Join Rudy 2008

[Jon]

So Rudy Giuliani has formed an exploratory committee in regards to the presidency. I won't comment but wanted to see what everyone thought.

[Heather]

I love Rudy. Always have.

[OTH man]

Ru-dy! Ru-dy!

sorry, i had to quote the movie there

[Heather]

I really do love him. I always thought he would make a great Attorney General as a stepping stone to the Presidency...not that he needs a stepping stone...lol. He's more than proved himself as a leader, and has an amazing ability to not only deal with the press, but to stay cool and focused under the most strenuous circumstances.

Plus, he's a Yankee fan...

[Kari]

Well, if it has to be a Republican I think Rudy Guiliani would in fact be the best choice for this world and as far as I can tell for America.
He is an experienced man with great intellect and human qualities and I could definitely live with him.
He would be endlessly better than the current US president :)

[BellaBlack]

He would be endlessly better than the current US president :)

Agreed.

Aside from 9/11, I don't know much about Rudy. He was great then but I don't want to judge. I can say he seems like the most popular Republican canidate right now.

[Ashlyn]

He's my favorite Republican, I think.

Even though I disagree with him on some idealogical points, I think he could make a great president. I'm not sure i'd agree with the way he'd handle the Iraq war, but i'd like him to be the republican candidate, because then we'll have somebody good no matter what.

[BellaBlack]

Can anyone post any facts/his ideas/etc on here?

[Heather]

Well, he's pro-choice. He's actually one of the more liberal Republicans. When asked why he was a republican he said: "Democrats dream of making a better world. Republicans try to make THIS world better."

[Kari]

Yeah...and while that sounds really witty, it doesn't really get anybody forward. I think there are both types on both sides.

[killer_cab]

Even though I am a very open democrat, I really like Rudy. I mean, his views, most of the time, are very congruent with mine. Though if he becomes the Republican candidate, it'll be a tough battle, since he is so liberal.

[Heather]

He's actually more of a Republican. The only really liberal stance I can think of his is that he is pro-choice. Which I dont mind, since I am too.

[BellaBlack]

I'm having a dumb moment right now..pro choice is pro abortion right?

I'm like Ali and Kari...esp. since I'm more liberal/Democratic than conservative Republican..but Rudy is a very tempting choice. I don't want to decide right now, I'll see who becomes the final Republican candidate.

[Heather]

Pro-choice means its the woman's choice. Pro-life means anti-abortion.

[BellaBlack]

Oh okay, that clears things up thanks :up:

[OTH man]

thats one thing im against, i think if aortion is used as a "Oh, whoops, didnt mean for that to happen, oh well *pops pill* all gone" that person is commiting murder, it should only be used if being pregnant is harmful to the baby and the mother and i think a woman should have a choice in the case of rape... *sigh* [/rant]

[Heather]

Im against that too. Im completely against abortion as birth control. But at the same time, Im a woman. I dont want someone EVER telling me what I can or cant do with my own body.

[BellaBlack]

Abortion as birth control is a big no for me. I'd say any other reason I'm for it.

But this isn't an abortion thread, back to Rudy..

[Heather]

We have been talking about Rudy. But since abortion is a big issue with most Conservatives, and Rudy doesnt agree with them on it, its completely valid to talk about it in here.

[BellaBlack]

Okay fine, back to abortion and Rudy then. Do you think his pro choice will affect his chances with the Conservatives?

[Heather]

With some of them, yes.

[BellaBlack]

That'd actually be interesting to see.

[Heather]

While I live in a liberal state, most of the conservatives around here are pretty open minded about abortion, alot of Conservatives arent. The religious right is a huge contingent. And they are dead set against abortion.

What gets me, is that it shouldnt even be an issue. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned at some point (which it wont be), it wouldnt make abortion illegal. It would become a state matter, which is what it should have been to begin with.

[BellaBlack]

That's what I'm thinking. There are so many reasons a woman can get an abortion. Ranging from rape to she isn't ready to have a child. No one should control a person's body.

[Jon]

That's what I'm thinking. There are so many reasons a woman can get an abortion. Ranging from rape to she isn't ready to have a child. No one should control a person's body.

She isn't ready to have a child? So that's the reason why women should be able to legally get an abortion? If someoneisn't ready to have a child, then she shouldn't be having sex then. Abortion is not birth control.

[OTH man]

She isn't ready to have a child? So that's the reason why women should be able to legally get an abortion? If someoneisn't ready to have a child, then she shouldn't be having sex then. Abortion is not birth control.
i'll second that

if you arent ready for a child- you arent ready to lose your virginity

[Ashlyn]

She isn't ready to have a child? So that's the reason why women should be able to legally get an abortion? If someoneisn't ready to have a child, then she shouldn't be having sex then. Abortion is not birth control.

