NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah yeah I know--water is still wet and the Pope is still Catholic, but just in case there was any doubt about the level of Giuliani's douchebaggery, there's this little number today (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3684.html).

MANCHESTER, N.H. - - Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

Then, in a bout of over-the-top douchebaggery, he conveniently forgets history and blames Clinton (another shocking move, I know).
Giuliani also said that America had been naïve about terrorism in the past and had missed obvious signals.

“They were at war with us before we realized it, going back to 90s with all the Americans killed by the PLO and Hezbollah and Hamas,” he said. “They came here and killed us in 1993 (with the first attack on New York’s World Trade Center killing six people) and we didn’t get it. We didn’t get it that this was a war. Then Sept. 11, 2001 happened and we got it.”
He forgets that most historians date the beginning of this particular conflict back to the Beirut Embassy bombing in 1983--of course he does, because Saint Reagan was President at the time--and more importantly, he fails to acknowledge his own bad decision making after the 1993 WTC bombing (for which a number of people were convicted and put into prison).

Against the suggestions of a number of experts, Giuliani put the command and control headquarters for New York's response units in the WTC, instead of six stories underground in Brooklyn. Why did they suggest that? Because the WTC was a terrorist target. But we'll be safer with him in charge. :rolleyes:

A liberal calling a republican a douchebag?!?!?! Stop the presses!


As for the first comment? WTF is he supposed to say? He is running for president, he is supposed to say things like that! What do you want? Him to say that another 9/11 wouldn't happen no matter who you voted for or the dems would stop one and he wouldn't? This is politics and he is playing it!

Yes Giuliani is a douchebag. He was a douche pre 9/11 and he's still a douche

I'm voting for turd sandwich

Yeah yeah I know--water is still wet and the Pope is still Catholic, but just in case there was any doubt about the level of Giuliani's douchebaggery, there's ...

Being non-American I'm fairly indifferent either way to the various candidates I've seen......But theres something about that Giuliani fucker I just don't like...not as a Mayor, not now. As was said of somebody else, there accompanies him the distinct whiff of Brimstone.

As for the first comment? WTF is he supposed to say? He is running for president, he is supposed to say things like that!

really? it ought be the case that people running for president claim that voting for the other side will cause there to be massive terrorist attacks?

His next step is to threaten the US with a wave of unimaginable destruction and unrelenting terror unless he is elected President for Life.

really? it ought be the case that people running for president claim that voting for the other side will cause there to be massive terrorist attacks?

Did you expect a nice comment? This is politics kid, they throw mud at will. National Security has become a major issue, he is supposed to make you think america will be safer under him than anyone else. Politics, Politics, Politics.

His next step is to threaten the US with a wave of unimaginable destruction and unrelenting terror unless he is elected President for Life.


....I tried that once, just gets you tarred and feathered. I still have tar in my hair from the last time.

Did you expect a nice comment? This is politics kid, they throw mud at will. National Security has become a major issue, he is supposed to make you think america will be safer under him than anyone else. Politics, Politics, Politics.

"you have an awful lot of nice things here. it sure would be a shame if anything were to happen to them..."

"you have an awful lot of nice things here. it sure would be a shame if anything were to happen to them..."




You lost me there. I know a lot of quotes, but that one eludes me.

How can guiliani be presidential material when he loves to dress in drag?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7fRIXm8TQQ

"To ensure the security and continuing stability, the USA will be reorganized into the first American Empire! For a safe and secure... society!"

"To ensure the security and continuing stability, the USA will be reorganized into the first American Empire! For a safe and secure... society!"

Problem is, I liked Palpatine. If anybody's going to be a dictator, it should be him.

Nonetheless, Nute Gunray was vastly superior to him in all aspects.

Problem is, I liked Palpatine. If anybody's going to be a dictator, it should be him.

Nonetheless, Nute Gunray was vastly superior to him in all aspects.

I'd vote for Palpatine... I mean, if there was a vote instead of a power grab.

Did you expect a nice comment? This is politics kid, they throw mud at will. National Security has become a major issue, he is supposed to make you think america will be safer under him than anyone else. Politics, Politics, Politics.

There's a big line between saying "I'm going to be best for the job" and "the other side's going to get you killed." That you apparently don't see either that line or how shitty it is that Giuliani has crossed it speaks to the type of person you are.

"you have an awful lot of nice things here. it sure would be a shame if anything were to happen to them..."

You lost me there. I know a lot of quotes, but that one eludes me.

It''s the standard gangster pitch for protection money.

A liberal calling a republican a douchebag?!?!?! Stop the presses!


As for the first comment? WTF is he supposed to say? He is running for president, he is supposed to say things like that! What do you want? Him to say that another 9/11 wouldn't happen no matter who you voted for or the dems would stop one and he wouldn't? This is politics and he is playing it!

He is supposed to say stuff that is plausible. To dismiss Guliani's statements "the sort of thing politicians say" is like saying Jeffrey Dahmer was "a little kinky."

Politicians did not say things like this for many generations until Dick Cheney and Karl Rove came along. Yes, it was a long time since Barnum said "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public," but politicians never really believed it. They were always afraid that if you got too dumb people would get mad at you. Then along came Cheney and Rove and they lowered the bar so much that they actually had to leave the room with it and put it downstairs.

