PDA

View Full Version : Giuliani: Worse Than Bush


jAZ
06-03-2007, 10:11 AM
Wow. Harsh.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/14952564/giuliani_worse_than_bush

Giuliani: Worse Than Bush
He's cashing in on 9/11, working with Karl Rove's henchmen and in cahoots with a Swift Boat-style attack on Hillary. Will Rudy Giuliani be Bush III?

Matt Taibbi

Posted May 31, 2007 8:59 AM


Early Wednesday, May 16th, Charleston, South Carolina. The scene is a town-hall meeting staged by GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, only a day after he wowed a patriotic Republican crowd at a nationally televised debate with a righteous ass-kicking of the party's latest Hanoi Jane, terrorist sympathizer Ron Paul. A bump in the polls later, "America's Mayor" is back on the campaign trail -- in a room packed with standard-issue Adorable Schoolchildren, in this case beatific black kids in elementary school uniforms with wide eyes and big RUDY stickers pinned to their oblivious breasts.

Giuliani has good stage presence, but his physical appearance is problematic -- virtually neckless, all shoulders and forehead and overbite, with a hunched-over, Draculoid posture that recalls, oddly enough, George W. Bush, the vestigial stoop of a once-chubby kid who grew up hiding tittie pictures from nuns. Not handsome, not cuddly, if he wins this thing it's going to be by projecting toughness and man-aura. But all presidential candidates have to play the baby-kissing game, and here is an early chance for Rudy to show his softer side.

"So," he whispers to the kids. "What do you all want to be when you grow up? Do any of you know?"

A bucktoothed boy raises his hand.

"I wanna be a doctor," he says, "and a lawyer."

The crowd laughs, then looks at Rudy expectantly. The obvious line is "A doctor and a lawyer? Whaddya want to do, sue yourself?" and you can see Rudy physically straining for the joke. But this candidate's funny bone is a microscopic thing, like one of those anvil-shaped deals in the ear, and the line eludes him.

"A doctor and a lawyer, huh?" he says, grinning nervously. "Uh . . . whaddya want to do, sue the doctor?"

My notes from that moment read: Chirping crickets.

Rudy moves on. "How about you?" he says to the next boy.

"I want to be a policeman!" the kid says.

Rudy smiles. Then the next boy says he wants to be a fireman, and the crowd twitters: Wow, a fireman and a policeman, in the same room! Rudy is beaming now, almost certainly aware that every grown-up present is suddenly thinking about 9/11. His day. As he leans over, the room is filled with popping flashbulbs. Then, instead of capitalizing on the sense of pride and shared purpose everyone is feeling, Giuliani utters something truly strange and twisted.

"A fireman and a policeman, huh?" he says. "Well, the first thing that I want to do is make sure that you two get along."

Huh? Amid confused applause, Rudy flashes a queer smile, then moves on to the heart of his presentation, a neat little speech about how the election of a Democratic president will result in certain nuclear attack and the end of the free market as we know it. I'm barely listening, however, still thinking about the "make sure you get along" line.

Although few people outside of New York know it yet, there is an emerging controversy over Giuliani's heroic 9/11 legacy. Critics charge that Rudy's failure to resolve the feuding between the city's police and firefighters prior to the attack led to untold numbers of deaths, the most tragic example being the inability of firemen to hear warnings from police helicopters about the impending collapse of the South Tower. The 9/11 Commission concluded that the two departments had been "designed to work independently, not together," and that greater coordination would have spared many lives.

Given all that, why did Rudy offer this weirdly unsolicited reference to the controversy now? Was he joking? And if so, what the ****? It was a strange and bitter comment to make, especially right on the heels of his grand-slam performance in the previous night's debate. If this is a guy who chews over a perceived slight in the middle of a victory lap, what's he going to be like with his finger on the button? Even Richard Nixon wasn't wound that tight.

--

Rudy giuliani is a true American hero, and we know this because he does all the things we expect of heroes these days -- like make $16 million a year, and lobby for Hugo Chávez and Rupert Murdoch, and promote wars without ever having served in the military, and hire a lawyer to call his second wife a "stuck pig," and organize absurd, grandstanding pogroms against minor foreign artists, and generally drift through life being a shameless opportunist with an outsize ego who doesn't even bother to conceal the fact that he's had a hard-on for the presidency since he was in diapers. In the media age, we can't have a hero humble enough to actually be one; what is needed is a tireless scoundrel, a cad willing to pose all day long for photos, who'll accept $100,000 to talk about heroism for an hour, who has the balls to take a $2.7 million advance to write a book about himself called Leadership. That's Rudy Giuliani. Our hero. And a perfect choice to uphold the legacy of George W. Bush.

Yes, Rudy is smarter than Bush. But his political strength -- and he knows it -- comes from America's unrelenting passion for never bothering to take that extra step to figure shit out. If you think you know it all already, Rudy agrees with you. And if anyone tries to tell you differently, they're probably traitors, and Rudy, well, he'll keep an eye on 'em for you. Just like Bush, Rudy appeals to the couch-bound bully in all of us, and part of the allure of his campaign is the promise to put the Pentagon and the power of the White House at that bully's disposal.

Rudy's attack against Ron Paul in the debate was a classic example of that kind of politics, a Rovian masterstroke. The wizened Paul, a grandfather seventeen times over who is running for the Republican nomination at least 100 years too late, was making a simple isolationist argument, suggesting that our lengthy involvement in Middle Eastern affairs -- in particular our bombing of Iraq in the 1990s -- was part of the terrorists' rationale in attacking us.

Though a controversial statement for a Republican politician to make, it was hardly refutable from a factual standpoint -- after all, Osama bin Laden himself cited America's treatment of Iraq in his 1996 declaration of war. Giuliani surely knew this, but he jumped all over Paul anyway, demanding that Paul take his comment back. "I don't think I've ever heard that before," he hissed, "and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th."

It was like the new convict who comes into prison the first day and punches the weakest guy in the cafeteria in the teeth, and the Southern crowd exploded in raucous applause. Coupled with yet another implosion by aneurysm-in-waiting John McCain a few days later ("**** you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room!" McCain screamed at a fellow senator during a meeting about immigration), the Ron Paul ass-whipping revived Giuliani's standing among conservatives who lately had begun to abandon him over his pro-choice status.

The Paul incident went to the very heart of who Giuliani is as a politician. To the extent that conservatism in the Bush years has morphed into a celebration of mindless patriotism and the paranoid witch-hunting of liberals and other dissenters, Rudy seems the most anxious of any Republican candidate to take up that mantle. Like Bush, Rudy has repeatedly shown that he has no problem lumping his enemies in with "the terrorists" if that's what it takes to get over. When the 9/11 Commission raised criticisms of his fire department, for instance, Giuliani put the bipartisan panel in its place for daring to question his leadership. "Our anger," he declared, "should clearly be directed at one source and one source alone -- the terrorists who killed our loved ones."

Whether Rudy believes in this kind of politics reflexively, as the psychologically crippled Bush does, or as a means to an end, as Karl Rove does, isn't clear. But there's no question that Giuliani has made the continuation of Swift-Boating politics a linchpin of his candidacy. His political hires speak deeply to that tendency. Chris Henick, formerly Karl Rove's most trusted deputy, is now a key aide at Giuliani Partners, the security firm set up by the mayor to cash in on his 9/11 image. One of his top donors, Richard Collins, is a longtime Bush supporter who was instrumental in setting up "Stop Her Now," a 527 group modeled on Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that will be used to attack Hillary Clinton. And the money for the smear campaign comes from the same Texas sources behind the Swift Boaters, including oilman T. Boone Pickens and Houston home builder Bob Perry.

To further emulate the Bush-Rove model, Giuliani has recruited some thirty Bush "Pioneers," the key fund-raisers who served as the president's $100,000 bagmen. In addition, he hired the woman who spearheaded the Pioneer program to be his chief fund-raiser. "Rudy definitely got some of Bush's heavier hitters, including all the Swift Boater types," says Alex Cohen, a senior researcher at Public Citizen, who tracks the president's top donors.

--

Rudy's stump speech on the trail these days is short and sweet. He talks about two things -- national security and free-market capitalism -- and his catchphrase for both is "going on offense." When he talks about "economic offense," Giuliani is ostensibly communicating the usual conservative contempt for taxes and big government. But he means more than that. Like the Bush-Cheney crew, Rudy believes everything should be for sale, even public policy -- particularly when he's in a position to do the selling.

In his years as mayor -- and his subsequent career as a lobbyist -- Rudy jumped into bed with anyone who could afford a rubber. Saudi Arabia, Rupert Murdoch, tobacco interests, pharmaceutical companies, private prisons, Bechtel, ChevronTexaco -- Giuliani took money from them all. You could change Rudy's mind literally in the time it took to write a check. A former prosecutor, Giuliani used to call drug dealers "murderers." But as a lobbyist he agreed to represent Seisint, a security firm run by former cocaine smuggler Hank Asher. "I have a great admiration for what he's doing," Rudy gushed after taking $2 million of Asher's money.

As mayor, Rudy had a history of asking financially interested parties to help shape important government policies. At one point, he allowed a deputy mayor who was on the payroll of Major League Baseball to work on deals for the Yankees and Mets; at another point he commissioned a $600,000 report on privatizing JFK and LaGuardia from a consultant with ties to the British Airport Authority, Rudy's handpicked choice to manage the airports.

And let's not forget Bernie Kerik, Rudy's very own hairy-assed Sancho Panza, who was nixed as director of Homeland Security after investigators uncovered a gift he received from a construction firm with alleged mob ties that wanted to do business with Giuliani's administration. It is a testament to the monstrous breadth of Rudy's chutzpah that he used his post-9/11 celebrity to push his personal bagman for a post that milks the world's hugest security-contracts tit -- at the very moment when he himself was creating a security-services company.

Then there's 9/11. Like Bush's, Rudy's career before the bombing was in the toilet; New Yorkers had come to think of him as an ambition-sick meanie whose personal scandals were truly wearying to think about. But on the day of the attack, it must be admitted, Rudy hit the perfect note; he displayed all the strength and reassuring calm that Bush did not, and for one day at least, he was everything you'd want in a leader. Then he woke up the next day and the opportunist in him saw that there was money to be made in an America high on fear.

For starters, Rudy tried to use the tragedy to shred election rules, pushing to postpone the inauguration of his successor so he could hog the limelight for a few more months. Then, with the dust from the World Trade Center barely settled, he went on the road as the Man With the Bullhorn, pocketing as much as $200,000 for a single speaking engagement. In 2002 he reported $8 million in speaking income; this past year it was more than $11 million. He's traveled in style, at one stop last year requesting a $47,000 flight on a private jet, five hotel rooms and a private suite with a balcony view and a king-size bed.

While the mayor himself flew out of New York on a magic carpet, thousands of cash-strapped cops, firemen and city workers involved with the cleanup at the World Trade Center were developing cancers and infections and mysterious respiratory ailments like the "WTC cough." This is the dirty little secret lurking underneath Rudy's 9/11 hero image -- the most egregious example of his willingness to shape public policy to suit his donors. While the cleanup effort at the Pentagon was turned over to federal agencies like OSHA, which quickly sealed off the site and required relief workers to wear hazmat suits, the World Trade Center cleanup was handed over to Giuliani. The city's Department of Design and Construction (DDC) promptly farmed out the waste-clearing effort to a smattering of politically connected companies, including Bechtel, Bovis and AMEC construction.

The mayor pledged to reopen downtown in no time, and internal DDC memos indicate that the cleanup was directed at a breakneck pace. One memo to DDC chief Michael Burton warned, "Project management appears to only address safety issues when convenient for the schedule of the project." Burton, however, had his own priorities: He threatened to fire contractors if "the highest level of efficiency is not maintained."

Although respiratory-mask use was mandatory, the city allowed a macho culture to develop on the site: Even the mayor himself showed up without a mask. By October, it was estimated, masks were being worn on site as little as twenty-nine percent of the time. Rudy proclaimed that there were "no significant problems" with the air at the World Trade Center. But there was something wrong with the air: It was one of the most dangerous toxic-waste sites in human history, full of everything from benzene to asbestos and PCBs to dioxin (the active ingredient in Agent Orange). Since the cleanup ended, police and firefighters have reported a host of serious illnesses -- respiratory ailments like sarcoidosis; leukemia and lymphoma and other cancers; and immune-system problems.

"The likelihood is that more people will eventually die from the cleanup than from the original accident," says David Worby, an attorney representing thousands of cleanup workers in a class-action lawsuit against the city. "Giuliani wears 9/11 like a badge of honor, but he screwed up so badly."

When I first spoke to Worby, he was on his way home from the funeral of a cop. "One thing about Giuliani," he told me. "He's never been to a funeral of a cleanup worker."

Indeed, Rudy has had little at all to say about the issue. About the only move he's made to address the problem was to write a letter urging Congress to pass a law capping the city's liability at $350 million.

Did Giuliani know the air at the World Trade Center was poison? Who knows -- but we do know he took over the cleanup, refusing to let more experienced federal agencies run the show. He stood on a few brick piles on the day of the bombing, then spent the next ten months making damn sure everyone worked the night shift on-site while he bonked his mistress and negotiated his gazillion-dollar move to the private sector. Meanwhile, the people who actually cleaned up the rubble got used to checking their stool for blood every morning.

Now Giuliani is running for president -- as the hero of 9/11. George Bush has balls, too, but even he has to bow to this mother****er.

mlyonsd
06-03-2007, 11:27 AM
Another fear mongering "attack Rudy because we're afraid of him" thread from the left. I really am fascinated they are so afraid of him.

jAZ
06-03-2007, 12:00 PM
Another fear mongering "attack Rudy because we're afraid of him" thread from the left. I really am fascinated they are so afraid of him.
Actually, as I've said from as soon as Rudy started aligning himself with the NeoCon's... my main concern with him is that he's a smarter GWB II... someone who will say anything needed to win and then conduct himself as Bush did by letting the NeoCons run him.

penchief
06-03-2007, 12:10 PM
Actually, as I've said from as soon as Rudy started aligning himself with the NeoCon's... my main concern with him is that he's a smarter GWB II... someone who will say anything needed to win and then conduct himself as Bush did by letting the NeoCons run him.

