PDA

View Full Version : Rudy: The Democrat's Worst Nightmare


recxjake
07-08-2007, 08:23 PM
1

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 08:39 PM
...I've talked to many social conservatives that said they would rather vote for Rudy then stay home and let Clinton win.

Count me in.

penchief
07-08-2007, 09:02 PM
The only reason he'd be our worst nightmare is because he is the corporate establishment's hand-picked replacement for Bush. He will pick right up where the current empty suit is leaving off. The hijacking of America would stay on track.

If you like what Bush has done to this country then go ahead and vote for Guiliani. Because that's exactly what you'll be voting for.

Brock
07-08-2007, 09:07 PM
You don't exactly have to be strong to beat Hilary Clinton.

Pitt Gorilla
07-08-2007, 09:11 PM
You don't exactly have to be strong to beat Hilary Clinton.That's how I see it.

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 09:13 PM
Otherwise, I’d bet on a Northeastern Italian Catholic former prosecutor with staunch “Middle America” appeal against a feminist from an affluent East Coast suburb or even a very talented black guy from the South Side of Chicago.

You wouldn't have written this fluff piece if ya didn't, Reddy.

recxjake
07-08-2007, 09:16 PM
It's very simple to me...

Lower taxes, private healthcare, and staying on the offensive against terrorists.... vs.... higher taxes, govt run healthcare (current VA system times 1000) and going back to pre 9/11 days of handeling terrorism.

If Democrats truly run on rasing taxes, I don't see how they can win.

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 09:17 PM
I couldn't have said it better myself.

You never say anything better yourself. All your points are copied and pasted or just regurgitated talking points.

Like this.

If Democrats truly run on rasing taxes, I don't see how they can win.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 09:21 PM
...If Democrats truly run on rasing taxes, I don't see how they can win.

They're not running on raising taxes. They're still against against Bush's third term.

They're some lovable little losers.

The only reason he'd be our worst nightmare is because he is the corporate establishment's hand-picked replacement for Bush. He will pick right up where the current empty suit is leaving off. The hijacking of America would stay on track.

If you like what Bush has done to this country then go ahead and vote for Guiliani. Because that's exactly what you'll be voting for.

Mr. Kotter
07-08-2007, 10:00 PM
I'll say it for the millionth time:

IF Rudy wins the nomination, he will beat Hillary or Obama. Period.

(Winning the nomination is his challenge...and it's a very real challenge.)

Mr. Kotter
07-08-2007, 10:23 PM
I heard Fred is going to announce his bid this week.... good luck to you!

I guess we'll see. The heavy guns are already out trying to bring him down before he starts....with the Watergate baloney they are dragging out, just being the tip of the iceberg I'm sure. Unfortunately, it's just the way the game is played I guess.

Round One, is about to really begin....though. :)

Logical
07-08-2007, 10:24 PM
recxjake, if I promise I will vote for Rudy if you will quit this incessant barrage about him will you do so? Sick to death of your constant harangues on this and GM, sincerely Logical.

Mr. Kotter
07-08-2007, 10:30 PM
recxjake, if I promise I will vote for Rudy if you will quit this incessant barrage about him will you do so? Sick to death of your constant harangues on this and GM, sincerely Logical.

Will you make a similar request of jAZ and his incessant barrage of propagandizing demagoguery??? :shrug:

Ugly Duck
07-08-2007, 10:35 PM
I joyfully disagree.... the hard right fundamentalist religion freaks are a neccesary component of any Republican victory. They believe that abortion is murder. That makes Rudy a baby killer. Plus he's a philandering womanizer. Those freaks won't put baby blood on their hands when they're in the election booth. Rudy is the best thing that could happen for Dems!

ROOD-EE! ROOD-EE! ROOD-EE!

