Support NeoGAF

[FightyF]

It seems that Kerry doesn’t understand that. Call it the War on Terror or call it the War on Muslim Extremists, it doesn’t matter. The greatest challenge of the next 50 years will be attempting to eradicate this philosophy from the face of the earth.

Especially challenging when the Bush administration has a large part to do with it and the fostering of such a philosophy.

 

[Socreges]

Charge him with exploitation all you want by you sly sarcasm

Thanks, I think I will.

 

[Slurpy]

Guess what?

Many people aren’t as willing as you to forget about September Eleventh. It was a turning point in American history and subsequently on how our foreign policy operated. You better believe Bush is going to run on the one event that defined his presidency.

Charge him with exploitation all you want by you sly sarcasm but 9/11 will be the reason he should and will win on November second.

This is WWIII in its infancy.

It seems that Kerry doesn’t understand that. Call it the War on Terror or call it the War on Muslim Extremists, it doesn’t matter. The greatest challenge of the next 50 years will be attempting to eradicate this philosophy from the face of the earth.

Criticizing the President because Iraq is not peaceful and having elections just after 1-½ years is absolutely foolish. It will take decades to see the true impact of democracy to a region that has never experienced it. You need a generation of kids growing up being educated, accustomed to speaking their mind and able to in a sense ‘own’ a piece of their country.

9/11 will be the reason he should win? What fucked up logic. WWIII? Sorry, but you're a tool. No offense of course.

Cooter, can you remind me again how we are in a better position now then on that day? Last I heard Al-Qaeda was still planning attacks, and Ossama is still giving commands.


But Bush should win because of 9/11...I don't think there's a clearer definition of exploitation. Its utterly and absolutely despicable. And as if Americans have a chronic tendency to forget, we are sure to have our memories refreshed in pretty much every single one of Bush's speeches. How fucking insulting and offensive. To the victims, to Americans, and to the world.

 

[FightyF]

Actually I take my statement:

Especially challenging when the Bush administration has a large part to do with it and the fostering of such a philosophy.

...back because it's misleading and doesn't describe the situation well. Plus, it's so bold and forthright it needs to fleshed out in more detail.

1) The Bush Administration hasn't corrected hypocritical and unfair aspects of American foreign policy. Thus, it hasn't shown the moderate Muslims of the World (a population of over 1 billion people) that they have any reason to support American foreign policy. At the same time, it doesn't really give them reason to start resorting to violence.

2) The Bush Administration is looked at as condoning the FBI's and CIA's ugly behaviour towards Arabs and Muslims in the US. It's been almost 3 years after 9/11 and people are still being mistreated in jails, arrested with no charges, and being harrassed by local and federal law enforcement officials. There was and is no concrete plan for protecting Americans, much of it is random and unfocused. American Muslims no longer trust their own government. This creates feelings of resentment that did not originally exist.

3) Increase in anti-Muslim sentiment in the US also gives reason for American Muslims to resent the government and perhaps the country. There is one explanation for this sentiment, ignorance. Can we blame the Bush Administration? Well, if Rumsfeld can support Lt. Gen. Boykin for hateful and ignorant remarks towards Muslims, then we can safely say that the Bush Administration has not done enough. Winning the hearts and minds of people is key in the war on terror (because we must defeat the ideology), and Bush hasn't demonstrated that he's up to the task.

4) The invasion of Iraq, which wasn't needed or required for the safety of Americans, has caused more anti-Americanism indirectly. A few things were predicted before the war that would help foster and build terrorist zeal. First off, the unavoidable deaths of innocent people from modern warfare. Secondly, the removal of the Baath party which would allow an influx of foreign terrorists. Thirdly the inadequate training of the US troops for security roles, and interfacing with Iraqis. All of these were predicted results of the war, before it even occurred. All of these increase anti-American feelings.

5) Rhetoric that clouds the "war on terrorism" that is being thrown around by the Bush Administration. It started with "Axis of Evil". What makes a country like Iran inherently "evil"? Most evils I can think of that exist there, such as corruption, exists in the US as well. The Western world has it's own evils, such as racism and bigotry. Anyways...this, as well as rhetoric that "The terrorists hate freedom" and "They hate our way of life" doesn't describe the situation. If anything the message from Al Qaeda can be summed as "Get out of our lives" (an unrealistic demand since the World is getting smaller on so many scales). Yet patriotic chords must be plucked, rather than facing the issue head on and tackling it seriously (diversions like the invasion of Iraq don't help).

