PDA

View Full Version : Who will win the Republican Nomination - kittyking leads Giuliani, Romney is in third


kittyking
Oct 30th, 2007, 06:45 AM
Lets face it, its obvious who will win the Democrat nomination.
Hillary's made the rest of her candidates look like paralysed possums (arguably some did before it even started). Shes even managed to stop a Noble Peace Far Left prize winner from even starting his campaign.

Now all the attention is on the Republicans, who will win their nomination?

Will it be the guy who has the best chance at beating Hillary Clinton?
The guy who has a wife with an IQ twice as high as his own?
What about the guy whose pretended to be the President and won awards for it?
Could the early front runner make a massive comeback after a far from perfect campaign?
Will it go to the guy whose first name is so often confused with his last name?
Or does the Huck have a say in all of this?

Who do you THINK will win the nomination

Note: This is different from who you hope will win the nomination

kittyking
Oct 30th, 2007, 08:28 AM
Go Rudy!

AaronJoyB
Oct 30th, 2007, 08:34 AM
Fred

Philbo
Oct 30th, 2007, 10:20 AM
ROn Paul!!!!

kittyking
Oct 30th, 2007, 10:21 AM
ROn Paul!!!!

Hes barely republican :lol:

samsung101
Oct 30th, 2007, 04:41 PM
Right now, I'd have to say Rudy.
He may lose the first few primaries though.
Which will embolden the Romney campaign.

But, he will lock it up after the first few
campaign stops in the early spring.

I think it will be Rudy and Romney together
for the GOP ticket. Rudy needs someone to counter
his liberalism on social issues. Romney is that
guy, or Thompson. But, Thompson has failed to
muster up a lot of heat for his campaign. He's
not done yet though.


Unless, they find a personable, experienced, and
great campaigner who is Hispanic as the VP candidate,
it's likely Romney's choice for VP.


Rudy is swaying enough social conservatives by promising
to nominate Scalia type justices to the court.

The bottom line he is selling is this:
there will be 3 Supreme Court seats open during the
next 4 years.

Do you want someone who will nominate another Justice Ginsberg?
Or do you want someone who will nominate another Justice Scalia?

That's his calling card.



Do you want the nominations to be made by someone who
is pro-abortion, anti-2nd amendment, and anti-Scalia,Roberts,
Alito, and Thomas......or someone who is pro-abortion rights,
pro-2nd amendment, and pro-Scalia, Roberts, Alito, & Thomas?

Sam L
Oct 30th, 2007, 04:45 PM
Right now, I'd have to say Rudy.
He may lose the first few primaries though.
Which will embolden the Romney campaign.

But, he will lock it up after the first few
campaign stops in the early spring.

I think it will be Rudy and Romney together
for the GOP ticket. Rudy needs someone to counter
his liberalism on social issues. Romney is that
guy, or Thompson. But, Thompson has failed to
muster up a lot of heat for his campaign. He's
not done yet though.


Unless, they find a personable, experienced, and
great campaigner who is Hispanic as the VP candidate,
it's likely Romney's choice for VP.


Rudy is swaying enough social conservatives by promising
to nominate Scalia type justices to the court.

The bottom line he is selling is this:
there will be 3 Supreme Court seats open during the
next 4 years.

Do you want someone who will nominate another Justice Ginsberg?
Or do you want someone who will nominate another Justice Scalia?

That's his calling card.



Do you want the nominations to be made by someone who
is pro-abortion, anti-2nd amendment, and anti-Scalia,Roberts,
Alito, and Thomas......or someone who is pro-abortion rights,
pro-2nd amendment, and pro-Scalia, Roberts, Alito, & Thomas?

Smart move by him to win the conservative vote without having to destroy his integrity.

Go Rudy!!

Barrie_Dude
Oct 30th, 2007, 04:52 PM
Fred

sfselesfan
Oct 30th, 2007, 06:09 PM
Republican's like. (1) Dumbasses and (2) Social Conservatives.

I predict Fred Thompson will come from behind, then get his ass beat in the general election.

SF

kittyking
Oct 30th, 2007, 10:14 PM
Looking at the polls today Fred Thompson could finish 2nd in every single state :rofl:

Donny
Oct 30th, 2007, 10:59 PM
Hes barely republican :lol:

Really now? Rudy is pro gay marriage, pro choice, pro stem cell research... he's quite possibly they most socially progressive GOP candidate. The only thing he shares with most Republicans is a deep hate and mistrust of blacks and Arabs.

kittyking
Oct 30th, 2007, 11:25 PM
Really now? Rudy is pro gay marriage, pro choice, pro stem cell research... he's quite possibly they most socially progressive GOP candidate. The only thing he shares with most Republicans is a deep hate and mistrust of blacks and Arabs.

Why do so many people think hes so pro gay marriage when all hes said is that if a few states legistlate it thats fine, if many states legislate it then he will ban it for the nation.

Hes not pro abortion, he just doesn't think that it should be upto the state to decide

He doesnt hate Blacks and Arabs, he just knows that Hillary has their votes sown up anyway :lol:

Donny
Oct 30th, 2007, 11:49 PM
Why do so many people think hes so pro gay marriage when all hes said is that if a few states legistlate it thats fine, if many states legislate it then he will ban it for the nation.

You trust a man with that type of retarded logic? States legalizing same sex marriage is fine until a lot do it, then it's bad? What the blue hell? And a president can't "ban" same sex marriage anyway- that'd take a constitutional amendment.

"Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Domestic partnerships are the appropriate way to ensure that people are treated fairly," the Giuliani campaign said in a written response to a question from the Sun. "In this specific case the law states same sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same sex unions from outside states. This goes too far and Mayor Giuliani does not support it."

The Democratic governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, has said publicly that he will sign the civil union law.

On a February 2004 edition of Fox News's "The O'Reilly Factor," Mr. Giuliani told Bill O'Reilly, when asked if he supported gay marriage, "I'm in favor of … civil unions."

He also said, "Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman."

Asked by Mr. O'Reilly in the interview how he would respond to gay Americans who said being denied access to the institution of marriage violated their rights, Mr. Giuliani said: "That's why you have civil partnerships. So now you have a civil partnership, domestic partnership, civil union, whatever you want to call it, and that takes care of the imbalance, the discrimination, which we shouldn't have."
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Rudy_Giuliani_Abortion.htm

He's a hypocrite and a liar. It's pretty obvious that'd he'd tell anyone, anything to become president.


Hes not pro abortion, he just doesn't think that it should be upto the state to decide

Huh?
Giuliani expressed pro-choice positions during election years when he was running for mayor of New York City, (1989 and 1993), and when he was running for a New York State seat in the United States Senate (2000) and in his 2008 presidential run.

* 1989: Giuliani said, “There must be public funding for abortion for poor women. We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decision about abortion because she lacks resources."

That year his campaign issued this statement,

As mayor, Rudy Giuliani will uphold a woman's right of choice to have an abortion. Giuliani will fund all city programs which provide abortions to insure that no woman is deprived of her right due to an inability to pay. He will oppose reductions in state funding. He will oppose making abortion illegal. Although Giuliani is personally opposed to abortion, his personal views will not interfere with his responsibilities as mayor.




He doesnt hate Blacks and Arabs, he just knows that Hillary has their votes sown up anyway :lol:

Whatever you call it, he was willing to let cops wantonly murder black and Hispanics (who make up most of NYC) in order to provide "security". Democrats have the Black and Hispanic votes sewn up because they know better than to vote Republican.

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 12:01 AM
You trust a man with that type of retarded logic? States legalizing same sex marriage is fine until a lot do it, then it's bad? What the blue hell? And a president can't "ban" same sex marriage anyway- that'd take a constitutional amendment.

He's a hypocrite and a liar. It's pretty obvious that'd he'd tell anyone, anything to become president.

Huh?

Whatever you call it, he was willing to let cops wantonly murder black and Hispanics (who make up most of NYC) in order to provide "security". Democrats have the Black and Hispanic votes sewn up because they know better than to vote Republican.


Some states in America have some very strange laws, doesn't mean that all of them have the law. Think about the recent case in Missisipi I think it was when a guy sued another guy for stealing his wife (he won something like $750,000!). Rudy hasn't ruled out a constitutional ammendment for Civil Unions, its hard to explain his case but its the best of both worlds really.

Rudy uses alot of 'I've done this' sort of comments, hes not a liar hes simply saying what hes done in the past and how he can do it in the future.

Murder is illegal in pretty much everywhere in the world apart from North Korea, Iran and Syria. The New York City Policemen dont set out to kill people, their not out on a suicide mission either though - they have the right to protect themselves and its their job to protect the people of New York. Democrats have the Black and Hispanic votes sewn up because theirs less pressure to work harder that way.

Note: There are plenty of hardworking Black and Hispanic people who work hard and will vote Republican however they are a minority.

Pureracket
Oct 31st, 2007, 01:07 AM
The Republicans, like the threadstarter(is the threadstarter a US citizen?),
are going to get in
trouble with the "I can beat Hillary" campaign.
It'll work @ first,
but pretty soon,
the Americans will tire of it
and eventually want
some substance.

I seriously doubt they'll be able to
pull that I'm-a-good-old-boy
crap
after the disaster this
current administration
has been.

With his records on gays and abortion,
I see far worse choices than Rudy.
You gotta love a
presidential candidate
who's had two gay
roommates
and who dresses in drag.

I wonder if his son will
come around, though.

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:10 AM
You gotta love a
presidential candidate
who's had two gay
roommates




Isnt it better to have a President that has lived with gays than one who prays that all homosexuals shall be 'cured' of their 'disease'


Also because Hillary is so much a heavy favourite at the moment Republicans really have to go on the 'Why I'm better than another Clinton' sort of campaign. 40% of people who vote say that they would never ever vote for Hillary (including some people who are swing-Democrat voters) while theirs a slightly lower percent (39) who wouldn't vote for anyone else apart from her. Its a matter of convincing the other 21% that they are better than another Clinton. Rudy stands the best chance at beating her

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:13 AM
Alittle bit surprised that no ones picked Romney to win - He leads the polls in the early voting primaries (and boy will he never shut up about that!)