Mr. Kotter
07-08-2007, 10:36 PM
I joyfully disagree.... the hard right fundamentalist religion freaks are a neccesary component of any Republican victory. They believe that abortion is murder. That makes Rudy a baby killer. Plus he's a philandering womanizer. Those freaks won't put baby blood on their hands when they're in the election booth. Rudy is the best thing that could happen for Dems!

RUDY! RUDY! RUDY!

Keep drinkin' that DNC/Moveon.org/Moonbat Kool-Aid, Duck...keep drinking it. :)

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 10:43 PM
Rudy'll be able to pull some moderate liberals, but he definitely will not be motivating the truly conservative base.

Ugly Duck
07-08-2007, 10:46 PM
Rudy'll be able to pull some moderate liberals, but he definitely will not be motivating the truly conservative base.

Moonbat!! Koolade Drinker!!

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 10:48 PM
America's Worst Nightmare is Rudy vs. Hillary.

Brock
07-08-2007, 10:50 PM
Rudy'll be able to pull some moderate liberals, but he definitely will not be motivating the truly conservative base.

Hillary will.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 10:54 PM
As a representative of the right wing religious nut jobs, I can't wait for you guys to start wondering aloud about how the 2008 election was seemingly stolen from you.

You just don't get it. Rudy is not our ideal candidate, but he can defeat the Democrat in heads up race, and that's going to be good enough for most of us.

Most of us (RWRNJs) + nonreligious GOP voters + the fraction of the middle that Rudy can attract is enough to put him over the top heads up.

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 10:59 PM
Hillary Clinton

Rudy has the same positions as Hillary on the traditional issues the overwhelming number of conservatives care about.

The difference between them is the War, and seeing as 70% of the country doesn't like this war, you're working on an incredible misconception.

I think Rudy is also hurt by how early this election cycle started. The war has obviously become increasingly unpopular and now with more Republicans jumping ship, the points he's tried driving home about Iraq and terrorism will in all likelihood come back to bite him(like the whole blowback thing) once we get closer to Election season. That's assuming he even gets the nomination.

Logical
07-08-2007, 11:00 PM
Will you make a similar request of jAZ and his incessant barrage of propagandizing demagoguery??? :shrug:


If jAZ is doing a harangue for one candidate I have not seen it. Could you point me to at least two threads as an illustration please. Before you do who is the candidate he is pimping?

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 11:03 PM
If jAZ is doing a harangue for one candidate I have not seen it. Could you point me to at least two threads as an illustration please. Before you do who is the candidate he is pimping?

Check his sig and get back to us.

Ugly Duck
07-08-2007, 11:03 PM
Rudy has the same positions as Hillary on the traditional issues the overwhelming number of conservatives care about. What scares them about Hillary?

The difference between them is the War, and seeing as 70% of the country doesn't like this war, you're working on an incredible misconception.

Let them keep the misconception - its the Dems in for 2008! If we're lucky enough to have Rudy as the Republican candidate, believers will be hearing hella more this stuff from pulpits across the nation:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Religious conservative leader James Dobson will sit out the 2008 presidential election if former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the Republican presidential nominee, he wrote Thursday in an online column.

In a piece published on the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily, Dobson wrote that Giuliani's support for abortion rights and civil unions for homosexuals, as well as the former mayor's two divorces, were a deal-breaker for him.

"I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision," he wrote.

"If given a Hobson's -- Dobson's? -- choice between him and Senators Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran -- or if worse comes to worst, not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/17/giuliani.dobson/index.html

go bowe
07-08-2007, 11:04 PM
Will you make a similar request of jAZ and his incessant barrage of propagandizing demagoguery??? :shrug:nope, jaz is fine just the way he is...

just count your blessings that meme isn't here, yet...

Logical
07-08-2007, 11:06 PM
Rudy has the same positions as Hillary on the traditional issues the overwhelming number of conservatives care about.

The difference between them is the War, and seeing as 70% of the country doesn't like this war, you're working on an incredible misconception.