Hopefully that describes my earlier (horribly worded) comment a bit better.

 

[Slurpy]

I just read both transcripts. Wow.. they were worse than I could have imagined. No substance. Just an eloquently stated campaign of fear. This will be the core. A campaign of fear to elect the president, dexcribing a non-existant war.

Despicable.

 

[Mandark]

This is WWIII in its infancy.

If this is a world war, I think the Cold War has to count.

It seems that Kerry doesn’t understand that. Call it the War on Terror or call it the War on Muslim Extremists, it doesn’t matter. The greatest challenge of the next 50 years will be attempting to eradicate this philosophy from the face of the earth.

I hear this a lot, but what would Kerry actually do differently that would be worth voting against? He says he wants to increase the size of the army and not spend money on missle defense, which sounds about right. You could argue that his overtures to multilateralism are wasteful because the war on terror's so important that our allies will work with us even if they're pissed off. But in making that point, you'd imply that Iraq is not part of the war on terror.

Criticizing the President because Iraq is not peaceful and having elections just after 1-½ years is absolutely foolish. It will take decades to see the true impact of democracy to a region that has never experienced it. You need a generation of kids growing up being educated, accustomed to speaking their mind and able to in a sense ‘own’ a piece of their country.

The final result may be decades away, but there are now and will be clear indications of whether Iraq and Afghanistan are making progress in the right direction. Creating a democracy is a very hard thing to do, so obvious policy screwups their equally obvious consequences should be carefully monitored, not dismissed as premature. A democracy, like an economy, has certain leading indicators.

Also, it's worth noting that Bush is not really an active democracy-promoter. Afghanistan is on some forgotten backburner, and the administration is buddy buddy with plenty of mean dudes (Musharaf, Nazarbayev, Qaddafi, Karimov) where it's convenient. He tends to pay more lip service than John Kerry, but that and $87 billion will get you a really big cup of coffee.

 

[Wellington]

Would you rather have Giuliani or Bloomberg? Face it, Rudy was as good a mayor as I have seen in my short lifetime. (Koch, Dinkins, Giuliani, Bloomberg.)

 

[Guileless]

FFF, 9/11 (and the embassies, and the Cole, etc.) was almost wholly planned while Bill Clinton was president (and spending every ounce of his political capital trying to complete the Oslo process). So to say the Bush administration is responsible for Islamic terrorism is beyond ridiculous, even if you try to qualify that statement.

No doubt that the Bush administration has made mistakes, but let's be realistic here. The existence of Islamic extremism is a result of the long, deep-seated conditions in the countries where it flourishes, not who became president of the US 4 years ago. I don't care if people in Cairo, Berlin, or Seoul say that they "hate" the US all while depending on our military protection and foreign aid. I don't care, and it won't affect how I vote whatsoever.

 

[aparisi2274]

Would you rather have Giuliani or Bloomberg? Face it, Rudy was as good a mayor as I have seen in my short lifetime. (Koch, Dinkins, Giuliani, Bloomberg.)

Definately RUDY.

I was to young to care about Koch.

Dinkins is a skid mark on this city's History. Worst Mayor we had in a long while.

Bloomberg started out great, and now he just annoys me. I dont know what it is. Maybe because when he talks, he sounds like a little weasel.

 

[xsarien]

Would you rather have Giuliani or Bloomberg? Face it, Rudy was as good a mayor as I have seen in my short lifetime. (Koch, Dinkins, Giuliani, Bloomberg.)

Even after last night, I'd hesitantly pick Giuliani, especially after Bloomberg implied - no, screw that - said a week or two ago that the first amendment was a privilege.

But Rudy did lose some points with me last night. I expect more from New York Republicans, who are much (much!) more moderate than most others in the party. Seeing him tow the party line of "Bush is doing good" made me, as I said when I agreed with you last night, gag.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Would you rather have Giuliani or Bloomberg? Face it, Rudy was as good a mayor as I have seen in my short lifetime. (Koch, Dinkins, Giuliani, Bloomberg.)