Scotso
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:18 AM
As much as I would like to believe Ron Paul has a chance, it seems pretty obvious now that Giuliani will be the nominee. God help us.

This is so disturbing that I might even consider voting for Clinton if it will keep Giuliani out of office.

Scotso
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:20 AM
Alittle bit surprised that no ones picked Romney to win - He leads the polls in the early voting primaries (and boy will he never shut up about that!)

Althought I detest him, I wouldn't mind Romney winning the nomination at all. A Mormon won't be elected President of the USA, not in this decade. For that reason alone, I'm sure the Republicans will find a way to make sure he isn't the nominee.

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:23 AM
Althought I detest him, I wouldn't mind Romney winning the nomination at all. A Mormon won't be elected President of the USA, not in this decade. For that reason alone, I'm sure the Republicans will find a way to make sure he isn't the nominee.

Well the top 4 candidates are - A woman, A black, An Italian and a Mormon :lol: (who would have thought this 20 years ago!)

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:25 AM
Interestingly today on some Fox show Rudy said some pretty nice things about Huckabee. A Giuliani/Huckabee partnership would at least give Hillary a decent opponent.

fufuqifuqishahah
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:34 AM
i think kittyking should move to america

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:35 AM
i think kittyking should move to america

I don't. We have enough idiotic voters.

SF

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:35 AM
i think kittyking should move to america

Thanks for your vote, I have more than John McCain and Mitt Romney :woohoo: (calls up FOX news...)

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:37 AM
I don't. We have enough idiotic voters.

SF

As soon as I land in America would be a more beautiful place though :)

fufuqifuqishahah
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:38 AM
As soon as I land in America would be a more beautiful place though :)

I will constantly paint the ground that surrounds you.

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:42 AM
I will constantly paint the ground that surrounds you.

Aw your so sweet

What part of America should I move too?

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:45 AM
As soon as I land in America would be a more beautiful place though :)

kittyking's statement in his badrep to me from this thread: "Your only saying that because I'm white."

I guess he assumes that I'm not white because I happen to have a photo of Venus as an avatar. Typical. I'm a white male...like every one of your precious neo-con candidates. You moron.

SF

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:45 AM
What part of America should I move too?

Wyoming.

SF

fufuqifuqishahah
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:46 AM
kittyking's statement in his badrep to me from this thread: "Your only saying that because I'm white."

I guess he assumes that I'm not white because I happen to have a photo of Venus as an avatar. Typical. I'm a white male...like every one of your precious neo-con candidates. You moron.

SF

i know that you are white older male! :bounce:

fufuqifuqishahah
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:46 AM
Wyoming.

SF

r u from wyoming?

fufuqifuqishahah
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:47 AM
:lol: the thread title change

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:48 AM
r u from wyoming?

No. Cheney is.

SF

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:48 AM
kittyking's statement in his badrep to me from this thread: "Your only saying that because I'm white."

I guess he assumes that I'm not white because I happen to have a photo of Venus as an avatar. Typical. I'm a white male...like every one of your precious neo-con candidates. You moron.

SF

Its a copy and paste comment - it was either that or because Im adorable, or that I'm rich or 'Im an elf'

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:48 AM
i know that you are white older male! :bounce:

Yup. 31.

SF

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:49 AM
No. Cheney is.

SF

Rent would cost to much in that town then, what city do you live in?

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:50 AM
Its a copy and paste comment - it was either that or because Im adorable, or that I'm rich or 'Im an elf'

If it's copy/paste...perhaps you should fix your grammar. It should be "you're" in the context you used it.

SF

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:50 AM
Yup. 31.

SF

:hug: your too old for me then

My range is from 18-27 sorry (I know your crying now, its okay it may get easier as time goes by)

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:51 AM
Rent would cost to much in that town then, what city do you live in?

Rent in Wyoming would be basically nothing. I live in Gotham City.

SF

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:52 AM
If it's copy/paste...perhaps you should fix your grammar. It should be "you're" in the context you used it.

SF

Aw dang, okay I'll do it again with the right grammar in a few days time then :)

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:52 AM
:hug: your too old for me then

My range is from 18-27 sorry (I know your crying now, its okay it may get easier as time goes by)

I'm also happily married. Again, it's "you're" (short for "you are").

BTW - When I was single, I had a range too. I didn't date idiots.

SF

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:53 AM
Rent in Wyoming would be basically nothing. I live in Gotham City.

SF

I was actually thinking of moving either to LA or New York, because I love modelling and apparantly those two cities are filled with beautiful people (well apart from the ugly people) and I would fit right in

Also I have an ex boyfriend in Hanover (duno if I spelt it correct or not, I dont even no what state its in!!!)

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:54 AM
I'm also happily married. Again, it's "you're" (short for "you are").

BTW - When I was single, I had a range too. I didn't date idiots.

SF

Thankyou for pointing that out, your a star :p

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:57 AM
I was actually thinking of moving either to LA or New York, because I love modelling and apparantly those two cities are filled with beautiful people (well apart from the ugly people) and I would fit right in

Also I have an ex boyfriend in Hanover (duno if I spelt it correct or not, I dont even no what state its in!!!)

A mouthy, gay, Republican, racist, wannabe model moving to NY or LA.

That's got "ass kicking" written all over it. I don't think you'd fit in.

SF

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 06:07 AM
A mouthy, gay, Republican, racist, wannabe model moving to NY or LA.

That's got "ass kicking" written all over it. I don't think you'd fit in.

SF

You worded it wrong

Im a Confident, Friendly, Caring, Loving, Sucessful, Conservativ who just happens to do and get done by Hot guys :)

I already do some modelling down here...

I hope the modelling agency people up there are alot tougher than down here, I liked being yelled at because it brings out my emotions more and it really does show :)

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 06:08 AM
sfselesfan please bad rep me already, I feel lonely without that :p

fufuqifuqishahah
Oct 31st, 2007, 06:09 AM
stop arguing! :sobbing:

fufuqifuqishahah
Oct 31st, 2007, 06:09 AM
sfselesfan please bad rep me already, I feel lonely without that :p
ill do it for u if u want

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 06:10 AM
ill do it for u if u want

No, I prefer to only get bad rep's from crazy people :lol:

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 06:11 AM
stop arguing! :sobbing:

Its a pretty one sided, I kick-ass :p

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 06:14 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OSDQQtHKakU

BTW - this was well before the Minneapolis airport incident. Be sure to watch the whole thing kitty...it's your penance.

SF

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 06:16 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OSDQQtHKakU

BTW - this was well before the Minneapolis airport incident. Be sure to watch the whole thing kitty...it's your penance.

SF

That aint very nice :p

Omg I got another vote :woohoo:

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 06:17 AM
Sir Stefwhit :worship:

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 06:18 AM
You could not possibly have watched that video considering how fast you replied. I ran it and it just finished.

SF

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 06:19 AM
You could not possibly have watched that video considering how fast you replied. I ran it and it just finished.

SF

I didnt say I watched the video, I simply read your comment ;)

Gotta go out for dinner now, wish me luck love you all (well apart from the ones i dont love)

fufuqifuqishahah
Oct 31st, 2007, 06:23 AM
No, I prefer to only get bad rep's from crazy people :lol:

i'm crazy too :cool: :D

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 08:16 AM
i'm crazy too :cool: :D

Back

We're all crazy, but you're also hot :p

Philbo
Oct 31st, 2007, 11:15 AM
Ron Paul is more of a proper conservative than any of the other contenders.

Guiliani is the next puppet of the neocons to further their war/world domination agenda. Lord help us all.

kittyking
Oct 31st, 2007, 11:21 AM
Ron Paul is more of a proper conservative than any of the other contenders.

Guiliani is the next puppet of the neocons to further their war/world domination agenda. Lord help us all.

Ron Paul is NOT conservative

Ron Paul is a libertarian

Demska
Oct 31st, 2007, 11:34 AM
:p

Philbo
Oct 31st, 2007, 01:20 PM
Ron Paul is NOT conservative

Ron Paul is a libertarian

By the old definition of conservative, he is the MOST conservative candidate.

Smaller government, constitutionl rights, fiscal responsibility etc - these were all strong conservative ideas for many generations, the Bush Admin shouldnt even call itsself conservative...

Pureracket
Oct 31st, 2007, 02:10 PM
I'd be willing to vote for anyone who would make us less afraid of our wiretapping, fascist leaning, current administration.

http://miken.best.vwh.net/images/gore_v_l.jpg

Scotso
Oct 31st, 2007, 03:30 PM
By the old definition of conservative, he is the MOST conservative candidate.

Smaller government, constitutionl rights, fiscal responsibility etc - these were all strong conservative ideas for many generations, the Bush Admin shouldnt even call itsself conservative...

Exactly. A true conservative wants limited government. Bush and his buddies are statists.

Kittyking's posts in these threads lead me to believe that he actually has very limited knowledge of political theory, U.S. politics, and the candidates involved.

Scotso
Oct 31st, 2007, 03:31 PM
I'd be willing to vote for anyone who would make us less afraid of our wiretapping, fascist leaning, current administration.

http://miken.best.vwh.net/images/gore_v_l.jpg

I would rather vote for someone who would have them shot. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Scotso
Oct 31st, 2007, 03:39 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OSDQQtHKakU

BTW - this was well before the Minneapolis airport incident. Be sure to watch the whole thing kitty...it's your penance.

SF

Barney clobbered him.

Donny
Oct 31st, 2007, 03:47 PM
A mouthy, gay, Republican, racist, wannabe model moving to NY or LA.

That's got "ass kicking" written all over it. I don't think you'd fit in.

SF

Best post of the thread.