Says who?

I'm not particularly for abortion as birth control either, but what right do you have to say what a medical procedure can be used as? In my eyes, abortion is either right, or wrong. I think it's okay. If it was murder, then it would be murder whether it's rape or birthcontrol or whatever. I don't understand people who are for or against abortion on a case by case basis.

[oclover24]

Rudy's stance on abortion could help him win some key liberal votes....

[OTH man]

Says who?

I'm not particularly for abortion as birth control either, but what right do you have to say what a medical procedure can be used as? In my eyes, abortion is either right, or wrong. I think it's okay. If it was murder, then it would be murder whether it's rape or birthcontrol or whatever. I don't understand people who are for or against abortion on a case by case basis.
i only say that because i wouldnt want someone to be pregnant, die because of it, and in turn killing two lives

[Heather]

Rudy's stance on abortion could help him win some key liberal votes....
True. But in order to be the Republican candidate, he first has to win the Republican primaries. And alot of states have closed primaries. Thats the hurdle he needs to overcome.

[Ashlyn]

i only say that because i wouldnt want someone to be pregnant, die because of it, and in turn killing two lives

But you said you were against it in the matter of rape as well, so, it's only murder if she chose to have sex? Where is the logic there? If you REALLY conceived it as murder, rape wouldn't be an issue.

But, as this isn't an abortion thread...

I really hope Rudy wins the republican primaries. I think some republicans will see that Rudy is more likely to get liberal votes than any other Republican. That being said, I think Rudy will have to offer a clear Iraq plan to the people, because the nation as a whole seems to be pretty fed up with this war. Rudy will have to offer assurance that he can lead, if he wants to swing the moderate vote and win the election.

Part of me hopes that Rudy DOESNT get the vote, because McCain is far more out-of-touch with today's Americans, and much more likely to lose, but, if Rudy gets it, we'll have someone sensible in the White House, no matter what, at least on domestic issues, and even if I disagree with him on foreign policy, I do think he would be very capable at running his administration.

[BellaBlack]

There are so many things that go into it, Jon and Kevin. Like Eyeshine said, because a woman chooses to have sex it's murder? What if the condom breaks? What if the condom doesn't break? It's not 100% sure either way. One of my friends was about to go to college on a scholarship when she got pregnant, her parents kicked her out and her bf left her. I guess she was stupid on the fact that she didn't take any birth control, but she did use condoms with her boyfriend. She got an abortion and she still regrets it at a point, but I think if she wasn't ready and had an education ahead of her, she was right. She lost the scholarship before she even got the abortion. Sometimes the whole "you can take care of a baby and go to school at the same time" is easier said than done. Some women are lucky enough to do it, with the support of their family. Some just can't. It's even easier for guys to say that since they aren't in the same situation and the guy gets off the hook when a woman gets an abortion unless they agree on the abortion or they don't know. So don't tell me it's a method of birth control. It wasn't for my friend, and I doubt it's birth control for other women.

I'm not concluding that as birth control. It's birth control to me if the woman purposely doesn't use protection, gets pregnant, doesn't care and gets an abortion. It's a case by case purpose. You can't judge every woman on the most common cases we hear of.

As for Rudy, I don't know what all the candidates have to get through..primaries..I think there's something else...it won't suprise me if he makes it, he has a lot of support from 9/11. Aside from being pro choice, what else does he support? Gay marriage..for or against? Where does he stand on health care and immigration? Etc?

[Heather]

Guys, lets stay on track here. We're talking about Rudy, keep that in mind.

[Heather]

So I heard Sean interviewing Rudy on my way home from work today. It was so refreshing hearing him talk about the situation in Iraq. He definitely has my vote.

[BellaBlack]

what did he say about it? The only Iraq war proposition I've heard from a presidental canidate hopeful has been the March 2008 one from Obama..

[Heather]

Well, he has a very unique perspective, actually. Since he survived 2 terrorist attacks (9/11, and London) it effects him more than your average politician. He is for the action against, Iraq, which he fully explained. But at the same time, it doesnt bother him that alot of Americans are against it. He talked alot about the House, and Senators. He said, "if you dont agree with the war in Iraq, thats fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But at least stand up, and take a stand. Dont turn back on your own words because of popularity polls. Stand up." He said he would have more respect for the liberals if they just made a stand, instead of being behind the war when the polls are positive, and against it when they are negative. He wants them to take a stance, and stand by it, and said that this isnt a political issue, and shouldnt be. Its about protecting America.

He also went into the resolution that Congress passed, and how there were at least five points to that resolution. And only one of them had to do with WMDs.

I only caught the last ten minutes of the interview, and alot was discussed, he said alot, that had me applauding him.