I think Rudy is also hurt by how early this election cycle started. The war has obviously become increasingly unpopular and now with more Republicans jumping ship, the points he's tried driving home about Iraq and terrorism will in all likelihood come back to bite him(like the whole blowback thing) once we get closer to Election season. That's assuming he even gets the nomination.

Expect Rudy to flip flop on Iraq soon, seriously. He will state he has always been for the WOT but will announce he thinks troop drawdown is a great idea. Just watch I would bet money on it.

Logical
07-08-2007, 11:08 PM
Check his sig and get back to us.I have sigs turned off, I post in AT WORK mode. So what does it say, and still that is not creating threads.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 11:09 PM
Hillary believes in Gay marriage, Rudy doesn't
Hillary believes in partial birth abortion, Rudy doesn't...

"Believes in" is probably the wrong way to state their positions.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 11:10 PM
I have sigs turned off, I post in AT WORK mode. So what does it say, and still that is not creating threads.

Turn them on temporarily, take a look and get back to us.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 11:15 PM
...My point is that Hillary and Rudy are not even close on the issues.

That much is clear to anyone who's paying attention. I'm convinced that the religious right is paying attention.

(I should probably repeat that I personally support gay marriage, since you brought it up as one of your two examples of difference.)

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 11:19 PM
Hillary believes in Gay marriage, Rudy doesn't
Hillary believes in partial birth abortion, Rudy doesn't

Rudy is very much a gay rights proponent and wants the same rights marriage evokes given to gay couples, he just doesn't want the wording used as to not piss off the base. You're also not going to hear much about the 'sanctity of marriage' from the man who's been married 3 times.

Partial birth abortion is an irrelevant issue as Rudy is pro-choice, already making him a baby killer. He just wants the babies killed earlier. I'm sure the right will find that endearing.

The war in Iraq will be ending shortly.... I've been hearing that Bush is going to have a major policy statment in the next week or so redeploying the troops out of Iraq due to the lack of progress being made and the lack of support at home.

That'd be lovely. It wouldn't help Rudy much though.

However... Iraq and the war on terror are way different.... ie. London and Scotland last week.... if that crap keeps coming, it only helps Rudy

1. I'm glad you can see a bright side to terrorist attacks.

2. I don't think you've heard anyone object to taking the war to Al Qaeda. 'The War on Terror', though, is just a broad phrase used to try and justify any fight we want to pick.

Terrorism does not help Rudy. He has no experience in keeping anyone safe from terrorism. He has no experience in combating and fighting terrorism. All he has is experience talking about terrorism.

Ugly Duck
07-08-2007, 11:22 PM
Expect Rudy to flip flop on Iraq soon, seriously. He will state he has always been for the WOT but will announce he thinks troop drawdown is a great idea. Just watch I would bet money on it.

Rudy sez Bush is "One of the Great American Presidents" because he's in Iraq....


http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/512QAvo33pL._SS500_.jpg

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 11:24 PM
...I'm glad you can see a bright side to terrorist attacks...

I think we're just acknowledging that there's no bright side, only a dark side to terrorist attacks, and that side is likely to become darker with the cowardly party in charge.

Ugly Duck
07-08-2007, 11:27 PM
ROFL....

1995, 1998, 1996, 1996... yeah, right....

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 11:28 PM
I think we're just acknowledging that there's no bright side, only a dark side to terrorist attacks, and that side is likely to become darker with the cowardly party in charge.

But Jake said those terrorist attacks help Rudy, thus making it less likely the cowardly party gets put in charge. Is that not a bright side? ROFL

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 11:31 PM
But Jake said those terrorist attacks help Rudy, thus making it less likely the cowardly party gets put in charge. Is that not a bright side?

No. Not by any means.

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 11:36 PM
No. Not by any means.

How is it not? Jake's point about it being a plus for Rudy is very clear and you're only expounding on it when you say Democrats will make sure "the side gets darker".

How you can even ****ing talk like that is beyond me.