Rollo
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:54 PM
Althought I detest him, I wouldn't mind Romney winning the nomination at all. A Mormon won't be elected President of the USA, not in this decade. For that reason alone, I'm sure the Republicans will find a way to make sure he isn't the nominee

If I had money to bet right now I'd put it on Romney. While some evangelicals might hold their noses at voting for a Momo, you can bet they will prefer him to Madam Satan herself, which is how they view Hillary.

That makes Mitt electable.


As for the nomination, the only pure conservative candidate of statue is Huckabee, and he doesn't have the money or numbers to move up the top tier yet.

Many don't trust McCain.

When they discover Rudy's positions on a lot of issues they will bolt.

All of which leaves Romney to pick up the pieces. If he wins Iowa (which is very likely at the moment) he's on a roll. If he then wins New Hampshire he's the nominee.

LoveFifteen
Oct 31st, 2007, 08:41 PM
The thought of Mitt Romney becoming the next president of the United States terrifies me to the core.

Pureracket
Oct 31st, 2007, 08:48 PM
The thought of Mitt Romney becoming the next president of the United States terrifies me to the core.
Trust me, he'll do like the rest of the Bush Republicans and deny homosexual rights, and fool the idiots that they're actually saving the country.

How in the world did gay marriage become the centerpiece of the Christian agenda, especially when Christ preached about feeding the hungry, not being judgmental, and healing the sick?

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 09:05 PM
Ron Paul is NOT conservative

Ron Paul is a libertarian

Poor Kitty. Another neo-con who has no concept of what "conservative" means.

SF

LoveFifteen
Oct 31st, 2007, 09:12 PM
I can't believe Kitty was a model. There must be slim pickings in New Zealand. :tape:

kittyking
Nov 1st, 2007, 12:08 AM
Upto 2nd in the poll :p

This thread is the best thread ever

kittyking
Nov 1st, 2007, 12:34 AM
By the old definition of conservative, he is the MOST conservative candidate.

Smaller government, constitutionl rights, fiscal responsibility etc - these were all strong conservative ideas for many generations, the Bush Admin shouldnt even call itsself conservative...

Conservatism in todays day and time most often means less government, free markets, low taxes, personal responsibility and a strong national defense.

Ron Paul doesn't think that Al Qaeda are a threat to this planet. He doesn't think we should stop them - despite them being responsible for killing innocent civilians in Bali, Indonesia, Tanzania, Kenya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Spain, England and the USA. More people would die globally under Ron Paul's leadership than under any previous American President.

Donny
Nov 1st, 2007, 12:44 AM
Conservatism in todays day and time most often means less government, free markets, low taxes, personal responsibility and a strong national defense.

Ron Paul doesn't think that Al Qaeda are a threat to this planet. He doesn't think we should stop them - despite them being responsible for killing innocent civilians in Bali, Indonesia, Tanzania, Kenya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Spain, England and the USA. More people would die globally under Ron Paul's leadership than under any previous American President.

If one was to compare the number of people killed by Al Qaeda, and the number of people killed in Iraq sinc e2003, I'm pretty sure the US would come out on top.

Unless you think that Al Qaeda is going to start killing hundreds of thousands of people when we leave Iraq?

In fact, I usually don't resort to name calling, but this post is moronic. Truman alone is responsible for 300,000 Japanese- and that's just from the atomic bombings.

Newsflash- Besides Mao Tse Tung, the US has been responsible for more loss of life than any regime in the past fifty years.

sfselesfan
Nov 1st, 2007, 12:52 AM
Conservatism in todays day and time most often means less government, free markets, low taxes, personal responsibility and a strong national defense.

Ron Paul doesn't think that Al Qaeda are a threat to this planet. He doesn't think we should stop them - despite them being responsible for killing innocent civilians in Bali, Indonesia, Tanzania, Kenya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Spain, England and the USA. More people would die globally under Ron Paul's leadership than under any previous American President.

D-U-M-B

SF

kittyking
Nov 1st, 2007, 12:55 AM
If one was to compare the number of people killed by Al Qaeda, and the number of people killed in Iraq sinc e2003, I'm pretty sure the US would come out on top.

Unless you think that Al Qaeda is going to start killing hundreds of thousands of people when we leave Iraq?

In fact, I usually don't resort to name calling, but this post is moronic. Truman alone is responsible for 300,000 Japanese- and that's just from the atomic bombings.

Newsflash- Besides Mao Tse Tung, the US has been responsible for more loss of life than any regime in the past fifty years.

There were plenty more people killed under Saddam's leadership than under the war on terror - its just that it was not recorded because there is not free media there.

What you have to take into consideration is that Al Qaeda groups are growing, and if one day they were the most powerful group in the world (over say the US Military) then this world would be absolute chaos. I'm not saying that hundreds of thousands of people would die - I'm saying that many million people would die. We need intelligence and the western countries need to have a tough defense if we are to stop this happenning. Shutting down the CIA and withdrawing all troops from Iraq certainly wont work.

kittyking
Nov 1st, 2007, 12:56 AM
D-U-M-B

SF

At least donnydarko's post showed some thought unlike yours :rolleyes:

Scotso
Nov 1st, 2007, 01:10 AM
Conservatism in todays day and time most often means less government, free markets, low taxes, personal responsibility and a strong national defense.

Yes. None of which Giuliani represents. And note the last bit: strong national defense.

Ron Paul doesn't think that Al Qaeda are a threat to this planet.

That's complete bullshit. Just because he doesn't want to go around starting wars does not mean that he doesn't see Al Qaeda as a threat to the planet.

kittyking
Nov 1st, 2007, 01:16 AM
Yes. None of which Giuliani represents. And note the last bit: strong national defense.



That's complete bullshit. Just because he doesn't want to go around starting wars does not mean that he doesn't see Al Qaeda as a threat to the planet.

Thats bullcrap - Giuliani represents all of them.

Are you saying that you'd rather have the war in your backyard :confused:

Ron Paul doesn't just want to withdraw troops from Iraq he also wants to stop the CIA from operating.

If the Westernized countries have no Intelligence and no Military would you really sleep well at night :confused:

Donny
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:25 AM
There were plenty more people killed under Saddam's leadership than under the war on terror - its just that it was not recorded because there is not free media there.

Thing is though, Saddam had several decades head start. We might very well catch up to- and exceed- the casulaties he inflicted upon his own people, within this decade. That's a dubious honor for "liberators" to have.

What you have to take into consideration is that Al Qaeda groups are growing, and if one day they were the most powerful group in the world (over say the US Military) then this world would be absolute chaos.

Russia and China have been trying for fifty plus years to supplant the US as the most powerful nation on earth, and you think a terrorist group will succeed where they failed? Pffft.

I'm not saying that hundreds of thousands of people would die - I'm saying that many million people would die. We need intelligence and the western countries need to have a tough defense if we are to stop this happenning. Shutting down the CIA and withdrawing all troops from Iraq certainly wont work.

If the US cut ceased it's support of Israel, most terrorism would stop. If we took US troops out of Saudi Arabia, nearly all would stop.

Human beings don't kill themselves trying to hurt us because they "hate our freedoms". That's a myth we perpetuate to make ourselves feel better. Ron Paul is right- they hate us because of what we've done to them for the past six decades.

Donny
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:27 AM
Thats bullcrap - Giuliani represents all of them.

Are you saying that you'd rather have the war in your backyard :confused:

Ron Paul doesn't just want to withdraw troops from Iraq he also wants to stop the CIA from operating.

If the Westernized countries have no Intelligence and no Military would you really sleep well at night :confused:

The CIA is like a terrorist factory. If you want to know why Iran despises America so much, read this:

In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the administration of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically-elected administration of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet from power. The support of the coup was carried out, using widespread bribery [1] in a covert operation by Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). According to a report on the BBC, Britain, motivated by its desire to control Iranian oil fields, contributed to funding for the widespread bribery of Iranian officials, news media and others. The project to overthrow Iran's government was codenamed Operation Ajax (officially TP-AJAX).[2] The coup re-installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the primary position of power. In 2000, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, during the administration of President Bill Clinton, admitted that the coup was a "setback for democratic government" in Iran.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

Scotso
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:38 AM
Giuliani is a statist like Bush, they've massively expanded the bureaucracy of this nation. They spend more money than anyone has ever done before, money that we can't afford. Their desire to create a police state is going to completely destroy our economy and insure that our children are so indebted to China that we would have to sell them California to keep us from defaulting on our loans. Taxes are extremely high, even though Bush has "cut them." Giuliani was a big spender in New York, he won't be any different in Washington. They have to fund their wars and conservative agendas somehow. They don't value personal responsibility at all, instead they want to legislate morality.

What war? We're not fighting terrorists, we're fighting countries. You can't fight terrorism with a conventional army. It would be easy to keep the wrong people out of the country, it would never come to our backyard. What are they going to do, row across the ocean and attack us? Please.

The CIA is completely useless, it's gone from being a tool to ensure American safety to a tool to prop up despotic regimes. Good riddance.

Your last comment is just a major grasp at straws. I support a powerful, effective military. I believe we can and should defend ourselves with any force necessary, but I also think that we keep our noses out of things that really don't concern us.

Sam L
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:42 AM
If the US cut ceased it's support of Israel, most terrorism would stop. If we took US troops out of Saudi Arabia, nearly all would stop.

Human beings don't kill themselves trying to hurt us because they "hate our freedoms". That's a myth we perpetuate to make ourselves feel better. Ron Paul is right- they hate us because of what we've done to them for the past six decades.

Bullshit!

The Policy Exchange, timing its report to Saudi King Abdullah's state visit, said the material expressed a deep-rooted antipathy toward Western society, calling for violence against enemies of Islam, including women and gays who demand equal rights.

Go read it: http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=322390

Donny
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:54 AM
Bullshit!



Go read it: http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=322390

Hate of the US comes from two things:

Neocolonialism in the Middle East, and support of Israel at the expense of Palestinians. End those policies, and conflict will eventually die down. [b]People

Frankly, we shouldn't even be supporting racist regimes like what exists in Israel anyway.