But I have to say, it was refreshing to see a politician saying how the war on terrorism isnt a political issue, and shouldnt be. Because I completely agree with that sentiment.

[BellaBlack]

Are liberals really wishy washy when it comes to the war like that? I didn't know, everyone I know, from either party, has been behind their opinion the whole time.

It all sounds good..I don't want to get too attached to anyone though...I'll wait to learn more and see what final 2 make it. I find his speech ironic concerning me though because I will get a chance to stand up for my beliefs because I'll finally be able to vote for the next president.

[Heather]

Are liberals really wishy washy when it comes to the war like that? I didn't know, everyone I know, from either party, has been behind their opinion the whole time
Actually, yes, they have been. When things are going good, they say, "I voted for the resolution!" when things go bad, they bash the President.

[BellaBlack]

That's interesting to see. I can see that, I remember when after 9/11 everyone was for Bush and the War...now it's quite the opposite.

[Heather]

My mother said something interesting to me the other day.

If you had a President, who's top aide had 7 minutes warning of a terrorist attack. And it took that aid 4 minutes to get to the President. Meaning, you had a President, who on 3 minutes notice, was told of an incoming terrorist attack. Who would you want in the oval office?

For me, the answer was undoubtly Rudy.

The rest is just silly and insubstantial for me. I dont care that he's pro-choice. I dont care that he's for stricter gun laws (while Im a member of the NRA). All I care about is that when faced with a terrorist attack, he would be the best person to lead us.

[Quinton]

err... wrong thread. I thought this was about Rudy Huxtable. My bad. But since I'm here...

She isn't ready to have a child? So that's the reason why women should be able to legally get an abortion? If someoneisn't ready to have a child, then she shouldn't be having sex then. Abortion is not birth control.Abortion is not birth control. Abstinence and education are. Suppose abortion was outlawed and in its place male castration came into practice? We'd see a hell of a lot being done about safe sex then.

In any case men should have no say in abortion until men are genetically capable of experiencing pregnancy.

[BellaBlack]

That's an interesting point Heather..I have NO idea who I'd want though.

What's with Rudy's stricter gun laws? Isn't that good?

[Jon]

err... wrong thread. I thought this was about Rudy Huxtable. My bad. But since I'm here...

Abortion is not birth control. Abstinence and education are. Suppose abortion was outlawed and in its place male castration came into practice? We'd see a hell of a lot being done about safe sex then.

In any case men should have no say in abortion until men are genetically capable of experiencing pregnancy.

Well Quinton, firstly as a mod you know this doesn't belong in this thread, but anyways! I don't necessarily agree with your comment. And I say that for the simple reason that you're right men are genetically not capable of experiencing pregnancy, however men are genetically contributing to a woman's pregnancy. With that said, men have as much right to the baby as the woman does, experiencing pregnancy not withstanding. Until women are having abortions from somehow getting pregnant without ANY man contributing to said pregnancy, then come back to me about men not having any say simply because we aren't the ones experiencing it. "It takes two to tango" or in this case it takes two to get pregnant, no matter if it's from sex or artificial insemenation or other means. It still takes a man, and thus we'll always have our say unless we waive those rights.

[OTH man]

i agree with jon, plus havent you ever heard a woman say "we're pregnant" before? i remember my teacher always said that and we thought it was so weird but, its just as much his baby/responsibilty as it is hers

[Heather]

Another thing I love about Rudy? The way he completely shuts down the liberal press. They try to spin something, and he calls them on it, and effectively shuts them up. Its a beautiful thing to behold. :lol:

And can we PLEASE stay on topic here, people. Abortion yes, is an issue. But its not the only one where Guiliani is concerned. We're supposed to be talking about him as a candidate. Lets keep that in mind.

Another reason I love him? I grew up in the NYC of Koch and Dinkinks. (Who are both Democrats), and back then NY was not safe. When we would go to Hell's Kitchen to pick up my dad when he was working late, mom wouldnt let me out of the car. Now, its much safer. NY is no longer the dangerous place it was in the 80s, and he did that. :applause:

[Quinton]

Well Quinton, firstly as a mod you know this doesn't belong in this threadWell I'm not a mod anymore so...

But anyway, I like Rudy. I think he's slick and kinda refreshing. I also think he hit the nail on the head when he noted that there have always been disastrous policy failures and miscalculations to which he then used fair examples to illustrate his point.

We'll see how he gets on :)

[Ashlyn]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/12/giuliani.race/index.html

Apparently he's leading the rage with a double-digit lead these days. Considering his opinions on social issues, I take that as a victory for America. If he's the republican candidiate, we'll have two candidates who are pro-gay marriage, pro-abotion, and anti-gun. Sign me up for that race.

[Kari]

It sounds like he would be better than what is now...definitely.