Logical
07-08-2007, 11:39 PM
Obama...... and yes he creates Obama threads, the same way Kotter creates Thompson threads.....As far as I know Kotter has created only 1 Thompson thread.

Looks like jAZ has created 9 threads related to Obama some only loosely as they also mention Hillary and Giuliani or even Gore. You have created at least 13 not including your poll results threads who do not have his name in the titles who knows how many of those you have done.

recxjake
07-08-2007, 11:41 PM
As far as I know Kotter has created only 1 Thompson thread.

Looks like jAZ has created 9 threads related to Obama some only loosely as they also mention Hillary and Giuliani or even Gore. You have created at least 13 not including your poll results threads who do not have his name in the titles who knows how many of those you have done.

ROFL

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 11:42 PM
How is it not? Jake's point about it being a plus for Rudy is very clear and you're only expounding on it when you say Democrats will make sure "the side gets darker".

How you can even ****ing talk like that is beyond me.

There will be dark times ahead. Those times will be darker and more frequent under Democratic leadership, IMO.

Dark is a certainty, IMO. How dark is up to us.

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 11:51 PM
There will be dark times ahead. Those times will be darker and more frequent under Democratic leadership, IMO.

Dark is a certainty, IMO. How dark is up to us.

ROFL

"Vote Republican. We'll try and keep the damage to a minimum!"

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2007, 12:12 AM
"Vote Republican. We'll try and keep the damage to a minimum!"

Unfortunately, I think that's just about the best we can hope for, considering the human offal with whom we are engaged.

Logical
07-09-2007, 12:20 AM
There will be dark times ahead. Those times will be darker and more frequent under Democratic leadership, IMO.

Dark is a certainty, IMO. How dark is up to us.Seriously, why do you believe they will be less so under a Republican, what proof has George Bush given you that reassures you?

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2007, 12:41 AM
Seriously, why do you believe they will be less so under a Republican, what proof has George Bush given you that reassures you?

No domestic attacks since 9/11.

That's not proof, but it's evidence.

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 12:43 AM
9/11 was Bush's mulligan.

Logical
07-09-2007, 01:57 AM
No domestic attacks since 9/11.

That's not proof, but it's evidence.As far as I know there were no domestic foreign terrorist attacks between 1993 and 2000 either so that means Clinton a Democrat was at least as successful as Bush is going to be right?

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2007, 02:04 AM
As far as I know there were no domestic foreign terrorist attacks between 1993 and 2000 either so that means Clinton a Democrat was at least as successful as Bush is going to be right?

So far.

Logical
07-09-2007, 02:17 AM
So far.So based on observational evidence it is fair to say the Democrats are no more likely to have terrorist attacks occur in the US than the Republicans? Right?

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2007, 02:24 AM
So based on observational evidence it is fair to say the Democrats are no more likely to have terrorist attacks occur in the US than the Republicans? Right?

Yes. Ideally I'd elect Andrew Jackson in 2008. There were no Islamic attacks on the U.S. at all on his watch.

Now that we've left the past where it belongs, where does that leave us, Logical?

Logical
07-09-2007, 02:26 AM
Yes. Ideally I'd elect Andrew Jackson in 2008. There were no Islamic attacks on the U.S. at all on his watch.

Now that we've left the past where it belongs, where does that leave us, Logical?
Leaves us with not making irrational claims that we cannot back up based on facts present. Do you agree?

Mr. Kotter
07-09-2007, 07:55 AM
As far as I know there were no domestic foreign terrorist attacks between 1993 and 2000 either so that means Clinton a Democrat was at least as successful as Bush is going to be right?

:spock:

1993 & 1996, WTC?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB837986807344993500.html?mod=googlewsj

Ugly Duck
07-09-2007, 08:05 AM
I'm stating the obvious... Americans trust Republicans more than Democrats when it comes to terrorism

Oops!

