NationStates Jolt Archive

He wants to get nominated by the Republicans to become president.

Now, I actually don't know a whole lot about the guy. What does he stand for? Should I be cheering for him?

I have had a bit of a look around wiki, but I'm more interested in your opinions.

I like Rudy. He's pretty moderate on social issues and conservative on more important issues like economics.

Also, sorry about the lack of a "centrist" option in the poll. I guess you'll just have to make up your mind, because I ran out of poll options.

Meh, no better or worse than any of the other mainstream candidates.

I would be, I'd support him over just about anyone else. As mayor of New York City he showed that he can work with a very large and hostile Democratic majority and STILL get things done. He was also the mayor os New York during the 9/11 attacks and actually took charge and responded long before President Bush crawled out of whatever hole he had run to.

I'd say he's far more centerist, from what I have seen of his stances, and could almost be termed a Blue Dog Democrat.

I could see myself voting for Rudy. Considering who the Dem's are putting out there it makes it easy. Will have to wait and see what he wants to do first.

He was my mayor for eight years.

He's probably not your cup of tea really. He's quite keen on command economy sort of stuff - as long as he is in charge. He also seems to be fairly corrupt insofar as civil service appointments seem to go.

On the plus side, he is very good at getting results where a strong hand is needed.

The Economist just had an article about him. It's a little thin on detail, but I think it summed up his strenghts and weaknesses pretty well. You should check it out for a first blush impression.

i doubt he'll make it through the republican primaries - unless the republican establishment pulls more than a few strings

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/7710/90/400/526609/giuliani_in_drag.jpg

He wants to get nominated by the Republicans to become president.

Now, I actually don't know a whole lot about the guy. What does he stand for? Should I be cheering for him?

I have had a bit of a look around wiki, but I'm more interested in your opinions.

He's pro-censorship, I know that. Wanted to "clean up" Broadway.

He's pro-censorship, I know that. Wanted to "clean up" Broadway.

I don't like the pro-censorship thing. Besides that, I like that he's a hardliner that manages not to piss too many people off. I think the US needs a hardliner to get the country back on track. Bush wrecked us nationally as well as internationally. I think Rudy would do a good job cleaning up the international incidents that Bush is leaving for the next president.

As for specific issues, I haven't formed an opinion yet. I usually don't look at platform specifics until the primary's are over. It's far easier to compare him against other canidate. Plus, no reason to get excited if he's doesn't win the nomination.

I like Rudy. He's pretty moderate on social issues and conservative on more important issues like economics.

I like him for the same reasons. Let's see if the campaign makes him march left or right from where he's at now, though.

I like him for the same reasons. Let's see if the campaign makes him march left or right from where he's at now, though.

That's the real problem. Candiates can change so much during the primaries.

He's pro-censorship, I know that. Wanted to "clean up" Broadway.

:rolleyes:

It was the brooklyn museum. And he wanted to pull the city funds for it because of the virgin mary with elephant poo picture.

So no. Not really pro-censorship at all.

Also, sorry about the lack of a "centrist" option in the poll. I guess you'll just have to make up your mind, because I ran out of poll options.


I am neither Republican or Democrat (or part of any other party either) even though I do live in the United States.

I don't like the guy.

I like Rudy. He's conservative on more important issues like economics.

Let's see, statement from target creates distrust of Giuliani.

there is no option in your poll for me. :)

I am a libertarian and he irks me.

there is no option in your poll for me. :)

I am a libertarian and he irks me.

Yah. Well he's absolutely not the candidate for libertarians. I would imagine that there a democrats that are better suited in that case.

Yah. Well he's absolutely not the candidate for libertarians. I would imagine that there a democrats that are better suited in that case.
I haven't seen any yet.

Yah. Well he's absolutely not the candidate for libertarians. I would imagine that there a democrats that are better suited in that case.
Considering that Ron Paul, a former libertarian party member, has a exploratory committee, he is probably a better candidate for the group in question. Really though, Hillary is too populist for libertarians, John Edwards wants an increase in certain government spending, and Obama might not be as bad depending on what kind of libertarian one is, he definitely would not appeal to economic libertarians like the republicans would.

I would think that Guilliani would be a good candidate for llibertarians considering that according to on the issues they call his political leaning moderate libertarian(based upon the limited criteria for judgement) http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm and because as a previous poster mentioned he is economically conservative but not too socially conservative.

I haven't seen any yet.

Well that's only because most people don't know Guliani that well. He's extremely authoritarian.

I would imagine that someone like Evan Bayh would be closer to the libertarian viewpoint that Guliani.

That said, neither come anywhere close.

Considering that Ron Paul, a former libertarian party member, has a exploratory committee, he is probably a better candidate. Really though, Hillary is too populist for democrats, John Edwards wants an increase in certain government spending, and Obama might not be as bad depending on what kind of libertarian one is, he definitely would not appeal to economic libertarians like the republicans would.

I would think that Guilliani would be a good candidate for llibertarians considering that according to on the issues they call his political leaning moderate libertarian(based upon the limited criteria for judgement) http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm and because as a previous poster mentioned he is economically conservative but not too socially conservative.
I am still researching Ron Paul, but I hear good things....although they are from people who would probably jump in front of a bullet for him, so they are biased good things.

Considering that Ron Paul, a former libertarian party member, has a exploratory committee, he is probably a better candidate for the group in question. Really though, Hillary is too populist for libertarians, John Edwards wants an increase in certain government spending, and Obama might not be as bad depending on what kind of libertarian one is, he definitely would not appeal to economic libertarians like the republicans would.

I would think that Guilliani would be a good candidate for llibertarians considering that according to on the issues they call his political leaning moderate libertarian(based upon the limited criteria for judgement) http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm and because as a previous poster mentioned he is economically conservative but not too socially conservative.

I've not yet decided whether Ron Paul is my hero or a madman. Could go either way.

I am still researching Ron Paul, but I hear good things....although they are from people who would probably jump in front of a bullet for him, so they are biased good things.
Well right, it is based a lot on personal preferences. I am just stating that Ron Paul actually was a libertarian and did once run for president under the libertarian party.

His on the issues thing is here (http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm)

:rolleyes:

It was the brooklyn museum. And he wanted to pull the city funds for it because of the virgin mary with elephant poo picture.

So no. Not really pro-censorship at all.

Unless you're being sarcastic, wouldn't that make him pro-censorship?

Unless you're being sarcastic, wouldn't that make him pro-censorship?

Think about it.

Well that's only because most people don't know Guliani that well. He's extremely authoritarian.