Sam L
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:55 AM
Hate of the US comes from two things:

Neocolonialism in the Middle East, and support of Israel at the expense of Palestinians. End those policies, and conflict will eventually die down. [b]People

Frankly, we shouldn't even be supporting racist regimes like what exists in Israel anyway.

Did you even read that quote? :confused:

Donny
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:58 AM
Did you even read that quote? :confused:

Yes I read it.

Millions of Americans have deep antipathy towards those who demand equal rights for women and gays who demand equal rights. We get along with them just fine, no?

Sam L
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:02 AM
Yes I read it.

Millions of Americans have deep antipathy towards those who demand equal rights for women and gays who demand equal rights. We get along with them just fine, no?

We're not talking about Americans.

We're talking about terrorism from abroad. Come on, I know you can do it. Read and discuss the topic at hand.

You said that terrorism would cease if the US and Israel did so and so ... but that quote and reports that quote is talking about suggests that's not true.

There is a "deep-rooted antipathy toward Western society, calling for violence against enemies of Islam, including women and gays who demand equal rights."

Donny
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:11 AM
We're not talking about Americans.

We're talking about terrorism from abroad. Come on, I know you can do it. Read and discuss the topic at hand.

You said that terrorism would cease if the US and Israel did so and so ... but that quote and reports that quote is talking about suggests that's not true.

There is a "deep-rooted antipathy toward Western society, calling for violence against enemies of Islam, including women and gays who demand equal rights."

Just leading you to the relevant point. Hate and suicide attacks aren't the same thing. Many people all over the world hate American values. Hell, lots of Europeans hate American values and policy.

Without The War on Terror, the presence of US troops on Muslim holy land, and the support of Zionism, thousands of Muslims wouldn't be willing to kill themselves in the name of jihad. It just wouldn't matter that much. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia after Desert Storm was Bin Laden's main motivation for declaring war.

Sam L
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:14 AM
Just leading you to the relevant point. Hate and suicide attacks aren't the same thing. Many people all over the world hate American values. Hell, lots of Europeans hate American values and policy.

Without The War on Terror, the presence of US troops on Muslim holy land, and the support of Zionism, thousands of Muslims wouldn't be willing to kill themselves in the name of jihad. It just wouldn't matter that much. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia after Desert Storm was Bin Laden's main motivation for declaring war.

It's not just hate, it said "violence against gays and women". It doesn't matter what the US does in the Middle east they'll still hate us and will use violence such as terrorism against us because we give rights to gays and women. So you're wrong.

Cat's Pajamas
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:22 AM
Once Republicans actually find out what Guliani stands for he won't win the Republican nomination. I think Fred Thompson could get the nod, or Mitt Romney if Repubs can get over him being Morman(not gonna lie, not sure I can say I am :unsure: ).

The Democrats are stupid if they elect Hillary. :help:
If they put in a candidate who isn't a Clinton they would win. I know several true independents who said they would vote for anyone other than her. :o


The Democrats should win this election but I think they are handing it away. :tape:

Apoleb
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:24 AM
So you're wrong.


Do you really think people will go all the way to Europe and the US to blow themselves up just because women and gays are given rights in those countries? :lol:
That's obviously one reason, say, Finland or Norway aren't attacked. They give more freedom to gays than the US would probably ever will in the next 30 years.

Ofcourse it doesn't mean that Al Qaeda's objective is just the resistance of the US. They have their own ugly and international domestic agendas. But putting the recent terrorist attacks into perspective, US, UK and Spanish involvement in the politics of the area were very much the main reasons.

When it comes to social issues, they would want to start with their own countries. They disagree with the culture and politics of current Muslim countries almost as much as they do with the West. Their objective is to turn every Muslim country into a Taliban-like state.

Donny
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:25 AM
It's not just hate, it said "violence against gays and women". It doesn't matter what the US does in the Middle east they'll still hate us and will use violence such as terrorism against us because we give rights to gays and women. So you're wrong.


Maybe your right. Or mayyyybe, just maybe, we can see if stop funding a racist state that oppresses millions of Muslims will make them less hostile. Or, you know, stop toppling their governments. And stop killing so many of them. That might help.

mckyle.
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:26 AM
It's in the air. It doesn't matter, they'll all lose the general election.

Sam L
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:33 AM
Do you really think people will go all the way to Europe and the US to blow themselves up just because women and gays are given rights in those countries? :lol:
That's obviously one reason, say, Finland or Norway aren't attacked. They give more freedom to gays than the US would probably ever will in the next 30 years.

Ofcourse it doesn't mean that Al Qaeda's objective is just the resistance of the US. They have their own ugly and international domestic agendas. But putting the recent terrorist attacks into perspective, US, UK and Spanish involvement in the politics of the area were very much the main reasons.

When it comes to social issues, they would want to start with their own countries. They disagree with the culture and politics of current Muslim countries almost as much as they do with the West. Their objective is to turn every Muslim country into a Taliban-like state.

That's true. But the point remains that US middle east policy is not the only thing to blame. If you read the article you'll find that they're disseminating this material in UK mosques. They're calling for UK moderate Muslims to be subjugate women and be violent towards gays. They don't have to blow themselves up. That's not the only type of terrorism.

Sam L
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:35 AM
Maybe your right. Or mayyyybe, just maybe, we can see if stop funding a racist state that oppresses millions of Muslims will make them less hostile. Or, you know, stop toppling their governments. And stop killing so many of them. That might help.

"Racist state"? Anyone with any objectivity in the conflict would not describe Israel like that. You're wasting my time. There are plenty of websites on the Internet calling for all Israeli Jews to be driven into the sea, go join them.

Donny
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:38 AM
That's true. But the point remains that US middle east policy is not the only thing to blame. If you read the article you'll find that they're disseminating this material in UK mosques. They're calling for UK moderate Muslims to be subjugate women and be violent towards gays. They don't have to blow themselves up. That's not the only type of terrorism.

There's also the fact that warfare, death, and poverty sow the seeds of fanaticism- midevil Europe being a great example. Remember that the Islamic Revolution in Iran would never have happened if not for US involvement.

Donny
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:40 AM
"Racist state"? Anyone with any objectivity in the conflict would not describe Israel like that. You're wasting my time. There are plenty of websites on the Internet calling for all Israeli Jews to be driven into the sea, go join them.

It can (and does) grant or deny citizenship based on religion.

I wouldn't tolerate that from my country. Do you?

On July 31, 2003 Israel enacted the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Provision), 5763-2003, a one year amendment to Israel's Citizenship Law denying citizenship and Israeli residence to Palestinians who reside in the West Bank or Gaza Strip and who marry Israelis, though this rule is waived for any Palestinian "who identifies with the State of Israel and its goals, when he or a member of his family has taken concrete action to advance the security, economy or any other matter important to the State." Upon expiry the law was extended for six months in August 2004, and again for 4 months in February 2005.[69] The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination unanimously approved a resolution saying that the Israeli law violated an international human rights treaty against racism.

kittyking
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:49 AM
Russia and China have been trying for fifty plus years to supplant the US as the most powerful nation on earth, and you think a terrorist group will succeed where they failed? Pffft.



If the US cut ceased it's support of Israel, most terrorism would stop. If we took US troops out of Saudi Arabia, nearly all would stop.



Correct Russia tried and failed - wonder why? Its because USA had strong intelligence and a strong defense force, unlike what would happen if Ron ran the White House. China are on the right track to be the most powerful country, but chances are they will have a market crash sometime in the next 20 years.

Al Qaeda doesn't get affected so much by market crash and their very hard to aim at (they dont have a set geographical area like Russia does). Intelligence shows that large parts of Al Qaeda is based somewhere in the middle east, but thats a large and very technical area.

If America ceased it's support of Israel then as the Iranian leader puts it 'Israel will be blown off the map'. Terrorism wouldn't stop, infact if anything it would be perfect place to set up another camp for Al Qaeda. I'm not sure how that would help the planet :confused:

kittyking
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:23 AM
Once Republicans actually find out what Guliani stands for he won't win the Republican nomination. I think Fred Thompson could get the nod, or Mitt Romney if Repubs can get over him being Morman(not gonna lie, not sure I can say I am :unsure: ).

The Democrats are stupid if they elect Hillary. :help:
If they put in a candidate who isn't a Clinton they would win. I know several true independents who said they would vote for anyone other than her. :o


The Democrats should win this election but I think they are handing it away. :tape:

Sorry Blake but I disagree with you on pretty much everything you said there

Rudy Giuliani is a great guy and lets not forget that Oprah Winfrey called him "America's Mayor".

Hillary Clinton is very popular amoungst Democrats and has been ever since Bill Clinton was in office. That would always give her a strong edge over someone like Obama or Edwards. Polls have shown that many independants would never vote for Hillary - unfortunetly polls have also shown that many of these people dont actually vote either :tape:

Philbo
Nov 1st, 2007, 11:10 AM
KittyKing - YOu talk as if Ron Paul wants to tear down all the american intelligence organisations, and leave america with no intelligence capability whatsover ever. You are just brainwashed by the corporate-owned, mainstream media.

I have never seen ROn Paul talk about disbanding the CIA, he does however want to disband the Dept of Homeland Security - the NEW organisation that was only created POST 9/11, that was aimed at bringing all the disparate intelligence systems together and increase communication between departments..

ITs been a monumental mess and waste of time..

Ron Pauls position, and rightly so, is that AMERICA HAD ENOUGH WARNING TO PREVENT 9/11 and were TOO INEFFICENT TO prevent it.. He just doesnt think the solution is a WHOLE NEW LEVEL OF BEURACRACY!

A very conservative position - SMALLER government!!

Keep reading the mainstream media, and keep living your brainwashed, sleeping existence...

sfselesfan
Nov 1st, 2007, 05:28 PM
At least donnydarko's post showed some thought unlike yours :rolleyes:

Posts with no thought don't deserve toughtful responses.

