Republic of NY or any other eastern block state.

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 10:40 AM
Who? :shrug:

FTR, I'm not saying they aren't....I just haven't seen it. But I don't live in the People's Republic of NY or any other eastern block state.

You should try the Google. It's easy and it's free!

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 10:41 AM
You should try the Google. It's easy and it's free!

Yeah, yeah....I'm also lazy....because I've never seriously hear the charge from any real conservative. :shrug:

Direckshun
05-31-2007, 10:41 AM
It doesn't take a lot of imagination, Mr. Kotter, to believe those things are believed.

If you're actually asking who, unless you're honestly bewildered that any reasonable person could feel that way, it seems like you're just preparing yourself for a character fight.

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 10:46 AM
Yeah, yeah....I'm also lazy....because I've never seriously hear the charge from any real conservative. :shrug:

Do you consider Ron Paul a real conservative?

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 10:46 AM
Who? :shrug:

I said who, generally at least.

I read mostly Lew Rockwell ( right libertarian), The Independent Institute ( but it wasn't them) and Raimondo these days since most of my conservative places went hawkish. I am reading more American Conservative now as well. I can't recall any specific authors right off the bat, particularly while multi-tasking (I'm drinking coffee right now and chewing gum)....but I'll find it for you later. I got a lot of work today.

FTR, I'm not saying they aren't....I just haven't seen it. But I don't live in the People's Republic of NY or any other [b]eastern block state.[b]
Hey! Florida's different. We even have mid-west country-folks like you.

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 10:50 AM
Hey! Florida's different. We even have mid-west country-folks like you.

They're just all over 70.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 10:52 AM
Do you consider Ron Paul a real conservative?
You could put him in that category....almost. As he has a 100% Constitutional rating for his voting record on small govt. So in that sense, he is as he defers to local governance more. But at that local level, I suspect he'd vote more libertarian. But he is not left libertarian he's right libertarian: markets, property rights, supports borders ( some don't), weary of international institutions, against int'l inter-dependence politically and he is pro-life.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 10:52 AM
It doesn't take a lot of imagination, Mr. Kotter, to believe those things are believed.

If you're actually asking who, unless you're honestly bewildered that any reasonable person could feel that way, it seems like you're just preparing yourself for a character fight.

WTF? :spock:

I asked an honest question; as a liberal, it's understandable for you to take that view. I've just never honestly heard another well known or real conservative with THAT take of Rudy; and so far, I still haven't.

Have you taken it upon yourself to replace TJ as my rectal parasite? Sheesh.... :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 10:53 AM
Do you consider Ron Paul a real conservative?

Eh, considering he ran as a Libertarian....kinda, I guess. Certainly "fringe" though.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 10:54 AM
They're just all over 70.
When they all stand in those long lines at the PO, I call them Q-Tips. o:-)

Not all of them— not anymore. My ex, a mid-westerner himself with family in Iowa and MO isn't.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 10:57 AM
Eh, considering he ran as a Libertarian....kinda, I guess. Certainly "fringe" though.
Though it's not an unusual viewpoint, I think it's actually sad that someone who holds 100% Constitutional views is considered "fringe" nowadays. But then so were the Founding Fathers and those who fought to free this country from authoritarian govt. That's not bad company to keep. It says more about the modern mentality just by contrast.

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 10:58 AM
WTF? :spock:

I asked an honest question; as a liberal, it's understandable for you to take that view. I've just never honestly heard another well known or real conservative with THAT take of Rudy; and so far, I still haven't.

Have you taken it upon yourself to replace TJ as my rectal parasite? Sheesh.... :rolleyes:

Who would qualify as "well-known conservative" in your opinion and I'll se what I can find.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 11:04 AM
I think it's actually sad that someone who holds 100% Constitutional views is considered "fringe" nowadays. But then so were the Founding Fathers and those who fought to free this country from authoritarian govt. That's not bad company to keep. It says more about the modern mentality just by contrast.We've been down this road....I understand you lament for old-time conservatism. Like it or not, FDR and the New Deal changed it forever. However, the movement has changed. And, I will agree, not necessarily for the better. However, conservatism in the U.S.'s two-party system, today, is the GOP. Period. Conservatism is not only ridiculed by Dems; it's no longer even in the discussion anymore.