Neither.

And while it is fashionable to bash Dinkins, there is actually a lot that began under his administration that people associate with Giuliani; Rudy's also one of the luckiest mayors in history. He was mayor during a national upsurge in the economy, which always affects crime statistics, as well as during an era when national crime statistics were down significantly; he takes credit for both when they were phenomena out of his control. The city crime rate likewise declined steadily in the last months of the Dinkins administration, so he came in when crime, particularly violent crime, was trending downward anyway. Under Dinkins, the police force averaged far more arrests per various crime idexes (guns, rape, etc.) than under Giuliani, particularly guns, which Giuliani always highlighted on the news because it looks good but again was a Dinkins/Kelly initiative. Dinkins/Kelly started the intiative to put far more police men and women though the Academy; they became police officers during the Giuliani administration, so again he can point to those statistics as being his.

What Giuliani did do was repeatedly back a shoot-first police department and erode confidence in this force among minority communities; his handling of the Diallo and Volpe incident was deplorable. Police abuse complaints were way up under his reign. He, like most Republicans, was a union-buster, especially with the UFT and Sanitation departments.

But because he got rid of the squeegeemen scourge, and appeared after 9/11 with an FDNY hat saying "We will rebuild," he's considered a great mayor. Sorry but I have seen the effects of his administration first-hand and would never ever consider his administration a success; to me he is a liar.

 

[aparisi2274]

Neither.

And while it is fashionable to bash Dinkins, there is actually a lot that began under his administration that people associate with Giuliani; Rudy's also one of the luckiest mayors in history. He was mayor during a national upsurge in the economy, which always affects crime statistics, as well as during an era when national crime statistics were down significantly; he takes credit for both when they were phenomena out of his control. The city crime rate likewise declined steadily in the last months of the Dinkins administration, so he came in when crime, particularly violent crime, was trending downward anyway. Under Dinkins, the police force averaged far more arrests per various crime idexes (guns, rape, etc.) than under Giuliani, particularly guns, which Giuliani always highlighted on the news because it looks good but again was a Dinkins/Kelly initiative. Dinkins/Kelly started the intiative to put far more police men and women though the Academy; they became police officers during the Giuliani administration, so again he can point to those statistics as being his.

What Giuliani did do was repeatedly back a shoot-first police department and erode confidence in this force among minority communities; his handling of the Diallo and Volpe incident was deplorable. Police abuse complaints were way up under his reign. He, like most Republicans, was a union-buster, especially with the UFT and Sanitation departments.

But because he got rid of the squeegeemen scourge, and appeared after 9/11 with an FDNY hat saying "We will rebuild," he's considered a great mayor. Sorry but I have seen the effects of his administration first-hand and would never ever consider his administration a success; to me he is a liar.

HAHAHAHHA Thats a funny post. You should be a comic. I think Last Comic Standing is having open auditions. To say that all he was good for was getting rid of Squeegemen, and wearing a FDNY hat after 9/11 is CRAZY!!!!! I guess you never took a look at 42nd Street (The Dinkins and Rudy versions). Dinkins 42nd st, was a shithole of porn and bums. RUdy's 42nd st is a cleaned up bright spot on NYC tourism. Another Area you might want to look at, is Central Park. Dinkins CP was a breeding ground for rapes and muggers. Rudy's CP was rejuivinated, and is one of the nicest places in the city. And yeah so what, he emerged from 9/11 with a Fire hat on saying we will rebuild. I am glad he did that. It shows that our mayor was at the front lines, risking personal injury to assess the situation.

Anyway, You dont like Rudy, thats fine, its your opinionl. I think Rudy is the best Mayor this city has seen, and I think Dinkins was a shit stain in the underwear of NYC. Thats my opinion. If you dont like it, thats fine.

