Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 94

Thread: The torpedo that sunk the Adolfo... whoops, I meant Rudolfo Giuliani Presidential run

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473

    The torpedo that sunk the Adolfo... whoops, I meant Rudolfo Giuliani Presidential run

    You heard it here first! And he didn't even pause for half a second or flinch when he said it! 65% of the country feels it was not worth invading Iraq for no reason... 55% think invading Iraq for no reason has not contributed to increased security for the US... and 70% feel Bush's strategy is a failure (maybe even a "miserable failure" :D)

    Not going to get many votes when you fly in the face of common sense, rational reason and the will of the electorate!



    [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/us/politics/05cnd-transcript.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin[/url]


    MR. BLITZER: Governor, thank you, but the question was, knowing what you know right now ó not what you knew then, what you know right now ó was it a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq?

    ...

    MR. BLITZER: Mayor Giuliani, same question to you. Was it ó knowing what you know right now, was it a good decision?

    MR. GIULIANI: [b]Absolutely the right thing to do.[/b] Itís unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror. And the problem is that we see Iraq in a vacuum. Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. Iraq is part of the overall terrorist war against the United States.

    The problem the Democrats make is theyíre in denial. Thatís why you hear things like you heard in the debate the other night, that, you know, Iran really isnít dangerous; itís 10 years away from nuclear weapons. Iran is not 10 years away from nuclear weapons, and the danger to us is not just missiles, the danger to us is a state like Iran handing nuclear weapons over to terrorists, so it has to be seen in that light, and we have to be successful in Iraq.







    And before you hammer me for pulling a FlushingJet or CBTNY for saying Adolfo, consider his policies while being an unpopular Mayor, and his current policy positions and statements while a candidate which consist mostly of demagogery, pro-torture, anti-reason, anti-rational thought, pro-censorship, anti-bill of rights, etc

  2. #2
    So youd rather have Hillary in office who basically copies what the polls say? Agree or not with Guiliani, he is honest and speaks what he feels is right, not what others want to hear. He is the anti-politician, and that is what we need right now to lead our country. Sort of refreshing in my opinion.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=mallamalla]he is honest [/QUOTE]

    even if true I don't want an honest dope in the White House, we already have one of those.

  4. #4
    Adolfo? So you are comparing Giuliani with Adolf Hitler?

    What makes that comparison apt in any form? Do you not think such a comparison horridly inappropriate? Immature? In what way does that spark intelligent debate here?

    Why do you think anyone would take anything you ahve to say seriously with that kind of sillyness leading off?

    You know, you Liberals whine like little girls about CBTNY's inflated rhetorical namecalling, but many of you are just as guilty and just as pompously overblown in your lame attempts at humour.

    Grow up.

    P.S. For the Record, I have absolutely no like for Guiliani, so I do not care where he stands on the Iraq War. He will not get my vote come 2008 regardless.

  5. #5
    I don't think Rudy's got much a shot, he looks like he enjoys public speaking, but there's not a lot of substance behind much of what he says. Good mayor, wouldn't be a good President.

    But really, Adolfo? He cleaned up NYC with his broken window policy (or whatever it was), not via ethnic cleansing.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]You heard it here first! And he didn't even pause for half a second or flinch when he said it! 65% of the country feels it was not worth invading Iraq for no reason... 55% think invading Iraq for no reason has not contributed to increased security for the US... and 70% feel Bush's strategy is a failure (maybe even a "miserable failure" :D)

    Not going to get many votes when you fly in the face of common sense, rational reason and the will of the electorate!



    [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/us/politics/05cnd-transcript.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin[/url]


    MR. BLITZER: Governor, thank you, but the question was, knowing what you know right now ó not what you knew then, what you know right now ó was it a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq?

    ...

    MR. BLITZER: Mayor Giuliani, same question to you. Was it ó knowing what you know right now, was it a good decision?

    MR. GIULIANI: [b]Absolutely the right thing to do.[/b] Itís unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror. And the problem is that we see Iraq in a vacuum. Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. Iraq is part of the overall terrorist war against the United States.

    The problem the Democrats make is theyíre in denial. Thatís why you hear things like you heard in the debate the other night, that, you know, Iran really isnít dangerous; itís 10 years away from nuclear weapons. Iran is not 10 years away from nuclear weapons, and the danger to us is not just missiles, the danger to us is a state like Iran handing nuclear weapons over to terrorists, so it has to be seen in that light, and we have to be successful in Iraq.







    And before you hammer me for pulling a FlushingJet or CBTNY for saying Adolfo, consider his policies while being an unpopular Mayor, and his current policy positions and statements while a candidate which consist mostly of demagogery, pro-torture, anti-reason, anti-rational thought, pro-censorship, anti-bill of rights, etc[/QUOTE]


    Anti-reason, anti-rational thought? Are you honestly so arrogant as to think that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot?

