NationStates Jolt Archive

I think I'd be less opposed to Jeb Bush in 2008 than I am to George W. Bush in 2004. I mean, now that Saddam and Osama are out of the picture (Osama will be shown to us around October or so...) the Bush family has no real rival except France any more so I think that Jeb could actually run the United States decently...

I don't know what Florida is like under him. He may be decent, but wouldn't we all get a little tired of seeing every other candidate with the last name of Bush? My bet is on Condi Rice in 2008.

(Osama will be shown to us around October or so...)

Isn't the ellections beeing hold before that? In September or so? Or am I missinformed? If I am right(about the elections), you might very well see Osama shown up if it looks like Bush will lose. Wouldn't be supriced at all if he was captured and it will be revieled when Bush & co have the most to win with presenting thier prisoner.

However, wouldn't it be neat if a thing like that leaked out? would prolly backfire, don't you think?

Sorr, got a bit off topic.

Elections are held in November, buddy.

NO!

Do not vote for Jeb Bush!!

I live in Florida and I can witness to the fact that although he is more ntelligent than his brother, he is not fit to run this country. He has no idea how to run an education system. In Florida, we have a "School Grading System". Each school is rated on a variety of critera and given a grade from A-F. Then, the "A" schools are awarded with extra funding. This funding has to come frrom somewhere. That somewhere is the "D" and "F" schools. So, under Jeb's system, the bad schools get worse, and the good schools get better. I happen to attend a "D" rated High school. Who wants to guess where it is? That's right. It's in the middle of a public housing project, and is roughly 45% Black. It's another classic Republican idea. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. For the sake of the countries education system, please never vote for Jeb Bush for President, or if you live in Florida, for governor.

Jeb lacks any character...Condi or Powell...Powell would be really good cuz he could say hey i was in the bush adminstration but was weary of Iraq if they throw that at him. Condi is got the same qualifications as Powell but she is a woman which would mite pick up even the pro-choice leftist women.

Isn't the ellections beeing hold before that? In September or so? Or am I missinformed? If I am right(about the elections), you might very well see Osama shown up if it looks like Bush will lose. Wouldn't be supriced at all if he was captured and it will be revieled when Bush & co have the most to win with presenting thier prisoner.

However, wouldn't it be neat if a thing like that leaked out? would prolly backfire, don't you think?

Sorr, got a bit off topic.
National elections are always on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November...always...

I'm glad someone from Florida piped in with that--my girlfriend is from Florida, and all her family is still there, and I hear all the horror stories of what Jeb hath wrought down there.

Jeb, to my mind, is scarier than George precisely because he's smarter. They have largely the same ideology when it comes to foreign affairs--Jeb is a signatory member of the PNAC--but while I think George goes along with some of the garbage Cheney et al pull because he's too dumb to know better, Jeb actually understands what they're trying to do, and that's enough to scare the hell out of me.

I'm glad someone from Florida piped in with that--my girlfriend is from Florida, and all her family is still there, and I hear all the horror stories of what Jeb hath wrought down there.

Jeb, to my mind, is scarier than George precisely because he's smarter. They have largely the same ideology when it comes to foreign affairs--Jeb is a signatory member of the PNAC--but while I think George goes along with some of the garbage Cheney et al pull because he's too dumb to know better, Jeb actually understands what they're trying to do, and that's enough to scare the hell out of me.

Exactly.

George is Stupid and Right-Wing.
Jeb is smart and Right-Wing.

He can wreak twice as much havoc as his brother.

I'm glad someone from Florida piped in with that--my girlfriend is from Florida, and all her family is still there, and I hear all the horror stories of what Jeb hath wrought down there.

Jeb, to my mind, is scarier than George precisely because he's smarter. They have largely the same ideology when it comes to foreign affairs--Jeb is a signatory member of the PNAC--but while I think George goes along with some of the garbage Cheney et al pull because he's too dumb to know better, Jeb actually understands what they're trying to do, and that's enough to scare the hell out of me.
What scares you makes me want him to run even more. Bush believes in what he's doing, as he's quite smart. But compared with his cabinet, he's no intellectual. I'm glad Jeb is. In fact, if you ask me, this is what we all want: intellectuals for presidents, right?

What scares you makes me want him to run even more. Bush believes in what he's doing, as he's quite smart. But compared with his cabinet, he's no intellectual. I'm glad Jeb is. In fact, if you ask me, this is what we all want: intellectuals for presidents, right?
Yes--I want an intellectual person as President, but I don't want one who believes in the things Jeb Bush believes in. Just being intellectual isn't enough.