What needs to happen, right now, is for real conservatives to push Evangelicals to their rightful place at the back of the bus (nice folks, but the whole Separation of Church and State mandates it)....AND the if we can ditch those damn Neocon ideologues at the next stop....maybe, just maybe, we can get one of the parties back on track.

Direckshun
05-31-2007, 11:08 AM
We've been down this road....I understand you lament for old-time conservatism. Like it or not, FDR and the New Deal changed it forever. However, the movement has changed. And, I will agree, not necessarily for the better. However, conservatism in the U.S.'s two-party system, today, is the GOP. Period. Conservatism is not only ridiculed by Dems; it's no longer even in the discussion anymore.

What needs to happen, right now, is for real conservatives to push Evangelicals to their rightful place at the back of the bus (nice folks, but the whole Separation of Church and State mandates it)....AND the if we can ditch those damn Neocon ideologues at the next stop....maybe, just maybe, we can get one of the parties back on track.
I think Roe v. Wade had a hand in that, too. It churned up the stakes for religious voters, and they've been amongst the most active citizens since.

Not that they weren't before.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 11:11 AM
We've been down this road....I understand you lament for old-time conservatism. Like it or not, FDR and the New Deal changed it forever. However, the movement has changed. And, I will agree, not necessarily for the better. However, conservatism in the U.S.'s two-party system, today, is the GOP. Period. Conservatism is not only ridiculed by Dems; it's no longer even in the discussion anymore.
I don't intend to keep it as a lament though. I intend to keep certain ideas alive...at least at that level. That's where it all begins. Otherwise it's apathy.

I have to disagree with you that the GOP is conservative though. It has two wings, always has just as the Dem party has. But I'd say there's little difference between the two parties at the leadership or elite Establishment level. I do think their electorates fall into those categories though.

What needs to happen, right now, is for real conservatives to push Evangelicals to their rightful place at the back of the bus (nice folks, but the whole Separation of Church and State mandates it)....AND the if we can ditch those damn Neocon ideologues at the next stop....maybe, just maybe, we can get one of the parties back on track.
Well, I can live with this as some progress. So long as there is progress. It just depends on what we progress towards. Hopefully, not the left's version of a Marxist utopia.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 11:11 AM
Who would qualify as "well-known conservative" in your opinion and I'll se what I can find.

Pretty much any mainstream Republican politician or media presence.

Direckshun
05-31-2007, 11:14 AM
Pretty much any mainstream Republican politician or media presence.
Such malleable terminology..

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 11:14 AM
Pretty much any mainstream Republican politician or media presence.
If that's your qualification, I don't know if that can be found. Because that is status-quo. However, there was some good tv programming on him....but since Fox's head corp is/was a client of Rude-y's and they're pushing him for prez, you won't get anything there.

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 11:14 AM
We've been down this road....I understand you lament for old-time conservatism. Like it or not, FDR and the New Deal changed it forever. However, the movement has changed. And, I will agree, not necessarily for the better. However, conservatism in the U.S.'s two-party system, today, is the GOP. Period. Conservatism is not only ridiculed by Dems; it's no longer even in the discussion anymore.

What needs to happen, right now, is for real conservatives to push Evangelicals to their rightful place at the back of the bus (nice folks, but the whole Separation of Church and State mandates it)....AND the if we can ditch those damn Neocon ideologues at the next stop....maybe, just maybe, we can get one of the parties back on track.

"Conservative" and "liberal" are politico buzzwords used to stir up the masses and deflect attention away from the fact that our "two party" system is a facade.