Did you expect a nice comment? This is politics kid, they throw mud at will. National Security has become a major issue, he is supposed to make you think america will be safer under him than anyone else. Politics, Politics, Politics.

Nice or unkind is not the issue. Sensible versus stark gibbering lunacy is the issue. This is one step away from saying that the Democrats are going to sneak into your rooms at night and swap your beautiful children for their ugly children.

As you say, he's supposed to make you think that America will be safer under him than anyone else. His statement doesn't make any thinking person think that. The statement is completely absurd. All it will make any thinking person believe is that Gulliani is an idiot.

Of course, many of us had realized it back when, in the wake of a police shooting, he implied that the victim deserved it because he was caught shoplifting when he was a child. Or when he said that the troops were to blame for a large stockpile of conventional explosives going missing.

Hey! That could be his campaign slogan. "Gulliani: Support the War, not the Troops."

Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it.

Rudy is pretty smooth with the doublethink...

Threatening people into voting for your party, cute.

Threatening people into voting for your party, cute.

Well it's either that or try and be a good candidate, the kind who'd make a good president. I think we all know the preffered option here.

The Nazz: why did you create a thread on this? Does this surprise you? Or could you just not wait to spread the news to the rest of the world that Giuliani is a "douche"? Republicans have been saying that "Democrats In Office = Terrorist Attack Bonanza" since the 2002 mid-term election.

Well it's either that or try and be a good candidate, the kind who'd make a good president. I think we all know the preffered option here.

Honestly, Rudy should have given a wink and a knudge to the reporters when he said this.

"Vote Republican or something bad will happen, you know maybe even worse, maybe to your families, ya know, sleepin with the fishes."

Honestly, Rudy should have given a wink and a knudge to the reporters when he said this.

"Vote Republican or something bad will happen, you know maybe even worse, maybe to your families, ya know, sleepin with the fishes."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sorry this had me laughing so hard.

Honestly, Rudy should have given a wink and a knudge to the reporters when he said this.

"Vote Republican or something bad will happen, you know maybe even worse, maybe to your families, ya know, sleepin with the fishes."

Press:"Mr. Giuliani, how do you intend to get the American public to vote for you?"

Rudy:"I'm gonna make em an offer they can't refuse."

The sad thing is, Americans get scared every single time a politician jumps out from behind a curtain and yells terrorism. Even if there is a sign telling them it is going to happen and it happens every hour on the hour. Another thing Barnum said is "There's a sucker born every minute." And they are all being born in America.

Not a day goes by that a letter to the editor here doesn't say "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" and "leaving Iraq is surrender" and all that stupid bullshit Forrest Gump wouldn't believe.

The sad thing is, Americans get scared every single time a politician jumps out from behind a curtain and yells terrorism. Even if there is a sign telling them it is going to happen and it happens every hour on the hour. Another thing Barnum said is "There's a sucker born every minute." And they are all being born in America.

Not a day goes by that a letter to the editor here doesn't say "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" and "leaving Iraq is surrender" and all that stupid bullshit Forrest Gump wouldn't believe.


Can we vote for fictional characters? Because I think Forrest would be one of the best Presidents in history.

"Life is like a box of chocolates..."

Cripes. I saw an interview with him and his wife by Barbara Walters and it was really weird and creepy, they kept smooching and trying to hedge the fact that yeah, he kicked his former wife out of the governor's mansion and moved in this new lady and it was all weird. There is no way I'm voting for this guy.

Press:"Mr. Giuliani, how do you intend to get the American public to vote for you?"

Rudy:"I'm gonna make em an offer they can't refuse."

I like where this is going :D

The Nazz: why did you create a thread on this? Does this surprise you? Or could you just not wait to spread the news to the rest of the world that Giuliani is a "douche"? Republicans have been saying that "Democrats In Office = Terrorist Attack Bonanza" since the 2002 mid-term election.

Surprise me? Not at all. I knew Rudy was an authoritarian asshole long before 2001. But he's been turned into some sort of untouchable by the media ever since 9/11, and I think it's important to spread the word about the kind of person he is.

A lot of us dont agree that he is a douchebag.

I dont know if he is president material yet,but I would vote for him as say a Governor.

What he says while campaigning is hardly different than all the pieces of shit currently running and considering to run.

A lot of us dont agree that he is a douchebag.

yeah, well, a lot of you don't agree that evolution happens or that pumping gigatons of carbon into the air might be a bad idea. what's one more crazy notion on top of such things?

Cerean;12579232']Yes Giuliani is a douchebag. He was a douche pre 9/11 and he's still a douche

I'm voting for turd sandwich

I'm a little confused about this. Are we voting for a president or for a method to make vaginas smell pretty? Knowing which will greatly influence my vote.

What? A presidential candidate is politicking? I'll be damned!

Yeah yeah I know--water is still wet and the Pope is still Catholic, but just in case there was any doubt about the level of Giuliani's douchebaggery, there's this little number today (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3684.html).



Then, in a bout of over-the-top douchebaggery, he conveniently forgets history and blames Clinton (another shocking move, I know).

He forgets that most historians date the beginning of this particular conflict back to the Beirut Embassy bombing in 1983--of course he does, because Saint Reagan was President at the time--and more importantly, he fails to acknowledge his own bad decision making after the 1993 WTC bombing (for which a number of people were convicted and put into prison).