 

[brooklyngooner]

HAHAHAHHA Thats a funny post. You should be a comic. I think Last Comic Standing is having open auditions. To say that all he was good for was getting rid of Squeegemen, and wearing a FDNY hat after 9/11 is CRAZY!!!!! I guess you never took a look at 42nd Street (The Dinkins and Rudy versions). Dinkins 42nd st, was a shithole of porn and bums. RUdy's 42nd st is a cleaned up bright spot on NYC tourism. Another Area you might want to look at, is Central Park. Dinkins CP was a breeding ground for rapes and muggers. Rudy's CP was rejuivinated, and is one of the nicest places in the city. And yeah so what, he emerged from 9/11 with a Fire hat on saying we will rebuild. I am glad he did that. It shows that our mayor was at the front lines, risking personal injury to assess the situation.

Anyway, You dont like Rudy, thats fine, its your opinionl. I think Rudy is the best Mayor this city has seen, and I think Dinkins was a shit stain in the underwear of NYC. Thats my opinion. If you dont like it, thats fine.

Why don't you calm down, because I didn't flame you, so the trite "comic" jokes are unnecessary.

If you read my post a little more closely, you'll see that I never argued that Dinkins was a better mayor. I argued that Giuliani took a great deal of credit for initiatives that began under the Dinkins administration. I could care less about Times Square; I don't think Disney plastering its logo feces all over the place constitutes improvement over what was there previously.

You and I obviously come from very different parts of this city. I never said you can't think Giuliani was a great mayor; many do. I wrote my post largely due to the number of people not from New York who automatically qualify him as a great mayor with no knowledge of his policies and the effects thereof on its citizens.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I dont know who did but under guilliani my old neighborhood in the bronx was cleaned up big time. No crack vials, cops everywhere, and nice new housing. Big ups to gulliani for that! But the mofo has lost a lot of respect from me by supporting that a-hole bush.

About 42nd street, its not just about disney. That place is a lot safer and brings tons of money to city than it did back in the 80s. Remember Union Square? LES? Washington square park, and central park? Those places were a mess in the 80s early 90s.

 

[aparisi2274]

But the mofo has lost a lot of respect from me by supporting that a-hole bush.

You know I am a republican and I doubt I am gonna vote for Bush, just because I dont like some of his policies (FCC, Stem Cell, trying to get an amendment to the constitution for banning gay marriage), but you have to realize Rudy has bigger goals in mind, and he needs to kiss major major ass at the RNC if he wants to even think of pursuing a bid for presidency in 2008. So I can understand his major ass kissing. He had to impress the upper echelon of the Replublican Party.

About 42nd street, its not just about disney. That place is a lot safer and brings tons of money to city than it did back in the 80s. Remember Union Square? LES? Washington square park, and central park? Those places were a mess in the 80s early 90s.

Another thing I agree on. All those places in the 80's and early 90's were shitholes. I remember my parents would hardly ever take me to the city when I was a kid in the 80's and when I went in the 90's they were annoyed, because it was so bad. Now that it has been cleaned up and I go a lot on weekends, my mom is still nervous. She still thinks it's the city from 20 years ago.


I really think that if the people of America look at Guiliani they will see all the accomplishments he had while in office. Granted there were some horrible things that happened as well, but I think the good outweighed the bad. I think that if Guiliani plays it right, he might get the Replublican vote for president in 2008.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Another thing I agree on. All those places in the 80's and early 90's were shitholes. I remember my parents would hardly ever take me to the city when I was a kid in the 80's and when I went in the 90's they were annoyed, because it was so bad. Now that it has been cleaned up and I go a lot on weekends, my mom is still nervous. She still thinks it's the city from 20 years ago.

So wait a minute, where are you actually from?

 

[DarienA]

Having spent alot of time in NYC in the last few years, specifically upper Manhattan and Brooklyn the city has definitely become in many ways a cleaner, safer place.

Now if it wasn't still so damn expensive... had better parking... and I didn't have to drive for miles to find a gas station etc.

 

[aparisi2274]

So wait a minute, where are you actually from?

Staten Island

 

[Minotauro]

I think the danger and dirtiness of New York is what gave it it's charm. I'm not a big fan of this new and improved, kid-friendly, sanitized version where women don't even have to worry about being raped anymore. What a sacrilege.

 

[xsarien]

had better parking... and I didn't have to drive for miles to find a gas station etc.