Jeb Is On Crack He Aint That Right Wing He Spends Money Like A Moron From What I Hear

Yes--I want an intellectual person as President, but I don't want one who believes in the things Jeb Bush believes in. Just being intellectual isn't enough.
You're right, his beliefs aren't far enough for me. I'd rather have Condi Rice or Dick Cheney to be president. Colin Powell would be great, but I think he's too old now.

Jeb Is On Crack He Aint That Right Wing He Spends Money Like A Moron From What I Hear

He spends money, but not where it needs to be spent. Florida has one of the worst schools systems in the country statistically. We have standardized tests that are graduation requirements for middle school and high school that overshadow ral classes. I know that Jeb didn't start those tests, but he is trying to pass a bill to make standardized tests for Florida's state Universities. That, is idiocy. The government here in FL also has very high salaries.

National elections are always on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November...always...

Ah, not a yank, sorry. ;)

Then I agree, late October would be my bet then ;)

You're right, his beliefs aren't far enough for me. I'd rather have Condi Rice or Dick Cheney to be president. Colin Powell would be great, but I think he's too old now.

If you're rulling out Powell because of age, surely you must also rule out Cheney for the same reaon, not to mention the man's ticker isn't up to snuff.

Reagen was 77 or something so age is not problem. And Powel is very healthy

If you're rulling out Powell because of age, surely you must also rule out Cheney for the same reaon, not to mention the man's ticker isn't up to snuff.
Isn't Cheney a bit younger, or no? And I'm not ruling Powell out entirely, btw. I'm just saying he might feel too much stress to want to continue. He's about seventy now, older than Reagan when he took office. And he was the oldest president we've ever had.

Isn't Cheney a bit younger, or no? And I'm not ruling Powell out entirely, btw. I'm just saying he might feel too much stress to want to continue. He's about seventy now, older than Reagan when he took office. And he was the oldest president we've ever had.

Powell was born in 1937 and Cheney was born in 1941. So he's about four years younger than Powell, although if stress is the problem, I'd again have to vote for Powell over Cheney, just because Cheney has a serious history of heart disease.

Powell was born in 1937 and Cheney was born in 1941. So he's about four years younger than Powell, although if stress is the problem, I'd again have to vote for Powell over Cheney, just because Cheney has a serious history of heart disease.
Oh. Well, I guess Powell can still be a possible candidate. After all, Nelson Mandela was in his late seventies when he took office, and that was one helluva stressful job.

I don't think Powell wants to be President.

Isn't the ellections beeing hold before that? In September or so? Or am I missinformed? If I am right(about the elections), you might very well see Osama shown up if it looks like Bush will lose. Wouldn't be supriced at all if he was captured and it will be revieled when Bush & co have the most to win with presenting thier prisoner.

However, wouldn't it be neat if a thing like that leaked out? would prolly backfire, don't you think?

Sorr, got a bit off topic.

-greatest example of why ours is the only country where someone named Jeb would even be considered for the presidency.

Now on to the main issue at hand. No, as far as I know Jeb has no political ambitions whatsoever. As far as your statement claiming France is the only Bush enemy you forget his popularly used speech.
There are still Iran and N. Korea remaining in the Axis of Evil. (Anyone else find this to be a blatent ripoff of Reagan's Evil Empire speech?) If you are paranoid and believe the loud mouth rants of Moore you will find Iran a good target. Iran is very rich in oil and also has sympathies towards terrorism.

I would also like to point out that the war in terror could spread to- Palestine (Hezbollah, Hamas), Chechnya, Yugoslavia (The Black Hand), Lybia, Syria, Columbia, Pakistan, and Ireland. Then again many of those terrorists will not be Islamic so they do not totally fit Bushite criteria nevertheless still terrorists.

We must also remember that if Jeb ran for office he would probably run the same way Bush did in 2000. He would run on the same "compassionate conservitism"/isolationist bullplop. Then do an about face whenever profitable just like any other politician.

I think the 2008 contender could be one of these Guilinani, Rice. But beyond that the field looks rather sparse right now. Im just hoping that we won't be stuck with Mrs. Ride the coatails Clinton.

I don't think Powell wants to be President.
Neither do I. But I think that if he ran, he'd make an excellent choice. He should've ran in 1996. He probably would've done a better job than Clinton did.

I don't think Powell wants to be President.
At one time he did, but at his wife's urging agreed to not run. She was evidently concerned that the first black president ran a very high risk of being assassinated.

hmmm, how many esses are in assassinated?