Just about every mainstream politician is interested in one thing - maintaining their power base. They're bureaucrats and they're all in it together, Dems and Pubs, Hillary and McCain. They're the modern American aristocracy.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 11:16 AM
Just about every mainstream politician is interested in one thing - maintaining their power base. They're bureaucrats and they're all in it together, Dems and Pubs, Hillary and McCain. They're the modern American aristocracy.
:thumb:

And patriotism is not about being conservative or liberal.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 11:19 AM
Ya' know Kotter, polls are showing that folks are also giving our new Dem congress low marks too. There is dissatisfaction with the two parties and the general direction of the country. So you just can't say those who pooh-pooh the current system are really fringe any more...not at the grassroots level anyhow.
They just don't have to like the results. They don't have to be intellectuals like us and analyze the causes. They just pass judement on the final effects. They don't like it.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 11:21 AM
I think Roe v. Wade had a hand in that, too. It churned up the stakes for religious voters, and they've been amongst the most active citizens since.

Not that they weren't before.

Roe definitely "energized" Evangelicals....and in the process has marginalized Republicans in the minds of some. That has hurt the party. OTOH, Dem pandering to minority issues and interests (and more socialistic government) has alienated traditional conservatives who use to vote for the party pretty regularly.

So we have been left with a growing "Independent" constituency which has become THE swing voters in any election. Find an issue or two that THEY are most passionate about--exploit that, and you win the election. It isn't really rocket science. In the last 40 years, Republicans have just been better at identifying those issues. Could it be Iraq this time? Maybe. As I've said though, I wouldn't hold my breath.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 11:25 AM
Find an issue or two that THEY are most passionate about--exploit that, and you win the election. It isn't really rocket science. In the last 40 years, Republicans have just been better at identifying those issues. Could it be Iraq this time? Maybe. As I've said though, I wouldn't hold my breath.
I don't disagree with this. However, now that the GOP has lurched to the left more under the NeoConservatives, they don't like this general direction. So this ability of the GOP may be at it's end...they are becoming out-of-touch more and more. Problem is there is nowhere to go.

Never mess with any successful action. It will put you out of business.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 11:25 AM
Ya' know Kotter, polls are showing that folks are also giving our new Dem congress low marks too. There is dissatisfaction with the two parties and the general direction of the country. So you just can't say those who pooh-pooh the current system are rally fringe any more...not at the grassroots level anyhow.
They just don't have to like the results. They don't have to be intellectuals like us.

See post #73 :)

In a two party system as entrenched and rigid as ours, it's like spitting in the wind. Working within the current system and party structure is the only REAL option. Historically, whenever third party movements gain steam they have been coopted by one, or both, of the major parties "stepping to the plate." This will be no different.

The Dems and Reps learned the lesson of the Whigs. Even if sometimes they don't want to go along.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 11:29 AM
I don't disagree with this. However, now that the GOP has lurched to the left more on the NeoConservatives, they don't like this general direction. It's left.
So this ability of the GOP may be at it's end...they are becoming out-of-touch more and more. Problem is there is nowhere to go.

You are right. I think the current GOP is in a place similar to where the Dems were in 1972. Ironically, a war may force the issue for them too.

Will they continue their rightward drift (as Dems drifted to the left through the late 1970s,) or will they stop the drift....and bring the ship back on course, by dumping the Neocons and marginalizing the Evangelicals?

If they do the latter, my next change of party affiliation may be my last. :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 11:30 AM
"Conservative" and "liberal" are politico buzzwords used to stir up the masses and deflect attention away from the fact that our "two party" system is a facade.

Just about every mainstream politician is interested in one thing - maintaining their power base. They're bureaucrats and they're all in it together, Dems and Pubs, Hillary and McCain. They're the modern American aristocracy.
I don't disagree with anything you've said.

However, aren't there significant ideological and philosophical differnces between the parties? I still think the answer is "yes."

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 11:33 AM
See post #73 :)

In a two party system as entrenched and rigid as ours, it's like spitting in the wind. Working within the current system and party structure is the only REAL option. Historically, whenever third party movements gain steam they have been coopted by one, or both, of the major parties "stepping to the plate." This will be no different.

The Dems and Reps learned the lesson of the Whigs. Even if sometimes they don't want to go along.
My post does not make a case for a Third Party. It's merely an observation.
I think the reasons you stated, working within the parties for reform is one reason why Paul decided not to go 3rd Party. Even if he's a longshot, the power of ideas is getting inserted into that group is a start.