[Ashlyn]

Short of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, it's hard to think of anybody who wouldn't be better. :lol:

[jillian]

at this point my main concern is that i have money and don't speak arabic so he's my man.

[Ashlyn]

I'm not quite sure I get your drift, jillian.

[Metaphysics]

So Rudy Giuliani has formed an exploratory committee in regards to the presidency. I won't comment but wanted to see what everyone thought.


Rudy has some dignity, especially after introducing the zero tolerance policy in new york which severly reduced crime in new york over all but the poverty rate has gotten worse and worse while his time there. However, he's republican blood and was for the war on Iraq, the patriot act as well the whole war on terror...and now IRAN....so I am telling you , when it comes to his show down in 2008, I really think he's going to loose. The people of the USA as well as my fellow citizens here in the UK are FED UP of the war on Iraq....and by 2008 Bin Laden isn't captured then I see every reason why people going to vote Democrats. I think it's going be a Democratic LANDSLIDE victory...I'd like see Barak Obama as president, see a black man whopping a white man's ass lol.

I'll post some more juice later

Hannity also said, the reason the republicans lost the mid-term elections because we need to return to Reganite politics......so what does that mean...preaching to the Christian Rite in getting votes like the 1980 election and giving weapons to the middle east (having another Iran-contra scandal), sounds pretty good stratgey to me :rolleyes:

[jillian]

i meant that i want someone who will be proactive on protecting me from terrorists and will keep my taxes low so that I can afford to live. He's not likely to be as able to forget, as many people on the left do so easily, what happened on and before 9/11.


in re to Metaphysics post : i don't see you going on about all the blood on the hands of the terrorists and the governments that were complicit in allowing terrorist cells to operate and flourish in their countries. because were it not for them, we would have had no war on terror.

[Metaphysics]

in re to Metaphysics post : i don't see you going on about all the blood on the hands of the terrorists and the governments that were complicit in allowing terrorist cells to operate and flourish in their countries. because were it not for them, we would have had no war on terror.

The terror cells that operate and flourish in thier countries (mostly in Eastern Europe - the secret terror cells in which America had put there, against the soverign authority of that country) use the act torture which goes against the Universal Delcaration of Human Rights act of 1948 which funnily, the American Preident Roosevalt had signed. Those terror cells hold terroists yes, but there are also TERROR SUSPECTS. Thier thinking is backwards...your are guilty until proven innocent, than innocent till proven guilty, please explain what the world has come to? (as well not granting constutional rights for terror suspects in gunatanmo bay)

There's blood on the hands on the terrorists but is there blood on the hands of 'terror suspects'? 2 days ago, a Britian was freed from Guantanmo Bay after 5 years of hell....he was terror suspect treated just like a terrorist who had committed the act, guilty till proven innocent.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/01/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Guantanamo.php

It's whether 9/11 had happened or not that there would have been a war on terror...

I didn't exactly get your message to me as it didnt make sense but i gave it a shot from what I could interpret from it...:poke:


i meant that i want someone who will be proactive on protecting me from terrorists and will keep my taxes low so that I can afford to live. He's not likely to be as able to forget, as many people on the left do so easily, what happened on and before 9/11.


You want someone who will be proactive on protecting you AND keeping your taxes low? Hmmm. You need to fund the people whos gonna protect and keeping taxes low isn't gonna help, having low taxes and increase government spending is creating a deficit in fisical policy. Eg...you decrease taxes right now who the hell is gonna fund the troops?

I am not for defunding the tropps like Democrats wanna propose, I am only for getting them out. Furthermore, cutting taxes is gonna get the bougeroisies smiling even more, cutting taxes right now is a very bad idea.

[jillian]

cutting taxes increases tax revenue and also allows people with more money to invest. if the rich spend money on yachts, someone has to build, maintain and sell the yahts. if they invest then more jobs can be created. the government does not make jobs. if we decrease funding on unnessisary pork, we can tax taxes, take in more revenue and have more money left over to look at the national debt.

as for the war, i agree that our hand was definitally in a lot of those cells. but if you look at it, jimmy carter was responsible for destabilizing the middle east by not backing the shah of iran and turning the area over to ayatollah khomeini. we can go back and forth pointing fingers forever at democrats and republicans in office, but we have the mess that we have now, and backing out of a conflict has yet to have been productive (see Vietnam / Korea). i don't think rudy will back down and will see it out to it's probably bitter end. that's why i like him.

also i'd just like to say this is the most civil political board i've ever visited. you guys rock.