SF

sfselesfan
Nov 1st, 2007, 05:35 PM
Sam L,

I think a lot of what you're stating as the motive for Islamic hate for the US is actually pretext. The real reason they hate us is our interventionism and colonialism. The religious crap is what the powerful use to get the underprivileged to fight their war for them. It's also what the fear mongers (mainstream US media) use to scare people in this country.

I think if we take a step back, then things will calm down. Right now we're only making a big problem bigger...and unmanageable. With nations like China watching and waiting, we cannot afford (financially or politically) to continue down this neo-conservative route. We're going to destroy our economy, and open ourselves up to be taken advantage of by newer emerging super powers.

SF

samsung101
Nov 1st, 2007, 05:43 PM
Rudy can win.
So can Hillary.

Rudy's stands on illegal immigration and
foreign policy are just as important this time
around, as his views on abortion and gay rights.



Really, I think illegal immigration is going to be
a far bigger national issue than say, abortion or
gay rights in 2008.

The fact is Hillary is pro-open borders, pro-illegal
alien driver licenses, and she proved that again this
in the debate again.


Rudy isn't Tancredo-esque at all.
But, he is far more conservative on this issue than
Hillary is.


All in all, Romney could get the top nod with Rudy as VP.
Or vice versa, or Rudy with a conservative GOP Governor
or Senator with him.


Truth is Dobson has said he doesn't want Thompson or Romney
or Rudy. Uh, okay, who then meets his standard?

Huckabee?
But, Huckabee is very liberal on illegal immigration.
That will help him lose votes, not gain them.


This thing is so far off really.
They both have to raise money.
Stay clean.
Stay away from verbal mistakes.
Keep their spouses in line.
Keep their families in line.

Howard Dean was once the nominee top dog.
Al Gore was too in the early 90's for the Dems.
Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter both thought they
would win re-election against unproven opponents.
Look what happened to them.

What worked for Rudy & HIllary to win office in New York will not necessarily
work in winning Colorado or Utah or Texas or Florida or Maine or Michigan.
They need to win as many electoral college votes as possible.

Donny
Nov 2nd, 2007, 12:53 AM
Sam L,

I think a lot of what you're stating as the motive for Islamic hate for the US is actually pretext. The real reason they hate us is our interventionism and colonialism. The religious crap is what the powerful use to get the underprivileged to fight their war for them. It's also what the fear mongers (mainstream US media) use to scare people in this country.

I think if we take a step back, then things will calm down. Right now we're only making a big problem bigger...and unmanageable. With nations like China watching and waiting, we cannot afford (financially or politically) to continue down this neo-conservative route. We're going to destroy our economy, and open ourselves up to be taken advantage of by newer emerging super powers.

SF

Amen.

kittyking
Nov 2nd, 2007, 03:14 AM
KittyKing - YOu talk as if Ron Paul wants to tear down all the american intelligence organisations, and leave america with no intelligence capability whatsover ever. You are just brainwashed by the corporate-owned, mainstream media.

I have never seen ROn Paul talk about disbanding the CIA, he does however want to disband the Dept of Homeland Security - the NEW organisation that was only created POST 9/11, that was aimed at bringing all the disparate intelligence systems together and increase communication between departments..



A recent interview

JUDY WOODRUFF: You'd do away with the CIA, I saw. Is that correct or not?

REP. RON PAUL: The CIA is what gets us into trouble. I mean, the CIA is what really started things in the Middle East, because the CIA went in and overthrew Mosaddeq in 1953. We put in the shah. The CIA murdered Diem, or participated in the overthrow of the government in Vietnam, which leads to trouble.

It's a secret government. Congress has no idea what the CIA is doing, because nobody knows, other than what the CIA is. It is one of the things that is not characteristic of a free society.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/paul_10-12.html

Are you sure that Ron Paul doesn't want to close down the CIA now :tape:

kittyking
Nov 2nd, 2007, 03:17 AM
Rudy can win.
So can Hillary.



Yup thats a nice way of summarising it up :worship:

Donny
Nov 2nd, 2007, 03:46 AM
A recent interview

JUDY WOODRUFF: You'd do away with the CIA, I saw. Is that correct or not?

REP. RON PAUL: The CIA is what gets us into trouble. I mean, the CIA is what really started things in the Middle East, because the CIA went in and overthrew Mosaddeq in 1953. We put in the shah. The CIA murdered Diem, or participated in the overthrow of the government in Vietnam, which leads to trouble.

It's a secret government. Congress has no idea what the CIA is doing, because nobody knows, other than what the CIA is. It is one of the things that is not characteristic of a free society.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/paul_10-12.html

Are you sure that Ron Paul doesn't want to close down the CIA now :tape:

The CIA causes far more harm than good. It should be eliminated.

Osama bin Laden was created by the CIA. So was Saddam. So was The current state of iran.

kittyking
Nov 2nd, 2007, 03:57 AM
The CIA causes far more harm than good. It should be eliminated.

Osama bin Laden was created by the CIA. So was Saddam. So was The current state of iran.

Thats bullcrap and you know it

If the CIA wasn't around then Al Qaeda would be in a stronger position, and would that make you feel safe?

Donny
Nov 2nd, 2007, 04:15 AM
Thats bullcrap and you know it

If the CIA wasn't around then Al Qaeda would be in a stronger position, and would that make you feel safe?

Sigh...

Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States CIA program to arm Islamic mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979-1989. The Program relied heavily on using the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) as an intermediary for funds distribution. Along with funding from similar programs from Britain's MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia and other nations, the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents between 1978 and 1992. Somewhere between $3–$20 billion in US funds were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons, including Stinger surface-to-air missiles.

The CIA literally went aroud giving out money and weapons to fundamentalist Islamicists in Afghanistan. How did that make us safer?


And a black male like myself is more likely to get killed by gunfire than by a terrorist attack. I don't particularly fear Al Qaeda at all actually.

kittyking
Nov 2nd, 2007, 04:23 AM
I don't particularly fear Al Qaeda at all actually.

You will regret saying that

Donny
Nov 2nd, 2007, 04:30 AM
You will regret saying that

Why?

You're more likely to die from food poisoning than die from a terrorist attack. You're more likely to die from a car accident.

Yet you don't care about which candidates will mandate stricter food or automobile safety standards. Why?

kittyking
Nov 2nd, 2007, 04:41 AM
Why?

You're more likely to die from food poisoning than die from a terrorist attack. You're more likely to die from a car accident.

Yet you don't care about which candidates will mandate stricter food or automobile safety standards. Why?

There is a reason why there hasn't been many terrorist attacks in the past couple of years - its because there is great intelligence. But saying that there are more and more Al Qaeda training camps being made, for all we know one could have been started right as I write this post. It doesn't help when the likes or Iran and Syria sponsor them.

People have been dying from food poisoning for thousands of years, thats pretty natural and even though in New Zealand there are heaps of health regulations people still die.
Same goes with cars, people have been in car crashes pretty much ever since they first got on the roads.

Terrorism we can greatly reduce from good intelligence - taking away intelligence is like taking away the road rules

Donny
Nov 2nd, 2007, 04:51 AM
There is a reason why there hasn't been many terrorist attacks in the past couple of years - its because there is great intelligence.

So on September 10, 2001, you'd have said that there hasn't been a terrorist attack in so long because of great intelligence?

The time between the last two attacks on American soil was almost a decade. It's been six year since 9/11. Wait a couple more years before you make a claim like that.



People have been dying from food poisoning for thousands of years, thats pretty natural and even though in New Zealand there are heaps of health regulations people still die.
Same goes with cars, people have been in car crashes pretty much ever since they first got on the roads.

Terrorism we can greatly reduce from good intelligence - taking away intelligence is like taking away the road rules[/B]

Terrorism has been around for farrrr longer than automobiles.

And your logic astounds me. Smallpox has also been around longer than any of those things. So has the flu. Should w enot worry about those?

More people die from preventable accidents and diseases than will ever die from terrorism. We should work on those first.

sfselesfan
Nov 2nd, 2007, 06:38 AM
The CIA causes far more harm than good. It should be eliminated.

Osama bin Laden was created by the CIA. So was Saddam. So was The current state of iran.

Now you get an "amen" brother! Back at ya.

We may disagree on tennis sometimes, but you're speaking my language on this topic for sure.

SF

Scotso
Nov 2nd, 2007, 06:59 AM
The CIA causes far more harm than good. It should be eliminated.

Osama bin Laden was created by the CIA. So was Saddam. So was The current state of iran.

All true, except the last one. I'm not really sure how you can say the CIA created the current state of Iran, it did everything possible to try to keep the Shah in power.

sfselesfan
Nov 2nd, 2007, 07:22 AM
All true, except the last one. I'm not really sure how you can say the CIA created the current state of Iran, it did everything possible to try to keep the Shah in power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mossadegh

Be sure to check out the "Legacy" section near the bottom. Especially Albright's commentary.

SF

kittyking
Nov 2nd, 2007, 08:22 AM
More people die from preventable accidents and diseases than will ever die from terrorism

In the short term yes, in the long term with less intelligence most certainly not

sfselesfan
Nov 2nd, 2007, 08:24 AM
Give up donny...kitty's clearly been thoroughly brainwashed.

SF

kittyking
Nov 2nd, 2007, 08:25 AM
I would just like to say I am honoured to be in 2nd place in the poll

Giuliani/Radford would be a good duo :)

Halardfan
Nov 2nd, 2007, 09:51 AM
The good thing is that Rudy and Romney boths have flaws that turn off the hard right christian base. Rudy has that colourful personal life and is too socially liberal...Romney is a mormon...

If Bush attacks Iran though, who knows who that favours...

kittyking
Nov 2nd, 2007, 10:17 AM
The good thing is that Rudy and Romney boths have flaws that turn off the hard right christian base. Rudy has that colourful personal life and is too socially liberal...Romney is a mormon...

If Bush attacks Iran though, who knows who that favours...