You're not the only one who's been saying it from the start. Giuliani is Bush II. He'd fit right into his shoes. He'd continue to do the bidding of corporations at all costs and at the expense of every other legitimate cause that might exist. And he'd stick to the lies, fear-mongering, and cheap slogans in order keep the people behaving like sheep while they continue to strip us of our liberties and our families' economic viability.

Baby Lee
06-03-2007, 12:23 PM
the vestigial stoop of a once-chubby kid who grew up hiding tittie pictures from nuns. Not handsome, not cuddly,
I guess that's better than getting terrorist training in Madrassas?

ROFL - I just love when political hate/envy and flowery prose whack each other off like this.

penchief
06-03-2007, 12:24 PM
Another fear mongering "attack Rudy because we're afraid of him" thread from the left. I really am fascinated they are so afraid of him.

We're dismayed by what Bush has done to our country. So why wouldn't we be dismayed at the thought that the establishment would purchase another unqualified lackey to continue its bidding?

And by the way, Rudy is the one using fear. How can anyone overlook that he said electing a democrat would lead to another terrorist attack?

Is it any wonder we don't like the guy?

penchief
06-03-2007, 12:27 PM
I guess that's better than getting terrorist training in Madrassas?

ROFL - I just love when political hate/envy and flowery prose whack each other off like this.

For me, it has nothing to do with hate or envy. It has to do with the path that I don't want my country to continue traveling down.

He has a background that would disqualify anyone but the status-quo's hand-picked candidate (which I believe he is). I'm a little tired of what the power-quo has brought us over the past six-plus years. How about you?

Baby Lee
06-03-2007, 12:31 PM
He's traveled in style, at one stop last year requesting a $47,000 flight on a private jet, five hotel rooms and a private suite with a balcony view and a king-size bed.
How much was his haircut.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 12:32 PM
And by the way, Rudy is the one using fear. How can anyone overlook that he said electing a democrat would lead to another terrorist attack?

I've got a hypothetical for you, penchief. Let's say that we had some way of accurately predicting the future and our machine tells us that if we elect a democrat, a 9/11 level terrorist attack *will* take place during her term but that if we elect Rudy no such attack will occur. Further, lets assume that Rudy would continue Bush-like domestic policies and continue the GWoT much as Bush has within the constraints allowed by Congress (meaning that he might be forced to withdraw from Iraq even if he personally thinks we should stay). Which one would you vote for?

Baby Lee
06-03-2007, 12:34 PM
For me, it has nothing to do with hate or envy. It has to do with the path that I don't want my country to continue traveling down.

He has a background that would disqualify anyone but the status-quo's hand-picked candidate (which I believe he is). I'm a little tired of what the power-quo has brought us over the past six-plus years. How about you?
Yeah, their machinations just haven't been the same since the Colonel went tits up.

noa
06-03-2007, 12:34 PM
How much was his haircut.

Did he go to this guy?

penchief
06-03-2007, 12:36 PM
How much was his haircut.

I'll defend Edwards on this one. While I would never condone paying $400 for a haircut, it is my understanding that two factors came in to play. He didn't know how much it was going to cost because he didn't write the check. Also, those who cut important figures' hair usually get a premium, especially when they have to travel to where the client is.

While it may have been excessive, it wasn't like he walked into a $10 barber shop and said, "give me a $400 haircut."

penchief
06-03-2007, 12:46 PM
I've got a hypothetical for you, penchief. Let's say that we had some way of accurately predicting the future and our machine tells us that if we elect a democrat, a 9/11 level terrorist attack *will* take place during her term but that if we elect Rudy no such attack will occur. Further, lets assume that Rudy would continue Bush-like domestic policies and continue the GWoT much as Bush has within the constraints allowed by Congress (meaning that he might be forced to withdraw from Iraq even if he personally thinks we should stay). Which one would you vote for?

I wouldn't vote for a candidate based soley out of fear of another attack. Because that attack alone would not tell the story that is the bigger picture. If he ensures that an attack would not take place but at the same time continues to eliminate our civil rights, invade our privacy, and suppress our individual prosperity, I would rather have the attack.

Secondly, I think that the power-quo is very good at maipulating conditions. I don't believe that they are beyond creating a crisis or manipulating a story in order to influence politics in their favor (whether it be oil, al-Qaeda, or fearmongering). We have seen examples of that in recent elections.

That is why I believe we may be beyond the tipping point. I think we may have gone past the point of no return. I still believe that the terrorists only win if we give up our way of life. Which is what you and others who support a clampdown seem to want to do.

Baby Lee
06-03-2007, 12:47 PM
I'll defend Edwards on this one.
C'mon pen. It's not about the haircut. It's about whether those kinds of issues are relevent or decorous when discussing candidates. Point is, the same folks who'll cry 'irrelevant distraction' when the populist who cares about poor folk gets a little extravagant, have no compunction about making the exact same snide observations when it's their enemy being examined.

penchief
06-03-2007, 12:49 PM
C'mon pen. It's not about the haircut. It's about whether those kinds of issues are relevent or decorous when discussing candidates. Point is, the same folks who'll cry 'irrelevant distraction' when the populist who cares about poor folk gets a little extravagant, have no compunction about making the exact same snide observations when it's their enemy being examined.

I'm not on Rudy about his spending habits. I just think he's another corpo-establishment candidate. I think he's being sold to us in the same heavy-handed way that the corporate media sold us Bush and the Iraq War.

Baby Lee
06-03-2007, 12:54 PM
I'm not on Rudy about his spending habits. I just think he's another corpo-establishment candidate. I think he's being sold to us in the same heavy-handed way that the corporate media sold us Bush and the Iraq War.
Then you'll agree that that remark was calculated to peel the same type of headline skimmers away from Giuliani that the haircut-gate was intended to peel away from Edwards?

And I don't see him as being sold to anyone. I HAVE seen a lot of Dems suddenly speaking for Religious conservatives on social issues, and lefties fearmongering the spectre of his fearmongering on security issues. Rudy's selling himself right now, against a pretty strong tide of people scared of his chances for success [not because he'd be a bad president, but because he'd be another Republican to win highest office, but I repeat myself].

penchief
06-03-2007, 01:04 PM
Then you'll agree that that remark was calculated to peel the same type of headline skimmers away from Giuliani that the haircut-gate was intended to peel away from Edwards?

And I don't see him as being sold to anyone. I HAVE seen a lot of Dems suddenly speaking for Religious conservatives on social issues, and lefties fearmongering the spectre of his fearmongering on security issues. Rudy's selling himself right now, against a pretty strong tide of people scared of his chances for success [not because he'd be a bad president, but because he'd be another Republican to win highest office, but I repeat myself].

At this point, I would not vote for Hillary or Obama. I've witnessed the way they've run their campaigns and I believe that they have the potential to be status-quo candidates, as well. That is why I feel that we may be beyond the point of saving our democracy.

As far as Rudy goes, I think he would be a horrible president. I think Bush is a horrible president and I believe Rudy is pretty much a carbon copy. I think that's why the corporate establishment would love him to fill Bush's shoes.

penchief
06-03-2007, 01:10 PM
Then you'll agree that that remark was calculated to peel the same type of headline skimmers away from Giuliani that the haircut-gate was intended to peel away from Edwards?

And I don't see him as being sold to anyone. I HAVE seen a lot of Dems suddenly speaking for Religious conservatives on social issues, and lefties fearmongering the spectre of his fearmongering on security issues. Rudy's selling himself right now, against a pretty strong tide of people scared of his chances for success [not because he'd be a bad president, but because he'd be another Republican to win highest office, but I repeat myself].

By the way, I'm not opposed to religious faith guiding someone's political beliefs. I'm opposed to blurring the lines between good government and personal faith. My problem is when religion is exploited in a way to divide people for political leverage. I agree with much of the ideals that dems are citing because it is being used to highlight the fact that republicans don't have a monopoly on Christianity.

The language dems are using usually points to the charity of Christ's teachings as opposed to the judgemental and divisive tact that the fundamentalist right has traditionally taken. I think it is effective in pointing out that Christ probably would have been a liberal, not a Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell type.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 01:46 PM
I would rather have the attack.

Let's not clutter up your answer with all the extraneous stuff. You'd rather the US be attacked again than have another term of Bush (or his clone), right?

BTW, thanks for the honest answer. :thumb:

htismaqe
06-03-2007, 01:58 PM
You're not the only one who's been saying it from the start. Giuliani is Bush II. He'd fit right into his shoes. He'd continue to do the bidding of corporations at all costs and at the expense of every other legitimate cause that might exist. And he'd stick to the lies, fear-mongering, and cheap slogans in order keep the people behaving like sheep while they continue to strip us of our liberties and our families' economic viability.

You just described every major candidate in the race, Dem or Pub.

penchief
06-03-2007, 01:59 PM
Let's not clutter up your answer with all the extraneous stuff. You'd rather the US be attacked again then have another term of Bush (or his clone), right?

BTW, thanks for the honest answer. :thumb:

What you just did is bullshit. I don't know how you can even sleep at night. Has it really come to this point for you? Where the only way you can defend your stance anymore is to mischaracterize another person's answer.

From now on, I'd like you to quote my entire post if you aren't going to be honest. I have always held you in high regard even though we disagree profusely. I've always thought your arguments were well-reasoned even if misleading at times. However, this is beneath you, IMO.

penchief
06-03-2007, 02:00 PM
You just described every major candidate in the race, Dem or Pub.

Most, but not all. IMO, Rudy is the one they want. He is perfect to play the puppet, ala Bush.

htismaqe
06-03-2007, 02:02 PM
Most, but not all. IMO, Rudy is the one they want. He is perfect to play the puppet, ala Bush.

The only ones that aren't part of it are the niche players that have no chance.

Edwards, Obama, Hillary, Rudy, McCain, Romney - government bureaucrats more interested in special interest groups than the American public.

penchief
06-03-2007, 02:06 PM
The only ones that aren't part of it are the niche players that have no chance.

Edwards, Obama, Hillary, Rudy, McCain, Romney - government bureaucrats more interested in special interest groups than the American public.

I pretty much agree. I'm sure you read my post where I already stated that I believe that about Hillary and Obama. I disagree about Edwards, though. I believe he is sincere in his beliefs. However, as everyone here already knows, I'd prefer Biden and then Richardson.

dirk digler
06-03-2007, 02:15 PM
Give Bush credit he NEVER dishonored the dead like Rudy has. Once the recovery of valuable property from Ground Zero was complete, Giuliani issued orders to put a rush on remaining cleanup operations, leaving the bodies of many -- including New York City emergency workers -- unrecovered.


NEW YORK (Reuters) - Debris that may have contained bits of bone from victims of the World Trade Center attacks was used to fill potholes and pave city roads, according to court papers filed on Friday.


The charge was made in an affidavit filed in Manhattan federal court in an ongoing case filed in 2005 by family members of those killed in the attacks against the city. They say the city did not do enough to search for remains, denying victims a proper burial.

Eric Beck, a construction worker employed at the Fresh Kills landfill in the borough of Staten Island, where the rubble was taken after the Twin Towers fell, said in his affidavit that the process of sifting through the debris was rushed.

Beck said he saw sanitation workers removing small pieces of debris containing possible bone fragments and loading them onto tractors, and using it to pave roads and fill in potholes, dips and ruts.

Kimberly Miu, a spokeswoman for the citys legal office, declined to comment on the latest filing, saying it would be inappropriate to talk about a pending motion.

The WTC Families for Proper Burial, the group that filed the suit, has also battled the city over how to honor the 2,749 people who died in the attacks on the Twin Towers.

Some relatives of victims have opposed any effort to rebuild on Ground Zero, calling it sacred ground and saying it would disrespect those who perished there.

Construction of the planned memorial and skyscraper has repeatedly been delayed, in part due to concerns expressed by victims families.

The remains of about 40 percent of the victims were never recovered, and hundreds of bone fragments have been discovered in and around Ground Zero in the last six months, the lawsuit says. [Reuters]

patteeu
06-03-2007, 02:19 PM
What you just did is bullshit. I don't know how you can even sleep at night. Has it really come to this point for you? Where the only way you can defend your stance anymore is to mischaracterize another person's answer.

From now on, I'd like you to quote my entire post if you aren't going to be honest. I have always held you in high regard even though we disagree profusely. I've always thought your arguments were well-reasoned even if misleading at times. However, this is beneath you, IMO.

My quote didn't change the character or meaning of what you said one iota. You said you'd rather have the attacks than go through more of the same which is what my hypothetical to you was. If you don't like how it sounds when all the bullsh*t is stripped away then I think you should look within rather than lashing out.

After re-reading your post, I don't see how my interpretation could possibly be wrong, but on the chance that it is, I'd welcome a clarification from you. I only ask that you avoid all the bullsh*t and make it short and sweet so I don't have to do any interpretation.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 02:24 PM
Give Bush credit he NEVER dishonored the dead like Rudy has. Once the recovery of valuable property from Ground Zero was complete, Giuliani issued orders to put a rush on remaining cleanup operations, leaving the bodies of many -- including New York City emergency workers -- unrecovered.

You can't put multiple city blocks in the heart of one of the busiest cities in the world on hold for years while you sift through debris to make sure you've discovered every possible bone fragment, eye lash, and toe nail. I don't consider this dishonoring the dead at all. It's moving on for the living.

penchief
06-03-2007, 02:29 PM
My quote didn't change the character or meaning of what you said one iota. You said you'd rather have the attacks than go through more of the same which is what my hypothetical to you was. If you don't like how it sounds when all the bullsh*t is stripped away then I think you should look within rather than lashing out.

After re-reading your post, I don't see how my interpretation could possibly be wrong, but on the chance that it is, I'd welcome a clarification from you. I only ask that you avoid all the bullsh*t and make it short and sweet so I don't have to do any interpretation.

Then why didn't you quote my first sentence? Which was far more indicative of my true sentiment. Instead, you took those particular words out of context in order to isolate what you considered to be most damning.