I would imagine that someone like Evan Bayh would be closer to the libertarian viewpoint that Guliani.

That said, neither come anywhere close.
Possibly, it might do well to shed light on his authoritarian attitudes so that way people will know better. The reason I say that is because he seems somewhat socially moderate for a Republican candidate, a lot that does tend towards censorship, and Republican candidates tend more towards economic liberalism(not liberal as in left-wing) compared to democrats.

Unless you're being sarcastic, wouldn't that make him pro-censorship?
I don't think so. Ignoring the moral issue here, he did not actually want to use governmental power to shut it down, just to halt public funding for the museum presenting it. I think he claimed it on the grounds that the majority of the residents of NY did not want to have their tax dollars go to a museum that would insult their faith. It's a CEO like firing a subordinate who ruined the image of the company.

:rolleyes:

It was the brooklyn museum. And he wanted to pull the city funds for it because of the virgin mary with elephant poo picture.

So no. Not really pro-censorship at all.

That is censorship (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=art_funding).

But the Court has also found that once it does decide to provide funds for arts programs, the government cannot withdraw that funding, thus censoring certain works, because it disagrees with the viewpoint expressed in the work.

His on the issues thing is here (http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm)
How dare the guy call himself libertarian and then get a 100% rating by "FAIR"?

I don't like him. He drops 9/11 to much.

That is censorship (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=art_funding).

No. That's not censorship.

He was my mayor for eight years.

He's probably not your cup of tea really. He's quite keen on command economy sort of stuff - as long as he is in charge. He also seems to be fairly corrupt insofar as civil service appointments seem to go.

On the plus side, he is very good at getting results where a strong hand is needed.

The Economist just had an article about him. It's a little thin on detail, but I think it summed up his strenghts and weaknesses pretty well. You should check it out for a first blush impression.

The word I would use is "authoritarian." I can't imagine what he'd try if he had the powers Bush has claimed for the Presidency. He's also very thin-skinned--can't abide not being the center of attention and has fired capable underlings in the past simply because they got more credit than he did.

No. That's not censorship.
Yes, any sort of censoring results in censorship.

The word I would use is "authoritarian." I can't imagine what he'd try if he had the powers Bush has claimed for the Presidency. He's also very thin-skinned--can't abide not being the center of attention and has fired capable underlings in the past simply because they got more credit than he did.

Yah. I used it [authoritarian] later in this thread.

Honestly, he was what NYC needed at that time, but it in no way makes him a president.

Damn.

Clicked the wrong spot.

I guess you can call me a moderate, ex-Republican who likes him.

No. That's not censorship.

Well, the Supreme Court doesn't share your opinion. I linked you to their opinion on the issue. If you have a more recent Supreme Court ruling I'd be glad to see it. Look at the quote, that's the opinon of the Court.

Yes, any sort of censoring results in censorship.

NYC doesn't give money to the Klan either. Is that censorship?

(Though they have subsidized art which contained a swastika).

The museum filed a suit in federal court against Giuliani claiming First Amendment violations and seeking a permanent injunction against the city to keep it from withholding funds. U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon, finding that Giuliani’s actions violated the First Amendment, granted the museum a preliminary injunction. Gershon also ordered the city to restore the museum’s funding and stop eviction proceedings.
Source. (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=art_funding)

NYC doesn't give money to the Klan either. Is that censorship?

(Though they have subsidized art which contained a swastika).

They can't pull funding. The Supreme Court ruled on that. The Supreme Court is the law of the land. End of story.

Once again, the gov't doesn't have to fund any art. But they can't pull funding once they grant it.

NYC doesn't give money to the Klan either. Is that censorship?

(Though they have subsidized art which contained a swastika).

The difference, as I understand it, is that in the Brooklyn Museum case, the government was funding, and then threatened to remove it based on some controversial pieces of art. But if they'd never funded Klan artwork, it's not censorship because the funding never started in the first place. It's the actions taken after the start of the funding that make the difference.

Well, the Supreme Court doesn't share your opinion. I linked you to their opinion on the issue. If you have a more recent Supreme Court ruling I'd be glad to see it. Look at the quote, that's the opinon of the Court.

Can you still throw poo at at a painting of the virgin mary in NYC? Why yes, you can. And you will get the protection of the police while you do it.

Maybe the taxpayers don't want to pay for your little art project in a public gallery however.

I am sure had the exhibition been called 'The holocaust:Why those damn Jews Deserved it!' you would have had no problem in local funding being pulled.

Nothing to do with censorship.

Can you still throw poo at at a painting of the virgin mary in NYC? Why yes, you can. And you will get the protection of the police while you do it.

Maybe the taxpayers don't want to pay for your little art project in a public gallery however.

I am sure had the exhibition been called 'The holocaust:Why those damn Jews Deserved it!' you would have had no problem in local funding being pulled.

Nothing to do with censorship.
Everything to do with censorship. Funding is already involved, threatening to cease funding unless a piece you don't like is removed is called censorship. It is censorship a la attrition.

Can you still throw poo at at a painting of the virgin mary in NYC? Why yes, you can. And you will get the protection of the police while you do it.

Maybe the taxpayers don't want to pay for your little art project in a public gallery however.

I am sure had the exhibition been called 'The holocaust:Why those damn Jews Deserved it!' you would have had no problem in local funding being pulled.

Nothing to do with censorship.

Actually, I would object. I would also, however, be asking the board of directors of the museum what the hell they were thinking and be protesting in hopes of getting them fired.

Here's what it comes down to, for me. Art is supposed to be uncomfortable, especially on the edges. But politicians don't like uncomfortable spots, and they're the last people I want determining what is and isn't art, and what should and shouldn't be funded, at least when it comes to individual shows. If the city wanted to simply end its funding of the Brooklyn Museum altogether, that's one discussion. But it's another completely if they're doing it because of one particular show.

I would vote for Guliani. True, he's got a not-so-tidy history in the marriage department. The alternative could be a televangelist that turns out is having sex with young boy prostitutes *cough, cough*. And I favor his economic policies.

The difference, as I understand it, is that in the Brooklyn Museum case, the government was funding, and then threatened to remove it based on some controversial pieces of art. But if they'd never funded Klan artwork, it's not censorship because the funding never started in the first place. It's the actions taken after the start of the funding that make the difference.


I actually know a lot about funding in local art museums. Normally the city pays no attention to what goes on, and it is a sort of block grant situation based upon local political influence.

That said, it is purely discretionary funding. It's fair enough if the city wants to pull it because it offends the local community. No one is saying they can't produce that type of art. No-one is saying they can't display it. All that is being said is that local taxpayers are not going to pay for something they find offensive.