Against the suggestions of a number of experts, Giuliani put the command and control headquarters for New York's response units in the WTC, instead of six stories underground in Brooklyn. Why did they suggest that? Because the WTC was a terrorist target. But we'll be safer with him in charge. :rolleyes:


The even less amusing part is that he mentions several organizations and calles them "they" as if they are all the same. And what's the common thread in the organizations he names? Anyone... anyone... yep, they're Muslims. Yay, for anti-Muslim presidential candidates.

And for those claiming that this is just politics as usual, it's not. Claiming you can guarantee that the other side will allow terror and that you won't (not that all your opponents, but the other "side") is just plain, what's that word, Nazz?

Is it just me, or does everyone the conservatives have to offer this election, well... suck?

I despise the front runners for both parties.

What he says while campaigning is hardly different than all the pieces of shit currently running and considering to run.

Is it just me, or does everyone the conservatives have to offer this election, well... suck?

A lot of us dont agree that he is a douchebag.

I dont know if he is president material yet,but I would vote for him as say a Governor.

What he says while campaigning is hardly different than all the pieces of shit currently running and considering to run.
Hardly different? Find a quote from a Democrat running for President that's even remotely similar. Go ahead.

I'm a little confused about this. Are we voting for a president or for a method to make vaginas smell pretty? Knowing which will greatly influence my vote.

As an outsider I too am confused. However if we see a thread entitled "Hang them-up-by-the-legs-to-air-them for teh win" we may be coming closer to an answer......

Is it just me, or does everyone the conservatives have to offer this election, well... suck?

I have to say, I think Bush has been a terrible President, but it sure seemed he made a better run at the presidency than any of the current Republican class. It took years to find out how messed up Jr. was. Why are these guys showing their behinds so early in the run? Or is it just me?

And for those claiming that this is just politics as usual, it's not. Claiming you can guarantee that the other side will allow terror and that you won't (not that all your opponents, but the other "side") is just plain, what's that word, Nazz?

Bullshit, perhaps? Douchebaggery? Assholery? Dumbfuckery? Pick your favorite! :D

Is it just me, or does everyone the conservatives have to offer this election, well... suck?

I'm not admiring any on the other side yet either. And as we get closer to the election,they'll all look worse.

A lot of us dont agree that he is a douchebag.

I dont know if he is president material yet,but I would vote for him as say a Governor.

What he says while campaigning is hardly different than all the pieces of shit currently running and considering to run.

The only Democrat running even remotely qualified to be President is Bill Richardson.

I'm not admiring any on the other side yet either. And as we get closer to the election,they'll all look worse.

I think it's a shame that neither side can put up anyone at least decent. What's that say about the state of politics in this country?

Against the suggestions of a number of experts, Giuliani put the command and control headquarters for New York's response units in the WTC, instead of six stories underground in Brooklyn. Why did they suggest that? Because the WTC was a terrorist target. But we'll be safer with him in charge. :rolleyes:"As my first act as fuhr- erm... PRESIDENT of the United States I hereby declare every second Tuesday to be Hug a Racist Killer Cop Day"

I think it's a shame that neither side can put up anyone at least decent. What's that say about the state of politics in this country?

Well, I find a lot to like on the Democratic side (a surprise, I'm sure :)), but there's certainly something to the fact that the high amount of money and the retarded way the major media covers the individual candidates keeps otherwise qualified people from running. Look at what supposedly liberal columnist did to John Edwards last week in her column for an example of how shitty the media is.

Well, I find a lot to like on the Democratic side ... John Edwards...
The fact that JE is the closest thing to a non-douche in this campaign indicates that we are in serious trouble. Again.

There's a big line between saying "I'm going to be best for the job" and "the other side's going to get you killed." That you apparently don't see either that line or how shitty it is that Giuliani has crossed it speaks to the type of person you are.

I stopped reading here. ^

How is "If you don't agree with me, I subtly imply that you're an idiot" different from "If you don't vote for me, I subtly imply that you'll suffer a terrorist attack"? Or maybe I simply haven't yet grasped the finer points of internet debating.

I stopped reading here. ^

How is "If you don't agree with me, I subtly imply that you're an idiot" different from "If you don't vote for me, I subtly imply that you'll suffer a terrorist attack"? Or maybe I simply haven't yet grasped the finer points of internet debating.
If you can't differentiate between an insult against your intelligence and a threat against your life, I will subtly imply that you're an idiot and hope I'm not arrested for threatening your life.

I don't suppose you watch the Godfather and think Vito Corleonne is going to send some one a huge cake?

I stopped reading here. ^

How is "If you don't agree with me, I subtly imply that you're an idiot" different from "If you don't vote for me, I subtly imply that you'll suffer a terrorist attack"? Or maybe I simply haven't yet grasped the finer points of internet debating.

There is, perhaps, a slight difference between "I am right, and if you disagree with me you are wrong" and " am the better person for this job, and if you don't vote for me and I lose your family will die a horrible flaming death and it will be your fault"

I stopped reading here. ^

How is "If you don't agree with me, I subtly imply that you're an idiot" different from "If you don't vote for me, I subtly imply that you'll suffer a terrorist attack"? Or maybe I simply haven't yet grasped the finer points of internet debating.

Maybe you shouldn't have stopped reading then. :rolleyes:

There is, perhaps, a slight difference between "I am right, and if you disagree with me I am wrong" and " am the better person for this job, and if you don't vote for me and I lose your family will die a horrible flaming death and it will be your fault"

Quite true. However, that isn't what The Nazz said. Or if it was, it was poorly (and ironically) worded.