I have to tell you, that when I went to study at FEE in the early 90's that one economics professor, who was very old said that in the 1960's all the Marxist halls, and seminars were filled to capacity. During the 1980's they were empty and the free-enterprise seminars were filled. That's the power or ideas. Unfortunately, the Marxists still control our educational establishments but more of the other guys have entered too.

When one looks at the history of the left-progressives, that began in the 19th century and took pretty much 'til the 1930's to be reflected in law...and even that required some pretty heavy-handed tactics by FDR. The good intentions of the left is that it requires oppressive govt and restriction of liberty to make life completely fair.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 11:35 AM
I don't disagree with anything you've said.

However, aren't there significant ideological and philosophical differnces between the parties? I still think the answer is "yes."
I think his key word is facade. At the level of ideas and rhetoric this is still true and at the grassroots level....but politicians use it as lip-service and pandering to gain the support of the grassroots. Meanwhile, at the practical level, for the most part anyhow, it's business as usual. The immigration issue is a perfect real-life example of this.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 11:42 AM
I think his key word is facade. At the level of ideas and rhetoric this is still true and at the grassroots level....but politicians use it as lip-service and pandering to gain the support of the grassroots. Meanwhile, at the practical level, for the most part anyhow, it's business as usual. The immigration issue is a perfect real-life example of this.

It may require an enormous effort to move them, but they move when they have too. Democracy in a nation as diverse as ours requires incredible patience sometimes.....Civil Rights, for example.

Immigration is a tough, TOUGH, issue. Fair consensus and compromise are will be elusive, yet crucial. It's like the healthcare debate. Politicians won't be able to REALLY act, until it's on the verge of crisis (which I understand, many say we are approaching.)

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 11:48 AM
I don't disagree with that either. In fact at some local levels, Texas and Oklahoma the superhighway for nafta is being beat back by citizens...but despite that certain politicians try inserting it back in using other language or burying it. That should not be happening.


Anyhow, I gotta get back to work. I enjoyed the chat, including with hstimaqe. ( or however you spell that hard to spell and pronounce moniker). He makes good points.

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 12:12 PM
I don't disagree with anything you've said.

However, aren't there significant ideological and philosophical differnces between the parties? I still think the answer is "yes."

Sure, there are philosophical differences in APPROACH.

They still share the same goal - making sure that THEY stay in power, at OUR expense.

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 12:12 PM
It may require an enormous effort to move them, but they move when they have too. Democracy in a nation as diverse as ours requires incredible patience sometimes.....Civil Rights, for example.

Immigration is a tough, TOUGH, issue. Fair consensus and compromise are will be elusive, yet crucial. It's like the healthcare debate. Politicians won't be able to REALLY act, until it's on the verge of crisis (which I understand, many say we are approaching.)

Immigration isn't a tough issue at all, not for the people in charge. The only thing that's tough about it is making sure that the populace is sufficiently divided on the subject that they get their true agenda through unnoticed.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 01:32 PM
Sure, there are philosophical differences in APPROACH.

They still share the same goal - making sure that THEY stay in power, at OUR expense.
I don't dispute that--except in terms of degree. But what's the alternative? Seriously? :shrug:

Immigration isn't a tough issue at all, not for the people in charge. The only thing that's tough about it is making sure that the populace is sufficiently divided on the subject that they get their true agenda through unnoticed.

I disagree. We are divided because it IS a tough issue. Yes, philosophically....most of us AGREE on it I think. However, the particulars and specific provisions for implementing any SERIOUS reforms are the sticking points. The devil is in the details, as they say; just like with healthcare.

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 01:34 PM
I won't dispute that entirely. But what's the alternative? Seriously? :shrug:

I would say "revolution" but my wife probably doesn't feel like entertaining the FBI or Secret Service until I get home...

Baby Lee
05-31-2007, 01:35 PM
Sure, there are philosophical differences in APPROACH.