I guess I should have quoted Ben Franklin in response to your "hypothetical." It would have been much easier.

Also, I would rather take the attack than capitulate to the terrorists' will, which you seem more than willing to do. I am not going to let fear herd me into a sheep mentality just so that people like yourself (who have little regard for our liberties) can advocate a clampdown on freedom in this country.

noa
06-03-2007, 02:36 PM
My quote didn't change the character or meaning of what you said one iota. You said you'd rather have the attacks than go through more of the same which is what my hypothetical to you was. If you don't like how it sounds when all the bullsh*t is stripped away then I think you should look within rather than lashing out.

After re-reading your post, I don't see how my interpretation could possibly be wrong, but on the chance that it is, I'd welcome a clarification from you. I only ask that you avoid all the bullsh*t and make it short and sweet so I don't have to do any interpretation.


I don't think his point was that he would rather have another terrorist attack than suffer 4 years under another Bush-like regime. His point, which is a point that many people have made in American history, is that it would be better to die in a struggle to maintain our way of life, our love for freedom, justice, and liberty, than to sacrifice our morals and freedoms simply so we can keep breathing the next morning. Even Republicans have made these types of statements before (Barry Goldwater comes to mind). No one prefers to have a terrorist attack. The preference is to fight this fight without sacrificing what America is all about.

dirk digler
06-03-2007, 02:36 PM
You can't put multiple city blocks in the heart of one of the busiest cities in the world on hold for years while you sift through debris to make sure you've discovered every possible bone fragment, eye lash, and toe nail. I don't consider this dishonoring the dead at all. It's moving on for the living.

Unfortuntely for alot the families they don't feel the same way. What is the rush? The towers are gone and is going to be years before anything is built there again.

Also You can haul the debris off site and do the sifting there.

I was thinking hard about voting for Rudy but the more I learn about him the less I like. I hope Fred Thompson is everything he is cracked up to be.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 02:41 PM
Then why didn't you quote my first sentence? Which was far more indicative of my true sentiment. Instead, you took those particular words out of context in order to isolate what you considered to be most damning.

I guess I should have quoted Ben Franklin in response to your "hypothetical." It would have been much easier.

Also, I would rather take the attack than capitulate to the terrorists' will, which you seem more than willing to do. I am not going to let fear herd me into a sheep mentality just so that people like yourself (who have little regard for our liberties) can advocate a clampdown on freedom in this country.

Because your first sentence wasn't responsive to my hypothetical. I didn't ask you whether you'd vote solely on the basis of fear of an attack. I gave you reasons to vote for Rudy (no attack) and what you would consider to be reasons to vote against him (continuation of Bush policies). You chose attacks over Bush policies as far as I could tell which is how I accurately characterized your response. If that's not accurate, say so more clearly, but otherwise own it.

BTW, nothing about the context of that post changes what you said or what I quoted from it. The context *supports* my conclusion.

noa
06-03-2007, 02:47 PM
Because your first sentence wasn't responsive to my hypothetical. I didn't ask you whether you'd vote solely on the basis of fear of an attack. I gave you reasons to vote for Rudy (no attack) and what you would consider to be reasons to vote against him (continuation of Bush policies). You chose attacks over Bush policies as far as I could tell which is how I accurately characterized your response. If that's not accurate, say so more clearly, but otherwise own it.

BTW, nothing about the context of that post changes what you said or what I quoted from it. The context *supports* my conclusion.

Patty, IMO, the way you framed your hypothetical, anyone who answers is forced to say they want Giuliani, otherwise you will accuse them of wanting another 9/11 to happen.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 02:48 PM
I don't think his point was that he would rather have another terrorist attack than suffer 4 years under another Bush-like regime. His point, which is a point that many people have made in American history, is that it would be better to die in a struggle to maintain our way of life, our love for freedom, justice, and liberty, than to sacrifice our morals and freedoms simply so we can keep breathing the next morning. Even Republicans have made these types of statements before (Barry Goldwater comes to mind). No one prefers to have a terrorist attack. The preference is to fight this fight without sacrificing what America is all about.

He had a choice between two known futures and he made the choice. I don't see why "rather" is an inappropriate word to use in that context. He may well have a noble reason for preferring the attacks (and, in fact, I'm sure it is exactly what you describe), but that doesn't change the nature of his choice.

The interesting thing to me is his reaction to my post. I would expect someone who was as confident as he is that our freedoms and our democratic way of life are either already lost or are nearing the tipping point would be proud to say that he'd rather suffer another 9/11 than continue down the path we are currently on.

penchief
06-03-2007, 02:52 PM
Because your first sentence wasn't responsive to my hypothetical. I didn't ask you whether you'd vote solely on the basis of fear of an attack. I gave you reasons to vote for Rudy (no attack) and what you would consider to be reasons to vote against him (continuation of Bush policies). You chose attacks over Bush policies as far as I could tell which is how I accurately characterized your response. If that's not accurate, say so more clearly, but otherwise own it.

BTW, nothing about the context of that post changes what you said or what I quoted from it. The context *supports* my conclusion.

First off, I believe your original 'false choice' question was loaded for a reason. I think it was a cheap form of baiting for your own purpose. Even though you are sometimes unreasonable in your defense of the indefensible, I have never pegged you as a 'black or white' kind of guy.

Let me ask you a hypothetical:

If four years of Rudy Giuliani meant that we would not suffer another attack but also meant that we would lose all of our civil liberties, all of our personal privacy, and our democracy as we know it; would you vote for him?

Baby Lee
06-03-2007, 02:55 PM
I guess I should have quoted Ben Franklin in response to your "hypothetical." It would have been much easier.
I've never understood the allure of that quote.
So, if I enter into a social compact wherein I give up my liberty to kill anyone I want to, in return for them offering the security that they will not kill me, I deserve neither the right to kill or the security from being killed?
If I give up my liberty to dump my motor oil into the public waterways in return for the security that the public waterways will remain potable, I deserve neither as well?

dirk digler
06-03-2007, 02:56 PM
If four years of Rudy Giuliani meant that we would not suffer another attack but also meant that we would lose all of our civil liberties, all of our personal privacy, and our democracy as we know it; would you vote for him?

The better question would be:

Patteeu I've got a hypothetical for you. Let's say that we had some way of accurately predicting the future and our machine tells us that if we elect a republican, a 9/11 level terrorist attack *will* take place during his term but that if we elect Hillary no such attack will occur. Further, lets assume that Hillary would continue Bush-like domestic policies and continue the GWoT much as Bush has within the constraints allowed by Congress (meaning that he might be forced to withdraw from Iraq even if she personally thinks we should stay). Which one would you vote for?

patteeu
06-03-2007, 02:59 PM
Patty, IMO, the way you framed your hypothetical, anyone who answers is forced to say they want Giuliani, otherwise you will accuse them of wanting another 9/11 to happen.

Well, of course. :D

It helps to distinguish between those who are overstating their opposition to Guilliani and those who truly see him as something like the incarnation of evil. The way penchief always talks about these things in near-apocalyptic terms, I just wanted to see how strong his anti-Rudy feelings were.

I would rather have another 9/11 happen than have the 1st Amendment repealed, for example. It's not that hard to say such a thing if you really believe the alternative is worse. It's only surprising (to me at least) that penchief thinks that Bush is worse than 9/11.

penchief
06-03-2007, 03:00 PM
I've never understood the allure of that quote.
So, if I enter into a social compact wherein I give up my liberty to kill anyone I want to, in return for them offering the security that they will not kill me, I deserve neither the right to kill or the security from being killed?
If I give up my liberty to dump my motor oil into the public waterways in return for the security that the public waterways will remain potable, I deserve neither as well?

IMO, social responsibility is an aspect of freedom. Social irresponsibility threatens it.

The bottom line is whether or not we would sacrifice our liberty in favor of a totalitarian state.

I say, "no."

More and more, I'm getting the feeling that patteau would rather live in a state of paternal security rather than have a democracy or the opportunity to prosper.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 03:03 PM
First off, I believe your original 'false choice' question was loaded for a reason. I think it was a cheap form of baiting for your own purpose. Even though you are sometimes unreasonable in your defense of the defenseless, I have never pegged you as a 'black or white' kind of guy.

Let me ask you a hypothetical:

If four years of Rudy Giuliani meant that we would not suffer another attack but also meant that we would lose all of our civil liberties, all of our personal privacy, and our democracy as we know it; would you vote for him?

Absolutely not.

See how easy it is to give a straightforward, unadorned answer?

And by the way, although it may have been a false choice in the sense that I didn't offer you the choice of saying something like "I'd vote 3rd party" or "I'd stay home" or even "It depends on who the democrat is", it isn't the case that I forced you to choose the choice you chose. In your freeform answer, you could have elected to make any of those other choices, but you didn't. You chose another 9/11 over another Bush. That's on you not on me.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 03:06 PM
The better question would be:

Patteeu I've got a hypothetical for you. Let's say that we had some way of accurately predicting the future and our machine tells us that if we elect a republican, a 9/11 level terrorist attack *will* take place during his term but that if we elect Hillary no such attack will occur. Further, lets assume that Hillary would continue Bush-like domestic policies and continue the GWoT much as Bush has within the constraints allowed by Congress (meaning that he might be forced to withdraw from Iraq even if she personally thinks we should stay). Which one would you vote for?

Hillary, especially if she's going to continue "Bush-like" policies, but since I suspect you didn't mean that, I'll go ahead and say I'd vote for Hillary even if I expect she would govern as Hillary.

penchief
06-03-2007, 03:08 PM
Well, of course. :D

It helps to distinguish between those who are overstating their opposition to Guilliani and those who truly see him as something like the incarnation of evil. The way penchief always talks about these things in near-apocalyptic terms, I just wanted to see how strong his anti-Rudy feelings were.

I would rather have another 9/11 happen than have the 1st Amendment repealed, for example. It's not that hard to say such a thing if you really believe the alternative is worse. It's only surprising (to me at least) that penchief thinks that Bush is worse than 9/11.

What Bush has done to this country since 9/11 is worse, IMO. I want my civil liberties and my personal privacy back. I don't want the equivalent of communist party politics to be the consequence of 9/11.

dirk digler
06-03-2007, 03:08 PM
Hillary, especially if she's going to continue "Bush-like" policies, but since I suspect you didn't mean that, I'll go ahead and say I'd vote for Hillary even if I expect she would govern as Hillary.


I'm shocked. :)

patteeu
06-03-2007, 03:13 PM
I'm shocked. :)

At least there's some potential for fireworks if she ever decides to kick Bill to the curb (or Ft. Marcy park). ;)

It would also be interesting to see how many women would end up in a Hillary cabinet and appointed to the SCOTUS. God help us. :p

dirk digler
06-03-2007, 03:16 PM
At least there's some potential for fireworks if she ever decides to kick Bill to the curb (or Ft. Marcy park). ;)

It would also be interesting to see how many women would end up in a Hillary cabinet and appointed to the SCOTUS. God help us. :p

That won't ever happen she needs Bill with her to win. I think divorcing him while POTUS (god forbid) is not such a good idea.

As long as they were very attractive women with big tits I would be all for it. :D

mlyonsd
06-03-2007, 03:19 PM
We're dismayed by what Bush has done to our country. So why wouldn't we be dismayed at the thought that the establishment would purchase another unqualified lackey to continue its bidding?

And by the way, Rudy is the one using fear. How can anyone overlook that he said electing a democrat would lead to another terrorist attack?

Is it any wonder we don't like the guy?

My post wasn't intended towards you. I'm just noting that while many of the rep candidates stand pretty close to Bush on their views of the GWoT and many other issues Rudy is the one that keeps getting 90% of the negative candidate threads in this forum.

I have no idea who I'm rooting for btw, I'm just pointing out the fact Rudy must scare the bejeezus out of many in this forum otherwise we wouldn't see him attacked most of the time. It's almost like the political bloggers have a game plan or something. :)

mlyonsd
06-03-2007, 03:21 PM
That won't ever happen she needs Bill with her to win. I think divorcing him while POTUS (god forbid) is not such a good idea.

As long as they were very attractive women with big tits I would be all for it. :D

She could divorce Bill, appoint Rosie as Sec. of Defense, and then the two could get married. I think they'd both like that.

penchief
06-03-2007, 03:22 PM
My post wasn't intended towards you. I'm just noting that while many of the rep candidates stand pretty close to Bush on their views of the GWoT and many other issues Rudy is the one that keeps getting 90% of the negative candidate threads in this forum.

I have no idea who I'm rooting for btw, I'm just pointing out the fact Rudy must scare the bejeezus out of many in this forum otherwise we wouldn't see him attacked most of the time. It's almost like the political bloggers have a game plan or something. :)

It's probably because he's the frontrunner. And in a lot of people's opinions he would be a continuation of the current direction this country has been headed for the past six years.

mlyonsd
06-03-2007, 03:24 PM
It's probably because he's the frontrunner. And in a lot of people's opinions he would be a continuation of the current direction this country has been headed for the past six years.

I agree about the frontrunner part, but think it has more to do with the fact they are afraid Rudy would beat almost any current dem candidate. Or at least have a good shot at it.

I personally think Rudy is the only rep that has a chance at the WH. JMO.

dirk digler
06-03-2007, 03:25 PM
She could divorce Bill, appoint Rosie as Sec. of Defense, and then the two could get married. I think they'd both like that.

I hate to ask but which would play the man?

mlyonsd
06-03-2007, 03:26 PM
I hate to ask but which would play the man?

Terrible visual. I'm sorry I brought it up. ROFL

penchief
06-03-2007, 03:29 PM
The interesting thing to me is his reaction to my post. I would expect someone who was as confident as he is that our freedoms and our democratic way of life are either already lost or are nearing the tipping point would be proud to say that he'd rather suffer another 9/11 than continue down the path we are currently on.

I did say that. But, IMO, you framed my answer to suit your own purpose. Which is what I believe you did with your hypothetical, as well.