I really can't see how that is censorship.

Can you still throw poo at at a painting of the virgin mary in NYC? Why yes, you can. And you will get the protection of the police while you do it.

Maybe the taxpayers don't want to pay for your little art project in a public gallery however.

I am sure had the exhibition been called 'The holocaust:Why those damn Jews Deserved it!' you would have had no problem in local funding being pulled.

Nothing to do with censorship.

I posted a link to the court's ruling on that very topic. They ruled based on previous Supreme Court Rulings (also posted quote). Whether or not you agree with it, the Supreme Court has found that pulling funding is censorship.

I've backed my statements up with fact, even cited my sources. I suggest you do the same. Uless you have a Supreme Court case that overturns their previous ruling you are incorrect.

I would vote for Guliani. True, he's got a not-so-tidy history in the marriage department. The alternative could be a televangelist that turns out is having sex with young boy prostitutes *cough, cough*. And I favor his economic policies.

Speaking of which, I find it funny that the leading candidates for the nomination from the so-called family values party all have sordid marriage histories. Rudy's been through two divorces, and his last one was so bad that his wife had a restraining order put on him keeping him out of the Mayor's official residence. McCain's on his second marriage after an extramarital affair. If Gingrich gets in, he's got a record to rival Rudy. Mike Huckabee is clean so far as I know, but he's way down the list right now.

I actually know a lot about funding in local art museums. Normally the city pays no attention to what goes on, and it is a sort of block grant situation based upon local political influence.

That said, it is purely discretionary funding. It's fair enough if the city wants to pull it because it offends the local community. No one is saying they can't produce that type of art. No-one is saying they can't display it. All that is being said is that local taxpayers are not going to pay for something they find offensive.

I really can't see how that is censorship.
Once again, they can't pull funding once they've given it. The gov't has every right to not fund a museum they believe will show questionable art. Once they've made their decision they can't pull funding. Whether or not that's okay in your view doesn't matter. That's the law of the land.

Edit: Here's another story on the same issue (http://www-tech.mit.edu/V119/N55/museum_55.55w.html).

I actually know a lot about funding in local art museums. Normally the city pays no attention to what goes on, and it is a sort of block grant situation based upon local political influence.

That said, it is purely discretionary funding. It's fair enough if the city wants to pull it because it offends the local community. No one is saying they can't produce that type of art. No-one is saying they can't display it. All that is being said is that local taxpayers are not going to pay for something they find offensive.

I really can't see how that is censorship.

The moment a government entity pulls funding because a representative doesn't like what they see, it becomes censorship. It has to do with the reason the funding is pulled. That's precisely why cities tend to use the block grant approach--it removes the potential to be accused of censorship. And in the Brooklyn Museum situation, Rudy made it clear the reason he was doing it--because he was personally offended. Using governmental power to shut down speech is censorship.

Here's what it comes down to, for me. Art is supposed to be uncomfortable, especially on the edges. But politicians don't like uncomfortable spots, and they're the last people I want determining what is and isn't art, and what should and shouldn't be funded, at least when it comes to individual shows. If the city wanted to simply end its funding of the Brooklyn Museum altogether, that's one discussion. But it's another completely if they're doing it because of one particular show.

I see what you are saying, and to an extent I agree.

But, what you have to remember is that the Brooklyn museum also has a large non-controversial collection - for example it's egyptian and classical art - which serves the local schools regardless of what is happening on the frontiers of art.

Simply put, as an institution it serves too many functions to judge it solely on its avant garde function.

Personally, I think Guliani was inncorrect about the whole thing. (And somewhere on these boards are my defense of Serrano's art which is far more flammatory). However, to say it is censorship is just plain wrong.

I see what you are saying, and to an extent I agree.

But, what you have to remember is that the Brooklyn museum also has a large non-controversial collection - for example it's egyptian and classical art - which serves the local schools regardless of what is happening on the frontiers of art.

Simply put, as an institution it serves too many functions to judge it solely on its avant garde function.

Personally, I think Guliani was inncorrect about the whole thing. (And somewhere on these boards are my defense of Serrano's are which is far more flammatory). However, to say it is censorship is just plain wrong.

Then cite your source.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, unless you can find a case overturning their previous ruling.

Then cite your source.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, unless you can find a case overturning their previous ruling.

I don't give a shit what the supreme court says.

You want to be a serf, then more power to you. I believe in democracy.

I don't give a shit what the supreme court says.

You want to be a serf, then more power to you. I believe in democracy.

Do you understand how the democratic process works in this country (http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/branches.html)?

The Supreme Court is the supreme court of the land. They are the ones in charge of interpeting the laws in this country.

You want to debate this topic within the framework of our democratic process? Fine. You want to debate the problems with our current democratic process? Fine. "I don't give a shit what the supreme court says" is not a logical or valid argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument).

He's okay on social issues, but he's on the wrong end of the economic spectrum, so I don't like him.

I don't like the pro-censorship thing. Besides that, I like that he's a hardliner that manages not to piss too many people off. I think the US needs a hardliner to get the country back on track. Another hardliner, like Bush?

I actually know a lot about funding in local art museums. Normally the city pays no attention to what goes on, and it is a sort of block grant situation based upon local political influence.

That said, it is purely discretionary funding. It's fair enough if the city wants to pull it because it offends the local community. No one is saying they can't produce that type of art. No-one is saying they can't display it. All that is being said is that local taxpayers are not going to pay for something they find offensive.

I really can't see how that is censorship.Because it's an all-or-nothing thing. Either they fund art, or they don't. There is no middle ground, nor should there be, as the middle ground means censorship.

I used to think he was ok.

Then he was out in California pimping for Bill Simon and telling everybody what a heck of a guy he was and would be a great governor.

Never mind the fact his company was nailed for pulling enron type crap.....

How about centrist (or wishy washy :) )or something for a choice added in with the dems and repubs.... I don't label myself either .. and have never tried to figure out which, if either, I should choose on a whole. I go by how many of the active people on both sides I agree with, or who I really disagree with (In the past I usually voted against someone.. instead of voting for someone .. buy I'm tryin to change that.) and then weigh it.. not just cling to a side because of the side. I probably should've chosen moderate democrat in this poll tho since I do agree with more of them right now, and I think I do fall on the left side of centrist, in general anyway. O well..

He's meh. I have other preferences. Whoever runs better be good because I get to vote for the first time, so no crap like Hilary.

He's meh. I have other preferences. Whoever runs better be good because I get to vote for the first time, so no crap like Hilary.