[Heather]

cutting taxes increases tax revenue and also allows people with more money to invest. if the rich spend money on yachts, someone has to build, maintain and sell the yahts. if they invest then more jobs can be created. the government does not make jobs. if we decrease funding on unnessisary pork, we can tax taxes, take in more revenue and have more money left over to look at the national debt.

as for the war, i agree that our hand was definitally in a lot of those cells. but if you look at it, jimmy carter was responsible for destabilizing the middle east by not backing the shah of iran and turning the area over to ayatollah khomeini. we can go back and forth pointing fingers forever at democrats and republicans in office, but we have the mess that we have now, and backing out of a conflict has yet to have been productive (see Vietnam / Korea). i don't think rudy will back down and will see it out to it's probably bitter end. that's why i like him.

also i'd just like to say this is the most civil political board i've ever visited. you guys rock.
Wow...that post rocked beyond words. Seriously!

And its so true. MOst people dont realize that the war with Al Queda and the Middle East goes back to the 1970s. They think it is a current problem, a problem of the Bush Administration. IT ISNT!!!!

He is just the first President, Commander in Chief, to take the fight to them, and rightly so. I could outline the history of it for you, but it would be a very long winded post. :lol:

[oclover24]

Could you even say that it goes back to Eisenhower and the Eisenhower Doctrine, with Eisenhower promising to protect any oil-rich countries that were threatened by Communism??

[Heather]

Ideologically, yes...although technically I dont believe it really began until around 1975. Thats when they first unofficially declared war on us, and bit by bit got more outgoing with their attacks.

The point is, this isnt a recent problem. Its one that has been festering for decades, and is now coming to a boil.

[Webeh]

especially after introducing the zero tolerance policy in new york which severly reduced crime in new york over all.

The zero tolerance policy reduced the crime rate, not necessarily the crime itself. This plan from Juliani was actually pretty controversial within the criminology community. There were a lot of questions about how the decreased numbers were being acquired.

Beyond that, I know very little about Juliani. His public face does seem to create confidence and feelings of safety in the public. Also, if he does support same-sex marriage and other various political/social rights, I'd say good for him.

[Ashlyn]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rudy Giuliani's message to social conservatives: If you don't like my views, don't vote for me.

The Republican presidential frontrunner Thursday reaffirmed his support for federal funding for some abortions, a position which puts him at odds with many conservatives. During a press conference at the State Capitol in Columbia, South Carolina, he said he didn't expect to win over 100 percent of the voters.

"If that's real important to you, if that's the most important thing, I'm comfortable with the fact that you won't vote for me," the former mayor said.

Although Giuliani said he is does not like abortion, he said he would not change the standing law. Specifically, he said would not change the Hyde amendment, which restricts federal funding for abortion to cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.

"I'm against abortion, I hate it, I wish there never was an abortion and I would counsel a woman to have an adoption instead of an abortion," the former New York mayor said. "But ultimately I believe it is an individual right and the woman can make that choice."

Giuliani also said this to CNN's Dana Bash in an interview Wednesday.

The current law also leaves the decision up to each individual state and Giuliani said he agreed with that. South Carolina is in the process of passing a law that would require pregnant women to see an ultrasound before having an abortion.
-- CNN's Lauren Kornreich

From Here (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker)

There is really something refreshing about how honest he is about where he stands. He's not playing both sides hoping to draw in voters. While I'd still like to see any democratic candidate in the office before him, I think Giuliani is an amazing step in the right (or is that left? ;)) direction for the Republican party, as well as for America.

Imagine if in his election, both presidential candidates were willing to allow gay people the right to marry and allow women the right to choose. I'm giddy just thinking of it.

[Heather]

Rudys always been honest to a fault. Its what has always set him apart from other candidates. He doesnt pussyfoot. He says what he thinks, even if its not popular. Its an admirable quality in a politician.

[jillian]

i really like his honesty and the fact that he generally allows people to make thier own descisions even if he disagrees with him. he's not afraid to be morally againt same sex marriage but at the same time he won't legislate it. i really don't know of another politician that i can say the same thing for.

[Metaphysics]

[quote]cutting taxes increases tax revenue and also allows people with more money to invest


wha? cutting taxes does increase revenue?! cutting taxes just increases an incentive to spend/invest.. :wtf:



if the rich spend money on yachts, someone has to build, maintain and sell the yahts. if they invest then more jobs can be created. the government does not make jobs. if we decrease funding on unnessisary pork, we can tax taxes, take in more revenue and have more money left over to look at the national debt.

decrase funding on what uncessary pork? - I know one, get the troops out...the national debt has significantly increased b/c of the Iraq war.

tax taxes cancels out to just taxing, no matter what happens it's a tax over all. If you start encouraging too much investment it can eventually lead to inflation level rising and would need to use monetary policy to induce the inflation level.


Rudy most certainly has balls, he does say whats on his mind regardless but at the end of the day 80% of his policy I don't like, I doubt it he will win...I am confident the Democrats will take it in 2008.

[Webeh]

I doubt it he will win...I am confident the Democrats will take it in 2008.