Guilani would be genius. He should go after Hillaries sppot in '06 then '08 for prez , NY loves him and thts good cuz tht would usually go democratic.
A lot of democrats would like him cuz he cheated on his wife like Clinton and they adore clinton 2!

Guilani would be genius. He should go after Hillaries sppot in '06 then '08 for prez , NY loves him and thts good cuz tht would usually go democratic.
A lot of democrats would like him cuz he cheated on his wife like Clinton and they adore clinton 2!
True. He'd probably carry New York State, and he'd use his successes in New York as a model for the rest of the nation.

Guilani would be genius. He should go after Hillaries sppot in '06 then '08 for prez , NY loves him and thts good cuz tht would usually go democratic.
A lot of democrats would like him cuz he cheated on his wife like Clinton and they adore clinton 2!

Clinton's inability to keep it in his pants is the one thing even Dems don't necessarily like him for. We just realize that that's not relevant to an ability to run the country.

Giuliani would certainly carry a large amount of respect and goodwill into a campaign based solely on his performance during and after 9/11. ...Of course, people would eventually remember that it was more important to Rudy for NYC to look good than to actually deal with it's homeless problem.

Clinton's inability to keep it in his pants is the one thing even Dems don't necessarily like him for. We just realize that that's not relevant to an ability to run the country.

Giuliani would certainly carry a large amount of respect and goodwill into a campaign based solely on his performance during and after 9/11. ...Of course, people would eventually remember that it was more important to Rudy for NYC to look good than to actually deal with it's homeless problem.
Homelessness went down under Giuliani. In large part, it was due to his rivatilization programs.

he cleaned up the city it was scary b4 him. most the homeless cant be helped cuz they have some much brain damage from drug use. They were just dangerous we needed to get them off the streets. New YOrkers love what he did for the homeless

Homelessness went down under Giuliani. In large part, it was due to his rivatilization programs.Ahahaha. The only effect Giuliani had on homelessness (as well as streetwalkers, dealers, and a great number of other forms of street ugliness) was to run it underground and/or out of the city. As long as the bums weren't visible, Rudy and his constituents were happy.

Clinton's inability to keep it in his pants is the one thing even Dems don't necessarily like him for. We just realize that that's not relevant to an ability to run the country.

Giuliani would certainly carry a large amount of respect and goodwill into a campaign based solely on his performance during and after 9/11. ...Of course, people would eventually remember that it was more important to Rudy for NYC to look good than to actually deal with it's homeless problem.

Amen on the first part. I believe that to be the biggest waste of time for the executive branch and the legislative branch since the Jimmy Carter years. But on the flip side this is something he should've expected to see and for him to call it his defining moment in office does not make it easy for me to completely dismiss it. Above all that though I think Clinton could do so much more in four years than either candidate this time around. For Kerry to compare himself to Clinton is almost as laughable as Bush comparing himself to Reagan.

As for the Guiliani side of the argument. I don't see why he has been labeled a democrat. He is registered a Republican. He cleaned up New York as far as drugs, prostitution and he also took them through arguably New Yorks toughest time since the British invasion of it back in the day (to which it would only be hard for rebels not the pro-tory majority.)
Homelessness in New York went down during his reign. I believe Rudy would make a phenomenol return to reason in the Republican party. Rudy Guiliani is national hero after his role as a guiding light to a very dark New York. And he may lose some of the far right but he would also gain moderates something which has been lacking in the Repubs. for quite some time.

Four Repulicans would be acceptable '08 candidates. Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain.

My liberal democrat views aside, McCain scares me...

Ahahaha. The only effect Giuliani had on homelessness (as well as streetwalkers, dealers, and a great number of other forms of street ugliness) was to run it underground and/or out of the city. As long as the bums weren't visible, Rudy and his constituents were happy.
Not exactly. I remember that he had homeless kids placed in foster care.

NO!

Do not vote for Jeb Bush!!

I live in Florida and I can witness to the fact that although he is more ntelligent than his brother, he is not fit to run this country. He has no idea how to run an education system. In Florida, we have a "School Grading System". Each school is rated on a variety of critera and given a grade from A-F. Then, the "A" schools are awarded with extra funding. This funding has to come frrom somewhere. That somewhere is the "D" and "F" schools. So, under Jeb's system, the bad schools get worse, and the good schools get better. I happen to attend a "D" rated High school. Who wants to guess where it is? That's right. It's in the middle of a public housing project, and is roughly 45% Black. It's another classic Republican idea. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. For the sake of the countries education system, please never vote for Jeb Bush for President, or if you live in Florida, for governor.