"By wide margins, Americans said they trust Democrats in Congress more than Bush to deal with Iraq, health care, the budget, the economy and terrorism. The Democrats' advantage on health care was 37 percentage points, on the budget 27 points, on Iraq and the economy 20 points and on terrorism 13 points.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600313_pf.html

"Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism?"

Democrats 46%, Republicans 38%

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/aug/08/poll_dems_now_preferred_on_terrorism

Direckshun
07-09-2007, 08:53 AM
Considering Rudy's stump speech is virtually ripped out of 1984, I don't think he's going to win the Presidency.

Fat Elvis
07-09-2007, 10:13 AM
My fellow Americans,

9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11

(yeah Rudy, we get the picture....)

JBucc
07-09-2007, 10:23 AM
America's Worst Nightmare is Rudy vs. Hillary.Heh, that gave me an idear....
http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/6159/hvrqx9.jpg

Logical
07-09-2007, 11:45 AM
:spock:

1993 & 1996, WTC?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB837986807344993500.html?mod=googlewsj
I found the 93 which is why I said between 93 and 2000. What happened in 96, I will follow your link later when I have more time.

Logical
07-09-2007, 11:47 AM
I found the 93 which is why I said between 93 and 2000. What happened in 96, I will follow your link later when I have more time.Followed your link and found nothing abut the WTC is it a bad link?

Baby Lee
07-09-2007, 11:52 AM
Followed your link and found nothing abut the WTC is it a bad link?
I think he was referring to TWA 800 in 1996. Just FYI.

Logical
07-09-2007, 12:00 PM
I think he was referring to TWA 800 in 1996. Just FYI.

I see, I am not sure TWA 800 was ever definitely linked, in fact there are some people who believe our military accidently shot it down. Not sure myself.

penchief
07-09-2007, 12:47 PM
ROFL....

It's all about the record... Rudy has hit, Hillary doesn't.

I don't know what you're laughing at. It's people like you who enable people like Bush & Cheney. Thank you very much.

But don't laugh at me when you're the one buying into their power grab.

go bowe
07-09-2007, 03:08 PM
Will you make a similar request of jAZ and his incessant barrage of propagandizing demagoguery??? :shrug:i don't know about logical, but no, i wouldn't do that...

half the fun in coming to d.c. is to point and laugh at the various forms of plant life growing in the camps of republicans and democrats alike...

jaz performs a useful function when meme is not available...

and what's this about "incressant barrage of propagandizing demagoguery"?

look to yourself first, grasshopper...

look to yourself...

go bowe
07-09-2007, 03:18 PM
Keep drinkin' that DNC/Moveon.org/Moonbat Kool-Aid, Duck...keep drinking it. :)hey, you left out acid...

acid kool-aid, not moonbat kool-aid...

jeeze, can't you get anything right?

or are you on acid already and thought that it would be redundant to mention it in your mini-diatribe?

wow, what a picture...

rob on acid...

we could make a documentary of that and win it all at the next academy awards show...

wouldn't that be cool?

almost as cool as the lone ranger and tonto...

go for it, rob...

Mr. Kotter
07-09-2007, 03:33 PM
hey, you left out acid...

acid kool-aid, not moonbat kool-aid...

jeeze, can't you get anything right?

or are you on acid already and thought that it would be redundant to mention it in your mini-diatribe?

wow, what a picture...

rob on acid...

we could make a documentary of that and win it all at the next academy awards show...

wouldn't that be cool?

almost as cool as the lone ranger and tonto...

go for it, rob...