We will do our best. It'll be my daughter's first vote too, so I want to keep the suckage as low as possible.

If I were American I'd vote for Ron Paul. Not Giuliani.

Oh--another interesting thing about Giuliani. You'd think he'd be competitive in New York, right? what with his position as America's mayor and all. Hillary crushes him (ttp://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070204/FREE/70205023&SearchID=73271237191027) head to head, 53-32 in a statewide poll.

Oh--another interesting thing about Giuliani. You'd think he'd be competitive in New York, right? what with his position as America's mayor and all. Hillary crushes him (ttp://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070204/FREE/70205023&SearchID=73271237191027) head to head, 53-32 in a statewide poll.

Just out of Curiosity (your link doesn't work for me), is that in New York the State or New York the City?

If it's just the city, Giuliani still has a good chance, as the rest of New York is fairly Republican and over half the counties voted red in the 2000 election.

And also, Hillary is a lot easier to villainize in an election than Giulianui and this coming election is going to be NASTY.

I like Rudy. He's pretty moderate on social issues and conservative on more important issues like economics.

More or less the same.

Also, sorry about the lack of a "centrist" option in the poll. I guess you'll just have to make up your mind, because I ran out of poll options.

Dang it. I managed to misvote. Not a Donkey or Elephant but ment to vote moderate Rep, like him.

Just out of Curiosity (your link doesn't work for me), is that in New York the State or New York the City?

If it's just the city, Giuliani still has a good chance, as the rest of New York is fairly Republican and over half the counties voted red in the 2000 election.

And also, Hillary is a lot easier to villainize in an election than Giulianui and this coming election is going to be NASTY.

http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070204/FREE/70205023&SearchID=73271237191027

http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070204/FREE/70205023&SearchID=73271237191027

Thanks

Any way, even if Republicans lose NY, Giuliani still has a better appeal to independents and moderates, and will probably win by a decent margin.

I predict an electoral vote of 281 to 256, with Giuliani's bipartisan appeal winning over Maryland (or maybe not, either way he would win) and everything else going along 2004 lines (but a stronger Conservative majority in most states)

Isn't it amazing to live in a country where 90% of the states are already decided before the first vote is cast.

Do you understand how the democratic process works in this country (http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/branches.html)?

The Supreme Court is the supreme court of the land. They are the ones in charge of interpeting the laws in this country.

You want to debate this topic within the framework of our democratic process? Fine. You want to debate the problems with our current democratic process? Fine. "I don't give a shit what the supreme court says" is not a logical or valid argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument).

Haha,

you are teh stupid.

I used to like him, before '01. Now, his whoreing for the shrub admin alongside Sen. McCave leave him about as attractive as voting for Charles Manson. His cred is less than zero now. He won't even make it out of primaries, not like any repo has a real chance in hell anyway, either in the general or in congressionals.

21 republican senate seats up in '08. Better put your bib on.

I hate Giuliani with a deep, unbridled passion.

... but I'm more interested in your opinions.

I think Rudy has an excellent chance of being our next President. After the horror of GWB, I think the single most important trait that Americans will look for is competence. Giuliani epitomizes competence and managerial expertise.

In the Primary, his only competition will be McCain. McCain, although more conservative on social issues, has angered the Republican base by sticking to principles on immigration and tax cuts. This will hurt him.

In the General, Rudy will most likely face the untested Obama or Hillary. Hillary brings so much baggage, it seems unlikely she could win.

I am going to go way out on a limb for this early, but I predict that Rudolph Giuliani will be the next President of the United States.

Can you point me to the Sliders type alternate earth dimension where that could actually happen so I can get to work on collapsing it?

I think Rudy has an excellent chance of being our next President. After the horror of GWB, I think the single most important trait that Americans will look for is competence. Giuliani epitomizes competence and managerial expertise.

In the Primary, his only competition will be McCain. McCain, although more conservative on social issues, has angered the Republican base by sticking to principles on immigration and tax cuts. This will hurt him.

In the General, Rudy will most likely face the untested Obama or Hillary. Hillary brings so much baggage, it seems unlikely she could win.

I am going to go way out on a limb for this early, but I predict that Rudolph Giuliani will be the next President of the United States.

I agree. The Republicans Have an Excellent chance in Giuliani, as he is the only major candidate so far in this election that has taken a moderate stance. Hillary is just to scandal-ridden, Obama is very inexperienced (although if he makes a big enough impression in Congress, he is the Candidate to beat for '12) and appeals to his party rather than independents. In Giuliani, Republicans have a candidate similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, a moderate politician that works with the opposing party to get results.

Well, Giuliani doesn't really have a track-record on the domestic issues that are going to be most important come 08.

We can infer from other issues what his stances might be, but when it comes to things like Federal health care, Social Security, free trade and alternative energy, there's no record to examine.

Until I know more about his stances on those issues, I can't really say...but his stances on Three-Strikes laws, the Patriot Act, and Drug policy do not lead me to believe that I would ever vote for him.

Hillary is just to scandal-ridden

are there any 'scandals' that aren't just some bullshit made up by the noise machine?

Haha,

you are teh stupid.

So, let me get this straight. You lack any compelling argument that pulling funding is censorship. You lack any rebuttal to any of the arguments I've presented. You also lack knowledge of the democratic process in the US yet feel compelled to criticize it. Then you resort to name calling.

If I didn't know better I'd think you were flame baiting me.

I voted "I like him" - but that does not mean I would vote for him, seeing how he's still a Republican.

I basically mean that, as a person, at least he's not despiccable from the get-go.

Although I do very much think that all he ever did was to be in the right place at the right time (and yeah, I know that sounds callous, but it's true) and not screw up the city's response to 9/11. So how exactly that makes him a qualified candidate for president I wouldn't know.

My objection to Giuliani, as it is to McCain, is that regardless of how moderate he may be, if elected he brings with him the Republican Party, the folks who unashamedly gave us tax breaks for the rich, the outing of a CIA agent, more signing statements exempting the President from obeying the very law he was signing than all previous presidents combined, "Mission Accomplished," "Great job, Brownie," etc. I could go on. It's time for the GOP to be out of power for a while.

:rolleyes:

It was the brooklyn museum. And he wanted to pull the city funds for it because of the virgin mary with elephant poo picture.

So no. Not really pro-censorship at all.
In terms of sheer mindboggling loopiness, this statement ranks up there with the best of them, even for NSG.

So, let me get this straight. You lack any compelling argument that pulling funding is censorship. You lack any rebuttal to any of the arguments I've presented. You also lack knowledge of the democratic process in the US yet feel compelled to criticize it. Then you resort to name calling.