Please... You think this is any diff. from Bush policies. Go read the "No Child Left Behind Act." It is basically a carbon copy of this idea. As far as what you say about Republicans I fail to see how there is any brightline between the parties.
What has the democratic party done for education in the last 60 years? Other than oppose integration? I think both parties think they can just ignore educational policies. Either take a popular democrat idea of just ignoring high school all together-- Affirmative Action. Or you have vouchers which are like winning an educational lottery.
If you think the democrats really care about education why is it that there has been no reform in it? They hardly even propose reforms to it. Well I take that back they want to pay for college but they can not even get K-12 on track.
Until schools are funded completely federally there will be no equality in education. Because today school funding is routed through district property taxes and guess what the more property taxes paid in the richer districts the better educational system they get. This creates a patchwork of disproportionate schooling all over the United States. Props to Carol Mosley Braun the one person who actually cares about our children. The only one who cares to challenge the blind sided corporately sponsored parties. She has a heart despite being a member in one of them.

Four Repulicans would be acceptable '08 candidates. Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain.

McCain is pro-choice... hence a dead Repub ticket.

My optimum hypothetical '08 situation: W wins this year, making him ineligible for '08. In '08, the republican ticket is Condi Rice with Rudy Giuliani as running mate. Very hypothetical, I know, but that would be a super ticket. Republican and Democrat African-Americans would vote for Condi, Democrat and Republican women would vote for Condi, and many other Democrats and Republicans would vote for that ticket because of Giuliani's overwhelming popularity.

I think I'd be less opposed to Jeb Bush in 2008 than I am to George W. Bush in 2004. I mean, now that Saddam and Osama are out of the picture (Osama will be shown to us around October or so...) the Bush family has no real rival except France any more so I think that Jeb could actually run the United States decently...

Jeb 08' OH GOD NO! I like george for the most part at least better than kerry but jeb!? That idiot is screwing up our school system with the stupid FCAT. Did you know that he is trying to trick us students out of our history and government classes? Ya that sounds good but people will not be able to learn from our mistakes and wont learn how to vote wich would discourage people to vote not good at all. I just hope he doesn't run.

As for the Guiliani side of the argument. I don't see why he has been labeled a democrat.
I don't think anyone is call Giuliani a Democrat. :cool: He is a Republican who could possibly draw a substantial chunk of Dem votes though, one of only a few that includes Powell and McCain. (Condi Rice as a possible candidate is a joke though.)

[Giuliani] ... cleaned up New York as far as drugs, prostitution. Only in the sense that old-time Southern police cleaned up their towns of "undesirables." Effectively putting the local prostitute on the bus doesn't address the issue; it just passes it on to another town. On a national level, we'd have to put all the social problems on a bus to Canada...and I don't think they want them either. ;)

Not exactly. I remember that [Giuliani] had homeless kids placed in foster care.Hmm. And what did he do with those kids' equally homeless parents? As a clue-in, being homeless isn't a crime and generally doesn't warrant loss of parental rights.

i have lived in jacksonville fl for 19 years and life here now seems to be pretty dam good. what is the biggest difernce between a A school and a F school, ATTITUDE of the students and the students parents. i dont meen all but i do meen a majority

Hmm. And what did he do with those kids' equally homeless parents? As a clue-in, being homeless isn't a crime and generally doesn't warrant loss of parental rights.
But neither do kids deserve to suffer because of their parents. Homelessness will always exist. From what I've seen, it's a result of some extremely bad choices. People must realize that choices don't come without consequences.
In the mean time, I'll sing more praises for Giulliani. He cleaned up the Bronx, as my employer can attest to (she lived there for quite some time). He quickly filled in the security gap when the mafia dons were arrested. He made Manhattan squicky clean. And he worked to develope New York infrastructure, and was instrumental in the rebuilding of downtown Manhatten. For some reason, however, I find it very hard to feel sorry for homeless adults.

You guys should really read this month's issue of Rolling Stone. Thank god there are still good articles in the Rolling Stone, even if the rest of it is sold out garbage.

The article is about Gary Trudeau, the guy who writes Doonsbury. He went to college with George W. He gives some interesting insights about what kind of man our president is, and I think what he says about him is fair.

Just a heads-up.

No. I don't want to see another political family get a presidency (Kennedy's or Bush's) they don't really do that great of a job for the country. Let this be the final Bush.