It's because most everyone knows that if you ever want to get anywhere, you're better off just taking mass transportation.

 

[brooklyngooner]

I think the danger and dirtiness of New York is what gave it it's charm. I'm not a big fan of this new and improved, kid-friendly, sanitized version where women don't even have to worry about being raped anymore. What a sacrilege.

You're right, it sure is worth it to have minorities being sodomized with plungers and unarmed immigrants taking 41 shots from a cowboy police department. Small price to pay.

 

[Minotauro]

You're right, it sure is worth it to have minorities being sodomized with plungers and unarmed immigrants taking 41 shots from a cowboy police department. Small price to pay.

Indeed.

sodomy > cleanliness

 

[aparisi2274]

You're right, it sure is worth it to have minorities being sodomized with plungers and unarmed immigrants taking 41 shots from a cowboy police department. Small price to pay.

God it seems that every post you make has something to do with those 2 poor unfortunate souls. If you are that pissed at the city and the mayor for what happened, then leave and move to Jersey or something. I mean god, every post I read so far from you is about those 2 incidents. 2 Incidents that happened during an 8yr term for the mayor. So you take those 2 things and you want to try and argue that he is a horrible mayor because over 8 years, 2 really really bad things happened.

Thats a pretty weak argument.

 

[brooklyngooner]

God it seems that every post you make has something to do with those 2 poor unfortunate souls. If you are that pissed at the city and the mayor for what happened, then leave and move to Jersey or something. I mean god, every post I read so far from you is about those 2 incidents. 2 Incidents that happened during an 8yr term for the mayor. So you take those 2 things and you want to try and argue that he is a horrible mayor because over 8 years, 2 really really bad things happened.

Thats a pretty weak argument.

No that is not my argument. Again, read my first post, which was not at all about that, instead of trying to shoehorn what I write into some simple and predictable "you hate NYC" argument. I bring those up because they are a direct result of his uniform backing of the NYPD and the overly-aggressive police tactics he endorsed. Everyone who always trots out the "look how safe it is now" argument must realize it has not even been close to safer for everyone.

My roots in Brooklyn go back four generations. So I have an idea: why don't you fuck off back to New Jersey.

 

[xsarien]

God it seems that every post you make has something to do with those 2 poor unfortunate souls. If you are that pissed at the city and the mayor for what happened, then leave and move to Jersey or something. I mean god, every post I read so far from you is about those 2 incidents. 2 Incidents that happened during an 8yr term for the mayor. So you take those 2 things and you want to try and argue that he is a horrible mayor because over 8 years, 2 really really bad things happened.

Thats a pretty weak argument.

Giuliani, by and large, was a one trick pony. Granted, it was a very, very good trick. He's largely credited with cleaning up the city, but that came at the cost of losing a significant amount of popularity. His police force was tough, to the point that they were sometimes criticized for their actions. Sometimes it was warranted, sometimes it wasn't. The plunger incident, in which one of the officers involved (in)famously said "It's Giuliani time...", and the 41 shots at one person may be isolated on the surface, but are indicitive of a police force that was obviously operating under hubris that came directly from the top down.

There were also issues with Rudy's socially conservative stripes occasionally shining through to rather mixed reactions. When the Brooklyn Museum unveiled the exhibit that had the Virgin Mary covered in elephant feces, he threatened to cut off all city funding until the piece was removed. Now, was he allowed to be offended? Absolutely, but it was also the museum's right to show the work. What wasn't the right of the mayor, at least in keeping with the spirit of the 1st Amendment, was to threaten the museum's funding.

This claim of moral clarity and outrage mixed with "Because I'm the mayor," of course, fell rather flat because at around the same time, he was publically outed as patently cheating on his wife.

But this all comes back to his speech last night, in which he made some kind of claim to "finally feeling more at home" amongst the Republicans. Seeing that quote made me ill, because if there's one thing you can do to alienate your support in New York City, it's say you feel more comfortable around the more lock-step Republicans than you do among the RINOs in New York.

 

[HAOHMARU]

So I have an idea: why don't you fuck off back to New Jersey.