If I didn't know better I'd think you were flame baiting me. Quoted for utter truth.

I would be, I'd support him over just about anyone else. As mayor of New York City he showed that he can work with a very large and hostile Democratic majority and STILL get things done. He was also the mayor os New York during the 9/11 attacks and actually took charge and responded long before President Bush crawled out of whatever hole he had run to.


Being better than Bush at anything isn't quite a great compliment, you know...;)

Anyhow, bully for Giuliani at the Rep Con. It could be the first time for US presidentials with all major candidates hailing from minority or somehow disadvantaged groups.
Giuliani - italian origins. Obama - african origins. Hillary - woman. Wow. I'm waiting for an emendament allowing the Schwartz running for US presidency, so there'll be an Austrian also.

I've always been a straight-ticket Republican. I am proud to say I've never voted for a Donkocrat in any partisan election :D

No realistic match-up in '08 is likely to motivate me to change that voting pattern. With virtually 100% certainty, the Republican candidate will be closer to my positions than the Donkocrat. So I'd support Rudy if he were the nominee. And from what I know of his positions on the important issues, like defense and national security, I think he'd be an effective President with respect to those issues. Of course, that doesn't mean I wouldn't oppose him once elected if he were to try to get legislation enacted on some of his out-of-the-Republican-mainstream views, like partial-birth infanticide (which, I've heard, he has recently modified, btw) or societal recognition for sexually deviant lifestyle choices.

Better a glass half-empty than a glass completely empty.

Let's see, statement from target creates distrust of Giuliani.

I know this is hard for you, but you really need to try to grow up.

He's okay, I suppose. He's not Bush, that's for sure.

I voted extreme Republican, I like him, in the Poll.

I like Rudolph - Rudy Guiliani for USA President, he like Independent Democrat Sen Joe Lieberman passes the anti Fidel, anti Raul dictators for life, Cuban American test, he will probably be well liked for President just on this issue alone to start with, by most Cuban Americans.

I've always been a straight-ticket Republican. I am proud to say I've never voted for a Donkocrat in any partisan election :D

No realistic match-up in '08 is likely to motivate me to change that voting pattern. With virtually 100% certainty, the Republican candidate will be closer to my positions than the Donkocrat. So I'd support Rudy if he were the nominee. And from what I know of his positions on the important issues, like defense and national security, I think he'd be an effective President with respect to those issues. Of course, that doesn't mean I wouldn't oppose him once elected if he were to try to get legislation enacted on some of his out-of-the-Republican-mainstream views, like partial-birth infanticide (which, I've heard, he has recently modified, btw) or societal recognition for sexually deviant lifestyle choices.

Better a glass half-empty than a glass completely empty.

So glad to see the Freeper come out in you. :rolleyes:

I've always been a straight-ticket Republican. I am proud to say I've never voted for a Donkocrat in any partisan election :D

No realistic match-up in '08 is likely to motivate me to change that voting pattern. With virtually 100% certainty, the Republican candidate will be closer to my positions than the Donkocrat. So I'd support Rudy if he were the nominee. And from what I know of his positions on the important issues, like defense and national security, I think he'd be an effective President with respect to those issues. Of course, that doesn't mean I wouldn't oppose him once elected if he were to try to get legislation enacted on some of his out-of-the-Republican-mainstream views, like partial-birth infanticide (which, I've heard, he has recently modified, btw) or societal recognition for sexually deviant lifestyle choices.

Better a glass half-empty than a glass completely empty.

"Donkocrat?"

:confused:

Another hardliner, like Bush?

No, not like Bush. Definately not like Bush. Hardliner is perhaps the wrong word. I was referring more to economic policy. I think the new president needs to stay out of international affairs otherwise, unless the UN requests our assitance. The new president needs to not start any new wars, peacekeeping efforts, or anything else they want to call random attacks on countries.

No, not like Bush. Definately not like Bush. Hardliner is perhaps the wrong word. I was referring more to economic policy. I think the new president needs to stay out of international affairs otherwise, unless the UN requests our assitance. The new president needs to not start any new wars, peacekeeping efforts, or anything else they want to call random attacks on countries.Oh, an isolationist.

Oh, an isolationist.

at this point, do you think it would be an unwise decision? what, will the world hate us more for becoming less-involved w/ international affairs?

We need a president who can clean up a mess. Guliani has proven that he can.

Oh, an isolationist.

Not really. Perhaps I'm doing a bad job of articulating...Been posting between meaningful work.;)

Humanitarian efforts: Good
UN Sanctioned Peacekeeping efforts: Good
Starting wars/ "peace keeping" missions without UN approval: Bad
Warmongering: Bad

Here's the biggest reason I couldn't vote for Giuliani, no matter what his personal positions are on social issues:

He's a Republican.

Now before anyone gets all "vote the person, not the party" on me, let me explain why party matters.

In individual, small races, you might very well vote the person, not the party. I've done it myself. But the presidency isn't a small race, and it's not an individual choice either. You don't really vote for a President--you vote for institutional power, and with Giuliani comes the institutional power of the Republican party, complete with all the wackiness inherent in the social conservative movement. Realize that for Giuliani to get the nomination, he will have had to convince that section of his party constituency that he can be trusted on social issues. They'll have a large say in who he nominates for judgeships, for example. They will have their hooks in him.

And as long as the Republicans are bowing and scraping to the religious right in this country, they will never have my vote for a national or federal candidate. Party matters.

I wouldn't vote for Guiliani simply because I'd prefer to have either Edwards or Obama be president. Nothing against Guiliani himself, but they just seem better.

Extreme Republican: I like him
Extreme Republican: I don't like him
Moderate Republican: I like him
Moderate Republican: I don't like him
Moderate Democrat: I like him
Moderate Democrat: I don't like him
Extreme Democrat: I like him
Extreme Democrat: I don't like him.I am a Libertarian.. I am at the same time a Extreme Conservative capitalist AND a Extreme green Pinko Liberal.

how do I vote?

I am a Libertarian.. I am at the same time a Extreme Conservative AND a Extreme Pinko Liberal.

how do I vote?

It doesn't matter, because your candidate is going to finish third at best. :D

I'd just like to see two able canidates running for president. That way the country is okay either way. I don't think I'd be too concerned if Rudy won the presidency. I also want someone who can run against Hilary, if she does indeed win the democratic nomination.

I'd like to see an Edwards/ Obama ticket on the democrat side. I don't think Obama is strong enough to run on his own. I think republicans will look critically at his lack of experience.

It doesn't matter, because your candidate is going to finish third at best. :DMy candidate is not running.
My second choice is The Film director..