Not being too familiar with the US political playing field, I can't argue this point. But from what I hear, I do think the next election will definitely be an interesting one. It looks like that both parties will be headed by some very poweful figureheads.

[Metaphysics]

I think majority of the ppl are pretty much irritated with the "republican" agenda....it's time for a change....a shift lolz....to the left

[Webeh]

I think majority of the ppl are pretty much irritated with the "republican" agenda....it's time for a change....a shift lolz....to the left

I think this might be hard to tell because of the shift in party leaders. A lot of the blame being directed towards the Republicans, may be grounded moreso in Bush than the party itself. A new leader might be enough of a change that voters no longer associate the past problems with the parties themself. (I've seen that happen often enough in Canada. Who's to say that can't happen in the US?)

Also, if Juliani is as liberal as people are saying, that might be enough to sway a significant proportion of the liberals to vote for him. (I really can't see it going the other way, unless the Democrats become more conservative.)

Anyways, we'll see later. Maybe it'll be a tight race again.

[Heather]

I think majority of the ppl are pretty much irritated with the "republican" agenda....it's time for a change....a shift lolz....to the left
You mean other than the ultra liberals like Nancy Pelosi, who already control the Congress, and are pissing off a large portion of the American people with their radical agenda?

The thing with elections, is you win by appealing to the moderates. That is the key. Guiliani has never flip flopped on his stance on social issues. That will appeal to alot of Americans, even if fically and on national security he completely supports the republican agenda.

The only Democratic candidate who is trying to appeal to the moderates is Hillary. But thats a problem, because her past stances were always uberliberal, which makes her seem untrustworthy.

That is going to come back and haunt her.

[jillian]

I agree. I also think that Hillary and Obama are going after each other's throats. Rudy will just have to stand back and watch while the democrats tear each other to pieces.

Also going back to the tax cuts thing, there have been increases in jobs and investment into business creating higher paying jobs also after pretty much every tax cut ever. Also the fact that you think that the only blight on the budget causing the deficit is the war is scary. :)

[Metaphysics]

Guiliani has never flip flopped on his stance on social issues. That will appeal to alot of Americans, even if fically and on national security he completely supports the republican agenda.
.


It his integrity that will appeal to americans but it's also whether the policies are sound and just in convincing the american people to vote for him...and I really don't like any of them.

[jillian]

...and I really don't like any of them.



why does that not surprise me? :)

[oclover24]

I defintely agree with you Heather - appeal to the moderates, and you've got it. And I think Rudy's got that appeal.

[Ashlyn]

Metaphysics, I have to disagree. While Rudy's international policies aren't my cup of tea -- at all -- the man's stance on social issues is rather liberal. It's something to be excited about... if he's the Republican candidate, I'd say that's a huge step up for that party and for America.

Part of me is a little worried that if Rudy gets elected, we'll never get out of Iraq, and you're right, he does have an intense amount of appeal to moderates. If he gets the nomination -- he could win. Then again, while I'd prefer to see a democratic winner, I still think that our nation would be in good hands, at least domestically, with Rudy.

Then again, we can only improve, in my humble opinion, from where we are now.

[Metaphysics]

Metaphysics, I have to disagree. While Rudy's international policies aren't my cup of tea -- at all -- the man's stance on social issues is rather liberal. It's something to be excited about... if he's the Republican candidate, I'd say that's a huge step up for that party and for America.

Part of me is a little worried that if Rudy gets elected, we'll never get out of Iraq, and you're right, he does have an intense amount of appeal to moderates. If he gets the nomination -- he could win. Then again, while I'd prefer to see a democratic winner, I still think that our nation would be in good hands, at least domestically, with Rudy.

Then again, we can only improve, in my humble opinion, from where we are now.



Lol, maybe saying I hate all his policies was abit of an overstatment cos of sheer dislike for the republcian party.....

Hmm, you do have a point in some of his policies (his foreign policy I still remain adament....and his monetary policy) , I am gonna list them .....what is a bitch is that we have Hilary whos more Liberal Conservative and Rudy as appearing to be Conservative Liberal.....

[jillian]

i don't really see hillary as a "conservative" liberal. i think she's trying to come across as one now b/c it's election time but i haven't really seen any actual conservativish (so not a word) things that she's done.

[Heather]

Metaphsics, Id also like to point out that your stance on taxes and the economy, is dead wrong. Its common sense, really.

You cut taxes, and that means more money in the pockets of Americans, which stimulates the economy. Tax cuts are a good thing.

[Ashlyn]

I think it's a bit unfair to say that a stance can be wrong.

Though there is merit to the idea of tax cuts, there is also merit, at least in my eyes, and I'm sure Metaphysics agrees, in tax-funded government programs.