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=mallamalla]So youd rather have Hillary in office who basically copies what the polls say? Agree or not with Guiliani, he is honest and speaks what he feels is right, not what others want to hear. He is the anti-politician, and that is what we need right now to lead our country. Sort of refreshing in my opinion.[/QUOTE]


    no I'd rather have neither

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Anti-reason, anti-rational thought? Are you honestly so arrogant as to think that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot?[/QUOTE]


    I didn't call him an idiot nor did I say that because I disagree with him! Did you see is pseudo "smack down" of Dr. Paul in the last debate? And he actually seemed to think what he said was true, meanwhile Dr. Paul easily provided copies of several books by CIA/NSA members, security specialists and the 9/11 Commission Report which clearly refuted Rudy




    Dr. Paul: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. And they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They've already now since that time have killed 3400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

    Rudolph Giuliani: Wendell, may I make a comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11.

    Giuliani: And I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.

    Paul: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes, there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages. And that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?



    Dr. Paul gives Rudy a reading list ([url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18846870/[/url])

    "I'm giving Mr. Giuliani a reading assignment," the nine-term Texas congressman said as he stood behind a stack of books that included the report by the commission that examined the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001."

    "I don't think he's qualified to be president," Paul said of Giuliani. "If he was to read the book and report back to me and say, 'I've changed my mind,' I would reconsider."

    Militant motivation
    Paul said it was irresponsible of Giuliani and other leaders to not examine the motivations of al Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups.

    A Giuliani spokeswoman was not immediately available for comment.

    Among the books on Paul's reading list were: "Dying to Win," which argues that suicide bombers only mobilize against an occupying force; "Blowback," which examines the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy; and the 9/11 Commission Report, which says that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was angered by the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.

    Another book on the list was "Imperial Hubris," whose author appeared at the press conference to offer support for Paul.

    "Foreign policy is about protecting America," said author Michael Scheuer, who used to head the CIA's bin Laden unit. "Our foreign policy is doing the opposite."

  9. #9
    Ron Paul has zero chance to be elected to the office of President.

    You may not like that fact, but it IS a fact. Hell, I wish a Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative Libertarian who understand teh value of National Defense would come along, start a third party, and have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. But it is what it is, a pipe dream.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Adolfo? So you are comparing Giuliani with Adolf Hitler?

    What makes that comparison apt in any form? Do you not think such a comparison horridly inappropriate? Immature? In what way does that spark intelligent debate here?

    Why do you think anyone would take anything you ahve to say seriously with that kind of sillyness leading off?

    You know, you Liberals whine like little girls about CBTNY's inflated rhetorical namecalling, but many of you are just as guilty and just as pompously overblown in your lame attempts at humour.

    Grow up.

    P.S. For the Record, I have absolutely no like for Guiliani, so I do not care where he stands on the Iraq War. He will not get my vote come 2008 regardless.[/QUOTE]


    WF,

    You don't live in this area, so you don't know much about Giuliani's record and the things he did, and how he did them so you wouldn't know what I'm talking about.

    But those of us from up here know about him trying to stay in power after 9/11 even though it was against NY law. We know about him trying to cut funding for a public museum because they had an exhibit he didn't like. We know how unpopular he was right up until 9/11 due to his policies.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Ron Paul has zero chance to be elected to the office of President.

    You may not like that fact, but it IS a fact. Hell, I wish a Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative Libertarian who understand teh value of National Defense would come along, start a third party, and have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. But it is what it is, a pipe dream.[/QUOTE]


    When did I say he will be elected or get the GOP nomination?!?

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]WF,

    You don't live in this area, so you don't know much about Giuliani's record and the things he did, and how he did them so you wouldn't know what I'm talking about.

    But those of us from up here know about him trying to stay in power after 9/11 even though it was against NY law. We know about him trying to cut funding for a public museum because they had an exhibit he didn't like. We know how unpopular he was right up until 9/11 due to his policies.[/QUOTE]

    Damn, your arrogance and ego are tiring.

    You don't have to live in place to be aware of what the Mayor of that place does. Do you know how many family members I have in the State of NY, Long Island and NYC specificly? No, you have no idea. Apparently you also think the internet doesn't reach as far as DC, and that NY Newspapers turn to dust the second they leave the Tri-State area.

    You're an embarrassment in this thread. So go on with you "Guilianni = Hitler" crap, I am sure your fellow Liberals just eat that tripe up. If this is the level of intellectual discoure you're going to offer, you are simply not worth my time.

    We get it. Even the most Liberal Republican is too Facist and Evil for your Left Leaning World. Thanks.

    :rolleyes:

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Damn, your arrogance and ego are tiring.