LMAO

Heh. I notice you haven't visited my Mr. Rogers Thread in the lounge. I planted some doosies in there....just for you. Heh. :p

go bowe
07-09-2007, 03:42 PM
I think we're just acknowledging that there's no bright side, only a dark side to terrorist attacks, and that side is likely to become darker with the cowardly party in charge.cowardly party?

i went to a sex party when i was still in college...

it was a lot better than the cowardly party's party...

free bar, free admission, free live show, free acid, free love, etc.

all the cowardly party wants to do is raise money, they have no concept of what real partying is like...

bring me a free republican and a free democrat (if there are any left) and i'll show you a never before seen, uncensored clip of ron paul on the stump...

if only his policies on reforming the government weren't quite so bizarro...

and then there's dennis k., the only free democrat in the running (well, maby jogging at this point)

can you imagine ron paul vs. dennis k. as presidential candidates with a chance to actually win the general election?

now that would be something to talk about...

go bowe
07-09-2007, 04:27 PM
Unfortunately, I think that's just about the best we can hope for, considering the human offal with whom we are engaged.human offal?

and why are you engaged, are you planning to get married to the offal?

now, do you mean middle eastern folks, or muslims in general?

you realize that bigamy is illegal here, so are you going to the me for your wedding?

otoh, were you referring to the democrats as offal?

cowardly party indeed...

how 'bout crooked party?

or choke party?

how 'bout congress?

it's currently controlled by the cowardly party...

have we seen any new attacks in the u.s. since the dems took over congress?

no, we haven't (other than a few home-grown plots cooked up by amateur terrorist wannabes)...

go bowe
07-09-2007, 04:49 PM
:spock:

1993 & 1996, WTC?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB837986807344993500.html?mod=googlewsj '93 was the first bombing of the wtc...

'96?

were there any terrorist attacks in america in '96, or are you counting terrorist acts in the middle east (khobar towers, for example)?

i don't remember any terrorist attacks here in the states other than 9/11, which happened on the president's watch...

and the twa jet that blew up over long island was not a terrorist attack...

afaik, no proof has ever been found that the crash was anything other than a tragic accident caused by faulty design...

so what else are you referring to that happened in '96?

Brock
07-09-2007, 05:44 PM
I don't know what you're laughing at. It's people like you who enable people like Bush & Cheney. Thank you very much.

But don't laugh at me when you're the one buying into their power grab.

You should be blaming the democratic party for their failure to put together a resonant message and a decent presidential candidate.

That party lost to BUSH. TWICE. And they're going to have their asses handed to them yet again, because they feel like they have to prove their progressive credentials at the expense of an actual victory.

keg in kc
07-09-2007, 06:24 PM
Rudy's probably everybody's worst nightmare. He'll be Bush part 2. Put in power by the same people to keep the ball rolling. Yay.

penchief
07-09-2007, 06:35 PM
You should be blaming the democratic party for their failure to put together a resonant message and a decent presidential candidate.

That party lost to BUSH. TWICE. And they're going to have their asses handed to them yet again, because they feel like they have to prove their progressive credentials at the expense of an actual victory.

The problem has more to do with the diversity of thought in the democratic party. Something the republican party has been lacking for some time.

That said, I agree that they do need to consolodate their message. However, the consolodiation of power and the media has had a lot to do with a disparity in the treatment of candidates between the corporate right and the populist left.

Brock
07-09-2007, 06:57 PM
The problem has more to do with the diversity of thought in the democratic party. Something the republican party has been lacking for some time.

That said, I agree that they do need to consolodate their message. However, the consolodiation of power and the media has had a lot to do with a disparity in the treatment of candidates between the corporate right and the populist left.

LOL, come on. Blaming the media is ridiculous. Their failure is this: they fail to present themselves as a real alternative to the corporate shills.

I'll tell you this much: If Clinton or Obama pledged to kill NAFTA and to stop kissing Chinese ass, I'd vote for either one of them. But that isn't going to happen, ever, because when you get down it, they serve the same masters as the fattest fat cat republican.

Hydrae
07-09-2007, 07:02 PM
Given his crime-fighting image, he clearly will have appeal to suburban voters who feel they were driven out of their old cities by urban chaos.