Logical
06-03-2007, 04:12 PM
I've got a hypothetical for you, penchief. Let's say that we had some way of accurately predicting the future and our machine tells us that if we elect a democrat, a 9/11 level terrorist attack *will* take place during her term but that if we elect Rudy no such attack will occur. Further, lets assume that Rudy would continue Bush-like domestic policies and continue the GWoT much as Bush has within the constraints allowed by Congress (meaning that he might be forced to withdraw from Iraq even if he personally thinks we should stay). Which one would you vote for?

I would not vote for either, this is the worst of all worlds scenario on both sides. Silly hypothetical but easy to answer.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-03-2007, 04:16 PM
I've got a hypothetical for you, penchief. Let's say that we had some way of accurately predicting the future and our machine tells us that if we elect a democrat, a 9/11 level terrorist attack *will* take place during her term but that if we elect Rudy no such attack will occur. Further, lets assume that Rudy would continue Bush-like domestic policies and continue the GWoT much as Bush has within the constraints allowed by Congress (meaning that he might be forced to withdraw from Iraq even if he personally thinks we should stay). Which one would you vote for?

I'd say that pretty much sums up the credibility that patteeu has left.

Logical
06-03-2007, 04:17 PM
What you just did is bullshit. I don't know how you can even sleep at night. Has it really come to this point for you? Where the only way you can defend your stance anymore is to mischaracterize another person's answer.

From now on, I'd like you to quote my entire post if you aren't going to be honest. I have always held you in high regard even though we disagree profusely. I've always thought your arguments were well-reasoned even if misleading at times. However, this is beneath you, IMO.

I agree that was a low tactic that is inexcusable.

Logical
06-03-2007, 04:20 PM
My quote didn't change the character or meaning of what you said one iota. You said you'd rather have the attacks than go through more of the same which is what my hypothetical to you was. If you don't like how it sounds when all the bullsh*t is stripped away then I think you should look within rather than lashing out.

After re-reading your post, I don't see how my interpretation could possibly be wrong, but on the chance that it is, I'd welcome a clarification from you. I only ask that you avoid all the bullsh*t and make it short and sweet so I don't have to do any interpretation.

Let me just say that you are officially full of shit. Using part of a quote on a answer to a very complex hypothetical is the lowest of the low in tactics.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 06:43 PM
I did say that. But, IMO, you framed my answer to suit your own purpose. Which is what I believe you did with your hypothetical, as well.

What was my purpose?

You said it and you meant it. Why you can't own it now without all the whining is beyond me.

penchief
06-03-2007, 06:45 PM
What was my purpose?

You said it and you meant it. Why you can't own it now without all the whining is beyond me.

I'm not whining. I'm calling you out for a low-rent maneuver.

I stated my position very clearly in my post. It's just that you chose to use six words to paint my position as so partisan that it should not be viewed as reasonable, unlike your sophisticated positions.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 06:48 PM
I would not vote for either, this is the worst of all worlds scenario on both sides. Silly hypothetical but easy to answer.

This answer may be honest, but I get the sense that you think you won something. If the democrat wins, the new 9/11 still happens even though you didn't vote for them. And if Guilliani wins, you still get 4 more years of Bush governance. In other words, from your pov, you're still screwed, you just don't get to influence how you're screwed. BTW, the hypothetical wasn't a trap or a trick, it was just a hypothetical that came to mind after hearing penchief's latest concerns about the end of the USA as we know it.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 06:51 PM
I'd say that pretty much sums up the credibility that patteeu has left.

How does this affect my credibility one way or the other? It was a hypothetical. I wasn't suggesting that we really have a machine that accurately predicts the future. I made that part up.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 06:53 PM
I agree that was a low tactic that is inexcusable.

Oh really? Tell me how I mischaracterized penchief's answer. Did he not choose a reprise of 9/11 over another term of Bush policy?

patteeu
06-03-2007, 07:02 PM
Let me just say that you are officially full of shit. Using part of a quote on a answer to a very complex hypothetical is the lowest of the low in tactics.

Complex hypothetical? :rolleyes:

I quoted penchief accurately and with all the context anyone would need to get a full understanding of his answer. That you can't grasp that speaks poorly of you. But I'm sure you'll have a great answer to my question in post 60 that will show me where I'm wrong. :rolleyes:

penchief
06-03-2007, 07:04 PM
Oh really? Tell me how I mischaracterized penchief's answer. Did he not choose a reprise of 9/11 over another term of Bush policy?

Because it was a hypothetical that deserved more than a one word answer. You chose to ignore the elements of my answer that preceded why I would prefer an attack over the suppression of our way of life.

Your response to the snippet you quoted makes it pretty clear that you did so in order to depict me as a partisan rather than answer my reasoning.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-03-2007, 07:05 PM
How does this affect my credibility one way or the other? It was a hypothetical. I wasn't suggesting that we really have a machine that accurately predicts the future. I made that part up.

The machine had nothing to do with it. The choices and the manner in which you presented them did.

Logical
06-03-2007, 07:07 PM
Oh really? Tell me how I mischaracterized penchief's answer. Did he not choose a reprise of 9/11 over another term of Bush policy?First you said another attack and did not clarify the intensity of the attack. 2nd you were willing to give away all our civil liberties to avoid the attack and Penchief was unwilling to go along. You made a hypothetical that was so inherently evil on both sides that the only legitimate choice was not to select either, my choice. Penchief gave a well thought out response that you chose to mischarachterize with a single statement out the entire post. Shame on you.

Logical
06-03-2007, 07:13 PM
This answer may be honest, but I get the sense that you think you won something. If the democrat wins, the new 9/11 still happens even though you didn't vote for them. And if Guilliani wins, you still get 4 more years of Bush governance. In other words, from your pov, you're still screwed, you just don't get to influence how you're screwed. BTW, the hypothetical wasn't a trap or a trick, it was just a hypothetical that came to mind after hearing penchief's latest concerns about the end of the USA as we know it.

Bullshit it was absolutely a trap and you know it.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 07:15 PM
I'm not whining. I'm calling you out for a low-rent maneuver.

I stated my position very clearly in my post. It's just that you chose to use six words to paint my position as so partisan that it should not be viewed as reasonable, unlike your sophisticated positions.

You still haven't explained to me how anything I left out of that quote was critical to your answer. All I get from you is whining about a maneuver that wasn't even a maneuver.

I answered a couple of variants of my own hypothetical in a short, one sentence manner. Why is it so difficult for you?

Here's my answer to a self-created variant comparing the repeal of the 1st Amendment with another 9/11 attack:

I would rather have another 9/11 happen than have the 1st Amendment repealed, for example.

Here's my answer to your hypothetical whether I'd vote for Rudi if it meant losing all of our civil liberties:

Absolutely not.

Here's my answer to Dirk's hypothetical about either voting for Hillary or voting in a way that would lead to another 9/11 attack:

Hillary, especially if she's going to continue "Bush-like" policies, but since I suspect you didn't mean that, I'll go ahead and say I'd vote for Hillary even if I expect she would govern as Hillary.

And that last one would have been much shorter if Dirk hadn't, in my estimation, forgetten to change all of the "govern like Bush" parts when he modified my original hypothetical.

So why is it that you need 100+ words to answer a simple hypothetical if I can do it in a single sentence (or less)? I'll tell you the answer. It's because when you strip away all the bullshit, you just don't like how it sounds.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 07:19 PM
Because it was a hypothetical that deserved more than a one word answer. You chose to ignore the elements of my answer that preceded why I would prefer an attack over the suppression of our way of life.

You didn't answer my question. You didn't explain how I mischaracterized your answer.

You gave your answer and added all the clutter you felt was necessary to obscure the truth. That's up to you. I boiled it down to the essence without changing the meaning one iota. If anyone wants to know why you chose the answer that you did, they can read your post. If they simply want to know your answer, they can get it from mine. You can spend your own posts explaining yourself. I didn't mischaracterize anything.

Your response to the snippet you quoted makes it pretty clear that you did so in order to depict me as a partisan rather than answer my reasoning.

You mean when I thanked you for your honesty? Yeah, that's sure a vicious partisan attack. :rolleyes:

patteeu
06-03-2007, 07:21 PM
The machine had nothing to do with it. The choices and the manner in which you presented them did.

You'll have to hold my hand on this and explain how any of that has to do with my credibility.

penchief
06-03-2007, 07:25 PM
You still haven't explained to me how anything I left out of that quote was critical to your answer. All I get from you is whining about a maneuver that wasn't even a maneuver.

I answered a couple of variants of my own hypothetical in a short, one sentence manner. Why is it so difficult for you?

Here's my answer to a self-created variant comparing the repeal of the 1st Amendment with another 9/11 attack:



Here's my answer to your hypothetical whether I'd vote for Rudi if it meant losing all of our civil liberties:



Here's my answer to Dirk's hypothetical about either voting for Hillary or voting in a way that would lead to another 9/11 attack:



And that last one would have been much shorter if Dirk hadn't, in my estimation, forgetten to change all of the "govern like Bush" parts when he modified my original hypothetical.

So why is it that you need 100+ words to answer a simple hypothetical if I can do it in a single sentence (or less)? I'll tell you the answer. It's because when you strip away all the bullshit, you just don't like how it sounds.

All after the fact. Your hypothetical, as well as your intentional use of only six words from of my response in order to paint me as partisan, came before your backtracking. I believe you are the one that has been unreasonably partisan.

I stand firmly behind my answer. I just don't like the way you dishonestly mischaracterized my answer to paint my positon as simplistic in a way that seems like I would rather have another attack than another republican.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 07:35 PM
First you said another attack and did not clarify the intensity of the attack.

Of course I did. I said "a 9/11 level terrorist attack."

Furthermore, there is nothing in penchief's response that suggests he was confused.

2nd you were willing to give away all our civil liberties to avoid the attack and Penchief was unwilling to go along.

It's like you are on another planet here. There is nothing in my hypothetical about giving away all our civil liberties. I said Rudy would govern like Bush both domestically and wrt GWoT. It's up to the reader to judge what that means and I have no doubt that to penchief it means that we're all headed for the gulag, but it's not reasonable to suggest that I created that scenario.

You made a hypothetical that was so inherently evil on both sides that the only legitimate choice was not to select either, my choice.

You're a joke if this is for real. If you think a Bush-like presidency under Rudy is so inherently evil that the only legitimate choice is to withhold your vote, you belong in a padded room. Seriously. I can only assume that you somehow failed to actually read my hypothetical and that this is all just a big mistake (or some kind of put on), because if you did read it and characterized it in the way you've done above, you have absolutely no room criticizing anyone for failing to quote another poster in his entirety.

Penchief gave a well thought out response that you chose to mischarachterize with a single statement out the entire post. Shame on you.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how I mischaracterized him. If you want an example of mischaracterization, read your post and my hypothetical side by side. That's mischaracterization. Shame on me? Haha.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 07:39 PM
Bullshit it was absolutely a trap and you know it.

You are paranoid. The only people who think it's a trap seem to be the people who'd rather have another 9/11 attack than face another 4 years of Bush-like governance like you and penchief. If that's really your honest position, why be ashamed of it? I'm not ashamed that I'd rather have another 9/11 attack than have the 1st amendment repealed.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 07:41 PM
All after the fact. Your hypothetical, as well as your intentional use of only six words from of my response in order to paint me as partisan, came before your backtracking. I believe you are the one that has been unreasonably partisan.

I stand firmly behind my answer. I just don't like the way you dishonestly mischaracterized my answer to paint my positon as simplistic in a way that seems like I would rather have another attack than another republican.

Still waiting on your explanation about how I mischaracterized your answer. Now you've upped the ante by throwing in the redundant "dishonestly" but you're still just making accusations. I'm waiting on the argument/explanation. What was dishonest about it? It's your answer is it not?

And what does "after the fact" have to do with it?

penchief
06-03-2007, 07:43 PM
You are paranoid. The only people who think it's a trap seem to be the people who'd rather have another 9/11 attack than face another 4 years of Bush-like governance like you and penchief. If that's really your honest position, why be ashamed of it? I'm not ashamed that I'd rather have another 9/11 attack than have the 1st amendment repealed.

There you go again. Overlooking ideals in favor of painting with a broad black and white brush.

As adept as you are with the English language it amazes me that you can be so simplistic with your thinking and your intent.

Logical
06-03-2007, 07:51 PM
Of course I did. I said "a 9/11 level terrorist attack."

Furthermore, there is nothing in penchief's response that suggests he was confused.



It's like you are on another planet here. There is nothing in my hypothetical about giving away all our civil liberties. I said Rudy would govern like Bush both domestically and wrt GWoT. It's up to the reader to judge what that means and I have no doubt that to penchief it means that we're all headed for the gulag, but it's not reasonable to suggest that I created that scenario.



You're a joke if this is for real. If you think a Bush-like presidency under Rudy is so inherently evil that the only legitimate choice is to withhold your vote, you belong in a padded room. Seriously. I can only assume that you somehow failed to actually read my hypothetical and that this is all just a big mistake (or some kind of put on), because if you did read it and characterized it in the way you've done above, you have absolutely no room criticizing anyone for failing to quote another poster in his entirety.



I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how I mischaracterized him. If you want an example of mischaracterization, read your post and my hypothetical side by side. That's mischaracterization. Shame on me? Haha.

Yes we are all wrong and only patteeu is right and virtuous.:rolleyes:

penchief
06-03-2007, 07:51 PM
Still waiting on your explanation about how I mischaracterized your answer. Now you've upped the ante by throwing in the redundant "dishonestly" but you're still just making accusations. I'm waiting on the argument/explanation. What was dishonest about it? It's your answer is it not?

And what does "after the fact" have to do with it?

I've told you more than once. I think you need to go back and look at the way you responded to my post. This is a public board. This is not a personal conversation between two people. Otherwise, we might as well pick up the phone. We're debating on this board because it is a public board and the way one mischaracterizes another's posts can influence those who are not willing to disect the conversation appropriately.

When you mischaracterize someone's words by quoting only a small part of their response in a fashion that unfairly colors both responses in favor of your stance, that is intellectually dishonest, IMO.