Don't disrespect N.J.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Giuliani, by and large, was a one trick pony. Granted, it was a very, very good trick. He's largely credited with cleaning up the city, but that came at the cost of losing a significant amount of popularity. His police force was tough, to the point that they were sometimes criticized for their actions. Sometimes it was warranted, sometimes it wasn't. The plunger incident, in which one of the officers involved (in)famously said "It's Giuliani time...", and the 41 shots at one person may be isolated on the surface, but are indicitive of a police force that was obviously operating under hubris that came directly from the top down.

There were also issues with Rudy's socially conservative stripes occasionally shining through to rather mixed reactions. When the Brooklyn Museum unveiled the exhibit that had the Virgin Mary covered in elephant feces, he threatened to cut off all city funding until the piece was removed. Now, was he allowed to be offended? Absolutely, but it was also the museum's right to show the work. What wasn't the right of the mayor, at least in keeping with the spirit of the 1st Amendment, was to threaten the museum's funding.

This claim of moral clarity and outrage mixed with "Because I'm the mayor," of course, fell rather flat because at around the same time, he was publically outed as patently cheating on his wife.

But this all comes back to his speech last night, in which he made some kind of claim to "finally feeling more at home" amongst the Republicans. Seeing that quote made me ill, because if there's one thing you can do to alienate your support in New York City, it's say you feel more comfortable around the more lock-step Republicans than you do among the RINOs in New York.

Also, he's an unabashed Yankee fan. Case closed.

 

[HAOHMARU]

Does anybody know where to find the transcripts from last nights speeches? I can't find them.

 

[FightyF]

FFF, 9/11 (and the embassies, and the Cole, etc.) was almost wholly planned while Bill Clinton was president (and spending every ounce of his political capital trying to complete the Oslo process). So to say the Bush administration is responsible for Islamic terrorism is beyond ridiculous, even if you try to qualify that statement.

It's a statement I never made.

No doubt that the Bush administration has made mistakes, but let's be realistic here. The existence of Islamic extremism is a result of the long, deep-seated conditions in the countries where it flourishes, not who became president of the US 4 years ago. I don't care if people in Cairo, Berlin, or Seoul say that they "hate" the US all while depending on our military protection and foreign aid. I don't care, and it won't affect how I vote whatsoever.

My point is that the approach taken by the Bush Administration has fallen flat on it's face on all accounts. This war on terrorism is fought on a multitude of fronts, and as I pointed out, the Bush administration has failed on many of those fronts. Anti-American terrorism and terrorist ideals still exist, and in some parts of the World is even more vicious and stronger than ever before. That's sign enough that you need someone man enough to do the job. I don't know if Kerry is, but Bush certainly isn't, we have proof of this.

 

[aparisi2274]

My roots in Brooklyn go back four generations. So I have an idea: why don't you fuck off back to New Jersey.

Whoopy. So do mine. My grandparents on both sides were from Bensonhurst. My great grandparents (on both sides) both from Brooklyn. Dont you tell me to fuck off back to Jersey, when I have just as much family history in brooklyn. I just chose not to live there, because it is a crowded mess. I will lay off if you can tell me any other injustice that Guiliani perpetrated when he was in offce, other than the 2 incidents you have already mentioned.

Also, dont ever try to attack me on where I live. Since you seem to be trying to make Brooklyn into some holy place because you live there.

 

[Dilbert]

Just a friendly reminder -- NYC vs. NJ is offtopic, and you're getting a little heated. It's probably in your best interest to chill out and get back to the RNC.

 

[aparisi2274]

Just a friendly reminder -- NYC vs. NJ is offtopic, and you're getting a little heated. It's probably in your best interest to chill out and get back to the RNC.

Yeah your right. My apologies.


Anyway, getting back to the RNC. I could care less. I dont even think I am voting for bush. I just, getting back to my original post, love Rudy Guiliani, and if he had to kiss ass last night to gain support for a 2008 Presedential Bid, then so be it. I would love to have that guy in office.

 

[Hamfam]

I truly doubt a moderate will be the Republican nomination in 2008 if Bush were to win this year. The party seems to be moving more and more to the right, and even though they may bring out the moderates such as John McCain and Guiliani to sway voters, they have very little genuine influence in the party overall.