:spock:

Ok, did I miss something or is this guy about a half century behind the times here? Personally I grew up in the 'burbs and certainly have never even had the thought cross my mind that my family was driven out of the "old city."

penchief
07-09-2007, 07:40 PM
LOL, come on. Blaming the media is ridiculous. Their failure is this: they fail to present themselves as a real alternative to the corporate shills.

I'll tell you this much: If Clinton or Obama pledged to kill NAFTA and to stop kissing Chinese ass, I'd vote for either one of them. But that isn't going to happen, ever, because when you get down it, they serve the same masters as the fattest fat cat republican.

I believe there is a seed of truth in what you say. I think Hillary and Obama are both bought and paid for. However, you're not going to convince me that Hillary, Obama, or any other democrat would have been as ideologically extreme or even came close to supporting the corporate agenda to the extent or detriment that the Bush Administration has.

There's too much that separates their core beliefs. The right has completely sold out to the corporate elite. The dems still have one foot firmly planted in the camp of the people. We have to hold on to that foot and keep them there. We have to pull them back. And they will have to be the life line for the hand full of republicans who will eventually save their own party from the quagmire of greed and hubris.

Once the majority of the people's congress has it's feet back in the people's camp, we will be able to resume the evolutionary progress that was being made before it was so rudely interrupted by the Reagan neocons.

Hydrae
07-09-2007, 08:20 PM
I believe there is a seed of truth in what you say. I think Hillary and Obama are both bought and paid for. However, you're not going to convince me that Hillary, Obama, or any other democrat would have been as ideologically extreme or even came close to supporting the corporate agenda to the extent or detriment that the Bush Administration has.

There's too much that separates their core beliefs. The right has completely sold out to the corporate elite. The dems still have one foot firmly planted in the camp of the people. We have to hold on to that foot and keep them there. We have to pull them back. And they will have to be the life line for the hand full of republicans who will eventually save their own party from the quagmire of greed and hubris.

Once the majority of the people's congress has it's feet back in the people's camp, we will be able to resume the evolutionary progress that was being made before it was so rudely interrupted by the Reagan neocons.


See, you need to post in my "Hypothetical" thread.

Your first paragraph explains why I don't get why people around here want to rally to a particular parties' flag. They both suck and have lost touch with the people. I am so praying for a strong independent to come out of the woodwork and run so we have something worth voting for next fall.

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 09:50 PM
You say 'diversity of thought', most say 'liberal'.

Sully
07-09-2007, 09:56 PM
He isn't afraid of straying away from the things he belives in for political gain.
Wow...

Logical
07-09-2007, 10:00 PM
You say diversity of thought..... there is no better Republican running with more diversity of thought then Rudy. He isn't afraid of straying away from the things he belives in for political gain.

ROFL

I had to quote this for the awesome truth of that last statement in bold.

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 10:19 PM
Jake with a freudian slip.

Mr. Kotter
07-09-2007, 10:39 PM
You say diversity of thought..... there is no better Republican running without any coherent or consistent pattern of thought than Rudy.

FIXED your post. ;)

penchief
07-10-2007, 09:22 PM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U6DDLMXx8xw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U6DDLMXx8xw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Pat Robertson on Rudy Giuliani

Are you working for or against Rudy? Because that video ain't going to win you any votes. Since when is Pat Robertson a drawing card? He's a political ideolgoue. To me, that's evidence that Rudy is going after the Bush crowd. Why else would you think that was good for Rudy?

After watching that, do you still not believe that Rudy is being sold to us the same way they sold us Bush?

I keep telling you but you won't listen. Rudy is their next puppet. And he'd be more of an embarassment than Bush. However, I actually do have enough faith in the American people to believe that we won't make that mistake again.

Sully
07-10-2007, 09:37 PM
I need some help.
Do we trust Robertson as representative of the religious right, or not?
Seems when he says something wacky and ridiculous, folks run as fast as they can to distance themselves from him, as he is simply a "fringe" guy.
But now I see evidence that his word actually means something worthwhile.

penchief
07-10-2007, 09:49 PM
I need some help.
Do we trust Robertson as representative of the religious right, or not?
Seems when he says something wacky and ridiculous, folks run as fast as they can to distance themselves from him, as he is simply a "fringe" guy.
But now I see evidence that his word actually means something worthwhile.