But neither do kids deserve to suffer because of their parents. Homelessness will always exist. From what I've seen, it's a result of some extremely bad choices. People must realize that choices don't come without consequences.Ah "the poor will always be with us" eh? And therefore let's just make it so we don't have to see them... good old Republican attitude there. :)

Homelessness isn't always about fault or "bad choices" for that matter. Sometimes it's about incredibly lousy economies and missing social safety nets. And shoving kids into foster care (and what a wonderful institution that is) is more about punishment (of the kids as well as the parents) than it is consequences.
For some reason, however, I find it very hard to feel sorry for homeless adults.
Heh. Homeless adults don't want your pity. The vast majority that aren't mentally ill (hey, talk about bad "choices") generally just want an opportunity to work and a chance to have a roof over their heads again.

Ah "the poor will always be with us" eh? And therefore let's just make it so we don't have to see them... good old Republican attitude there. :)

Homelessness isn't always about fault or "bad choices" for that matter. Sometimes it's about incredibly lousy economies and missing social safety nets. And shoving kids into foster care (and what a wonderful institution that is) is more about punishment (of the kids as well as the parents) than it is consequences.

Heh. Homeless adults don't want your pity. The vast majority that aren't mentally ill (hey, talk about bad "choices") generally just want an opportunity to work and a chance to have a roof over their heads again.
Here's a tip for them: buy a paper, and look at the classifieds. And btw, most people aren't born homeless. Indeed, the homeless children removed numbed only about fifty or so, and this is New York. So, where were these better off parents for them if they were mentally ill? The government isn't supposed to be the ubernanny. We can't help everyone, but we will try as sure as hell to help as many as we can. You, of course, don't see things as utilitarian as I do.

We already have that jerk Bush. Why do you have to bring his brother into the picture?

Here's the thing about Rudy--his popularity throughout the state is overrated. He's still pretty popular in the city, but a race against HIllary in 2006 is going to be tough--it won't be a cakewalk, that's for certain.

But in a national race, Rudy won't ever get the nomination. Why? He's pro-choice, and pro-choicers don't get the national nod in this Republican party. It's a deal-breaker for too large a portion of the party. Rudy might pick up some moderates, but not enough to make up for the opposition he'd get from the christian conservative wing of the party. That's also the reason that even if Bush were allowed to dump Cheney that Rudy wouldn't be chosen for VP.

Rudy Giuliani as president.

*Winces.*

Here's a tip for them: buy a paper, and look at the classifieds.
Sorry, you seem to have slipped into nonsenseland.

When was the last time you got a job through the classifieds...or even qualified for one. Know what the major stumbling block for the homeless looking for jobs is? No permanent address or phone number. Followed quickly by a lack of facilities to maintain the hygiene most U.S. employers expect of a successful applicant.

And btw, most people aren't born homeless. Indeed, the homeless children removed numbed only about fifty or so, and this is New York.
Uhm, no duh. Of course, most poor children are born into poverty. And the working poor are the largest source of homeless.

So, your example of Giuliani's beneficence only involves 50 people? Great guy, huh....
So, where were these better off parents for them if they were mentally ill?
Is this supposed to make sense? You broadbrushed all homeless as being somehow lazy. I pointed out that a number of those who aren't mentally ill are happy to work when they can get it. The set 'homeless' includes but does not equal the subset 'mentally ill.' The subset 'homeless parent' may or may not include overlap with the subset 'mentally ill homeless' but no more so than the general population.

The government isn't supposed to be the ubernanny. We can't help everyone, but we will try as sure as hell to help as many as we can. You, of course, don't see things as utilitarian as I do.
Actually, I see things quite pragmatically. However, I tend to see the Giuliani program of rounding the homeless up in vans and driving them to other cities as rather short-sighted.

Here's the thing about Rudy--his popularity throughout the state is overrated. He's still pretty popular in the city, but a race against HIllary in 2006 is going to be tough--it won't be a cakewalk, that's for certain.

But in a national race, Rudy won't ever get the nomination. Why? He's pro-choice, and pro-choicers don't get the national nod in this Republican party. It's a deal-breaker for too large a portion of the party. Rudy might pick up some moderates, but not enough to make up for the opposition he'd get from the christian conservative wing of the party. That's also the reason that even if Bush were allowed to dump Cheney that Rudy wouldn't be chosen for VP.
About Giuliani having a tough time in New York state, I think he wouldn't. Hillary Clinton was never really that popular here to begin with. I think she was just voted in because of her name, at least over Rick Lazio. But when Giuliani started his run against her the first time, he offered some serious competition.
And btw, living in Upstate New York, I can tell you that he still is quite popular amongst us hicks.

Sorry, you seem to have slipped into nonsenseland.

When was the last time you got a job through the classifieds...or even qualified for one. Know what the major stumbling block for the homeless looking for jobs is? No permanent address or phone number. Followed quickly by a lack of facilities to maintain the hygiene most U.S. employers expect of a successful applicant.