[jillian]

i think she meant more that all evidence points to tax cuts being good for americans than bad. more of a the facts are x not your opinion is wrong. at least that's how i interpreted it.

[Ashlyn]

... and I'm just saying that tax cuts aren't necessarily black and white subjects. Sure, they're good for some, but the people who benefit from government assistance programs, or kids who want to say -- get a good education -- get screwed when we take away money from those programs.

If it was a black and white issue, we'd all be on the same side, but it's not, it's remarkably grey, and that is all I'm saying. I mean no offense to anybody, I just think it's important that we not write anybody's view off as silly.

[oclover24]

People like having money in their pocket, yet complain when government programs like education, etc. are less funded. :shrugs: It's kind of odd. I personally try to see the good in taxes. Yes, I get mad when some money out of my paycheck is missing, but when I realize it goes toward good programs, I'm alright with it. People really get upset when we're charged extra taxes to go toward weird things (like a new Twins stadium in Minneapolis), but the stadium will benefit the local economy and the money will come right back to us.

My best friend gets paid in cash though, so she doesn't have to pay taxes. At least I don't think she does. Does anybody know how that works?

[Heather]

She's probably paid off the books.

[oclover24]

^ Is that legal?

[Heather]

Nope. :lol:

[jillian]

not a bit, no. :) the main issue i have with taxes is that so much of it is wasteful, we could cut a lot of taxes and still have enough to fund the stuff that is worth it. also, tax cuts increase tax revenue more often than not. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html?ei=5088&en=ec2d242da8699725&ex=1310097600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Webeh]

Personally, I've had bad experiences with tax cuts in the past. The government takes the money out of something else to compensate for the loss of finances. Unfortunately, whoever decides where the money will be scooped from always seem to lack imagination or at least a proper strategy. They go gunning straight for education and healthcare, which have got to be the worst places to cut money from to lower taxes. (This is all while politicians give themselves pay raises.) *sigh...

[jillian]

part of the problem w/ the money for education is it's spent poorly also. we have all this funding and teachers are using zillion year old books but school boards and administrators have enormous salaries.

[Webeh]

That's true. I remember way back in grade eight, my elementary school put down quite a bit of money for a TV we didn't need. The money could have been better spent elsewhere, such as with textbooks. There always seemed to not be enough around.

[Ashlyn]

It seems like there has been a lot of cut funding for education recently. Teachers are having to do more (thanks to programs like No Child Left Behind) with less from the state governments.

It only really punishes the children. It's a sad day when a public education is completely insufficient.

[jillian]

yeah but if you look at the amount of money spent per student in the us, versus other countries we're beating them to death, but not getting results. the issue seems less in the amount of money and more in the way it's handled. i'm all for money in education, just not for wasting it which seems to be what we're doing.

[Metaphysics]

Metaphsics, Id also like to point out that your stance on taxes and the economy, is dead wrong. Its common sense, really.

You cut taxes, and that means more money in the pockets of Americans, which stimulates the economy. Tax cuts are a good thing.


cutting taxes just increases an incentive to spend/invest../

:D



It's a fact in monetary economics but cutting taxes right now would be a bad idea because the troops are out there in Iraq, if you cut the taxes right now it would mean funding has to be cut from education, police force, civil service etc to fund the on going war.

Furthermore, it may be a good thing for American people cos they can spend more but not for public services...the teachers, cops, firemen have had a cut in thier funding (e.g wages), do they have more money in thier pockets? Consumption does stimulate the economy but if let people carry on spending it could lead to a hyperinflation

[Heather]

You know what drives me crazy? The government has millions upon millions of dollars that they get from tax payers, yet they spend it on frivolous things. If they micromanaged, or actually sat down, and compiled a budget where they prioritized where taxpayers money needed to be spended, there would be no problem.

But they dont do that.

So rather than economize, they raise taxes. Well, Im not okay with that. I already pay enough with taxes, and can barely make ends meet, because the cost of living is so expensive. So, I want the government to be held responsible, and get their act together. Im sick and tired of paying their insane salaries, and frivolous spending just because thats "how the system works". They system needs to be fixed.

If any business operated the way the government does, they would be out of business, pure and simple. And that is just sickening.

[Metaphysics]

You know what drives me crazy? The government has millions upon millions of dollars that they get from tax payers, yet they spend it on frivolous things. If they micromanaged, or actually sat down, and compiled a budget where they prioritized where taxpayers money needed to be spended, there would be no problem.

But they dont do that.

So rather than economize, they raise taxes. Well, Im not okay with that. I already pay enough with taxes, and can barely make ends meet, because the cost of living is so expensive. So, I want the government to be held responsible, and get their act together. Im sick and tired of paying their insane salaries, and frivolous spending just because thats "how the system works". They system needs to be fixed.