I'd just like to see two able canidates running for president. That way the country is okay either way. I don't think I'd be too concerned if Rudy won the presidency. I just want someone who can go against Hilary, if she does indeed win the democratic nomination.

I'd like to see an Edwards/ Obama ticket on the democrat side. I don't think Obama is strong enough to run on his own. I think republicans will look critically at his lack of experience.

The Republicans will look critically at his lack of being a Republican. Edwards/Obama is an interesting ticket, yes.

The Republicans will look critically at his lack of being a Republican. Edwards/Obama is an interesting ticket, yes.

Gore/Obama is my dream ticket. And my dream announcement is that Gore announces he's going to run when he's onstage picking up his Oscar for Best Documentary. Ah, to see the freeper heads explode at that would be worth the price of admission.

I'd rather McCain be the Republican nominee (I'm pretty far out there on the left, but I absolutely despise Hillary), but if it was between Giuliani and Clinton, I'd pick him in a second.

I'd rather McCain be the Republican nominee (I'm pretty far out there on the left, but I absolutely despise Hillary), but if it was between Giuliani and Clinton, I'd pick him in a second.

This post is absolutely loaded with contradictions, and it smells of ignorance as well.

The Republicans will look critically at his lack of being a Republican. Edwards/Obama is an interesting ticket, yes.

Edwards has already run as a VP once and shown he was a much better choice for president than Kerry. I doubt he would ever live down being VP to Obama, and Obama's got too much motivation and support behind him to bow down and switch to VP now, though it's not impossible. I could see him doing that just so in 4/8 years he could run for president and the republicans couldn't bitch about his "lack of experience".

This post is absolutely loaded with contradictions, and it smells of ignorance as well.

I wondered what that was.

I would love to see Hillary in the White House but that post is one of the reasons I wish she wouldn't run. Her candidacy will bring so many "I Hate Hillary" fools out of the woodwork, and you know the Republicans are going to have free buses standing by to take them to the polling places, that we could lose control of Congress again. We need more time to undo some of the damage twelve years of Republican majority have done to this country. Two years is just not enough time.

This post is absolutely loaded with contradictions, and it smells of ignorance as well.

Loaded with contradictions?

I think not.

I am a leftist, but I'm also interested in a government that will bring America TOGETHER. Hillary is so polarising it's not funny. John McCain is a republican, yes, but he's a "maverick". Not to mention, he's a nice guy (I have personally met him), his foreign policy views are similar to mine, plus, he's not a tool of the religious right. Hillary, on the other hand, isn't exactly the nicest person in the world, and her views have changed so many times I dunno what she supports anymore.

Of course, if Al Gore was running, I'd support him over McCain, but I wouldn't mind if either one won.

Loaded with contradictions?

I think not.

I am a leftist, but I'm also interested in a government that will bring America TOGETHER. Hillary is so polarising it's not funny. John McCain is a republican, yes, but he's a "maverick". Not to mention, he's a nice guy (I have personally met him), his foreign policy views are similar to mine, plus, he's not a tool of the religious right. Hillary, on the other hand, isn't exactly the nicest person in the world, and her views have changed so many times I dunno what she supports anymore.

Of course, if Al Gore was running, I'd support him over McCain, but I wouldn't mind if either one won.

Holy shit, you bashed Hilary for being flipfloppy while admiring McCain? Seriously, I've seen him switch sides so often it's not even funny. He's all over the damned place, including the religious right.

Gore/Obama is my dream ticket. And my dream announcement is that Gore announces he's going to run when he's onstage picking up his Oscar for Best Documentary. Ah, to see the freeper heads explode at that would be worth the price of admission.
Oh my God, that would make my decade.

*dreams*

Holy shit, you bashed Hilary for being flipfloppy while admiring McCain? Seriously, I've seen him switch sides so often it's not even funny. He's all over the damned place, including the religious right.

I'll admit that he has changed his policies slightly, but that's only because the religious right has taken over the Republican Party. You saw what happened in 2000. McCain was doing fine until the religious right threw its support behind George. McCain has only moved enough in order for him to get the nomination.

But anyways, we're getting off-topic here. John McCain =/= Rudy Giuliani.

Now, if you wanted to start a John McCain thread ;)

I'll admit that he has changed his policies slightly, but that's only because the religious right has taken over the Republican Party. You saw what happened in 2000. McCain was doing fine until the religious right threw its support behind George. McCain has only moved enough in order for him to get the nomination.

But anyways, we're getting off-topic here. John McCain =/= Rudy Giuliani.

Now, if you wanted to start a John McCain thread ;)

You. MSN. Now. ;)

I'll admit that he has changed his policies slightly, but that's only because the religious right has taken over the Republican Party. You saw what happened in 2000. McCain was doing fine until the religious right threw its support behind George. McCain has only moved enough in order for him to get the nomination.

But anyways, we're getting off-topic here. John McCain =/= Rudy Giuliani.

Now, if you wanted to start a John McCain thread ;)

Meh. But instead, why McCain instead of Edwards or Obama?

"Donkocrat?"

:confused:

You know, the party whose symbol is the donkey. Also knows as "Assocrat".

No no no no no. Not Edwards. Never. That would be a sad day, indeed. His tenure as a trial lawyer is absolutely shameful, to put it kindly.

Mrs. Clinton is way too far left for the average American's tastes.

Obama's in waaay too many special interest groups' pockets, and his voting record has been straight democrat, exactly the kind of trait we're looking for in a president.

Republicans have a very solid chance of winning the White House again.

He's pro-censorship, I know that. Wanted to "clean up" Broadway.
All the major candidates this time around are pro-censorship. McCain is pro-censorship. Hillary is pro-censorship.

I need to find out Obama's position on that.

He's pro-censorship, I know that. Wanted to "clean up" Broadway.

Yeah, well, Broadway was pretty seedy then. Of course, having Disney promising to bring in the musical of Beauty & the Beast and dangling tons of tourist dollars in front of the Mayor didn't hurt. I'm as against censorship as the next person but Broadway and Times Square in those days was not a pretty place.

You know, the party whose symbol is the donkey. Also knows as "Assocrat".

Assocrat sounds too much like asshat. Donkocrat reminds me of that horrible country song that shall not be named.

I posted a link to the court's ruling on that very topic. They ruled based on previous Supreme Court Rulings (also posted quote). Whether or not you agree with it, the Supreme Court has found that pulling funding is censorship.

I've backed my statements up with fact, even cited my sources. I suggest you do the same. Uless you have a Supreme Court case that overturns their previous ruling you are incorrect.