And I believe that is what you did.

mlyonsd
06-03-2007, 08:11 PM
What Bush has done to this country since 9/11 is worse, IMO. I want my civil liberties and my personal privacy back. I don't want the equivalent of communist party politics to be the consequence of 9/11.

C'mon man. That's just wrong. Now you're fear mongering.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 08:11 PM
Yes we are all wrong and only patteeu is right and virtuous.:rolleyes:

There isn't anyone more wrong in this thread than you. Congratulations.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 08:12 PM
There you go again. Overlooking ideals in favor of painting with a broad black and white brush.

As adept as you are with the English language it amazes me that you can be so simplistic with your thinking and your intent.

What ideals am I overlooking?

Are you ever going to explain how I mischaracterized you or are we done with that?

patteeu
06-03-2007, 08:18 PM
I've told you more than once. I think you need to go back and look at the way you responded to my post. This is a public board. This is not a personal conversation between two people. Otherwise, we might as well pick up the phone. We're debating on this board because it is a public board and the way one mischaracterizes another's posts can influence those who are not willing to disect the conversation appropriately.

When you mischaracterize someone's words by quoting only a small part of their response in a fashion that unfairly colors both responses in favor of your stance, that is intellectually dishonest, IMO.

And I believe that is what you did.

How? How did it unfairly color your response? I stripped away the why but I left the what completely intact.

If I were to start a thread about what the board's favorite rock band was and I kept a running total in the OP (because I wouldn't be able to create a poll with thousands of options), would I be obliged to include every longwinded explanation about why each person loves their particular band or would it be OK for me to distill their answers down to the band name and keep track of that since that's what I asked about in the first place? I don't think that would be mischaracterizing their answer and there's no difference between that and what I did to your answer.

penchief
06-03-2007, 08:24 PM
C'mon man. That's just wrong. Now you're fear mongering.

Um...have you been paying attention to the last few years?

Torture. Domestic spying. The elimnation of civil liberties. Governmental secrecy. Misinformation. Unjustified military intervention. Party loyalty infiltrating governmental agencies.........

.....All of which are eerily familiar to communist and Nazi party tactics.

jAZ
06-03-2007, 08:30 PM
What you just did is bullshit. I don't know how you can even sleep at night. Has it really come to this point for you? Where the only way you can defend your stance anymore is to mischaracterize another person's answer.
Yep...

I'm not sure how many people witnessed this exchange in the Gore/Obama thread, but...
(includes full quotes for full context here, when they weren't needed at the time)
The article that Radar Chief posted indicates that the head of NASA (Michael Griffin, quoted previously)... rejects... catastrophic climate change consequences...
Liar.
Griffin: "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."

To which patteeu applied his new-found, but never-the-less rather stunning anti-logic...
Wrong again. If he didn't reject it, he'd be sure he agreed.
As I said at the time...
Wow.

That's stunning.

What I thought was cognitive dissonance on your part, is a complete detachment from reality piled upon a stunning ignorance of the basic tenant of logic.

Seriously, I have always maintained a level of respect for your cognitive abilities, if not any respect for you judgment.

It's impossible to hold that opinion after that statement.

Tell me you are kidding.
He seemed to suggest he wasnt' kidding.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 08:32 PM
Um...have you been paying attention to the last few years?

Torture. Domestic spying. The elimnation of civil liberties. Governmental secrecy. Misinformation. Unjustified military intervention. Party loyalty infiltrating governmental agencies.........

.....All of which are eerily familiar to communist and Nazi party tactics.

If I thought a government under Bush was eerily familiar to communist and Nazi party tactics, I'd have no problem admitting that I'd rather suffer another 9/11 than 4 more years of that and I wouldn't care if someone quoted me even if they didn't bother to carry my water on the "why" part of it.

penchief
06-03-2007, 08:34 PM
How? How did it unfairly color your response? I stripped away the why but I left the what completely intact.

If I were to start a thread about what the board's favorite rock band was and I kept a running total in the OP (because I wouldn't be able to create a poll with thousands of options), would I be obliged to include every longwinded explanation about why each person loves their particular band or would it be OK for me to distill their answers down to the band name and keep track of that since that's what I asked about in the first place? I don't think that would be mischaracterizing their answer and there's no difference between that and what I did to your answer.

And this is a longwinded roundabout way of avoiding the point. You are trying to compare grapes with watermelons with this anology. Your arguments are becoming weaker and weaker. There is nothing similar about your hypothetical question and response compared to this anology.

I'm going to give you a mulligan on this one and we'll start from scratch next time because it is fruitless to continue a debate in which you continue to dilute the point of contention (which happens to be your expertise).

Logical
06-03-2007, 08:37 PM
How? How did it unfairly color your response? I stripped away the why but I left the what completely intact.

If I were to start a thread about what the board's favorite rock band was and I kept a running total in the OP (because I wouldn't be able to create a poll with thousands of options), would I be obliged to include every longwinded explanation about why each person loves their particular band or would it be OK for me to distill their answers down to the band name and keep track of that since that's what I asked about in the first place? I don't think that would be mischaracterizing their answer and there's no difference between that and what I did to your answer.

I cannot believe you are even trying to defend your intellectual dishonesty. Your analogy is also completely irrelevant to what you did. Next time just be honest and quote the entire post.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 08:49 PM
And this is a longwinded roundabout way of avoiding the point. You are trying to compare grapes with watermelons with this anology. Your arguments are becoming weaker and weaker. There is nothing similar about your hypothetical question and response compared to this anology.

I'm going to give you a mulligan on this one and we'll start from scratch next time because it is fruitless to continue a debate in which you continue to dilute the point of contention (which happens to be your expertise).

I cannot believe you are even trying to defend your intellectual dishonesty. Your analogy is also completely irrelevant to what you did. Next time just be honest and quote the entire post.

Still no explanation on how I mischaracterized penchief's answer? The analogy is apt so long as your only point is that I didn't quote in full. That's the only thing I've been able to get out of either of you despite repeated requests. If there is something more to it than that, feel free to speak up. Otherwise, I'll assume you're both FOS.

And pen, I don't want a mulligan. I want you to back up your accusation or to eat your words. You want to give me a mulligan because you *can't* back up your accusation. I quoted you honestly and without distortion. You don't deserve any more than that. No one deserves any more than that. It's pathetic that the two of you are so spineless that you can't own your hatred of Bush without whining like babies when it's highlighted in a way that demonstrates how far gone you really are.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 08:57 PM
I cannot believe you are even trying to defend your intellectual dishonesty. Your analogy is also completely irrelevant to what you did. Next time just be honest and quote the entire post.

I pointed out exactly where you dramatically mischaracterized my hypothetical. You've failed to even hint at how I mischaracterized pen's response to it. You've got a lot of nerve accusing me of dishonesty.

Logical
06-03-2007, 09:06 PM
I pointed out exactly where you dramatically mischaracterized my hypothetical. You've failed to even hint at how I mischaracterized pen's response to it. You've got a lot of nerve accusing me of dishonesty.Your dishonesty is in not quoting his entire post. Let the other readers decide what is relevant. That is not your place.

penchief
06-03-2007, 09:07 PM
Still no explanation on how I mischaracterized penchief's answer? The analogy is apt so long as your only point is that I didn't quote in full. That's the only thing I've been able to get out of either of you despite repeated requests. If there is something more to it than that, feel free to speak up. Otherwise, I'll assume you're both FOS.

And pen, I don't want a mulligan. I want you to back up your accusation or to eat your words. You want to give me a mulligan because you *can't* back up your accusation. I quoted you honestly and without distortion. You don't deserve any more than that. No one deserves any more than that. It's pathetic that the two of you are so spineless that you can't own your hatred of Bush without whining like babies when it's highlighted in a way that demonstrates how far gone you really are.

You didn't misquote me. You mischaracterized my sentiment by taking it out of context. You can justify it anyway you want but it was dishonest in the way you tried to portray my answer.

Take it for what it is and stop trying to be so sly. Slithering around the point of contention will not detract from what appears to be obvious from reading the thread.

I like you. I don't really want to do this any longer because I want to continue having respectful debates with you. But I have to say that this is not the first time you have done this during a debate with me. You have a habit of making insinuations about the patriotism and loyalty of those with whom you disagree.

Logical
06-03-2007, 09:16 PM
Originally Posted by patteeu
I've got a hypothetical for you, penchief. Let's say that we had some way of accurately predicting the future and our machine tells us that if we elect a democrat, a 9/11 level terrorist attack *will* take place during her term but that if we elect Rudy no such attack will occur. Further, lets assume that Rudy would continue Bush-like domestic policies and continue the GWoT much as Bush has within the constraints allowed by Congress (meaning that he might be forced to withdraw from Iraq even if he personally thinks we should stay). Which one would you vote for?

I wouldn't vote for a candidate based soley out of fear of another attack. Because that attack alone would not tell the story that is the bigger picture. If he ensures that an attack would not take place but at the same time continues to eliminate our civil rights, invade our privacy, and suppress our individual prosperity, I would rather have the attack.

Secondly, I think that the power-quo is very good at maipulating conditions. I don't believe that they are beyond creating a crisis or manipulating a story in order to influence politics in their favor (whether it be oil, al-Qaeda, or fearmongering). We have seen examples of that in recent elections.

That is why I believe we may be beyond the tipping point. I think we may have gone past the point of no return. I still believe that the terrorists only win if we give up our way of life. Which is what you and others who support a clampdown seem to want to do.

That is why you mischarachterized his answer.

Phobia
06-03-2007, 09:47 PM
Your dishonesty is in not quoting his entire post. Let the other readers decide what is relevant. That is not your place.I'm not following this discussion at all. No idea what the disagreement is about.

Not quoting an entire post is perfectly acceptable, especially when you're responding only to part of the post. I don't understand why it's dishonest to condense a quote for the tidiness of the post. It's not like the original text can't be located with minimal effort.

penchief
06-03-2007, 09:54 PM
I'm not following this discussion at all. No idea what the disagreement is about.

Not quoting an entire post is perfectly acceptable, especially when you're responding only to part of the post. I don't understand why it's dishonest to condense a quote for the tidiness of the post. It's not like the original text can't be located with minimal effort.

In general, I agree with you. But you should probably read the thread. I don't begrudge patteeu or anyone else for doing it, per se. I just wish he wouldn't do it for tactical reasons in order to misrepresent another person's intent.

Logical
06-03-2007, 10:11 PM
I'm not following this discussion at all. No idea what the disagreement is about.

Not quoting an entire post is perfectly acceptable, especially when you're responding only to part of the post. I don't understand why it's dishonest to condense a quote for the tidiness of the post. It's not like the original text can't be located with minimal effort.

It is an accepted practice when ... denotes the deleted text. But usually it is to leave out unrelated content. This is not the case with what patteeu did with Penchief's post. His use of a partial quote first did not contain the ... before the text and after and it completely changed the point that Penchief made.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 10:33 PM
You didn't misquote me. You mischaracterized my sentiment by taking it out of context. You can justify it anyway you want but it was dishonest in the way you tried to portray my answer.

Take it for what it is and stop trying to be so sly. Slithering around the point of contention will not detract from what appears to be obvious from reading the thread.

I like you. I don't really want to do this any longer because I want to continue having respectful debates with you. But I have to say that this is not the first time you have done this during a debate with me. You have a habit of making insinuations about the patriotism and loyalty of those with whom you disagree.

Mischaracterization means that I've somehow distorted your answer. I haven't. I haven't mischaracterized your sentiment either. The only reason to complain about being taken out of context is if the context changes the nature of the quote. It doesn't. You clearly said that you'd rather have another attack than another Bush-like presidency.

I think it's pretty low class to call what I did dishonest. If you can't take seeing your words quoted back to you, don't type them. I'm not the one who made you say it. And btw, I didn't say anything about your patriotism in this case. Maybe that's your conscience talking to you. I just think you're a little bit crazy for hating Bush so much.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 10:41 PM
That is why you mischarachterized his answer.

Fear of another attack had nothing at all to do with my hypothetical. My future prediction machine meant that you knew whether or not there would be an attack depending on who won the election. As such, you should be criticizing penchief for throwing that red herring into his response in the first place.

The second sentence you bolded just explains why penchief dislikes the Bush presidency enough to prefer another 9/11 attack to it. He doesn't provide any kind of contingencies under which his answer would change. It's just an explanation. I don't care about the why. I didn't ask him about the why. I asked him a simple question and I quoted his simple answer. If anyone wanted to know the why, they could scroll back a few posts and see it. If penchief thought his why was important enough to be posted twice, he could have included it in his followup.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 10:44 PM
It is an accepted practice when ... denotes the deleted text. But usually it is to leave out unrelated content. This is not the case with what patteeu did with Penchief's post. His use of a partial quote first did not contain the ... before the text and after and it completely changed the point that Penchief made.

Bullshit. It didn't change the point at all. You're not on top of your game today, Logical. That's the most charitable way I can say it.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 10:49 PM
In general, I agree with you. But you should probably read the thread. I don't begrudge patteeu or anyone else for doing it, per se. I just wish he wouldn't do it for tactical reasons in order to misrepresent another person's intent.

For goodness sake, penchief. Once and for all, would you or would you not prefer another 9/11 attack to a Rudy presidency that was so Bushlike that you couldn't tell the difference? I don't care about your reasons, I'd just like to hear the punchline. Am I going to hear something different than what I quoted? If I do, it wouldn't be because *I* was dishonest. Your intent couldn't be clearer and I think I captured it perfectly with my quote.

Phobia
06-03-2007, 10:54 PM
It is an accepted practice when ... denotes the deleted text.
I have 50 some odd thousand posts here and nearly always quote something to which I'm responding. Almost as often I remove the stuff to which I have no response. The only time I denote a hacked up quote with "..." is when I've chopped up a sentence. Never otherwise.

Nobody has ever complained to me or suggested that I'm doing it wrong. Are you saying I'm being impolite? Because I prefer to be a polite and considerate poster on the internet the majority of the time.

go bowe
06-03-2007, 11:04 PM
Another fear mongering "attack Rudy because we're afraid of him" thread from the left. I really am fascinated they are so afraid of him.why, i oughta smack you down for that...

i'm not afraid of the big bad rudy...

he's little and he hits like a little girl...

he's basically running on 9/11 and not much else...

and he still hits like a little girl...