I thought you said Romney was a Moron for a second :o

Philbo
Nov 2nd, 2007, 11:23 AM
DonnyDarko - You own this topic man...

Kittyking - Thanks for the source etc, I hadnt seen those comments previously.. But I do have to add that I still agree with Ron Paul's stance...

kittyking
Nov 2nd, 2007, 11:29 AM
DonnyDarko - You own this topic man...

Kittyking - Thanks for the source etc, I hadnt seen those comments previously.. But I do have to add that I still agree with Ron Paul's stance...

Donnydork - 0 votes

kittyking - 7 votes

Enough said :p

Philbo
Nov 2nd, 2007, 12:02 PM
Donnydork - 0 votes

kittyking - 7 votes

Enough said :p


Kittyking - Included in the poll
DonnyDarko - NOT included in the poll.

Nuff said :)

kittyking
Nov 2nd, 2007, 12:05 PM
Kittyking - Included in the poll
DonnyDarko - NOT included in the poll.

Nuff said :)

kittyking - 7 votes
donnydork - As many votes as John

Enough said

sfselesfan
Nov 2nd, 2007, 03:52 PM
donnydork

I guess that makes you kittyqueen?

Enough said.

SF

Donny
Nov 2nd, 2007, 11:08 PM
kittyking - 7 votes
donnydork - As many votes as John

Enough said

DonnyDork? You remind me of middle school.

kittyking
Nov 3rd, 2007, 05:21 AM
DonnyDork? You remind me of middle school.

You remind me of Ron Paul - and thats not a compliment :tape:

Donny
Nov 3rd, 2007, 05:37 AM
You remind me of Ron Paul - and thats not a compliment :tape:

Seeing as you have not even a rudimentary grasp of the positions of ANY of the GOP candidates, I can't take that as either an insult or a compliment.

kittyking
Nov 3rd, 2007, 05:58 AM
Seeing as you have not even a rudimentary grasp of the positions of ANY of the GOP candidates, I can't take that as either an insult or a compliment.

The really funny thing is that I dont even live in America and have a way better grasp than you :o

kittyking
Nov 3rd, 2007, 07:38 AM
I am very pleased to represent 26.6% of people here :)

Love you all

kittyking
Nov 3rd, 2007, 01:03 PM
Thats upto 28% and I'm only 1 vote behind Rudy (who I voted for) - guys I really wouldnt mind a Rudy/Harley partnership (but by golly does that sound dodgy out loud!)

Donny
Nov 3rd, 2007, 01:03 PM
The really funny thing is that I dont even live in America and have a way better grasp than you :o

You called Ron Paul a libertarian. That says all I need to know about your "grasp" of politics.

kittyking
Nov 3rd, 2007, 01:06 PM
You called Ron Paul a libertarian. That says all I need to know about your "grasp" of politics.

He's stood as the libertarian candidate for President of the United States - his views haven't changed that much over the years. Your knowledge of Ron Paul is about average for his supporters - no surprises that he's not popular amongst Republicans.

kittyking
Nov 4th, 2007, 06:16 AM
Back on topic - it looks like Florida could be key, and from the latest polls Giuliani seems to have a fairly strong lead there.

Donny
Nov 4th, 2007, 06:56 AM
He's stood as the libertarian candidate for President of the United States - his views haven't changed that much over the years. Your knowledge of Ron Paul is about average for his supporters - no surprises that he's not popular amongst Republicans.

Libretarians support him because TRUE conservatism is more closely aligned with their positions than the current GOP. Rudy isn't a conservative. He's socially liberal, and extremely radical when it comes to foreign policy.

kittyking
Nov 4th, 2007, 07:04 AM
Libretarians support him because TRUE conservatism is more closely aligned with their positions than the current GOP. Rudy isn't a conservative. He's socially liberal, and extremely radical when it comes to foreign policy.

We both know what your saying is bullcrap

As I've said previously Conservatism means quite a number of things but broadly it means limited government, free markets, individual liberty, low taxes, personal responsibility and a strong national defense.

Ron Paul is only partly conservative, and in some cases Hillary Clinton is more conservative than him.

Thankfully Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance at winning any of the primaries he has less support than Duncan Hunter. I stand as much of a chance at winning the Republican nomination as he does. (0%)

Donny
Nov 4th, 2007, 07:26 AM
We both know what your saying is bullcrap

As I've said previously Conservatism means quite a number of things but broadly it means limited government, free markets, individual liberty,

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds the principle of individual liberty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Do you think before you type?

And you're wrong anyway- conservatives are against abortion, gay marriage, the legalization of drugs, flag burning- some are even for prayer in school, which amounts to forced religion. Some (most) don't even want you to travel or trade freely with Cuba. Fifty years ago, conservatives fought against blacks who wanted the right to vote, wanted the right to serve on juries, etc. Eighty years ago, they fought against women who wanted the right to vote. 150 years ago, conservatives were against the right of slaves to be treated like human beings.

Conservatives, as a rule, are against personal freedom. Unless personal freedom begins and ends with the ability for the rich to get richer for you.


low taxes

This is another misconception. Taxes pay off debts. Debts must be paid off. They don't get erased- this isn't monopoly, you can't just start over. The debts either get paid off NOW, through higher taxes, or get paid off later, with even higher taxes, because of interest on loans. Bush is cutting taxes, yes- but the escapade he's waging in Iraq is going to cost SOMEONE- maybe not my parents, but certainly me, when I'm in my forties.

This type of procrastination- because that's what this is, delaying the inevitable- wouldn't be tolerated in any other area of life. Not in school, not in the office, not in the home. Yet we basically let our president write IOUs to communist regimes and near autocracies like Russia?


Ron Paul is only partly conservative, and in some cases Hillary Clinton is more conservative than him.

Ron Paul has more in common with the political positions of the founding fathers than he does with most other candudates. How is this not conservative? I'm confused.

kittyking
Nov 4th, 2007, 08:42 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Do you think before you type?

And you're wrong anyway- conservatives are against abortion, gay marriage, the legalization of drugs, flag burning- some are even for prayer in school, which amounts to forced religion. Some (most) don't even want you to travel or trade freely with Cuba. Fifty years ago, conservatives fought against blacks who wanted the right to vote, wanted the right to serve on juries, etc. Eighty years ago, they fought against women who wanted the right to vote. 150 years ago, conservatives were against the right of slaves to be treated like human beings.

Conservatives, as a rule, are against personal freedom. Unless personal freedom begins and ends with the ability for the rich to get richer for you.




This is another misconception. Taxes pay off debts. Debts must be paid off. They don't get erased- this isn't monopoly, you can't just start over. The debts either get paid off NOW, through higher taxes, or get paid off later, with even higher taxes, because of interest on loans. Bush is cutting taxes, yes- but the escapade he's waging in Iraq is going to cost SOMEONE- maybe not my parents, but certainly me, when I'm in my forties.

This type of procrastination- because that's what this is, delaying the inevitable- wouldn't be tolerated in any other area of life. Not in school, not in the office, not in the home. Yet we basically let our president write IOUs to communist regimes and near autocracies like Russia?




Ron Paul has more in common with the political positions of the founding fathers than he does with most other candudates. How is this not conservative? I'm confused.

You didnt read what I said (apparantly you do that to a number of other members too) so I wont even bother about replying to that.

Donny
Nov 4th, 2007, 04:47 PM
You didnt read what I said (apparantly you do that to a number of other members too) so I wont even bother about replying to that.

Fine, ket me deconstruct your post a line at a time.

You said conservatism was about "individual freedom". This is demonstrably false. Care to argue this point?

CooCooCachoo
Nov 4th, 2007, 06:27 PM
:help:

Scotso
Nov 4th, 2007, 09:39 PM
Fine, ket me deconstruct your post a line at a time.

You said conservatism was about "individual freedom". This is demonstrably false. Care to argue this point?

You're actually wrong on this, especially since there are many different schools of conservatism. There's no one meaning. However, most real "conservatives" DO support individial freedom... it's a product of limited government.

kittyking
Nov 5th, 2007, 01:21 AM
You're actually wrong on this, especially since there are many different schools of conservatism. There's no one meaning. However, most real "conservatives" DO support individial freedom... it's a product of limited government.

I agree with Scotso on this one

Well... there's no one meaning but theirs a very broad set of meanings. Eg you would never call higher taxes conservative

Donny
Nov 5th, 2007, 01:41 AM
I agree with Scotso on this one

Well... there's no one meaning but theirs a very broad set of meanings. Eg you would never call higher taxes conservative

Would you call excessive lending from China and Russia conservative? Because that's the only alternative to higher taxes at the moment.

Donny
Nov 5th, 2007, 01:42 AM
You're actually wrong on this, especially since there are many different schools of conservatism. There's no one meaning. However, most real "conservatives" DO support individial freedom... it's a product of limited government.

Depends on what you mean by individual freedom.

For the past century, individual freedom has come to mean social and civil rights.

There hasn't been a prominent conservative for the past eighty years who's been a proponent of these types of rights.

In fact, the periods which saw the biggest gains in individual rights- emancipation, women's suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement- have seen conservatives fiercely opposing any gains in freedoms for oppressed groups.

To put it more simply- if America had simply stayed in place in terms of values and morals since the founding of the nation- the most extreme form of conservatism- blacks would still be treated as chattel, women would be second class citizens, Native Americans wouldn't even be citizens, and Catholics and Jews would be subjected to a Protestant majority.

That doesn't seem very free to me.

But for the sake of argument- name me some famous conservatives fro mthe past, and we'll see how much they favored individual freedom.

kittyking
Nov 5th, 2007, 03:35 AM
Would you call excessive lending from China and Russia conservative? Because that's the only alternative to higher taxes at the moment.

The bullcrap

The best alternative is to lower tax rate - this increases consumption which in turn increases the profits these companies make which means more money goes back from taxes. On top of this business's invest more and become more sustainable long term.