The supreme court is not an acceptable resource in debating an opinion. You can't use someone elses opinion to support your opinion. You think that what the supreme court decides becomes everyones opinion. If that is the case then i guess seperate but equal was right.

The supreme court is not an acceptable resource in debating an opinion. You can't use someone elses opinion to support your opinion. You think that what the supreme court decides becomes everyones opinion. If that is the case then i guess seperate but equal was right.

What are you talking about?

The Supreme Court ruled on that. I was refering to their ruling. Then again you'd know that if you followed the link or did some research for yourself.

Seperate but equal was overturned by Brown vs. the Topeka School Board of Education. Learn your history.

No no no no no. Not Edwards. Never. That would be a sad day, indeed. His tenure as a trial lawyer is absolutely shameful, to put it kindly.

Mrs. Clinton is way too far left for the average American's tastes.

Obama's in waaay too many special interest groups' pockets, and his voting record has been straight democrat, exactly the kind of trait we're looking for in a president.

Republicans have a very solid chance of winning the White House again.
The only way Edwards's record as a trial lawyer is shameful is if you begin with the presumption that any trial lawyer is shameful, and if that's your starting point, you're an idiot and not worth talking to. And considering that you're trotting out the argument that Hillary Clinton is too far left for the average American's tastes, I know what my guess is.

BTW East Pusna: I wan't debating opinion. I was debating the fact that Rudy pulling funding form the museum was defined as censorship. I gave you the court case, and the Supreme Court ruling on that very topic.

You've yet to back up your position with fact. The most you've done is say "it's not censorship" over and over, then call me names.

I don't like him. I just don't. He's the turd who purged NYC of those porno shops, IIRC. :mad:

Donkocrat reminds me of that horrible country song that shall not be named.

Hmmm, I'm not really down with country so I don't know which song that is. Could it be somewhere on this list?

http://www.downstream.sk.ca/country.htm

Hmmm, I'm not really down with country so I don't know which song that is. Could it be somewhere on this list?

http://www.downstream.sk.ca/country.htm

Not on that list. Here's the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKZ1a6v46ek). I was tortured with country music daily in my last job. Believe it or not, this remix isn't half as horrifying as the original. You should be happy I spared you that horror.

I hate him. He seems like a corrupt neo-con brown-noser to me.

I hate him. He seems like a corrupt neo-con brown-noser to me.
Yay! Guiliani-haterz unite! :D :fluffle:

Yay! Guiliani-haterz unite! :D :fluffle:

Totally. Someone said he closed down porno shops. That's another mark against him. We Giuliani-haterz should start a club.

The Democrats are too soft, and the Republicans are too stupid.
I'm neither, and I'm American. I'm mostly Libertarian, so I can't answer your pole.

He wants to get nominated by the Republicans to become president.

Now, I actually don't know a whole lot about the guy. What does he stand for? Should I be cheering for him?

I have had a bit of a look around wiki, but I'm more interested in your opinions.


he is a rino,and a liar..like all pol's.
just like hitlery is fos,so is rudi.

rudi is in some respects a republican,and i agree with him on pro choice...which should be the repub stance,but is conversely anti gun..which he shouldn't be..at least if he was a real repub.
he is no different then gore or clinton going duck hunting...politically exspediant...and false.
if forced between the 2 parties..i guess i am a repub,but not in it's present form..the neocons and corporate lackeys have totally perverted the true political meaning of the party,just like the dems have polluted and perverted real democratic liberals.

he is just another wolf in sheeps clothing..like all of them.


edit:
i do not see one viable or honest candidate from either party..which is vexing.
they are so beholden to their benefactors that it is pointless to even entertain the idea that anything they say is remotely truthfull.
i hear ron paul is supposedly honest and a straight shooter..but i know very little of him,and if true..not a chance he will get the nomination.
pretty freaking sad.

Here's the biggest reason I couldn't vote for Giuliani, no matter what his personal positions are on social issues:

He's a Republican.

Now before anyone gets all "vote the person, not the party" on me, let me explain why party matters.

In individual, small races, you might very well vote the person, not the party. I've done it myself. But the presidency isn't a small race, and it's not an individual choice either. You don't really vote for a President--you vote for institutional power, and with Giuliani comes the institutional power of the Republican party, complete with all the wackiness inherent in the social conservative movement. Realize that for Giuliani to get the nomination, he will have had to convince that section of his party constituency that he can be trusted on social issues. They'll have a large say in who he nominates for judgeships, for example. They will have their hooks in him.

And as long as the Republicans are bowing and scraping to the religious right in this country, they will never have my vote for a national or federal candidate. Party matters.

My thoughts exactly. A president isn't just a person, he/she's the defacto leader of his/her party. Giuliani's happens to be the Republican party, whose positions are vile to me.

he is a rino,and a liar..like all pol's.
just like hitlery is fos,so is rudi.
Can we please knock off the hitlery thing? It's offensive. Right-wingers went apeshit because some guy entered a video in a Moveon contest which compared Bush to Hitler, but for some reason it's okay to do the same to Hillary? Give me a break.

rudi is in some respects a republican,and i agree with him on pro choice...which should be the repub stance,but is conversely anti gun..which he shouldn't be..at least if he was a real repub.
he is no different then gore or clinton going duck hunting...politically exspediant...and false.Here's the thing about Giuliani and gun control--he's actually got a decent argument. Guns in big cities are different from guns in smaller cities and rural areas, and the laws governing them need to be different. A one-size-fits-all policy on guns is stupid, and the NRA would get a lot more respect from me if they'd acknowledge that fact.

Here's the thing about Giuliani and gun control--he's actually got a decent argument. Guns in big cities are different from guns in smaller cities and rural areas, and the laws governing them need to be different. A one-size-fits-all policy on guns is stupid, and the NRA would get a lot more respect from me if they'd acknowledge that fact.

So true. The guns might be the same themselves, but the context they reside in is completely different.

So true. The guns might be the same themselves, but the context they reside in is completely different.

And most of the time the guns are different. I know from experience that a handgun is a joke when you live in the woods. You have rifles and shotguns out there, both for hunting and for taking care of feral dogs and the like. (A 20 gauge is best for that, because they generally wander off and die in the woods.) But who has a hunting rifle in the inner city?