I think you're probably right when talking about the rank and file. He's just going through the motions. He's trying to nail down that power base. I don't think it has anything to do with the sensibilities of every day Christians.

Sully
07-10-2007, 09:53 PM
I think you're probably right when talking about the rank and file. He's just going through the motions. He's trying to nail down that power base. I don't think it has anything to do with the sensibilities of every day Christians.
I honestly don't know one way or the other. I just know the guy has millions of viewers.
I just know what I see when he backs an assassination, or blames a tragedy on some innocent 3rd party, and people make sure to say how fringe he is. I just found it funny that, for rex at least, his opinion and thoughts are suddenly valid.

penchief
07-10-2007, 09:55 PM
I honestly don't know one way or the other. I just know the guy has millions of viewers.
I just know what I see when he backs an assassination, or blames a tragedy on some innocent 3rd party, and people make sure to say how fringe he is. I just found it funny that, for rex at least, his opinion and thoughts are suddenly valid.

But they still pander to him.

Oh Snap
07-11-2007, 10:08 PM
It's very simple to me...

Lower taxes, private healthcare, and staying on the offensive against terrorists.... vs.... higher taxes, govt run healthcare (current VA system times 1000) and going back to pre 9/11 days of handeling terrorism.

If Democrats truly run on rasing taxes, I don't see how they can win.
what i like about him is that hes for individual state rights... This takes more power away from the federal government which means more rights for individual americans..(less of a nanny socialist state).. things like abortion illegal immigration, and gun control will be addressed at the individual state and local levels. you get my drift..

Gracie Dean
07-11-2007, 11:38 PM
I heard today that after Rudi's people found the gold at ground zero, he didn't much care to finish rescuing the bodies of dead Firemen. He will not have NYFD on his side

penchief
07-12-2007, 04:42 PM
I think you're intentionally trying to kill these anti-Rudy threads by posting lengthy campaign propoganda that leaves room for only one or two posts per page.

Nice try but Atwater/Rove-style political warfare is being squeezed out by the sad truth facing America. Read em' and weep, boys. Read em' and weep.

I hope the pendulum swings back with such ferocity that ALL the greed-mongers are thrown off into empty space, leaving them with no chance for a return engagement.

Rudy just might be the candidate so obviously transparent enough to expose how sleazy the corpo-fascist right wing agenda really is. The future of America can only hope so.

Adept Havelock
07-12-2007, 05:07 PM
I think you're intentionally trying to kill these anti-Rudy threads by posting lengthy campaign propoganda that leaves room for only one or two posts per page.



Yep. Also, everytime he tries to come up with an argument on his own he blows his own foot off. ROFL

-Exhibit A, the recent discussion of Rudy's perspective on the Second Amendment between Jake, Chief4ever, Trnobrd, and myself.

penchief
07-12-2007, 05:32 PM
Yep. Also, everytime he tries to come up with an argument on his own he blows his own foot off. ROFL

-Exhibit A, the recent discussion of Rudy's perspective on the Second Amendment between Jake, Chief4ever, Trnobrd, and myself.

I saw that. That's why when he did the same thing this time I confronted him about it.

Adept Havelock
07-12-2007, 06:51 PM
I saw that. That's why when he did the same thing this time I confronted him about it.

And if it's anything like that discussion, that's the last we'll hear from him in this thread. He never even bothered to answer a simple, direct question about Rudy and his stance on allowing Cities and People to sue gun manufacturers.

What a great way to help the campaign. Cut and paste talking points, and head for the hills at the sign of a tough question.

For Rudy's sake, I hope recxjake isn't representative of his campaign staff.