Uhm, no duh. Of course, most poor children are born into poverty. And the working poor are the largest source of homeless.

So, your example of Giuliani's beneficence only involves 50 people? Great guy, huh....

Is this supposed to make sense? You broadbrushed all homeless as being somehow lazy. I pointed out that a number of those who aren't mentally ill are happy to work when they can get it. The set 'homeless' includes but does not equal the subset 'mentally ill.' The subset 'homeless parent' may or may not include overlap with the subset 'mentally ill homeless' but no more so than the general population.


Actually, I see things quite pragmatically. However, I tend to see the Giuliani program of rounding the homeless up in vans and driving them to other cities as rather short-sighted.
I can vouch for why he did it. There are probably a hundred different communities that have such extensive welfare nets that it's easier to dump them there than keep them around for loitering. I know that's what happens in San Fransisco, only in reverse. Surrounding communities ship the homeless there.
BTW, poverty doesn't always equal homelessness. In fact, an astonishing number of impoverished people own homes. I think that if children are mentally ill, why can't these parents do something? I've seen the nature of some of the parents in New York, and it is horrible. They treat children more like trophies than like human beings. The problem lies not in politics, but in society. The best way to stop homelessness, poverty, and other problems is for the impoverished to stop holding themselves back, and start realizing they too, can have self esteem. Think my assessment is harsh? Go to any inner city school in America, and you'll see what I mean. Gangs, drugs, and prostitution replace learning and work ethic.

I can vouch for why he did it. There are probably a hundred different communities that have such extensive welfare nets that it's easier to dump them there than keep them around for loitering. I know that's what happens in San Fransisco, only in reverse. Surrounding communities ship the homeless there.Just because it's done, doesn't make it right. Dumping your problems on someone else is not a solution. So you really can't say Giuliani "solved" anything, now can you.BTW, poverty doesn't always equal homelessness.I certainly didn't say it did. Poverty is, however the greatest source of homelessness (with the exception of the mentally ill, but that's a whole other bucket of worms).I think that if children are mentally ill, why can't these parents do something?Eh? WTH are you talking about?The problem lies not in politics, but in society. The best way to stop homelessness, poverty, and other problems is for the impoverished to stop holding themselves back, and start realizing they too, can have self esteem.Politics is the tool with which society manages itself. They are not mutually exclusive.

Cool. So all the poor need is a good dose of self-esteem. And maybe a new pair of bootstraps to pull themselves up with, eh? </sarcasm>

As far as long Island WE HATE HILLARY its realli only the city. And as a christian i can say i would vote for Guiliani. There will never be a candidate that i agree with 100% and he wont do anything to increase the pro-choice agenda cuz he'd be killed. The republican party would have a little difficulties but they would ally after the convention in 08

Just because it's done, doesn't make it right. Dumping your problems on someone else is not a solution. So you really can't say Giuliani "solved" anything, now can you.I certainly didn't say it did. Poverty is, however the greatest source of homelessness (with the exception of the mentally ill, but that's a whole other bucket of worms).Eh? WTH are you talking about?Politics is the tool with which society manages itself. They are not mutually exclusive.

Cool. So all the poor need is a good dose of self-esteem. And maybe a new pair of bootstraps to pull themselves up with, eh? </sarcasm>
Throwing money at a problem won't solve anything. The best thing we could probably do is to reform the police force, and Giulliani did that as well. Not only make it ruthless in fighting crime, but also, make police officers role models. Study after study shows that kids with a role model end up better at home, and the impoverished often lack one at home. For this reason, I'm optimistic that homelessness can iron itself out. Indeed, it has gotten far better in the past forty years.

This thread took some interesting twists.
Not trying to hijack the thread, but got a query:
Which brother was involved w/Neil Bush in the Silverado Savings & Loan scandal a decade or two back?
Just asking, there are already too many Bush members in the press. Gotta narrow them down their respective faculty/vice and subsequent accomplishments.

As much as I would like to see it, even though I wouldnt vote for either of them..

Neither Colin Powell, nor Condi Rice will ever gain the nomination from the Republican Party.

Dont make me say why....you all know very well.

Its likely going to be McCain in 08'.

Hillary/Moore in '08!