Not much, to be sure, but enough to convince me of his viability as a candidate. Guliani was a DA or States Attorney of some kind in New York, and he made his political bones by cleaning up / clearing out organized crime syndicates in NYC. He did have much of the advertising along Broadway restricted and removed :eek: but, much of Broadway was, and still is more about the :fluffle: than anything else, and he wanted to make the area more "family friendly" for tourists. (Since he did that, buisness in the area have reported an 80% increase in foot traffic. The report didn't say what kind of buisnesses, but I'm OK with the number as it stands.) When he was elected Mayor of NYC he ran on a Democratic Party Ticket, and despite his changing horses mid-stream, everyone in the city seemed to have only the utmost of love and respect for him, his policies, and his methods of persuing those policies.

And most of the time the guns are different. I know from experience that a handgun is a joke when you live in the woods. You have rifles and shotguns out there, both for hunting and for taking care of feral dogs and the like. (A 20 gauge is best for that, because they generally wander off and die in the woods.) But who has a hunting rifle in the inner city?

Exactly. People don't get tec-9's and uzis out in the woods, nor do they get hunting rifles or shotguns (except maybe sawed-off ones) in the inner city.

Exactly. People don't get tec-9's and uzis out in the woods, nor do they get hunting rifles or shotguns (except maybe sawed-off ones) in the inner city.

Except for the psycho ones, and gun control laws aren't going to stop them regardless.

Where'd all the wingers go? :D

Can we please knock off the hitlery thing? It's offensive. Right-wingers went apeshit because some guy entered a video in a Moveon contest which compared Bush to Hitler, but for some reason it's okay to do the same to Hillary? Give me a break.

Here's the thing about Giuliani and gun control--he's actually got a decent argument. Guns in big cities are different from guns in smaller cities and rural areas, and the laws governing them need to be different. A one-size-fits-all policy on guns is stupid, and the NRA would get a lot more respect from me if they'd acknowledge that fact.


you know nazz....your right,good points.

i did not know about the right going apeshit thing...so i will defer to you on that.
i just heard it and like to apply that nazi label to any nannystater(either repub or dem)that claims to know what is best for me.
i am actually pretty..nay very liberal when it comes to social issues..so i like certain talking points on hillaries camp,and rudi's camp...i just dont trust them on the issues.
but your right,i would not like to be painted with a broad brush.
suffice to say they are all liars and will do anything and say anything to be elected(repub's or dem's)
i do like the fact that rudi is going against the party platform with regards to abortion...but it is a shallow promise..he will appoint a conservative judge...and the same in reverse with hiilary..for their respective parties.
but i agree with your assessment that it is wrong to call her names...if i could only come up with one for each political whore..then all would be right with the world..lol.
i do get your point,and was not aware of the implosion over bush being compared to hitler..which is kinda appropriate...but also wrong.

as for rudi's position on guns,interesting..and i agree with his position that it is different with big cities compared to rural areas and other areas.
i will give it the thought and consideration it does deserve..it is a valid argument.
not emotional...or not even close to party line..so i will consider his stance.
it is one of the few arguments i would consider to be truthfull...most anti gun positions are based on emotion and not fact or reality.
that said,i am a gun owner...and would never give up the right for me to protect myself and family,and turn that responsibility over to the government..ever.
he better have a compelling argument,because if d.c. and nyc or chicago are any type of indicators..it is a complete failure.
not to say what he proposes is automatically wrong,but the track record is not there.
if in a perfect world,we don't have people in major cities armed...that would be a good thing..i agree with that,until the crimminals are disarmed,i disagree with the honest guy being disarmed.
i guess we will have to agree to disagree on that,unless rudi has a plan to protect me 24-7,i never carry in a city,as my right should be,out of respect for the law..but i will tell you..i am nervous.
if everyone was disarmed in the city...i would gladly give up my right to self defense.

sorry,i did not intend for this to be a gun thing,not my point in my post..i was just trying to draw parralels with the hypocracy of both camps.
and the lack of honest candidates.

i will respect what you said with regards to hillary....but i truly despise her..lol...she is awful.
reminds me of the black and white cookie on seinfeld...bush is one,she is the other.

He's a leader. That's what we need now more than anything.

That's what we need now more than anything.

Why on Earth...?

So we can all feel inspired and good about ourselves, or something?

He's a leader. That's what we need now more than anything.

Napoleon was a leader. Fat lot of good it did him at Waterloo.

Not on that list. Here's the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKZ1a6v46ek). I was tortured with country music daily in my last job. Believe it or not, this remix isn't half as horrifying as the original. You should be happy I spared you that horror.

Thanks are definitely in order for sparing me :D

I can see how that tune would drive someone crazy if overplayed, i.e., played more than once a month. The T&A was mildly amusing, but not enough to justify repeated viewing.

Why on Earth...?

So we can all feel inspired and good about ourselves, or something?
Yes. We need someone who can restore faith in the government to put the weight of public opinion behind the collective efforts necessary to create a decent standard of living

Yes. We need someone who can restore faith in the government to put the weight of public opinion behind the collective efforts necessary to create a decent standard of living

Then shouldn't you elect someone who staunchly supports "collective efforts necessary to create a decent standard of living"... like, say, someone who's reasonably left-wing?

I'm not particularly interested in "restor[ing] faith" in the government's capability to run imperialist wars, either.

... But who has a hunting rifle in the inner city?

Just a wild guess, but maybe someone who, ohh I dunno, likes to go hunting? :D

I'm a Libertarian and since I'm not represented in the poll, I voted as a "Moderate Republican". I don't know a whole lot about Giuliani and where all he stands on certain issues. From what you all are saying he seems pretty anti-gun and that will hurt him a lot for the Libertarian vote I'd imagine. What I do know is that dispite some of his political shortcomings he did a fantastic job cleaning up New York City as well as running the show during 9/11 ... as some of you have already pointed out. That's good enough a reason for me to vote for him, for now. I'll have to research him somemore and see if I can't figure out his stance on lots of other issues.

As for guns I've lived in both a large major city as well as out in the sticks. Personally, I don't see the difference between the two when it comes to owning a gun. Either you are a criminal who, regaurdles of the law, will shoot someone to get your way or you are a law abiding citizen. The only people who have anything to fear from me and the 7 guns in my house are people who intend to do me and my family harm. On top of that the Suprem Court has even ruled that the police are not responsible for your individual safty. Why, then, would you limit gun ownership (which is unconstitutional to begin with anyways) from people in large cities where you are more likely to encounter crime?

Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). Only 2% of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11%, more than five times as high. I'm not sure how accurate these numbers are. They may be out dated.

Either way like I had stated earlier, only law abiding citizens will follow gun laws while criminals won't. The kids at Columbine broke 22-some laws to get the guns they had. Would more have made a difference? Perhaps but prolly not. How does that saying go, "When guns have been outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." The facts seem to support that saying either way ...