High taxes and borrowing is not the answer

kittyking
Nov 5th, 2007, 03:38 AM
Depends on what you mean by individual freedom.

For the past century, individual freedom has come to mean social and civil rights.

There hasn't been a prominent conservative for the past eighty years who's been a proponent of these types of rights.

In fact, the periods which saw the biggest gains in individual rights- emancipation, women's suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement- have seen conservatives fiercely opposing any gains in freedoms for oppressed groups.

To put it more simply- if America had simply stayed in place in terms of values and morals since the founding of the nation- the most extreme form of conservatism- blacks would still be treated as chattel, women would be second class citizens, Native Americans wouldn't even be citizens, and Catholics and Jews would be subjected to a Protestant majority.

That doesn't seem very free to me.

But for the sake of argument- name me some famous conservatives fro mthe past, and we'll see how much they favored individual freedom.

Once again what you dont understand is that Individual Freedom can mean a broad range of things. It wouldn't surprise me if you started calling it anti-christianity next...

kittyking
Nov 5th, 2007, 10:18 AM
Go kittyking :worship:

Scotso
Nov 5th, 2007, 02:44 PM
In fact, the periods which saw the biggest gains in individual rights- emancipation, women's suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement- have seen conservatives fiercely opposing any gains in freedoms for oppressed groups.

None of those people were true conservatives. They were statists.

But for the sake of argument- name me some famous conservatives fro mthe past, and we'll see how much they favored individual freedom.

We haven't had a true conservative as president. Ron Paul is probably the most high ranking and notable conservative. You simply cannot be a "conservative" and favor a great deal of government control, it's contradictory to the very meaning of the term.

Scotso
Nov 5th, 2007, 02:45 PM
Would you call excessive lending from China and Russia conservative? Because that's the only alternative to higher taxes at the moment.

Bush isn't a conservative, he's a neocon. Huge difference. And taxes now are actually higher than they've ever been. The "tax cuts" are really just a loan. We'll pay for it.

ys
Nov 5th, 2007, 02:47 PM
I think that exactly one year from now Thompson will be celebrating..

Scotso
Nov 5th, 2007, 02:48 PM
High taxes and borrowing is not the answer

You obviously need to read up more about the different candidates' positions. The things you speak of here - personal freedom, low taxes, etc. - are not things that Giuliani embodies. He's one of the biggest statists I've ever witnessed. The fact that many New Yorkers referred to him as a fascist dictator tells me all I really need to know. He turned NYC into a police state during his term of office.

Scotso
Nov 5th, 2007, 02:50 PM
I officially joined the Libertarian Party today, the only time I've ever joined a party.

I also begin working on Ron Paul's presidential campaign this afternoon.

samsung101
Nov 5th, 2007, 10:05 PM
If the GOP knows 100% who the nominee of the Democrats will
be, what other person should they be going after in the primary
campaign phase? No one. It's her. All her.

Hillary cannot play the 'woe is me' card...that's just too old.
She's a tough woman right?
She's selling herself as beating the 'old boy network', and that
is what she has to do.

You can't have it both ways anymore: can't be a tough legitimate candidate
and a whining woman at the same time.


Rudy is the guy right now.

Unless, Romney or Fred wake up and realize they have to play hardball w/Rudy
to win it. Rudy is the guy.

sfselesfan
Nov 5th, 2007, 10:51 PM
High taxes and borrowing is not the answer

I suppose borrowing heavily, spending more than ever, and not raising taxes in a time of war is "fiscally responsible."

SF

kittyking
Nov 6th, 2007, 12:51 AM
You obviously need to read up more about the different candidates' positions. The things you speak of here - personal freedom, low taxes, etc. - are not things that Giuliani embodies. He's one of the biggest statists I've ever witnessed. The fact that many New Yorkers referred to him as a fascist dictator tells me all I really need to know. He turned NYC into a police state during his term of office.

"I've seen how pro-growth policies lead to broader prosperity. We'll not only keep the current tax cuts in place or their equivalent, we’ll enact additional tax relief and give the Death Tax the death penalty. High tax rates hurt business and destroy jobs. I know that tax cuts are good for the economy. It's not just theory for me because I cut taxes and got results as Mayor of New York City. As President, I will cut taxes further."

- Mayor Rudy Giuliani

"America is at a crossroads when it comes to our health care. All Americans want to increase the quality, affordability and portability of health care. Most Republicans believe in free-market solutions to the challenges we face. I believe we can reduce costs and improve the quality of care by increasing competition. We can do it through tax cuts, not tax hikes. We can do it by empowering patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats. That's the American way to reform health care."

- Mayor Rudy Giuliani

kittyking
Nov 6th, 2007, 01:51 AM
And the Bush administration was involved with 9/11, so I won't even get into that debate.

:help:

Scotso
Nov 6th, 2007, 04:48 AM
"I've seen how pro-growth policies lead to broader prosperity. We'll not only keep the current tax cuts in place or their equivalent, we’ll enact additional tax relief and give the Death Tax the death penalty. High tax rates hurt business and destroy jobs. I know that tax cuts are good for the economy. It's not just theory for me because I cut taxes and got results as Mayor of New York City. As President, I will cut taxes further."

- Mayor Rudy Giuliani

"America is at a crossroads when it comes to our health care. All Americans want to increase the quality, affordability and portability of health care. Most Republicans believe in free-market solutions to the challenges we face. I believe we can reduce costs and improve the quality of care by increasing competition. We can do it through tax cuts, not tax hikes. We can do it by empowering patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats. That's the American way to reform health care."

- Mayor Rudy Giuliani

This just proves my point, you know nothing about him so you have to rely on a few quotes you managed to find on Google. And FYI, "cutting taxes" is not really cutting taxes unless you cut spending as well. Cutting taxes while spending more is just a deferment, not a cut.

kittyking
Nov 6th, 2007, 05:20 AM
This just proves my point, you know nothing about him so you have to rely on a few quotes you managed to find on Google. And FYI, "cutting taxes" is not really cutting taxes unless you cut spending as well. Cutting taxes while spending more is just a deferment, not a cut.

Cutting taxes is just that - if done effectively the total revenue can still increase and often does due to an increase in business confidence.

Your not reading my posts, read them and I'll read yours

kittyking has spoken

Donny
Nov 6th, 2007, 05:59 AM
Cutting taxes is just that - if done effectively the total revenue can still increase and often does due to an increase in business confidence.

Your not reading my posts, read them and I'll read yours

kittyking has spoken

Explain why the most prosperous period for the American economy occurred during the Clinton presidency- who, coincidentally, raised taxes.

sfselesfan
Nov 6th, 2007, 02:50 PM
Explain why the most prosperous period for the American economy occurred during the Clinton presidency- who, coincidentally, raised taxes.

*crickets chirping*

SF

Pureracket
Nov 6th, 2007, 03:13 PM
Explain why the most prosperous period for the American economy occurred during the Clinton presidency- who, coincidentally, raised taxes.*silence*

*Looking @ watch*

*Idly whistling*

*checking shoestrings*

*thinking how I could invent another colour*

*wondering if the cute trainer will be in the gym today*

*silence*

Philbo
Nov 6th, 2007, 04:11 PM
Explain why the most prosperous period for the American economy occurred during the Clinton presidency- who, coincidentally, raised taxes.

Silence from KittyKing is now DEAFENING!!!!

Philbo
Nov 6th, 2007, 04:12 PM
I officially joined the Libertarian Party today, the only time I've ever joined a party.

I also begin working on Ron Paul's presidential campaign this afternoon.

More power to you!! Well done and best of luck!!

Scotso
Nov 6th, 2007, 04:45 PM
kittyking has spoken

:help:

kittyking
Nov 6th, 2007, 08:45 PM
Unlike you guys I dont get upto post at 4am :tape:

sfselesfan
Nov 6th, 2007, 09:53 PM
Unlike you guys I dont get upto post at 4am :tape:

*crickets still chirping*

SF

kittyking
Nov 6th, 2007, 10:56 PM
*crickets still chirping*

SF

*waits for seles to return to tour*

*still waiting*
*
*
*still waiting*
*
*
*
*
*......still waiting*
*
*
*zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*

sfselesfan
Nov 6th, 2007, 11:46 PM
*waits for seles to return to tour*

*still waiting*
*
*
*still waiting*
*
*
*
*
*......still waiting*
*
*
*zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*

You're answer to the pending question is about as direct as Rudy Giuliani discussing his views on social issues.

SF

sfselesfan
Nov 7th, 2007, 03:55 AM
You're answer to the pending question is about as direct as Rudy Giuliani discussing his views on social issues.

SF

I know he read this, because he bad repped me 4 it. Note however...he still has not addressed the question at hand.

At least we've learned how to get kittyqueen to STFU.

SF

Philbo
Nov 7th, 2007, 08:59 AM
I know he read this, because he bad repped me 4 it. Note however...he still has not addressed the question at hand.

At least we've learned how to get kittyqueen to STFU.

SF

LOL.. Hilarious.. How pathetic!! Bad rep me too Kittyking PLEASE!! Id wear it as a badge of honour..

kittyking
Nov 11th, 2007, 12:19 PM
Anything much happen when I'm gone (speaking to people who arent in my ignore list)

Scotso
Nov 11th, 2007, 06:31 PM
Anything much happen when I'm gone (speaking to people who arent in my ignore list)

Nice try.

kittyking
Nov 12th, 2007, 05:50 AM
Nice try.

???

Philbo
Nov 14th, 2007, 01:04 PM
Kitty King - I should have realised from the intelligence of your posts that you were only a child.

Do you just believe everything mummy and daddy teach you about politics?

sfselesfan
Nov 14th, 2007, 05:22 PM
(speaking to people who arent in my ignore list)

Typical neo-"con"

SF

samsung101
Nov 14th, 2007, 06:29 PM
As opposed to our typical neo-pros, the new progressives, who are really just our
old liberals who would like us to return to the LBJ era of Great Society projects
to make us feel better inside....all the while, knowing that in 10 years those
housing projects, and huge funding things will just collapse and mask the problems.