    You don't have to live in place to be aware of what the Mayor of that place does. Do you know how many family members I have in the State of NY, Long Island and NYC specificly? No, you have no idea. Apparently you also think the internet doesn't reach as far as DC, and that NY Newspapers turn to dust the second they leave the Tri-State area.

    You're an embarrassment in this thread. So go on with you "Guilianni = Hitler" crap, I am sure your fellow Liberals just eat that tripe up. If this is the level of intellectual discoure you're going to offer, you are simply not worth my time.

    We get it. Even the most Liberal Republican is too Facist and Evil for your Left Leaning World. Thanks.

    :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Because you have relatives/friends up here and have access to the internets, you followed and know every move Giuliani made? Puh-leaze... Realize that we get non-stop coverage of NYC's mayor and what they're saying/doing/etc on a daily basis in print, TV, radio, internet, etc... how often did you honestly follow what Giuliani said or did on a given day during his 7-or-so year term in office? Do/did you know his approval rating prior to 9/11 was an almost-as-dismal-as-Bush's low 30%? Did you know about his gestapo-esc tactics? His authoratorian-like rule and policies? Did you know he "won" a "Muzzle Award" for blocking free-speech? You were aware of his attempt to extend his term post-9/11 and threatened all the candidates that were seeking to become the mayor after him to support his power grab? That he then sought to get term limits removed so he could stay in power after his approval rating went from the 30s into the 70s due to 9/11?


    I realize you know *some* things about Giuliani from his term in office, but it's a fraction of what us living up here know about... simply due to exposure (or over-exposure) due to proximity to the city... for you to claim otherwise is laughable.

  14. #14
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Somerset, NJ
    Posts
    1,573
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]WF,

    You don't live in this area, so you don't know much about Giuliani's record and the things he did, and how he did them so you wouldn't know what I'm talking about.

    But those of us from up here know about him trying to stay in power after 9/11 even though it was against NY law. We know about him trying to cut funding for a public museum because they had an exhibit he didn't like. We know how unpopular he was right up until 9/11 due to his policies.[/QUOTE]

    Ok, in a city where Dems outnumber Repubs by what 9-1, 10-1(?) this Repub mayor wins two terms and leaves as Americas mayor and yet he's unpopular? If not for term limits he would still be mayor 9/11 or no 9/11. He cleaned up alot of crap in the city and those of us who lived in the city while he was mayor appreciate a cleaner / safer city. I lived in Brooklyn and Staten I during his tenure and he was looled upon as one of the city's best mayors in the areas in which I lived. He wasnt perfect and made mistakes (like his attempt at a 3rd term---ironically I agreed with him on the museum, and he was a complete di** to his wife) however to deny his popularity in the city is to deny reality....

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=sect112row36]Ok, in a city where Dems outnumber Repubs by what 9-1, 10-1(?) this Repub mayor wins two terms and leaves as Americas mayor and yet he's unpopular? If not for term limits he would still be mayor 9/11 or no 9/11. He cleaned up alot of crap in the city and those of us who lived in the city while he was mayor appreciate a cleaner / safer city. I lived in Brooklyn and Staten I during his tenure and he was looled upon as one of the city's best mayors in the areas in which I lived. He wasnt perfect and made mistakes (like his attempt at a 3rd term---ironically I agreed with him on the museum, and he was a complete di** to his wife) however to deny his popularity in the city is to deny reality....[/QUOTE]


    Don't forget that the GOP mayor you speak of ran on the Liberal party line/ballot... not exactly your typical Republican candidate. As for his popularity, all you need to do is look up his polling numbers from late in his term in office, pre-9/11 as I mentioned earlier and repeatedly, and you will see what it means to be an unpopular mayor and why I mentioned that

    I never said he didn't do positive things, and he did do several

    If you agree with his censorship, why not become a museum curator and THEN you can decide what to put in the museum?

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]Don't forget that the GOP mayor you speak of ran on the Liberal party line/ballot... not exactly your typical Republican candidate. As for his popularity, all you need to do is look up his polling numbers from late in his term in office, pre-9/11 as I mentioned earlier and repeatedly, and you will see what it means to be an unpopular mayor and why I mentioned that

    I never said he didn't do positive things, and he did do several

    If you agree with his censorship, why not become a museum curator and THEN you can decide what to put in the museum?[/QUOTE]
    Spend public funds on an exhibit with a picture of the virgin Mary covered in elephant dung? I give Rudy a standing ovation for that. And I live in New York. If you want to produce "art" like that, privately fund it.
    Would love to see the reaction if a mere painting of Mohammed was displayed using public funds, by the way.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]Spend public funds on an exhibit with a picture of the virgin Mary covered in elephant dung? I give Rudy a standing ovation for that. And I live in New York. If you want to produce "art" like that, privately fund it.
    Would love to see the reaction if a mere painting of Mohammed was displayed using public funds, by the way.[/QUOTE]