I stopped reading here. ^

How is "If you don't agree with me, I subtly imply that you're an idiot" different from "If you don't vote for me, I subtly imply that you'll suffer a terrorist attack"? Or maybe I simply haven't yet grasped the finer points of internet debating.

What is subtle about "there will be a terrorist attack"? Guiliani is claiming to be a psychic. It's an absurd proposition. Instead of saying that he believes HE will provide us with better security, he talks about what America's enemies will do, which unless he's affiliated with them is an absurd prediction.

The "subtly" was meant to be sarcastic. I apologise for not being able to convey my tone of voice across the internet. And I agree that Giuliani's statement crosses the line, and was just drawing a parallel between that and one of the comments made during the debate, which I found ironic and thus amusing, and.....

Maybe I should just go back to lurking. x.x
Except there is a blatant difference between calling people idiots (which a good number of them obviously are) and threatening peoples' lives.

What is subtle about "there will be a terrorist attack"? Guiliani is claiming to be a psychic. It's an absurd proposition. Instead of saying that he believes HE will provide us with better security, he talks about what America's enemies will do, which unless he's affiliated with them is an absurd prediction.

The "subtly" was meant to be sarcastic. I apologise for not being able to convey my tone of voice across the internet. And I agree that Giuliani's statement crosses the line, and was just drawing a parallel between that and one of the comments made during the debate, which I found ironic and thus amusing, and.....

Maybe I should just go back to lurking. x.x

The "subtly" was meant to be sarcastic. I apologise for not being able to convey my tone of voice across the internet. And I agree that Giuliani's statement crosses the line, and was just drawing a parallel between that and one of the comments made during the debate, which I found ironic and thus amusing, and.....

Maybe I should just go back to lurking. x.x

Except Nazz was being subtle so if you were trying to be sarcastic about one then you are suggesting Nazz was being less subtle than he actuall was, which would also make you wrong. All in all there is nothing ironic since the statements are so different.

There's nothing wrong with G talking about what HE will do. However, he made a broad statement about everyone who could win in the Republican party (of course, ludicrous) and then made a broad statement about everyone who could win in the Democratic party (also ludicrous) while pretending to know what the terrorists would do, not the people running, but the terrorists, if a Democrat wins. The entire idea isn't only a incredible example of explicit and over-the-top attack politics, but it's patently absurd.

"If you don't vote for my party then the terrorists will rain down fire and brimstone" would not have sounded all that much more absurd than what was actually said. How sad is that?

Politicians did not say things like this for many generations until Dick Cheney and Karl Rove came along. Yes, it was a long time since Barnum said "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public," but politicians never really believed it. They were always afraid that if you got too dumb people would get mad at you. Then along came Cheney and Rove and they lowered the bar so much that they actually had to leave the room with it and put it downstairs.

I don't think you can place all the blame on Cheney, Rove, and so forth. I mean, the infamous "daisy" commercial antedated their politicking by quite a bit, and it's hard to get a great deal more ridiculously over-the-top than that. Giuliani is certainly making a solid, attempt, though.

I'd vote for Palpatine... I mean, if there was a vote instead of a power grab.

Well, he's a little busy at the Vatican right now.

The only Democrat running even remotely qualified to be President is Bill Richardson.

dont be silly.

bill richardson is the only one who is well qualified. the rest ARE remotely qualified.

Rudy taking a page from Cheney's election campaign playbook. Well, looks like another Republican outs himself as a closet Bushevik. I get the feeling he'd somehow manage to do even more damage to the U.S. than Dear Leader up to this point if voters manage to make it "Giuliani Time."

In addition, McCain has been exposed to be just as much a hidden Bush-licker.

So which Republican candidate does that leave as the most Bushevik-free choice?

So which Republican candidate does that leave as the most Bushevik-free choice?Dennis Kucinich? ;)

Of the actual Republicans, though--Tom Tancredo maybe? Ron Paul? Whatever the answer is, you can be certain that he has no chance at securing the nomination. Those people giving Bush his 35% approval rating? They're the primary voters and they like the war, so if people run away from Bush in the primaries, they run away from the voters, which screws them in the general election. Sucks to be them I guess.

So which Republican candidate does that leave as the most Bushevik-free choice?

american samoa senator doesntha veachan ceinhell, i think

Hardly different? Find a quote from a Democrat running for President that's even remotely similar. Go ahead.

Thats your job,Nazz.

I wouldnt hope to discuss anything with you that you're so hysterical about.

If you can't differentiate between an insult against your intelligence and a threat against your life, I will subtly imply that you're an idiot and hope I'm not arrested for threatening your life.

I don't suppose you watch the Godfather and think Vito Corleonne is going to send some one a huge cake?

I'm loving all the gangster and mafia references in this thread.

Thats your job,Nazz.

I wouldnt hope to discuss anything with you that you're so hysterical about.

You want him to find quotes he says doesn't exist? Why don't you just admit that you can't support your argument while you're at it?

I say you constantly shove potatoes up the bums of Republican candidates. Prove you haven't by showing me examples. I'll wait.

I'm loving all the gangster and mafia references in this thread.
Some one already did the Godfather quote so I ran with it.