If any business operated the way the government does, they would be out of business, pure and simple. And that is just sickening.


I'm gonna say the war on Iraq is one cos ive been against it since the beginning as frivlous spending. I just think if the Republicans were in control of the house and cut taxes while simultanously fighting in Iraq, then we gonna have one hell of a deficit.

[Heather]

I dont think I will ever understand you.

Even if you dont believe that Saddham was connected to Al Queda (which he was). He was a totalitarian dictator, following in the footsteps of Stalin and Hitler, commiting mass murder against his own people. He needed to be removed. Why dont you try talking to Zahra? She fricking leaves in Iraq, her uncle was murdered by Saddham...why? Just because. This is a man who terrorized his own people for decades.

Look up totalitarism....it means reign through TERROR. And that is what he did.

The world is a better place without Saddham in it.

eta

You know, its really easy to comment on the War in Iraq, and criticize it, when its not your baby brother over there, or your cousin, etc. You have that sense of freedom. I dont. Because whether you realize it or not, everytime you criticize the war, or what the soldiers are doing over there, I see my brother in my head, and remember what that year was like for us.

People tend to forget about the military families in all of this, and there are a lot of us. There are a lot us who have sons, brothers, loved ones, sacrificing their lives day in and day out.

And while you can sit back and criticize what is happening in Iraq...we cant. Because it is those that we love who are facing the fire everyday. And unlike you, our information doesnt come from the news. It comes from emails, and IMs, and late night phone calls via satellite phones. The families of the soldiers know more about what is going on over there, than you could possibly comprehend.

You should remember that the next time you criticize the war in Iraq.

And while certain posters in here drove Zahra away because of their bias. I am not going anywhere. Because regardless of what you read on CNN, or the nightly news, I understand what is happening over there. I hear it straight from the horses mouth.

[jillian]

:claps:


great post.

[Ashlyn]

Heather -- I totally get what you're saying babe, but you have to understand that most people criticizing this war do it BECAUSE of the troops, not in spite of them.

[Heather]

Yes, but you have to understand that the troops see every criticism of Iraq as a criticism of them. And politicians like Reed just make it worse. They have "brothers" and "sisters" dying over there, and to hear what people are saying back home does effect them. And their lives are at stake.

[Ashlyn]

Criticism of the war surely is dispiriting to the soldiers who are engaged in it. If you're killing and risking death in a miserable faraway desert, you ought to be able to believe that your sacrifice is in a worthy cause. But whose fault is it if that belief is hard to sustain? Is it the fault of people who note that the cause is not worthy? Or is it the fault of the people who sent American soldiers into this distant desert in an unworthy cause?

Original Article (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1591571,00.html)

I know I quote that more often than I sneeze, but, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the cause of the war, the principle still stands. While it makes since that it is dispiriting to the soliders that people don't necessarily believe in the mission they're over there for, if there IS something to doubt about it, the problem lies not in the people who are doubting (as is American to do), but in the people sent them to war in the first place.

[Heather]

Bringing them home now, would have a catastrophic consequences, Ash. And they know that. They dont see the mission as a failure. They believe in what they are doing, and know that they are making a positive difference to the Iraqi people. They see it for themselves everyday, and relay that message of hope back home to their loved ones.

[Metaphysics]

I'll be back to debate later cos I got exams.....but I'd just like to say Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all time low: 28%

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200705062221.htm

:happy: :happy: :happy:

[Heather]

First of all, I have never trusted polls. Because one poll says one thing, while another says the exact opposite. Polls are biased, and as a rule, I ignore them.

That being said, even if that was true...so what? What does that have to do with anything. He is the President, and will be President until January of 2009. What matters is what is happening in the Middle East, not an insignificant poll.

To get back to the soldiers issue. I dont think most of you fully realize what this war is doing to them. What killing does to them. When faced with fire, or in a dangerous situation, they protect themselves. Like my brother told me, "It was a choice between him or me. Who would go home to his family at the end. And I chose me."

But actions like that...wounds like that, they dont heal easily. My brother is counselling right now because of what he witnessed and did in Iraq. Yes, he was killing the bad guys. He didnt kill or even injure innocent civilians. But anytime you take a life, you are haunted by that. I know soldiers who completely changed after deployment. Its like they're not the same person anymore.

And I really hate to quote a country song, but the words hit me the other day, and hit home.

"I just got back from a place where they hated me,
And everything I stand for.
A place where our brothers are dying for others
Who dont even care anymore."

In case you were wondering the "others" doesnt refer to the Iraqis....it refers to Americans. They are dying for us over there, getting the same news that we do, and feel like the people at home could care less about them, while they are risking our lives for us.

Question....if you came face to face with a soldier, what would you say to them? Honestly, what would you say?

Me? I would say "thank you".