(my apologies to little girls everywhere)

jAZ
06-03-2007, 11:05 PM
The punctuation is a distraction from what patteeu did. He parsed away the context of penchief's post. Massively relevant context.

That's the dishonest part. Not the ... or anything technical of the sort.

Phobia
06-03-2007, 11:20 PM
Okay, I went back and read what Patty did. I think he made his point. Under no circumstances would I want another attack. I think he was as disappointed with that comment as I am and wanted to make the point. Everybody on this site can go back and read the entire context if necessary. I can't believe it's worth 100 posts of discussion.

Logical
06-03-2007, 11:25 PM
I have 50 some odd thousand posts here and nearly always quote something to which I'm responding. Almost as often I remove the stuff to which I have no response. The only time I denote a hacked up quote with "..." is when I've chopped up a sentence. Never otherwise.

Nobody has ever complained to me or suggested that I'm doing it wrong. Are you saying I'm being impolite? Because I prefer to be a polite and considerate poster on the internet the majority of the time.

Well frankly yes you are being impolite. I think the reason people don't call you on it is because you do it to create jokes not to take something out of context to help you make your point. Ask almost anyone I have called many people on not using the ... convention. This is nothing new for me.

Logical
06-03-2007, 11:26 PM
The punctuation is a distraction from what patteeu did. He parsed away the context of penchief's post. Massively relevant context.

That's the dishonest part. Not the ... or anything technical of the sort.

I agree with this because he not only deleted incredibly important context but he did not even use Penchiefs entire conditional sentence which is truly inexcusable.

Logical
06-03-2007, 11:31 PM
Fear of another attack had nothing at all to do with my hypothetical. My future prediction machine meant that you knew whether or not there would be an attack depending on who won the election. As such, you should be criticizing penchief for throwing that red herring into his response in the first place.

The second sentence you bolded just explains why penchief dislikes the Bush presidency enough to prefer another 9/11 attack to it. He doesn't provide any kind of contingencies under which his answer would change. It's just an explanation. I don't care about the why. I didn't ask him about the why. I asked him a simple question and I quoted his simple answer. If anyone wanted to know the why, they could scroll back a few posts and see it. If penchief thought his why was important enough to be posted twice, he could have included it in his followup.

Let me make this clear, given the condition Penchief clearly stated I agree with his position. His position is extremely clear, he has just not let you have your comfortable baiting conditions to make your point.

Logical
06-03-2007, 11:36 PM
I wouldn't vote for a candidate based soley out of fear of another attack. Because that attack alone would not tell the story that is the bigger picture. If he ensures that an attack would not take place but at the same time continues to eliminate our civil rights, invade our privacy, and suppress our individual prosperity, I would rather have the attack.

...Those conditions say nothing about Bush just a candidate un-named. Notice that if the candidate would not continue to eliminate our civil rights, invade our privacy, and suppress our individual prosperity, Penchief has not said he woulld support the candidate who would allow for the attack.

Phobia
06-03-2007, 11:43 PM
Well frankly yes you are being impolite. I think the reason people don't call you on it is because you do it to create jokes not to take something out of context to help you make your point. Ask almost anyone I have called many people on not using the ... convention. This is nothing new for me.

I actually agree with you - to a point. I'd have most certainly denoted a hacked up sentence if it were my response.

However, I'd have not thrown a 2 page fit over it.

Logical
06-03-2007, 11:54 PM
I actually agree with you - to a point. I'd have most certainly denoted a hacked up sentence if it were my response.

However, I'd have not thrown a 2 page fit over it.


You make it sound like I am the major contributor to those two pages. I only have 14 posts prior to this one in the entire thread, at least a couple in response to you and a couple of others that were not to patteeu. Meanwhile patteeu has 31 posts and Penchief has 26.

Direckshun
06-03-2007, 11:54 PM
Read the article, but not the thread.

It falls into the familiar cadence with Rolling Stone political pieces -- colorfully written, venomous but usually fairly well researched, and allowing the quality of its argument occasionally succomb to vitriol.

There's no way to know if Giuliani would be worse than Bush. There's no real way to know if a candidate could be as bad as Bush to begin with. Bush was making decent, conservative sense when he was running on his platform. He wasn't the smoothest candidate, and he had signs that he wasn't very deliberate, but nobody but insiders could have really guessed the extent and severity of his personality quirks and the numerous cannonball-sized bullets he'd cause America to shoot into Her own feet.

There was no real telling that Bush'd tyrannically try to push an amendment through banning gay people from marrying. And of course, there was no way to see how bizarrely he'd react to 9/11, farming a culture of fear and allowing the politics of his own office get so out of control that it would do everything it could to lead us to Iraq, a blunder that embarrasses us and will astonish our grandchildren.

These things all came from a common set of characteristics that Bush displays: an arrogance that his gut has all the answers, the disinterest to learn and adapt from his political mistakes, a psychological weakness that continually allows aggressive people in his own office to manipulate him, a disrespect for American intelligence, opportunistic fear-mongering, inability to control his own office, and the tyrannical belief that the President should be empowered to do just about anything he wants -- which, in a fashion comparable to God, will always be the right thing anyway.

From what I've observed about Giuliani, he possesses one major difference from Bush. He doesn't follow his gut first, he follows the numbers first, in both $$$ and polling data. But what I've seen of the man suggests that he exhibits the rest of the qualities that Bush has shown will drown an administration in its own ill-conceived gunk.

He's too perfect of a fit for the Republican Party nomination for the base to pass on him. His emotional appeals to a disaster that Americans still have a knee-jerk response to will be his legacy, and a politically expedient one at that. In my opinion, however, he seems to be Presidential material -- but he's not the President Americans want.

Phobia
06-04-2007, 12:02 AM
You make it sound like I am the major contributor to those two pages. I only have 14 posts prior to this one in the entire thread, at least a couple in response to you and a couple of others that were not to patteeu. Meanwhile patteeu has 31 posts and Penchief has 26.

Nah, it wasn't about you at all. Just the general idea that the majority of the posts in this thread are about Patty's "affront" against Penchief.

Logical
06-04-2007, 12:02 AM
Read the article, but not the thread.

It falls into the familiar cadence with Rolling Stone political pieces -- colorfully written, venomous but usually fairly well researched, and allowing the quality of its argument occasionally succomb to vitriol.

There's no way to know if Giuliani would be worse than Bush. There's no real way to know if a candidate could be as bad as Bush to begin with. Bush was making decent, conservative sense when he was running on his platform. He wasn't the smoothest candidate, and he had signs that he wasn't very deliberate, but nobody but insiders could have really guessed the extent and severity of his personality quirks and the numerous cannonball-sized bullets he'd cause America to shoot into Her own feet.

There was no real telling that Bush'd tyrannically try to push an amendment through banning gay people from marrying. And of course, there was no way to see how bizarrely he'd react to 9/11, farming a culture of fear and allowing the politics of his own office get so out of control that it would do everything it could to lead us to Iraq, a blunder that embarrasses us and will astonish our grandchildren.

These things all came from a common set of characteristics that Bush displays: an arrogance that his gut has all the answers, the disinterest to learn and adapt from his political mistakes, a psychological weakness that continually allows aggressive people in his own office to manipulate him, a disrespect for American intelligence, opportunistic fear-mongering, inability to control his own office, and the tyrannical belief that the President should be empowered to do just about anything he wants -- which, in a fashion comparable to God, will always be the right thing anyway.

From what I've observed about Giuliani, he possesses one major difference from Bush. He doesn't follow his gut first, he follows the numbers first, in both $$$ and polling data. But what I've seen of the man suggests that he exhibits the rest of the qualities that Bush has shown will drown an administration in its own ill-conceived gunk.

He's too perfect of a fit for the Republican Party nomination for the base to pass on him. His emotional appeals to a disaster that Americans still have a knee-jerk response to will be his legacy, and a politically expedient one at that. In my opinion, however, he seems to be Presidential material -- but he's not the President Americans want.

How dare you try to get this thread back on track.;)

Direckshun
06-04-2007, 12:05 AM
How dare you try to get this thread back on track.;)
Let me guess, you've all moved on to attacking each other?

Phobia
06-04-2007, 12:08 AM
Let me guess, you've all moved on to attacking each other?
SHUT UP, YOU LITTLE BITCH!

Logical
06-04-2007, 12:09 AM
Let me guess, you've all moved on to attacking each other?

Actually more like we have all been attacking the method patteeu used to distort Penchief's point, not attacking each other.

Direckshun
06-04-2007, 12:12 AM
Actually more like we have all been attacking the method patteeu used to distort Penchief's point, not attacking each other.
I did read that ass-backwards hypothetical he posed to penchief.

"If you could look into the future, and see that we'd have no attacks under Giuliani but we'd actually be attacked under a Dem, who would you vote for?"

Not patteeu's best moment.

jAZ
06-04-2007, 12:38 AM
Nah, it wasn't about you at all. Just the general idea that the majority of the posts in this thread are about Patty's "affront" against Penchief.
It's really about exposing patteeu for the fraud he's chosen to become. A bit of an intervention, several years in the making.

Phobia
06-04-2007, 12:47 AM
It's really about exposing patteeu for the fraud he's chosen to become. A bit of an intervention, several years in the making.

Patty's not a fraud.

jAZ
06-04-2007, 12:52 AM
Patty's not a fraud.
He wasn't always. But his actions of late are quite fraudulent. This thread, my cross-posted example from the Gore/Obama thread are just 2 examples in 2 days.

|Zach|
06-04-2007, 01:05 AM
C'mon man. That's just wrong. Now you're fear mongering.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Arkansas_GOP_head_We_need_more_0603.html

Arkansas GOP head: We need more 'attacks on American soil' so people appreciate Bush

In his first interview as the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan told a reporter that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country.

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]," Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

Milligan, who was elected as the new chair of the Arkansas Republican Party just two weeks ago, also told the newspaper that he is "150 percent" behind Bush in the war in Iraq.

In his acceptance speech on May 19th, Milligan told his fellow Republicans that it was "time for a rediscovery of our values and our common sense."

The owner of a water treatment company, Milligan was a relative unknown in Arkansas politics until being elected the party chairman. He had previously served as the party's treasurer and the Saline County Republican chair.

THE FULL DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE INTERVIEW CAN BE READ HERE

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/191942

Phobia
06-04-2007, 01:15 AM
Dennis Milligan is a retard too. We don't need any kind of attack. They should be avoided at all costs, even if some underpaid Homeland Security tech has to listen to me talk about remodeling on my cell phone.

jAZ
06-04-2007, 01:31 AM
Dennis Milligan is a retard too. We don't need any kind of attack. They should be avoided at all costs, even if some underpaid Homeland Security tech has to listen to me talk about remodeling on my cell phone.
I don't think you mean that literally.

Phobia
06-04-2007, 01:36 AM
No, I mean it. Even if it means substantial troop loss. For every successful attack on American soil, it will likely inspire 10,000 plans for an attack. For every one we squash or react to harshly, it discourages those who would be likely to attempt it.

jAZ
06-04-2007, 01:47 AM
No, I mean it. Even if it means substantial troop loss. For every successful attack on American soil, it will likely inspire 10,000 plans for an attack. For every one we squash or react to harshly, it discourages those who would be likely to attempt it.
Would you be willing to have yourself and your entire family executed, just to be on the safe side? You never know who might one day become a terrorist.

Like I said, I don't think you mean it literally.

Phobia
06-04-2007, 01:51 AM
Would you be willing to have yourself and your entire family executed, just to be on the safe side? You never know who might one day become a terrorist.

Like I said, I don't think you mean it literally.

Only if I can have our brains hypotherically preserved so that we can come back to new bodies after the war is squashed.

Hey, we can all come up with absurd examples.

jAZ
06-04-2007, 01:52 AM
Only if ...
So not at all costs.

Logical
06-04-2007, 01:56 AM
No, I mean it. Even if it means substantial troop loss. For every successful attack on American soil, it will likely inspire 10,000 plans for an attack. For every one we squash or react to harshly, it discourages those who would be likely to attempt it.Substantial troop loss in the US you bet. I am with you. To pretend losing troops in Iraq is doing the same thing just does not pass my common sense filter.

Phobia
06-04-2007, 02:00 AM
Before they put a slug in my head, I'm giving up your contact information and telling them you have deeply held national security secrets.

Logical
06-04-2007, 02:02 AM
Before they put a slug in my head, I'm giving up your contact information and telling them you have deeply held national security secrets.

Thanks Pal.

Phobia
06-04-2007, 02:04 AM
That was for Justin and his absurd line of questioning.

jAZ
06-04-2007, 02:16 AM
That was for Justin and his absurd line of questioning.
I very politely tried to give you an out of your absurd statement. You confirmed you meant "at all costs" literally. I gave you a cost, and you realized that you didn't mean what you said literally.

It's not on me that it took an extreme example to illustrate that you took an extreme position that you didn't really believe, even though you said you did.

Phobia
06-04-2007, 02:23 AM
Dude, I think there's probably an absurd example that would make just about everybody come off their position. There are very few absolutes.

If I put a gun to your kid's head and demanded your support for Bush, would you support him? If I kidnapped your wife and threatened to rape her with an ax handle unless you voted for Gingrich?

I mean,.... come on. It's absurd.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-04-2007, 02:32 AM
Dude, I think there's probably an absurd example that would make just about everybody come off their position. There are very few absolutes.

If I put a gun to your kid's head and demanded your support for Bush, would you support him? If I kidnapped your wife and threatened to rape her with an ax handle unless you voted for Gingrich?

I mean,.... come on. It's absurd.

Keep digging. It's interesting.

jAZ
06-04-2007, 02:33 AM
Dude, I think there's probably an absurd example that would make just about everybody come off their position. There are very few absolutes.

If I put a gun to your kid's head and demanded your support for Bush, would you support him? If I kidnapped your wife and threatened to rape her with an ax handle unless you voted for Gingrich?