You want him to find quotes he says doesn't exist? Why don't you just admit that you can't support your argument while you're at it?

I say you constantly shove potatoes up the bums of Republican candidates. Prove you haven't by showing me examples. I'll wait.

Wait at the same place Nazz waits.

Wait at the same place Nazz waits.

Oh, you mean you can't provide evidence that something didn't happen? The hell you say. What kind of crazy, mixed up world requires ME to support my own logical assertion?

Amusingly, we know why you refuse to support your assertion. You can't. You've tried the fallacy of pressing TN for proof. It didn't work.

It's called Appeal to Ignorance and it's a fallacy for a reason.

You: Dems do the same thing.
TN: Really? Show me any evidence they did this.
You: Well you can't prove they didn't say anything similar.

Honestly, what proof would be acceptable to you? If he provided every quote of everything ever said by all of the current candidates? Your request is evidence of your (lack of) confidence in your assertion.

Oh, you mean you can't provide evidence that something didn't happen? The hell you say. What kind of crazy, mixed up world requires ME to support my own logical assertion?

Amusingly, we know why you refuse to support your assertion. You can't. You've tried the fallacy of pressing TN for proof. It didn't work.

It's called Appeal to Ignorance and it's a fallacy for a reason.

You: Dems do the same thing.
TN: Really? Show me any evidence they did this.
You: Well you can't prove they didn't say anything similar.

Honestly, what proof would be acceptable to you? If he provided every quote of everything ever said by all of the current candidates? Your request is evidence of your (lack of) confidence in your assertion.


Lack of interest,is more like it. Lack of interest in proving that candidates/politicians are all spouting BS. Wether to calm us to vote for them or instill fear.

I dont need proof. He demanded proof and I told him that was his job.

Take a deep breath and try picking at someone else.

Lack of interest,is more like it. Lack of interest in proving that candidates/politicians are all spouting BS. Wether to calm us to vote for them or instill fear.

I dont need proof. He demanded proof and I told him that was his job.

Take a deep breath and try picking at someone else.

You're right. You don't need proof. You also don't need to be taken seriously and without any support their is no reason to think of your statement as having any probative value at all. In fact, one would have to think that rather than coming here to discuss and intelligently analyze the situation, you instead simply intended to come and attack TN and preach that "these aren't the droids we're looking for". Are you upset we didn't fall for the Jedi mind trick?

You're right. You don't need proof. You also don't need to be taken seriously and without any support their is no reason to think of your statement as having any probative value at all. In fact, one would have to think that rather than coming here to discuss and intelligently analyze the situation, you instead simply intended to come and attack TN and preach that "these aren't the droids we're looking for". Are you upset we didn't fall for the Jedi mind trick?

I actually didnt attack The Nazz. Nor did I preach.

You,on the other hand, are doing both.

I actually didnt attack The Nazz. Nor did I preach.

You,on the other hand, are doing both.

Yes, I'm preaching because I'm requiring you to support your assertions. Apparently, debating and preaching look a lot alike.

I'm attacking your unsupported point. You're correct. You attacked an individual. I attacked an action. The difference is not subtle.

What he says while campaigning is hardly different than all the pieces of shit currently running and considering to run.

Example of preaching. You didn't come here to discuss that point, because when called on it you required others to prove you wrong. Instead your intent was to preach your beliefs. Preach on, brother, preach on.

Thats your job,Nazz.

I wouldnt hope to discuss anything with you that you're so hysterical about.

And the attack on The Nazz.

Yes, I'm preaching because I'm requiring you to support your assertions. Apparently, debating and preaching look a lot alike.

I'm attacking your unsupported point. You're correct. You attacked an individual. I attacked an action. The difference is not subtle.

No-you're preaching because-You're preaching. You cant stop yourself.

I didnt attack an individual and have seen The Nazz defend himself just fine when he has been attacked by others before. I wasnt aware he needed an advocate for my "attack".

Consider backing off. Trying to respond to you is annoying.

No-you're preaching because-You're preaching. You cant stop yourself.

I didnt attack an individual and have seen The Nazz defend himself just fine when he has been attacked by others before. I wasnt aware he needed an advocate for my "attack".

Consider backing off. Trying to respond to you is annoying.

If you are going to enter into debate, you kind of have to expect to be asked for supporting evidence for any claim you might make. If you don't want to support your claims, you have to be prepared to have them discounted as mere 'opinion'.

And the attack on The Nazz.

Thats an "attack" ?


Ok-I'll concede defeat here,Jocabia-you got me. My words were certainly of the most viscious intent.

If I so insulted The Nazz or injured him or his reputation in anyway I'm sorry.

Thats an "attack" ?


Ok-I'll concede defeat here,Jocabia-you got me. My words were certainly of the most viscious intent.

If I so insulted The Nazz or injured him or his reputation in anyway I'm sorry.

Ah, yes, and when people who came to preach get called out on their BS, it always follows a pattern.

1. Preach
2. No, you prove it.
3. Why are you freaking out? I was just making an innocent comment that says you're wrong and that is completely unsupported (watches as no one really reacts in any way that could be called "freaking out").
4. Sarcastic concession. That way you can say *innocently* "but I conceded the point" when really you were trying to actually leave your point standing even though it's been soundly refuted.

My father tries to do this to my mother. And with her it works. This might work in your home life. It isn't going to work on a debate forum. It simply won't. I'm sorry that you're not going to pull off preaching here. Feel free to try it elsewhere.