1. Nobody would vote for Condi. Black people don't consider her black, women consider her a sell-out and she shares no commonality with the Republican base. Her next stop: CIA

2. Powell isn't going to run and is less respected than Bush by foreign leaders because he knowingly lied to the UN.

3. Rudy is a nazi and will shamelessly exploit 9/11 to the extent that Bush will seem modest by comparison.

4. Jeb is a ranking member of the PNAC and has the Neo-Con contacts in spades. He is in a race with Texas to see who can turn their state into a replica of nazi germany faster. I also expect him to invade Cuba (finishing what his daddy started)

5. Arnold Schwartzenegger runs the fourth-largest economy in the world, and Neo-Cons in congress are busy banging-out a constitutional amendment that will allow him to run for the highest office in the United States.

As much as I would like to see it, even though I wouldnt vote for either of them..

Neither Colin Powell, nor Condi Rice will ever gain the nomination from the Republican Party.

Dont make me say why....you all know very well.

Its likely going to be McCain in 08'.
Yes, it's an unfortunate obstacle for possibly the two brightest people in the White House. However, I'm guessing that Powell would be popular among quite a few Americans, including Democrats.

1. Nobody would vote for Condi. Black people don't consider her black, women consider her a sell-out and she shares no commonality with the Republican base. Her next stop: CIA

2. Powell isn't going to run and is less respected than Bush by foreign leaders because he knowingly lied to the UN.

3. Rudy is a nazi and will shamelessly exploit 9/11 to the extent that Bush will seem modest by comparison.

4. Jeb is a ranking member of the PNAC and has the Neo-Con contacts in spades. He is in a race with Texas to see who can turn their state into a replica of nazi germany faster. I also expect him to invade Cuba (finishing what his daddy started)

5. Arnold Schwartzenegger runs the fourth-largest economy in the world, and Neo-Cons in congress are busy banging-out a constitutional amendment that will allow him to run for the highest office in the United States.
Okay then, Mr. Agenda maker. Who will be nominated as the Republican candidate in 2008?

Gosh everytime I see this thread I cringe. Another Bush would ruin us.

Okay then, Mr. Agenda maker. Who will be nominated as the Republican candidate in 2008?
Wasn't to me, but I'll respond anyway. A lot depends on who wins in November. If Bush somehow manages to pull it out, then the religious right will be even more emboldened and you might get a candidate like Rick Santorum or Bill Frist. In this scenario, I think Jeb will sit it out because of the potential for Bush fatigue. If George loses, then I think you can expect Jeb to make a run in 2008, along with the aforementioned Senators, but there might be a reaction to the religious right and a split of sorts could potentially lead to a Giuliani/Pataki type making it through, although I still doubt that either of them will play in the south. McCain won't run--his age will be too much of a factor. Rice might dip her toe in, but she'll run even worse in the south than either of the New Yorkers will.

Here's the basics as I see them--as long as the Republican party is beholden to the conservative christian element and has to run on social and race issues in the south, they'll always be limited in their electoral strategy. They have to move beyond that in the long run, or they'll lose out in the generational race.

Wasn't to me, but I'll respond anyway. A lot depends on who wins in November. If Bush somehow manages to pull it out, then the religious right will be even more emboldened and you might get a candidate like Rick Santorum or Bill Frist. In this scenario, I think Jeb will sit it out because of the potential for Bush fatigue. If George loses, then I think you can expect Jeb to make a run in 2008, along with the aforementioned Senators, but there might be a reaction to the religious right and a split of sorts could potentially lead to a Giuliani/Pataki type making it through, although I still doubt that either of them will play in the south. McCain won't run--his age will be too much of a factor. Rice might dip her toe in, but she'll run even worse in the south than either of the New Yorkers will.

Here's the basics as I see them--as long as the Republican party is beholden to the conservative christian element and has to run on social and race issues in the south, they'll always be limited in their electoral strategy. They have to move beyond that in the long run, or they'll lose out in the generational race.
The South is an important part of the Republican base, but not the only one. We get Texas most every campaign, as well as most of the Midwest. Besides, who the hell lives in the South? No one. We'd prefer a state like California, but that's be impossible to get.
BTW, Rick Santorum can't run based on religion because he's Catholic. Fundementalists like to think that we Catholics are devil worshippers. They'd never accept a Catholic president if he runs based on religion. Hell, they may not elect a Catholic at all.

As for the Guiliani side of the argument. I don't see why he has been labeled a democrat. He is registered a Republican. He cleaned up New York as far as drugs, prostitution and he also took them through arguably New Yorks toughest time since the British invasion of it back in the day (to which it would only be hard for rebels not the pro-tory majority.)
Homelessness in New York went down during his reign. I believe Rudy would make a phenomenol return to reason in the Republican party. Rudy Guiliani is national hero after his role as a guiding light to a very dark New York. And he may lose some of the far right but he would also gain moderates something which has been lacking in the Repubs. for quite some time.
I really admire Guiliani. I am fiercely liberal, but I would not at all mind having him for pres in '08. I think he knows what he is doing and he is a very, very strong leader. He came to my university one and made a speech about leadership, and how it related to post-9/11 NYC, and I was very impressed.

