Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Ben_n_austin, Sep 13, 2007.
I don't get it... why is this the Republicans worst nightmare?
The sooner Rudy goes away the better as far as I'm concerned.
I thought Rudy was the only one who could win the next election for you guys?
So when did Rudy lie? The Iraqi Liberation Act discusses regime change. It was passed in 1998 under the Clinton Administration. Ron Paul, who puts that video clip on his YouTube page (albeit probably illegally - he does not show proof that he has permission to re-air or post network programming on YouTube), would like for you to believe The Iraqi Liberation Act means something else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
I do believe that making Rudy Giuliani the Republican candidate for President in 08 would be a colossal blunder on the part of the GOP... he ought to be a candidate that I'd find less offensive, he's certainly no hard-core neocon... he's more of a moderate Republican...
But I truly believe that Rudy is a weasel as a person, an individual of little moral fiber, and the longer he's in the spotlight of a presidential campaign, the more people will see that, and be turned off by it...
It worked for the Clintons.
I agree. I think he's the same little cretin that would rather further his political agenda than further the good of the country. In other words, his "me" comes be for his "we".
And I think there are only 3 other candidates that take the opposite approach an those are: Paul, Kucinich and, Gravel.
Gravel being the wisest of the choices, considering his credentials and his service for this country in regards to the Pentagon Papers and ending Vietnam...
Mike Gravel also wore a colonoscopy bag, as well as his a catheder so that he could filibuster the 5 months that was necessary to end the draft.
You should really give him a look as an alternative to every other joker that's running for presidents - Democrats and Republicans.
this coming from democrats who think bush is a fool yet they can't beat him or put up someone better.
This is some of the most tired mantra coming from the right. Think about what you're saying. It's the same party that says, "just because we're hypocrites, doesn't make us wrong".
Think about all of the details and factors surrounding Bush even being the President. It wasn't a dichotomy when he was elected. The decision for him to win the presidency was made by a judge whom his father appointed.
oh yea, the conspiracy theory is a lot more acceptable. i keep forgetting that regardless of what bush may do we must
1) hate him
2) say he's a liar yet never point out a lie
3) demean him every chance we get because we're bitter at the election losses and hey, it's a conspiracy.
What do all the fiscal conservatives who voted for him have to say on that?
don't know. don't care. he's still our president and as bad as so many claim him to be, "that side" still couldn't beat him.
Exhibit A. -- The New England Patriots
Exhibit B. -- President Bush
Conclusion -- it's hard for any "side" to win when the other is CHEATING!
I don't think that I'll have to harp very hard on Rudy to make my point clear for this election year, fellas. Don't worry. Giuliani will do that to himself. He's not a qualified candidate to be President.
I just want to add one last premise to aid in making this simple conclusion:
this gonna be more accuse and run like sassy loves to do?
i'm sure you suspect bush of cheating, but can you prove it? get after it if so. otherwise it's just bitter grapes people can't let go of so they wrap up a lie around themselves even tighter and force-belief it.
Sassy? Who ran from what? I'd like to know. Give me a recent example or two. I'm curious.
No, I just have a sneaking suspicion. But you can't prove that he didn't either. We're exactly equal in our abilities to prove the other right or wrong at this point, so mark an X through that as a "non-argument".
I'm not bitter at this point, just a little disappointed that there are still a few stragglers left whom are clinging to Dumbya's legacy, and defending his
blatant corruption, every step of the way.
I wouldn't call that sour grapes as much as I would just plain 'ol disgust.
And after reading yourself, being a person who whines and moans all the time about labels, I become rather disgusted when I keep seeing examples in your posts that we could make a famous name for and apply to your posting analogies. It would be your own unique line of thought and it would be called Ice's Hypocritic Method.
Here are a few examples of how this contradiction works in regards to the inverse relation between what you actually SAY and what you actually DO:
No, I'm not running. I'm giving you a lesson. As well as bolding the parts that seem to be apparent "labels"
There you go, labeling again, "bitter grapes that people can't let go of so they wrap up a lie around themselves even tighter and force-belief it. That sounds like one of YOUR labels more than any universal definition...
Not only is this a label, but you can't prove any of it to be true. Don't to try fooling me into thinking that just because you made a "label" with a string of words that it isn't a label.... I'm not havin' it. A label is a label is a label--Labeler!
uh, i said i do in fact use labels, but i try NOT to run with assumptions on their overall views on things.
and "bitter grapes" as a label? then i'm talking to those who are in fact bitter about the election still. if that's not you fine.
all that tells me is you don't get what i say and vs. asking for clarification you run off to name calling.
so you have a sneaking suspicion. i'm not advocating anything one way or another, i was asking for clarification on your views and you jump into defense mode and the BUT YOU CAN'T EITHER - assuming my next argument and doing da double defense.
back down little camper and let's figure this out. you said bush is a cheater and does it a lot yet you can cite no examples of his actions to prove your point. is this really want you're wanting to say?
please don't assume where i'm going and get all defensive. i'm just trying to clarify your own points.
Hey, ice. It's easy. You can't say, given the facts, that the Bush election was fair unless you have a bias viewpoint.
I mean, do you think that it was 100% fair?