Ah, yes, and when people who came to preach get called out on their BS, it always follows a pattern.

1. Preach
2. No, you prove it.
3. Why are you freaking out? I was just making an innocent comment.
4. Sarcastic concession. That way you can say *innocently* "but I conceded the point" when really you were trying to actually leave your point standing even though it's been soundly refuted.

My father tries to do this to my mother. And with her it works. This might work in your home life. It isn't going to work on a debate forum. It simply won't. I'm sorry that you're not going to pull off preaching here. Feel free to try it elsewhere.


Here's your real problem. Not the Nazz and I having a difference.

Its you fighting the never ending battle against your father.

All is well in my home Jocabia. Feel free to fix yours.

Here's your real problem. Not the Nazz and I having a difference.

Its you fighting the never ending battle against your father.

All is well in my home Jocabia. Feel free to fix yours.

Uh-huh. And the ad hominems begin. It's really about my father, isn't it? It has nothing to do with your flawed attempt at preaching. It's Nazz's fault. No wait, it's my fault. No, no, it's my father's fault.

I was absolutely certain that when I put my father in there, you'd say that. My father and I have a great relationship.

I, however, don't approve of weak debate. Not from my father. Not from my mother. Not from my preacher. Not from the President. Not from the Pope. Not from my idol. Not from you.

It has nothing to do with you as a person. It has to do with your weak argument and your weak attempts to pretend you didn't attempt to attack The Nazz as hysterical and make an Appeal to Ignorance.

Every part of this attempt is sad. Go ahead though. I'm sure there's someone else who is to blame for your weak argument. Come on. Who is it this time?

EDIT: Oh, come on. Nothing? Are you sure it's not my mother's fault? Maybe it's Maxx Barry's fault you made a weak argument? Whose fault is it now that you can't support your preaching? There must be someone to blame. Dear God, can't someone give CL someone to blame for the shortcomings of his argument. Oh, the humanity.

I am saddened by where this thread is going. :(

Uh-huh. And the ad hominems begin. It's really about my father, isn't it? It has nothing to do with your flawed attempt at preaching. It's Nazz's fault. No wait, it's my fault. No, no, it's my father's fault.

I was absolutely certain that when I put my father in there, you'd say that. My father and I have a great relationship.

I, however, don't approve of weak debate. Not from my father. Not from my mother. Not from my preacher. Not from the President. Not from the Pope. Not from my idol. Not from you.

It has nothing to do with you as a person. It has to do with your weak argument and your weak attempts to pretend you didn't attempt to attack The Nazz as hysterical and make an Appeal to Ignorance.

Every part of this attempt is sad. Go ahead though. I'm sure there's someone else who is to blame for your weak argument. Come on. Who is it this time?

Sure-classic back pedalling. You knew what I would say,but you put it in there anyway to throw me a bone, right?

I never blamed anyone else for the substance of my statement.

Just surprise at your relentless,time-wasting pursuit of nothing.

In my opinion,thats the sad part.

Surely,there is someone else, somehwere in here more worthy of your efforts. Unless of course, it really does have something to do with me as a person. There is too much passion,too much intent here for me to feel otherwise.

We're way off topic and I'm ashamed I wasted so much time responding.

I'm happy to stop right here and more than willing to retrace my steps and delete all related posts. Its certainly not an exchange I'm proud of.

If you are going to enter into debate, you kind of have to expect to be asked for supporting evidence for any claim you might make. If you don't want to support your claims, you have to be prepared to have them discounted as mere 'opinion'.

I'll take your advice,Grave_n_idle.

Thats your job,Nazz.

I wouldnt hope to discuss anything with you that you're so hysterical about.

Umm. I'm not the one who made the ridiculous "everyone is doing it" claim. Look at it this way--if you find a Democrat who has said something similar, you've just ended his candidacy.

I'll take your advice,Grave_n_idle.

Don't get me wrong - there is nothing wrong with 'opinion'. In this particular case, I'm not even that far from your perspective, I'm not seeing a lot of 'promise' on either side of the political divide in the run-up to this election, and I think it will largely come down to partisan and 'anything but...' voting.

I just hate to see war breaking out over opinions stated too forcefully. (And, I think it looks like you were innocent of deliberately mis-stating... you just stated a fairly common opinion without thinking it might be called upon to be defended as 'fact'. Well, that's what I thought, anyway).

Umm. I'm not the one who made the ridiculous "everyone is doing it" claim. Look at it this way--if you find a Democrat who has said something similar, you've just ended his candidacy.

It doesnt matter anymore. I give up.

But if there were another 9/11, Giuliani could make another fortune as a tragedy profiteer.

Sure-classic back pedalling. You knew what I would say,but you put it in there anyway to throw me a bone, right?

I didn't throw you a bone. Ad hominems HURT your argument.


I never blamed anyone else for the substance of my statement.

You blamed The Nazz. As per:

Thats your job,Nazz.

I wouldnt hope to discuss anything with you that you're so hysterical about.


The Nazz and hysterics are at fault your argument won't stand up..

Then when I pointed out it you were making an Appeal to Ignorance. Then it's my fault your argument won't stand up.

Then I give you an example of someone else using the same techniques and it's my father's fault that your argument won't stand up.