They still share the same goal - making sure that THEY stay in power, at OUR expense.
Carl Peterson and Bill Polian both want to stay their positions of power, too. Guess there's no difference between them? ;)

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 01:45 PM
Carl Peterson and Bill Polian both want to stay their positions of power, too. Guess there's no difference between them? ;)

In the end, no. :D

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 01:48 PM
Immigration isn't a tough issue at all, not for the people in charge. The only thing that's tough about it is making sure that the populace is sufficiently divided on the subject that they get their true agenda through unnoticed.
(I don't know if you saw my edit, Parker...so: )

I disagree. We are divided because it IS a tough issue. Yes, philosophically....most of us AGREE on it I think. However, the particulars and specific provisions for implementing any SERIOUS reforms are the sticking points. The devil is in the details, as they say; just like with healthcare.

What is the solution, then? :shrug:

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 01:55 PM
(I don't know if you saw my edit, Parker...so: )

I disagree. We are divided because it IS a tough issue. Yes, philosophically....most of us AGREE on it I think. However, the particulars and specific provisions for implementing any SERIOUS reforms are the sticking points. The devil is in the details, as they say; just like with healthcare.

What is the solution, then? :shrug:

I don't have a solution. If I did, I'd probably be running for office.

I just know that this whole thing smells like the 3/5 Compromise...

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 02:00 PM
Immigration isn't a tough issue at all, not for the people in charge. The only thing that's tough about it is making sure that the populace is sufficiently divided on the subject that they get their true agenda through unnoticed.

In your opinion, what is their “true agenda”?

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 02:03 PM
I don't have a solution. If I did, I'd probably be running for office.

I just know that this whole thing smells like the 3/5 Compromise...

It reminds me more of Smoot-Hawley just before the Depression.... :shake:

:banghead:

Cochise
05-31-2007, 02:05 PM
I don't have a solution. If I did, I'd probably be running for office.

I just know that this whole thing smells like the 3/5 Compromise...

This is worse than that.

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 02:06 PM
In your opinion, what is their “true agenda”?

Create an underclass of people in the United States.

Ted Kennedy gets a whole new block of voters and Bush gets a whole new block of workers for his corporate buddies.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 02:12 PM
Create an underclass of people in the United States.

Ted Kennedy gets a whole new block of voters and Bush gets a whole new block of workers for his corporate buddies.Well then, you are at least half correct. The does seem to be the goal of one of the two parties, surely.

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 02:12 PM
Create an underclass of people in the United States.

Ted Kennedy gets a whole new block of voters and Bush gets a whole new block of workers for his corporate buddies.

Ah, that’s what I thought but wanted to remain open to other possibilities. Agreed.

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 02:30 PM
Well then, you are at least half correct. The does seem to be the goal of one of the two parties, surely.

If you're implying that the Democrats are the only party in this, I think you're wrong.

Alot of the Republicans that appear to be so outraged by this are putting on a show.

Still more of them are like Bush and flaunting it in our faces.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-31-2007, 02:35 PM
This is worse than that.

Maybe the dumbest thing ever said on this board.

noa
05-31-2007, 02:41 PM
If you're implying that the Democrats are the only party in this, I think you're wrong.

Alot of the Republicans that appear to be so outraged by this are putting on a show.

Still more of them are like Bush and flaunting it in our faces.

QFT

Adept Havelock
05-31-2007, 02:58 PM
If you're implying that the Democrats are the only party in this, I think you're wrong.

Alot of the Republicans that appear to be so outraged by this are putting on a show.

Still more of them are like Bush and flaunting it in our faces.

I'd have to agree wholeheartedly with this.

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 03:01 PM
100.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 03:30 PM
If you're implying that the Democrats are the only party in this, I think you're wrong.

Alot of the Republicans that appear to be so outraged by this are putting on a show.

Still more of them are like Bush and flaunting it in our faces.

No, I meant it more like....2/3rds of Dems seem unashamed in pursuit of what you suggest; but I also know 1/3 of Reps (including Bush) are just as bad. Dems seem unapologetic about it as a "goal," whereas Reps are in denial.

I can see where you'd think that, about what I said though.

Direckshun
05-31-2007, 03:47 PM
100.
Neg rep for all dancing fruit.

HolmeZz
05-31-2007, 05:50 PM
Dancing bananas are an atheist's worst nightmare. Even moreso than bananas in pajamas.