I mean,.... come on. It's absurd.
You chose the absolute position, not me. That was the error here.

You could have chosen any number of more accurate statements, but you said and stuck to the absolute one.

Again, it's not me.

How about this... let's agree that you'd give up a lot of things in exchange for physical safety and leave it at that.

Phobia
06-04-2007, 02:48 AM
I guess I forgot I was in the political forum where each and every word is dissected for debate opportunities. I'm not very good at that game.

You're right. It was my error.

I also agree with your final statement.

FWIW, I'm not mad or frustrated. I noted that you pointed out how you were polite earlier. I didn't intend to convey any anger, I was just perplexed by the absurdity of it all. I know I've overused "absurd" in this discussion. It's a fun word.

Phobia
06-04-2007, 02:49 AM
Keep digging. It's interesting.

I apologize. I probably blew it, didn't I?

DaneMcCloud
06-04-2007, 02:59 AM
I guess I forgot I was in the political forum where each and every word is dissected for debate opportunities. I'm not very good at that game.

This pretty much sums up my Chiefs Planet DC experience. For lack of a better term, we have many, many people here that have the memory of an "Elephant".

It's a tough, tough crowd. Opinionated, biased, intelligent and somewhat skewed, but tough.



With that being said, it can be pretty fun. Especially during off-season. :)

Phobia
06-04-2007, 03:07 AM
I didn't intend to be a whiny bitch about it. I probably deserve everything I get and more. I'll bet I've dissected Justin's words in the past. Heh.

It's fun in the offseason because everything else is slow.

DaneMcCloud
06-04-2007, 03:14 AM
I didn't intend to be a whiny bitch about it. I probably deserve everything I get and more. I'll bet I've dissected Justin's words in the past. Heh.

It's fun in the offseason because everything else is slow.

Well, FWIW, I've never viewed you as a "whiny bitch". Far from it. That probably doesn't mean much, coming from me, but you're definitely very cool from where I sit.

Relax and enjoy the DC. That's what I do. It can be maddening as well as informative. But I'm sure you already know that :)

jAZ
06-04-2007, 03:16 AM
I guess I forgot I was in the political forum where each and every word is dissected for debate opportunities. I'm not very good at that game.

You're right. It was my error.

I also agree with your final statement.

FWIW, I'm not mad or frustrated. I noted that you pointed out how you were polite earlier. I didn't intend to convey any anger, I was just perplexed by the absurdity of it all. I know I've overused "absurd" in this discussion. It's a fun word.
:thumb:

Here's why that distinction matters, IMO.

There is an actual point at which you would say that it's better to risk another attack than lose this or that freedom today.

There is a point.

We may each have a different point, and any one of us might draw that line at different places depending on the facts at that time.

But all too often people in this forum run around speaking in overly-broad (your's, IMO) or manipulative (not you) language that gives them a rhetorical advantage in a given disucssion. Sometimes unwittingly, sometimes deliberately... and those words don't match reality or their own views, when pressed.

An example that constantly bugs me is when some blowhard (not typically any of the regulars here...) comes into the DC and starts spouting off about how all we have to do is nuke all those fuggers in the middle east. Just kill them all.

It's an absurd statement, but that doesn't keep people from both saying it for effect and saying it because they don't think through the details of what they say... they just say it because it feels good or for the effect.

But again, we are here debating very real decisions with very real consequences. So those details matter, when debating which choice to make. It's real easy to advocate on behalf of a 1/2 cocked idea that sounds good if you don't think about the details. "Kill all the terrorists before they kill us" sounds like a great solution until you try to figure out what constitutes a terrorist, or harder yet, what constitutes a terrorist than hasn't yet commited an act of terrorism.

Phobia
06-04-2007, 03:19 AM
Nah, I'm not in the anti-Dane crowd. Your opinion still matters even though you're a filthy rich Hollywood dweller rubbing elbows with all the entertainment elite.

Phobia
06-04-2007, 03:25 AM
.... all we have to do is nuke all those fuggers in the middle east. Just kill them all.


I agree. That's the simplest approach to terrorism control.

jAZ
06-04-2007, 03:27 AM
I agree. That's the simplest approach to terrorism control.
nlm

the Talking Can
06-04-2007, 06:45 AM
spot on article...this pretty well captures Republican candidates:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tlqiYeET0TY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tlqiYeET0TY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


"Mrs. Griffen, what are your plans for cleaning up our environment?"

Lois: "9-11"

Baby Lee
06-04-2007, 09:27 AM
There was no real telling that Bush'd tyrannically try to push an amendment through banning gay people from marrying.
Some exercise of tyranny, propose an idea that goes nowhere. Such arbitrary omnipotence . . .

Velvet_Jones
06-04-2007, 09:54 AM
It's really about exposing patteeu for the fraud he's chosen to become. A bit of an intervention, several years in the making.
You have been a fraud and a liar from the get-go.

patteeu
06-05-2007, 07:12 AM
Okay, I went back and read what Patty did. I think he made his point. Under no circumstances would I want another attack. I think he was as disappointed with that comment as I am and wanted to make the point. Everybody on this site can go back and read the entire context if necessary. I can't believe it's worth 100 posts of discussion.

Actually, I wasn't even trying to make a point. I just wanted to see where penchief stood. penchief is so anti-Bush that it's sometimes comical. I wanted to see if he is so fearful/hateful of Bush that he'd accept another attack to see the country move in a different direction. As it turns out, he would.

I don't think anyone (outside of the jihadists), including penchief, would "want" another 9/11 attack. But most of us could think of "evils" that would be worse than another attack. For myself, I offered the example of the repeal of the 1st Amendment. It just so happens that Bush qualifies as that evil for penchief, as hard as that my be to believe for reasonable Americans.

And btw, in case I forgot to mention it in my other hundred posts in this thread, nothing in my post was deceptive at all, let alone dishonest.

patteeu
06-05-2007, 07:18 AM
I agree with this because he not only deleted incredibly important context but he did not even use Penchiefs entire conditional sentence which is truly inexcusable.

In the future, when you quote me, I expect the entire body of my work in that thread to be included so that lazy readers who can't go back and read the thread won't be deprived of the "incredibly important context." I assure you that there will be far more important context involved there than there was in the parts of penchief's post I didn't bother to quote.

patteeu
06-05-2007, 07:21 AM
Let me make this clear, given the condition Penchief clearly stated I agree with his position. His position is extremely clear, he has just not let you have your comfortable baiting conditions to make your point.

It's very clear. You agree with this:

I would rather have the attack.

I think you're both honest nutjobs. Congratulations.

patteeu
06-05-2007, 07:26 AM
Those conditions say nothing about Bush just a candidate un-named. Notice that if the candidate would not continue to eliminate our civil rights, invade our privacy, and suppress our individual prosperity, Penchief has not said he woulld support the candidate who would allow for the attack.

Let me add to the last post. I think you are an honest but idiotic nutjob.

You are leaving out and ignoring the "incredibly important context" of the hypothetical that led to penchief's response. The hypothetical indicates that the un-named candidate (whose name is Rudy btw) would be inclined to govern just as Bush has governed, both domestically and wrt the GWoT. There is no room for not continuing whatever it is that penchief thinks Bush has been doing for the past several years.

patteeu
06-05-2007, 07:30 AM
I did read that ass-backwards hypothetical he posed to penchief.

"If you could look into the future, and see that we'd have no attacks under Giuliani but we'd actually be attacked under a Dem, who would you vote for?"

Not patteeu's best moment.

You're right. I've had a lot of better ones, but this one made both penchief and Logical squeal like stuck pigs so I'm going to cut and paste it into my scrapbook of good times anyway.

So, getting back to my ass-backwards hypothetical (which is far more entertaining to me than this thread topic, btw), which way would you vote?

patteeu
06-05-2007, 07:37 AM
:thumb:

Here's why that distinction matters, IMO.

There is an actual point at which you would say that it's better to risk another attack than lose this or that freedom today.

Lord knows we wouldn't want another 4 years of a Bush-like presidency. Or at least some of us wouldn't.

Ooops, I truncated another quote. I guess I'm addicted to dishonesty. LMAO

Direckshun
06-05-2007, 10:14 AM
You're right. I've had a lot of better ones, but this one made both penchief and Logical squeal like stuck pigs so I'm going to cut and paste it into my scrapbook of good times anyway.

So, getting back to my ass-backwards hypothetical (which is far more entertaining to me than this thread topic, btw), which way would you vote?
I'd ask "what else happens."

I know it's particularly hard for Republicans to understand this but there's more to governing than the generally minute threat of terrorism.

Direckshun
06-05-2007, 10:15 AM
Some exercise of tyranny, propose an idea that goes nowhere. Such arbitrary omnipotence . . .
It went all the way to a vote in the Senate. That ain't "nowhere."

patteeu
06-05-2007, 05:50 PM
I'd ask "what else happens."

I know it's particularly hard for Republicans to understand this but there's more to governing than the generally minute threat of terrorism.

If you want to dodge the question, that's fine by me, but just in case you didn't understand it, the threat of a terror attack in my hypo is nothing close to minute. It's clear cut. Vote for the dem and you get attacked. Vote for Rudy and you get a guy who tries to govern in the same way Bush has but no attack. Everything else that may happen is up to your own instincts as a voter just like it always is in an election. E.g. The dem candidate will most likely be one of the major candidates in the current field, if elected he/she will most likely try to repeal some of the Bush tax cuts, etc.

Like I said, if you don't want to answer, just say so. But let's not pretend that the hypo is short on definition.

Direckshun
06-05-2007, 09:08 PM
If you want to dodge the question, that's fine by me, but just in case you didn't understand it, the threat of a terror attack in my hypo is nothing close to minute. It's clear cut. Vote for the dem and you get attacked. Vote for Rudy and you get a guy who tries to govern in the same way Bush has but no attack. Everything else that may happen is up to your own instincts as a voter just like it always is in an election. E.g. The dem candidate will most likely be one of the major candidates in the current field, if elected he/she will most likely try to repeal some of the Bush tax cuts, etc.

Like I said, if you don't want to answer, just say so. But let's not pretend that the hypo is short on definition.
I'm not a one-issue voter. Unless I heard much else about what else happens in the administration, or if the attack was nuclear or whatever, it wouldn't change my vote and I'd still likely vote Democratic.

patteeu
06-05-2007, 11:43 PM
I'm not a one-issue voter. Unless I heard much else about what else happens in the administration, or if the attack was nuclear or whatever, it wouldn't change my vote and I'd still likely vote Democratic.

OK. I like the honesty, but I am a little bit surprised. penchief and Logical didn't surprise me so much because they've made it clear that they are extremely fearful of Bush and his policies, but I don't see you making the same kinds of anti-Bush statements. Do you come to this conclusion because you think Bush is so bad that even another 9/11 would be better than 4 more years of the same or do you just think that a democratic President would do enough really positive things that it would make up for the attack?

Logical
06-06-2007, 12:45 AM
OK. I like the honesty, but I am a little bit surprised. penchief and Logical didn't surprise me so much because they've made it clear that they are extremely fearful of Bush and his policies, but I don't see you making the same kinds of anti-Bush statements. Do you come to this conclusion because you think Bush is so bad that even another 9/11 would be better than 4 more years of the same or do you just think that a democratic President would do enough really positive things that it would make up for the attack?
Now you are misrepresenting me, I said I would vote for a third party candidate rather than make one of those choices.

Later I said that I wouldn't support this:

He ensures that an attack would not take place but at the same time continues to eliminate our civil rights, invade our privacy, and suppress our individual prosperity, I would rather ...

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-06-2007, 03:20 AM
OK. I like the honesty, but I am a little bit surprised. penchief and Logical didn't surprise me so much because they've made it clear that they are extremely fearful of Bush and his policies, but I don't see you making the same kinds of anti-Bush statements. Do you come to this conclusion because you think Bush is so bad that even another 9/11 would be better than 4 more years of the same or do you just think that a democratic President would do enough really positive things that it would make up for the attack?

You're just a caricature of yourself.

Direckshun
06-06-2007, 09:22 AM
Do you come to this conclusion because you think Bush is so bad that even another 9/11 would be better than 4 more years of the same or do you just think that a democratic President would do enough really positive things that it would make up for the attack?
Little bit of both.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2007, 09:29 AM
FWIW, I think there may be another 9/11.

And I think that is what it will take to get us out of the ME, unfortunately.

Besides, I think it's Giraldi, or another one of those former CIA binLaden counter-terrorism unit experts who now writes, wrote a recent article on dirty bombs already coming through our borders (Canadian one too) that have been caught...but there's still loopholes that can be gotten through. They've had to turn off some detection devices because they went off too often in false alarms so there's no way to know for sure what's coming through.

LOCOChief
06-06-2007, 02:24 PM
Although few people outside of New York know it yet, there is an emerging controversy over Giuliani's heroic 9/11 legacy. Critics charge that Rudy's failure to resolve the feuding between the city's police and firefighters prior to the attack led to untold numbers of deaths, the most tragic example being the inability of firemen to hear warnings from police helicopters about the impending collapse of the South Tower. The 9/11 Commission concluded that the two departments had been "designed to work independently, not together," and that greater coordination would have spared many lives.

Were they supposed to run from the falling building? Does this mean that an untold number of deaths could have been saved because a birds eye view saw the collapse from the top so those at the bottom could have simply run away.
--



Whether Rudy believes in this kind of politics reflexively, as the psychologically crippled Bush does, or as a means to an end, as Karl Rove does, isn't clear. But there's no question that Giuliani has made the continuation of Swift-Boating politics a linchpin of his candidacy. And the money for the smear campaign comes from the same Texas sources behind the Swift Boaters, including oilman T. Boone Pickens and Houston home builder Bob Perry.

What's wrong with the swift boaters? They spoke volumes to me as to the character of that jack ass Kerry.

.