Just surprise at your relentless,time-wasting pursuit of nothing.

In my opinion,thats the sad part.

I love debate. I love showing flawed arguments as flawed arguments. If you consider that a waste of time, one wonders why you'd be on a debate forum.


Surely,there is someone else, somehwere in here more worthy of your efforts. Unless of course, it really does have something to do with me as a person. There is too much passion,too much intent here for me to feel otherwise.

It's just the weak argument. I actually generally like you. And I think you know that. I've argued equally strongly to support and argument that you've made in the past that I thought was strong and equally strongly against The Nazz on similar topics. This is debate. You don't want to engage, then the simple answer is to not enter the topic. No preachy, no danger of being shown to be making unsupported statements.


We're way off topic and I'm ashamed I wasted so much time responding.

I'm happy to stop right here and more than willing to retrace my steps and delete all related posts. Its certainly not an exchange I'm proud of.

You shouldn't be. This is a debate forum and the entire list of posts is your attempt to complain about being called to support your claims. You've relied on Appeal to Ignorance, ad hominem and even thrown out some low blows like pretending this has ANYTHING to do with my relationship to my father. I wouldn't be proud of that either.

Sadly, in a debate forum you sometimes have to explain to someone how debate works. It's not specifically off topic. You'd think, it being a debate forum, they'd know. Instead we have to gently explain that when you make assertions that you *gasp* are expected to support them, rather than simply just making wild statements and complaining that someone else won't support them for you.

Don't get me wrong - there is nothing wrong with 'opinion'. In this particular case, I'm not even that far from your perspective, I'm not seeing a lot of 'promise' on either side of the political divide in the run-up to this election, and I think it will largely come down to partisan and 'anything but...' voting.

I just hate to see war breaking out over opinions stated too forcefully. (And, I think it looks like you were innocent of deliberately mis-stating... you just stated a fairly common opinion without thinking it might be called upon to be defended as 'fact'. Well, that's what I thought, anyway).

I know. I'm caught off guard by being so thoroughly hounded. And in fairness to myself,I'm just not up for debating. Its been an exceptionally rough last two months for me IRL. And this is no place to be when your defenses are down. But I'm not using that as an excuse.

I'll have to stick to the "Whats your favorite color" threads,I guess.

Don't get me wrong - there is nothing wrong with 'opinion'. In this particular case, I'm not even that far from your perspective, I'm not seeing a lot of 'promise' on either side of the political divide in the run-up to this election, and I think it will largely come down to partisan and 'anything but...' voting.

I just hate to see war breaking out over opinions stated too forcefully. (And, I think it looks like you were innocent of deliberately mis-stating... you just stated a fairly common opinion without thinking it might be called upon to be defended as 'fact'. Well, that's what I thought, anyway).

Of course. And, in fact, you won't find a reply from me to the original quote. I didn't bother. Who cares? The problem was that he did get called and rather than simply say, "meh", he accused The Nazz of "hysterics" and said that it was The Nazz's job to support the statement.

There's this saying about when you make your bed.

I know. I'm caught off guard by being so thoroughly hounded. And in fairness to myself,I'm just not up for debating. Its been an exceptionally rough last two months for me IRL. And this is no place to be when your defenses are down. But I'm not using that as an excuse.

I'll have to stick to the "Whats your favorite color" threads,I guess.

Well, CL. Honestly, you know I like you and if you're having troubles IRL then I'm very sorry to hear that. My issue was really in how you responded when evidence was requested. It was that and solely that. I think you or someone would have called me to task equally if I'd done that. And I would approve of them doing so.

It's not personal, however. It really isn't. I wish for nothing but the best for you and for your family. Godspeed. Incidentally, blue?

Well, CL. Honestly, you know I like you and if you're having troubles IRL then I'm very sorry to hear that. My issue was really in how you responded when evidence was requested. It was that and solely that. I think you or someone would have called me to task equally if I'd done that. And I would approve of them doing so.

It's not personal, however. It really isn't. I wish for nothing but the best for you and for your family. Godspeed. Incidentally, blue?

You've got a lot of energy,my friend.

It certainly felt personal,but I'll take your word for it. And thanks for the kind wishes. Things will improve.
Better me than one of my kids,any day.

Yeah-blue here.

You've got a lot of energy,my friend.

I'm not trying to bow out blaming personal troubles,believe me.
Most of last week was spent in Johns Hopkins in Baltimore-but that should have been my excuse not to get into this scuff-Not to try to get out.

I'm actually doing some work for them right now. They're difficult clients (fair, but they need and expect a lot). I hear they expect so much from us because they consider their committment to you and those like you to be so important.


It certainly felt personal,but I'll take your word for it. And thanks for the kind wishes. Things will improve.

I'll give you one concession. You are normally more careful, so it seemed a bit out of character from you. And thinking I expect more from you is really not fair to you or anyone else. It's kind of insulting really. So I may have a bit more surprised than had it been someone I'd never encountered before.

I'm not sorry for calling you to support your arguments, but I am sorry it felt personal. Honestly.

If any argument feels personal just remember I'm just some idiot on the internet and that I genuinely like you, savvy?

Better me than one of my kids,any day.

God forbid. Honestly, I wish you the best. What's wrong is none of my business, but if there is ever anything I can do, I am genuinely offering aid.


Yeah-blue here.

See we can agree on somethings.

Okay.

I have a new theory.