Hillary is the Democratic nominee...all this little mess of the past week is nonsense.
She will win the nod. The media only wants to drag this out longer, to get better
ratings and keep us interested in the race.

Rudy will get the nod, unless the Kerik indictment is linked to him personally. As it stands,
old Bernie seems to have done all of this nonsense for personal gain, with his girlfriend,
wife, and his personal pocketbook. Not so much tied to Rudy at that end. Fact is he was a good
cop. Fact is he is one lousy husband and public servant. Too bad. Lock him up. If Martha
went to jail, old Bernie should too if guilty.

If it is linked to Rudy, he will have issues.

Then again, do we hear much about Hsu and the others who are criminals who donated and helped
Hillary and Bill? Not from our Clinton Network News.

sfselesfan
Nov 14th, 2007, 07:16 PM
Somehow the desire to give children healthcare is an LBJ era "Great Society" project? How about, it's the right thing to do!?! I guess you'd rather we spend $1.5 TRILLION murdering children overseas. All the while, not raising taxes and exporting our debt to the very nations who are waiting in the wings to devour us if we overextend ourselves.

If feeling the way I do makes me an LBJ liberal (a president I personally couldn't stand) then so be it. However, I would make the argument that Bush is more like LBJ than I am...getting us into a foreign war we never should have gotten into.

SF

kittyking
Nov 14th, 2007, 11:22 PM
As opposed to our typical neo-pros, the new progressives, who are really just our
old liberals who would like us to return to the LBJ era of Great Society projects
to make us feel better inside....all the while, knowing that in 10 years those
housing projects, and huge funding things will just collapse and mask the problems.


Hillary is the Democratic nominee...all this little mess of the past week is nonsense.
She will win the nod. The media only wants to drag this out longer, to get better
ratings and keep us interested in the race.

Rudy will get the nod, unless the Kerik indictment is linked to him personally. As it stands,
old Bernie seems to have done all of this nonsense for personal gain, with his girlfriend,
wife, and his personal pocketbook. Not so much tied to Rudy at that end. Fact is he was a good
cop. Fact is he is one lousy husband and public servant. Too bad. Lock him up. If Martha
went to jail, old Bernie should too if guilty.

If it is linked to Rudy, he will have issues.

Then again, do we hear much about Hsu and the others who are criminals who donated and helped
Hillary and Bill? Not from our Clinton Network News.

To be totally honest I dont think that many American's care about who gives each candidate money, its way way way more important to vote for a candidate based on their policies than their funding. That said funding from the Nazi party is never a good image :tape:

If Bloomberg decided to run as an Independant which I think he could do then it becomes an issue again, but not until closer to the December election date.

sfselesfan
Nov 14th, 2007, 11:33 PM
Bloomberg would wait until the primaries are over, so December is actually way before it would get interesting. He'd want the candidates in the two major parties to dirty one another up before jumping in. He doesn't need to raise funds so that's not even an issue.

Here's hoping for two Republican NYC mayors in the race vs. one Democrat!

SF

Scotso
Nov 14th, 2007, 11:39 PM
I seriously doubt Bloomberg would want to wait that long. Independents need to get in early, it's good for them. They're not facing people of their own party, so for the most part they're free from attacks and can already start releasing TV ads and such touting themselves as the best choice. It allows them to make themselves look like gold in a time when the Democrats and Republicans are spending their time attacking each other.

The primaries could theoretically last until March or later, and 8 months isn't really enough time to make a good campaign for the presidency.

Ross Perot might have been our President if he hadn't been so indecisive about the race. :shrug:

kittyking
Nov 15th, 2007, 12:30 AM
I seriously doubt Bloomberg would want to wait that long. Independents need to get in early, it's good for them. They're not facing people of their own party, so for the most part they're free from attacks and can already start releasing TV ads and such touting themselves as the best choice. It allows them to make themselves look like gold in a time when the Democrats and Republicans are spending their time attacking each other.

The primaries could theoretically last until March or later, and 8 months isn't really enough time to make a good campaign for the presidency.

Ross Perot might have been our President if he hadn't been so indecisive about the race. :shrug:

The election is stil over a year away, thats still plenty of time to be able to make an impression at the election. I think the ideal time to start would be February 6th, which is a day after Super Tuesday - By then a number of people will be pissed off because their preferred candidate hasn't won/got much of a chance anymore and Bloomberg could well pick up alot of people.
I think it would be really interesting if its a three horse race between Clinton, Giuliani and Bloomberg - and I strongly believe that Giuliani would win in this case.

Ross Perot's time was in 1992, and well he blew it. Bloomberg could to the same, who knows only time will tell.

sfselesfan
Nov 15th, 2007, 01:28 AM
I think the gameplan is to wait until the two major parties batter each other so much that a large enough chunk of people become disinfranchised with both parties.

kittyqueen, the problem with your Giuliani winning a three person race scenario is that a majority of people in America have come to blame Republicans for the problems of the last 7 years. I see a lot of Republican votes going to a third party candidate. I don't see a lot of middle of the road Dems shaving off and voting for a third party. Dems learned from that mistake in 2000 and are taking this race much more seriously than the Republican base.

SF

kittyking
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:43 AM
I think the gameplan is to wait until the two major parties batter each other so much that a large enough chunk of people become disinfranchised with both parties.

kittyqueen, the problem with your Giuliani winning a three person race scenario is that a majority of people in America have come to blame Republicans for the problems of the last 7 years. I see a lot of Republican votes going to a third party candidate. I don't see a lot of middle of the road Dems shaving off and voting for a third party. Dems learned from that mistake in 2000 and are taking this race much more seriously than the Republican base.

SF

America is in a fine state, there would have been far more problems under Gore or Kerry - infact they cause far more problems than Bush when their not even President!!!

Michael Bloomberg is appealing to centre voters, if people complain that Rudy Giuliani isn't right wing enough then they wont exactly vote for Bloomberg over him. If someone far right like Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination then Michael Bloomberg will pick up a number of people who would have normally favoured Giuliani and boo-yaa Hillary wins easily.

Democrats didn't learn from the 2000 race, the idea's to stick up someone who appeals to the right not someone that calls troops or people in general stupid and inconsiderate. Hillary Clinton is the Democrats strongest candidate since her husband, but there is still a long way to go....

Philbo
Nov 15th, 2007, 10:05 AM
America is in a fine state, there would have been far more problems under Gore or Kerry - infact they cause far more problems than Bush when their not even President!!!



:lol: :lol: :lol: Spoken like a true child...

kittyking
Nov 16th, 2007, 12:17 PM
Looking at the latest polls Mitt Romney seems to have all but secured all the early primaries at this stage. Thankfully most of the election comes down to Super Tuesday. Fred seems to be all but out of the picture now, this helps Mitt alot more than Rudy though.

Mitt Romney has as much chance of being the next President whether he wins the Republican Nomination or not - its absolutely zero. This is the reason why Rudy has recieved so many endorsements, including a number by people who wouldn't normally pick Rudy as their first choice. Rudy has a chance at being Hillary Clinton, no one else does.

sfselesfan
Nov 16th, 2007, 03:34 PM
I'm starting to think kittyqueen is actually in Alabama and not overseas. Too interested/brainwashed.

SF

kittyking
Nov 18th, 2007, 05:42 AM
I'm starting to think kittyqueen is actually in Alabama and not overseas. Too interested/brainwashed.

SF

:help:

kittyking
Nov 19th, 2007, 10:35 AM
Yay not far away now

kittyking
Nov 20th, 2007, 09:58 AM
The latest Rasmussen Poll in Iowa isnt good news for Thompson

Mitt Romney leads by a massive margin, McCain has leapt back into second, Giuliani's slipped back to third, Ron Paul is a surprising 4th (still with less than 9% of the vote though), Mike Huckabee is next and well then theirs Thompson :eek:

kittyking
Nov 21st, 2007, 10:48 PM
GO kittyking!

kittyking
Nov 22nd, 2007, 02:58 AM
I've just taken the lead off Giuliani :woohoo:

Philbo
Nov 22nd, 2007, 09:09 AM
How tragic.

kittyking
Nov 22nd, 2007, 09:29 AM
How tragic.

I disagree

Meghanns Journey
Nov 22nd, 2007, 12:28 PM
I'm starting to think kittyqueen is actually in Alabama and not overseas. Too interested/brainwashed.

SF

LOL! I was thinking the same thing. ;)

kittyking
Nov 22nd, 2007, 12:32 PM
LOL! I was thinking the same thing. ;)

I wish, if I was in America I would be too busy stalking Giuliani :lol:

kittyking
Nov 27th, 2007, 09:35 AM
Go Rudy!

Sam L
Dec 5th, 2007, 03:52 AM
Huckabee Catching Up to Giuliani as Top Republican, Poll Shows (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aVlXsjgdykO4&refer=home)

Well done Coocoo and RoanHJ. He's not there yet though.
(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aVlXsjgdykO4&refer=home)

kittyking
Dec 5th, 2007, 09:55 AM
Huckabee is getting a pretty easy ride through the first few primaries, mainly because Giuliani, Thompson and McCain seemed to give up on them awhile ago. Leading upto the vote in Florida and Super Tuesday expect there to be far more criticism about Huckabee - it will be interesting to see whether he can keep his cool under this pressure and possibly secure himself the VC spot. I still don't think that Mike Huckabee will actually win the Democratic nomination, because when things get messy I can't see him rising out of the mud - saying that he would have a far better chance at being Clinton than Mitt Romney - on latest polls Mitt Romney would even loose to Clinton, Obama, Edwards and even Richardson :o
Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_200 8_presidential_election

kittyking
Dec 5th, 2007, 09:57 AM
Eek! Also just saw that Rudy and Huckabee were tied at 18% all overall on the poll done just a few hours ago!!! The polls must be messed up :o