For all that, though, I'd never vote Republican. Guiliani is still too conservative for me to be entirely happy with the idea.

Don't even want to think about Jeb Bush... I'd definitely move to Europe.

The South is an important part of the Republican base, but not the only one. We get Texas most every campaign, as well as most of the Midwest. Besides, who the hell lives in the South? No one. We'd prefer a state like California, but that's be impossible to get.
BTW, Rick Santorum can't run based on religion because he's Catholic. Fundementalists like to think that we Catholics are devil worshippers. They'd never accept a Catholic president if he runs based on religion. Hell, they may not elect a Catholic at all.I think the religious right would accept a pro-life anti-gay Catholic--especially one as vehement as Santorum--over a pro-choice pro-gay rights Protestant like Giuliani.

My point about the south is that because the right has conceded states like California and New York and other major population centers, they can't do anything to piss off their base in the south. The reverse is true for the Democrats--they can't afford to piss off the coasts by moving far enough to the right to go after, say, Mississippi.

I think the religious right would accept a pro-life anti-gay Catholic--especially one as vehement as Santorum--over a pro-choice pro-gay rights Protestant like Giuliani.

My point about the south is that because the right has conceded states like California and New York and other major population centers, they can't do anything to piss off their base in the south. The reverse is true for the Democrats--they can't afford to piss off the coasts by moving far enough to the right to go after, say, Mississippi.
Population centers change. People are moving between the North and South, plus the East and West all the time. I think that for this reason, it is premature for the Republicans to drop the South. Perhaps they will stay the same. Or perhaps, as has been the recent trend, more northerners will move South due to warmer weather. After all, it was a great boon to the Democrats when the Sun Belt formed. It is useless to try and dump any party's bases, because the native populations may or may not stay. Of course, the South isn't a place to focus our energies, nor are the coasts areas to focus Democrat energies. The place is on the key battleground states, but especially Florida. I'd hate to live in Florida come election year.

Okay then, Mr. Agenda maker. Who will be nominated as the Republican candidate in 2008?


Do you really expect there to be an election?

This time around both candidates for the two major parties belong to the same secret society and an alarming amount of (faith-based) paper-less electronic voting machines will hold down strategic political regions.

Is the charade really that important anymore?

I think I'd be less opposed to Jeb Bush in 2008 than I am to George W. Bush in 2004. I mean, now that Saddam and Osama are out of the picture (Osama will be shown to us around October or so...) the Bush family has no real rival except France any more so I think that Jeb could actually run the United States decently...



WE DO NOT HAVE OSAMA!!!!!!!!! When will you Libs give that tired old BS up?

Do you really expect there to be an election?

This time around both candidates for the two major parties belong to the same secret society and an alarming amount of (faith-based) paper-less electronic voting machines will hold down strategic political regions.

Is the charade really that important anymore?
Yes, because then it can lead a deceptive public further into the depths of hell. After all, dictatorships work best when people think they live in a republic, right?

I really admire Guiliani. I am fiercely liberal, but I would not at all mind having him for pres in '08. I think he knows what he is doing and he is a very, very strong leader. He came to my university one and made a speech about leadership, and how it related to post-9/11 NYC, and I was very impressed.


Very impressive...

He helped cover-up the controlled demolition of Tower 7 (not to mention 1 and 2) and then exploited the whole thing with a self-serving book deal.

Yes, because then it can lead a deceptive public further into the depths of hell. After all, dictatorships work best when people think they live in a republic, right?

Operation Enduring Freedom
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Freedom Tower
The Freedom Commission on Mental Health
The Patriot Act
The Liberty Act

what's in a name?

If Liberty is surveillance, Patriotism is implicit trust in government and Freedom is war, globalzation and mandatory drug use; then why can't a republic be a dictatorship?

what's in a name?

semantics is everything.

I don't know what Florida is like under him. He may be decent, but wouldn't we all get a little tired of seeing every other candidate with the last name of Bush? My bet is on Condi Rice in 2008.

I'm not sexist or racist at all...but a woman won't be a president for a long time...much less a black one.

I'm betting santorum will run for president in 2008 or 2012 though...or Arnold if the admendment gets passed...

WE DO NOT HAVE OSAMA!!!!!!!!! When will you Libs give that tired old BS up?

bastard michael moore