RUDOLPH GIULIANI IS A TERRORIST!

Come on. How else would he know what the terrorists would do?

Okay.

I have a new theory.

RUDOLPH GIULIANI IS A TERRORIST!

Come on. How else would he know what the terrorists would do?

Link?

As for the first comment? WTF is he supposed to say? He is running for president, he is supposed to say things like that! What do you want? Him to say that another 9/11 wouldn't happen no matter who you voted for or the dems would stop one and he wouldn't? This is politics and he is playing it!

You are most definitely correct in what you say. This is nothing more than political postering. Man, I wish this would wait till say.....january of next year.

I'm actually doing some work for them right now. They're difficult clients (fair, but they need and expect a lot). I hear they expect so much from us because they consider their committment to you and those like you to be so important.




I'll give you one concession. You are normally more careful, so it seemed a bit out of character from you. And thinking I expect more from you is really not fair to you or anyone else. It's kind of insulting really. So I may have a bit more surprised than had it been someone I'd never encountered before.

I'm not sorry for calling you to support your arguments, but I am sorry it felt personal. Honestly.

If any argument feels personal just remember I'm just some idiot on the internet and that I genuinely like you, savvy?



God forbid. Honestly, I wish you the best. What's wrong is none of my business, but if there is ever anything I can do, I am genuinely offering aid.




See we can agree on somethings.


I found everyone we dealt with there to be a consumate professional-from dealings on the phone to hours of tests-clerical and doctors alike. The girl that answers the phone right to the director of one department dealt with me like I was the owner of the place.
Even a hotel associated with them rolled out the red carpet.

I would tell anyone to go there without hesitation.

Yep-as long as my wife and kids are alright,I can deal with anything.

Thanks-I do appreciated the friendship and understanding.

I found everyone we dealt with there to be a consumate professional-from dealings on the phone to hours of tests-clerical and doctors alike. The girl that answers the phone right to the director of one department dealt with me like I was the owner of the place.
Even a hotel associated with them rolled out the red carpet.

I would tell anyone to go there without hesitation.

Yep-as long as my wife and kids are alright,I can deal with anything.

Thanks-I do appreciated the friendship and understanding.

You know... that really makes me feel good. I work with some, well, let's say not the most socially responsible clients at times. But I do my job and I do it well. I live for the times when I can work with clients that I can feel good about. Hospitals, schools and the like. I live for those opportunities and to hear that one of the clients I've actually helped become more efficient is using that opportunity to do good work, well, that makes my heart swell.

Now back to arguing.

Okay.

I have a new theory.

RUDOLPH GIULIANI IS A TERRORIST!

Come on. How else would he know what the terrorists would do?
Shits, I knew it - the hardcore conservatives are in league with the terrorists.

I know. I'm caught off guard by being so thoroughly hounded. And in fairness to myself,I'm just not up for debating. Its been an exceptionally rough last two months for me IRL. And this is no place to be when your defenses are down. But I'm not using that as an excuse.

I'll have to stick to the "Whats your favorite color" threads,I guess.

Getting hounded is par for the course, sometimes... like you said the 'favorite color' threads are probably about as deep as you can get without risking getting (too badly) savaged.

p.s.

If you want/need someone relatively a-nony-mouse to talk to about your rough two months, feel free to TG me. I've had a few rough months myself.

See we can agree on somethings.

You're both wrong though. And... don't get me started on 'it's not a colour'... Black is, by far, the best.

The oddest thing is, there really is no reason for Giuliani to be so popular. He hasn't done anything that has had nationwide repercussions. And in his native New York, he'll probably lose the electoral college votes to any generic Democrat who runs anyway. Why is he so well-liked? Because crime fell in New York under his watch? Crime fell EVERYWHERE in America from 1994 - 2002. Because he was the first public figure people saw on 9/11/2001? So what? His city was attacked, naturally he'd be the first one on the scene. I am truly baffled as to what makes him so popular.

The oddest thing is, there really is no reason for Giuliani to be so popular. He hasn't done anything that has had nationwide repercussions. And in his native New York, he'll probably lose the electoral college votes to any generic Democrat who runs anyway. Why is he so well-liked? Because crime fell in New York under his watch? Crime fell EVERYWHERE in America from 1994 - 2002. Because he was the first public figure people saw on 9/11/2001? So what? His city was attacked, naturally he'd be the first one on the scene. I am truly baffled as to what makes him so popular.He's gotten great mileage out of 9/11. Many of those outside of New York somehow see him as 'the hero of 9/11' simply because he was lucky enough to have it happen on his watch and turned it into a classic media oportunity. He's still running on it and brings up the terrorist bit so we won't forget it. Of course as Nazz already pointed out the reason the area emergency comand center was foolishly located at the world trade center was due to Gulianni's stubbornly refusing to listen to reason. The emergency diesel tanks for that center are what are widely blamed for the later collapse of #7 WTC. Fire fighters still bristle at the sound of his name because it's also likely that the number of emergency worker deaths was so high because most didn't hear the recall order, because they couldn't get him to approve a budget that included new, better radios despite the fact that the limitations of the one's in use were already known. But no one wants to hear how he directly contributed to the magnitude of the disaster due to his poor managment, they just remember the press clips and footage of him at the scene trying to look like he was in charge.

See we can agree on somethings.

Blasphemers. Green is the one true color.