    Who are you, or I, or Rudy to decide what is art and what isn't art? If you don't like it, and I personally found it distasteful, don't go to the exhibit, I didn't/wouldn't! The museum will get the message ala the free market that Rudy and you, as GOPers, claim to love so much when no one goes to the exhibit. And for the record, it wasn't a picture of the virgin Mary covered in elephant dung, it was a painting of the virgin Mary done in elephant dung... interesting take/new medium to use for painting, however could've done it with a different subject matter

    When you have the government interfering with art/museums, and especially coming from someone who is as anti-First Amendment as Rudy, you're going down a very slippery slope real fast... and a very dangerous slope which threatens the core of our democracy
    Last edited by King Ryan; 06-06-2007 at 04:10 PM.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]Who are you, or I, or Rudy to decide what is art and what isn't art? If you don't like it, and I personally found it distasteful, don't go to the exhibit, I didn't/wouldn't...

    When you have the government interfering with art/museums, and especially coming from someone who is as anti-First Amendment as Rudy, you're going down a very slippery slope real fast... and a very dangerous slope which threatens the core of our democracy[/QUOTE]

    What a joke. There is no one more "freedom" based than me, and I find your argument juvenille and uninformed about how Public Money is spent.

    The key word here is PUBLIC funding. The fact of the matter is that Public Servants are defenders of Public money. They are tasked with ensuring that public money be spent on things useful to....duh....the public at large.

    There was absolutely no reason why public money, taken from taxpayers of all political stripes, should be used to fund display of what is effectively Hate Speech (if it was against any OTHER faith) in the form of psudo-art. It's controversial nature alone is enough reason to not use public funding to the Public instituion that used poor judgement wanting to display it. The fact that it isn't just controversial, but outright offensive to a good chuck of the public makes this a no-brainer decision, one likely made by every Mayor in America outside of San Francisco.

    Now, if the artist and a Museum wanted to use private money, to display it in a private owned setting, great. No one at all is limiting free speech in this case. The artist is free to make his "art" all he wants, no matter how hateful, and display it anywhere he can convince to display it that isn't funded by Public Money.

    Let me put this another way. Lets say for arguments sake that someone was to brutally rape and murder your Mother. And that person took a large number of very graphic pictures of her, post act. These pictures eventually make their way into private ownership, and that owner wants to display them in a Public Museum as "Art of the Killer Mind".

    You okay with that? You want your tax money funding that? I don't know, maybe you would......

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]Spend public funds on an exhibit with a picture of the virgin Mary covered in elephant dung? I give Rudy a standing ovation for that. And I live in New York. If you want to produce "art" like that, privately fund it.
    Would love to see the reaction if a mere painting of Mohammed was displayed using public funds, by the way.[/QUOTE]

    never mind the fact one can leisurely walk down 42nd Street with your kids, or any other street in Manhattan for that matter, without fearing for your life or being embarassed, thanks mostly to the mess Guiliani had to clear up after dinkins...

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=Warfish]What a joke. There is no one more "freedom" based than me, and I find your argument juvenille and uninformed about how Public Money is spent.

    The key word here is PUBLIC funding. The fact of the matter is that Public Servants are defenders of Public money. They are tasked with ensuring that public money be spent on things useful to....duh....the public at large.

    There was absolutely no reason why public money, taken from taxpayers of all political stripes, should be used to fund display of what is effectively Hate Speech (if it was against any OTHER faith) in the form of psudo-art. It's controversial nature alone is enough reason to not use public funding to the Public instituion that used poor judgement wanting to display it. The fact that it isn't just controversial, but outright offensive to a good chuck of the public makes this a no-brainer decision, one likely made by every Mayor in America outside of San Francisco.

    Now, if the artist and a Museum wanted to use private money, to display it in a private owned setting, great. No one at all is limiting free speech in this case. The artist is free to make his "art" all he wants, no matter how hateful, and display it anywhere he can convince to display it that isn't funded by Public Money.

    Let me put this another way. Lets say for arguments sake that someone was to brutally rape and murder your Mother. And that person took a large number of very graphic pictures of her, post act. These pictures eventually make their way into private ownership, and that owner wants to display them in a Public Museum as "Art of the Killer Mind".

    You okay with that? You want your tax money funding that? I don't know, maybe you would......[/QUOTE]


    And who is in charge of deciding how that public funding is spent? The museum curator, no? They hold the purse strings... the mayor of the city/town the museum is in doesn't make the calls re: happenings in the museum exhibits nor how their funds are spent


    As for your pathetic analogy, it's illegal to profit from an previously committed crime... and I don't think what the artist did was a crime.

    And I don't want my tax money funding a LOT of what it funds (i.e. illegal invasions of sovereign nations for absolutely no justifiable reason!), but thems the breaks! Do what I do, and pretend/imagine that 100% of your tax money funds programs/policies you support :D

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us