--



Then there's 9/11. Like Bush's, Rudy's career before the bombing was in the toilet; New Yorkers had come to think of him as an ambition-sick meanie whose personal scandals were truly wearying to think about. But on the day of the attack, it must be admitted, Rudy hit the perfect note; he displayed all the strength and reassuring calm that Bush did not, and for one day at least, he was everything you'd want in a leader. Then he woke up the next day and the opportunist in him saw that there was money to be made in an America high on fear.



For starters, Rudy tried to use the tragedy to shred election rules, pushing to postpone the inauguration of his successor so he could hog the limelight for a few more months. Then, with the dust from the World Trade Center barely settled, he went on the road as the Man With the Bullhorn, pocketing as much as $200,000 for a single speaking engagement. In 2002 he reported $8 million in speaking income; this past year it was more than $11 million. He's traveled in style, at one stop last year requesting a $47,000 flight on a private jet, five hotel rooms and a private suite with a balcony view and a king-size bed.

Wow, this is right on, a presidential hopefull profiting from our fear, It's like he took a page from Gore the fear whore's play book (although I doubt Rudy's profit margin is slight in comparison) All these guys know something this auther doesn't, how to make money. i.e. see John Edwards.

While the mayor himself flew out of New York on a magic carpet, thousands of cash-strapped cops, firemen and city workers involved with the cleanup at the World Trade Center were developing cancers and infections and mysterious respiratory ailments like the "WTC cough." This is the dirty little secret lurking underneath Rudy's 9/11 hero image --

So let me get this straight Rudy should have subjected himself to the same conditions as those city workers and firemen involved in the cleanup and develope cancer instead of overseeing and delegating?
Oh somebodys got cancer and that's Rudy and more to the point America's fault for for our past activities in the middle east. I smell a "somebody owes me everything coming on here"



"The likelihood is that more people will eventually die from the cleanup than from the original accident," says David Worby, an attorney representing thousands of cleanup workers in a class-action lawsuit against the city. "Giuliani wears 9/11 like a badge of honor, but he screwed up so badly."

Worby's a whore. he would have been able to smell the money in this thing even if he was wearing a respiratory mask.


Now Giuliani is running for president -- as the hero of 9/11. George Bush has balls, too, but even he has to bow to this mother****er. [/INDENT] [/I][/QUOTE]

The person that wrote this is a victim, they will always be a victim. I cant help but think that I would have taken their lunch money on a daily basis. Clearly not ready for the fight ahead. Get a job and stop making me pay for your worthless piece of $h!t arse!

Direckshun
06-06-2007, 04:59 PM
FWIW, I think there may be another 9/11.

And I think that is what it will take to get us out of the ME, unfortunately.

Besides, I think it's Giraldi, or another one of those former CIA binLaden counter-terrorism unit experts who now writes, wrote a recent article on dirty bombs already coming through our borders (Canadian one too) that have been caught...but there's still loopholes that can be gotten through. They've had to turn off some detection devices because they went off too often in false alarms so there's no way to know for sure what's coming through.
We will be attacked again. No question about it.

It may be sooner, it may be later, but it's going to happen.

And you know what? It's going to kill a number of people, scare the crap out of a whole lot of us, we'll do what we can to extinguish the problem and correct our mistakes, and someday move on.

patteeu
06-06-2007, 07:43 PM
Now you are misrepresenting me, I said I would vote for a third party candidate rather than make one of those choices.

Later I said that I wouldn't support this:

He ensures that an attack would not take place but at the same time continues to eliminate our civil rights, invade our privacy, and suppress our individual prosperity, I would rather ...

I didn't misrepresent you. You don't get to wash your hands of the consequences of the election just because you vote 3rd party or stay home. You aren't actively pursuing a course that you know would bring an attack like penchief said he would, but you are standing by and refusing to do the most you could to avoid it. In the end, if the dem wins and the attack happens, you played your part whether you like the way that sounds or not. I'm not even saying you're wrong. I'm not judging.

patteeu
06-06-2007, 07:49 PM
FWIW, I think there may be another 9/11.

And I think that is what it will take to get us out of the ME, unfortunately.

Besides, I think it's Giraldi, or another one of those former CIA binLaden counter-terrorism unit experts who now writes, wrote a recent article on dirty bombs already coming through our borders (Canadian one too) that have been caught...but there's still loopholes that can be gotten through. They've had to turn off some detection devices because they went off too often in false alarms so there's no way to know for sure what's coming through.

I agree with Direckshun that it's going to happen sooner or later, but I seriously doubt that it's going to have the effect that you think/hope it will.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2007, 10:30 AM
I agree with Direckshun that it's going to happen sooner or later, but I seriously doubt that it's going to have the effect that you think/hope it will.
You don't know that for sure. You think we can never lose. I don't subscribe to such arrogance. Keep your eye on Pakistan, a Muslim country with a nuke, that may be harboring binLaden or at least alQaeda (even if not by the state)...as Musharaff may lose power. Having a nuke, will give an Islamic state some sway over our insistence that the Muslim world kneel to our Napoleonic hegemonic will in the ME.

pikesome
06-07-2007, 10:55 AM
You don't know that for sure. You think we can never lose. I don't subscribe to such arrogance. Keep your eye on Pakistan, a Muslim country with a nuke, that may be harboring binLaden or at least alQaeda (even if not by the state)...as Musharaff may lose power. Having a nuke, will give an Islamic state some sway over our insistence that the Muslim world kneel to our Napoleonic hegemonic will in the ME.

I'm not 100% sure but a serious threat from a Muslim country like that would probably bring together quite a few of the world's nations. The Islamic world has no friends beyond itself, no nation is sympathy with their cause beyond causing the US grief. I don't see any of the "Western Powers" taking a nuclear threat lightly, they spent 40 years opposing the Soviets. Neither Russia or China would find supporting them in their interests, it's one thing to profit from your rivals (the US) missteps but another entirely to help a county controlled by people who might actually use a nuke. Pakistan especially lacks a saving grace, it doesn't have the strategic resources the ME does to keep anyone from messing with them or enough nuke strike capability to survive. The fact that little would be gained from action against them is their saving grace. Rattling their nuclear saber too loudly would change that.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2007, 03:54 PM
I'm not 100% sure but a serious threat from a Muslim country like that would probably bring together quite a few of the world's nations. The Islamic world has no friends beyond itself, no nation is sympathy with their cause beyond causing the US grief. I don't see any of the "Western Powers" taking a nuclear threat lightly, they spent 40 years opposing the Soviets. Neither Russia or China would find supporting them in their interests, it's one thing to profit from your rivals (the US) missteps but another entirely to help a county controlled by people who might actually use a nuke. Pakistan especially lacks a saving grace, it doesn't have the strategic resources the ME does to keep anyone from messing with them or enough nuke strike capability to survive. The fact that little would be gained from action against them is their saving grace. Rattling their nuclear saber too loudly would change that.
W!ll I was referring to how MADD works.

Other than that the top 3 hated countries currently are The US, Israel and Iran.
Didn't mention Pakistan. Seems to me that no one would really care beyond the effects it would have on them.

pikesome
06-07-2007, 03:57 PM
W!ll I was referring to how MADD works.

Other than that the top 3 hated countries currently are The US, Israel and Iran.
Didn't mention Pakistan. Seems to me that no one would really care beyond the effects it would have on them.

The post I responded to said Pakistan. Your post.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2007, 09:09 PM
The post I responded to said Pakistan. Your post.
That was not taken as intended. There's a miscommunication.

I was just saying in that last post who all the hated countries were...which was from a survey. And that survey didn't mention Pakistan. I know "I" mentioned Pakistan. I mentioned that in relation to MADD working because they did have a nuke...we only invade and attack countries that don't have one and are defenseless pretty much.

There's no need to get other's resources through war...that is 18th and 19th century. We can trade and buy it. Are you advocating that like patteeu?

I only added that Pakistan was not one of the top three hated countries from that survey. If the radical Muslims got in, you can betcha' that Pakistan would grab attention irregardless of resources. If it didn't then our leaders are not fighting Islamofascists for real but have other reasons.

Logical
06-07-2007, 10:42 PM
I didn't misrepresent you. You don't get to wash your hands of the consequences of the election just because you vote 3rd party or stay home. You aren't actively pursuing a course that you know would bring an attack like penchief said he would, but you are standing by and refusing to do the most you could to avoid it. In the end, if the dem wins and the attack happens, you played your part whether you like the way that sounds or not. I'm not even saying you're wrong. I'm not judging.You create a choice similar to would you vote to live under the rule of Hitler or Stalin and a responder cannot choose the third choice of a third party who has no chance of ruling. That is total BS. By the way I would probably vote for other and let either Hitler or Stalin come to power without my sanction.

Thig Lyfe
06-07-2007, 11:30 PM
I guess that's better than getting terrorist training in Madrassas?

ROFL - I just love when political hate/envy and flowery prose whack each other off like this.

Please tell me you don't actually believe Obama got "terrorist training."

Baby Lee
06-08-2007, 09:14 AM
Please tell me you don't actually believe Obama got "terrorist training."
I'm as certain of that as I am that Giuliani whiled away his chubby youth hiding titty pictures from nuns.

Logical
06-08-2007, 09:21 AM
I'm as certain of that as I am that Giuliani whiled away his chubby youth hiding titty pictures from nuns.

Maybe my sarcasm meter is out of whack, but since most all of us spend our youth hiding titty pictures from someone I would assume that is true. Which means you really think Obama got terrorist training, is that simply because of his middle name or do you have some link to proof?

Baby Lee
06-08-2007, 11:29 AM
Maybe my sarcasm meter is out of whack, but since most all of us spend our youth hiding titty pictures from someone I would assume that is true. Which means you really think Obama got terrorist training, is that simply because of his middle name or do you have some link to proof?
I'm trying to remember, is feigning stupidity in Vlad's bag of 'master manipulator' tricks?

Seriously though, I hope it's feigned.

I said I was equally CERTAIN of the two propositions. The concept of certainty has nothing to do with extrapolating personal experiences to make assumptions about the experiences of others.
Then you go to some altered regimen, where if one speculates about Obama's past, there better d@mn well be some proof.

I don't BELIEVE either characterization of the respective candidate's childhoods. I'm not CERTAIN of either, either. And I certaintly don't ASSUME one to be true, and demand PROOF of the other.

Some meter is out of whack with you. Not sure if it's a sarcasm meter, but whichever meter it is, give it a smack for us and maybe you'll regain equilibrium.

patteeu
06-08-2007, 09:07 PM
You create a choice similar to would you vote to live under the rule of Hitler or Stalin and a responder cannot choose the third choice of a third party who has no chance of ruling. That is total BS. By the way I would probably vote for other and let either Hitler or Stalin come to power without my sanction.

I'm not the one who defined a Bush-like Guilliani as Hitler (or Stalin), you and penchief are. When I hear my hypo, my choice is both clear and easy because I'm not under the delusion that "Bush-like" = Hitler or Stalin.

Logical
06-08-2007, 09:52 PM
I'm trying to remember, is feigning stupidity in Vlad's bag of 'master manipulator' tricks?

Seriously though, I hope it's feigned.

I said I was equally CERTAIN of the two propositions. The concept of certainty has nothing to do with extrapolating personal experiences to make assumptions about the experiences of others.
Then you go to some altered regimen, where if one speculates about Obama's past, there better d@mn well be some proof.

I don't BELIEVE either characterization of the respective candidate's childhoods. I'm not CERTAIN of either, either. And I certaintly don't ASSUME one to be true, and demand PROOF of the other.

Some meter is out of whack with you. Not sure if it's a sarcasm meter, but whichever meter it is, give it a smack for us and maybe you'll regain equilibrium.

There are some people on this BB who really believe Obama had terrorist training at a madrassas. I did not think you would be one of them. However frankly I think pretty much all adolescent males hide titty pictures from a parent or someone. Since my understanding is Rudy was I believe raised a catholic it seemed like a reasonable assumption to draw that he did the same from nuns as you suggested. I admitted that I possibly did not detect your sarcasm.

Logical
06-08-2007, 09:54 PM
I'm not the one who defined a Bush-like Guilliani as Hitler (or Stalin), you and penchief are. When I hear my hypo, my choice is both clear and easy because I'm not under the delusion that "Bush-like" = Hitler or Stalin.I was careful not to compare Bush to Hitler or Stalin. I was simply creating a no win scenario like you created in your hypothetical, where the reader was given the choice between two evils.

By the way for your analogy to work you must think the Democrats are equal to either Hitler or Stalin.

patteeu
06-08-2007, 11:27 PM
I was careful not to compare Bush to Hitler or Stalin. I was simply creating a no win scenario like you created in your hypothetical, where the reader was given the choice between two evils.

By the way for your analogy to work you must think the Democrats are equal to either Hitler or Stalin.

I didn't give the reader a choice between two evils. That was the point of my last post.

Nor did I make any analogy.

Logical
06-08-2007, 11:40 PM
I didn't give the reader a choice between two evils. That was the point of my last post.

Nor did I make any analogy.

You chose about the two most evil choices possible given the current situation. So I completely disagree.

Hopefully someday we will quit arguing this I hate scrolling through that thread post.:D

Baby Lee
06-09-2007, 06:57 AM
There are some people on this BB who really believe Obama had terrorist training at a madrassas. I did not think you would be one of them. However frankly I think pretty much all adolescent males hide titty pictures from a parent or someone. Since my understanding is Rudy was I believe raised a catholic it seemed like a reasonable assumption to draw that he did the same from nuns as you suggested. I admitted that I possibly did not detect your sarcasm.
I didn't suggest it, the 'journalist' alleged it in the article.
Hey, maybe you read something like that and say "wow, Rudy's just like me." But the writer was clearly making an allegation, based on nothing verifiable, to paint Rudy as some pudgy pervert. Same tactic as those who say Obama got an education in a Madrassa to intone terrorist/Islamist ties.

Logical
06-09-2007, 02:41 PM
I didn't suggest it, the 'journalist' alleged it in the article.
Hey, maybe you read something like that and say "wow, Rudy's just like me." But the writer was clearly making an allegation, based on nothing verifiable, to paint Rudy as some pudgy pervert. Same tactic as those who say Obama got an education in a Madrassa to intone terrorist/Islamist ties.

Gotcha