I mean, isn't Guiliani pro-choice? That alone should stop him recieving the nomination.

 

[Hitokage]

Is it true that Bush is going to try to run as a "Compassionate Conservative" again?

 

[Guileless]

If your contention is that who occupies the presidency has a large effect on whether people accept the tenets of Islamic radicalism, then the Democrats are no better because 9/11, the USS Cole, and the embassy bombings were planned during Clinton's term.

 

[Hamfam]

Uh, the point isn't to change the mind of the islamic fundamentalist, but instead use the very basics of trying to get any ideology to be dis-creditted. You appeal to the moderates, the in-betweens, to marganalize these groups. You don't pull your group to the extreme, in order to fight another extreme, and you especially don't take a "with us or against us" mentality. Because that forces people to choose from 2 sides, from 2 extremes, and extremes simply feed off each other.

Think of international politics, like domestic politics. The US right now is basically the Howard Dean of the international community. Sure, Europe and other countries agree with their ideology in principle, but they're going about it so insanely, and with such division, that it's just making things worse, and it's best to distance themselves from them.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Just a friendly reminder -- NYC vs. NJ is offtopic, and you're getting a little heated. It's probably in your best interest to chill out and get back to the RNC.

I wrote what I wrote because he wrote "If you hate it so much why don't you move to New Jersey," implying that somehow my criticism isn't warranted because it isn't automatically approving of Giuliani's time in office. If you believe that's a "He started it" argument, then I apologize, and I probably should not have written what I did.

My points still stand, Aparisi: if you believe that my thesis was Giuliani is a bad mayor, you're missing the point of what I wrote. What I wrote was that he often takes and is given credit for statistical and political initiatives that began before his terms. I added those two examples as something indicative and a residual effect of an overall policing policy implemented by him, and did so once. And yes, my life in Brooklyn -- my work here, my friends, my family -- allows me to comment directly on Giuliani's policies and characteristics that would qualify him for president, considering that I do and have, along with many others I know, worked for borough agencies directly affected by his budget cuts and arbitrary underfunding. Please do not suggest ever again that I should live elsewhere because I feel differently from you.

 

[RobotChant]

Speaking of Rudy G., he was on The View this morning. The lone conservative host (the survivor girl) thanked him for "lighting a fire" and bringing the Kerry flip-flop issue up in his speech. While Guiliani was trying to continue the flip-flop attacks, the other hosts asked “haven't you ever changed your mind?". He replied, "Not on my core values", that reply caused the girls to do a version of the "roll eyes". Star Jones practically called him a flip-flopper for supporting an administration who's values are opposite of his. The actual words were never said but it was heavily implied.

They never really went after him even though the opportunities where there. Overall, the points were made, and Guiliani ended up looking like a hypocrite. But like typical View- they like to play with matches, but back off at the first hint of smoke.

 

[DarienA]

It's because most everyone knows that if you ever want to get anywhere, you're better off just taking mass transportation.

Isn't that the truth, when I use to visit I would park my car and knew I wouldn't see it again until I was ready to head home.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Did anyone see the Stephen Baldwin interview on Fox News (or CNN? I dunno) this morning? Apparently he is a born again christian. The words that came out of his mouth about Bush... Fucking scared me man. And the look on face at the end of the interview. Stephen Baldwin is the anti-christ. Well, if Bush isn't.






p.s. When watching the RNC last night... Was I watching the Republican National Convention, or church services?

 

[Hitokage]

If your contention is that who occupies the presidency has a large effect on whether people accept the tenets of Islamic radicalism, then the Democrats are no better because 9/11, the USS Cole, and the embassy bombings were planned during Clinton's term.

Sorry to risk going off topic, but our primary fuckups in the middle east were during the cold war and more recently Reagan.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Anyway, getting back to the RNC. I could care less. I dont even think I am voting for bush. I just, getting back to my original post, love Rudy Guiliani, and if he had to kiss ass last night to gain support for a 2008 Presedential Bid, then so be it. I would love to have that guy in office.

I'm in the Midwest and no Rudy follower, so I have no big opinion on him. But wouldn't kissing ass for future support in a speech about how leaders shouldn't sway for public opinion... be a bit contrary?

 

[Guileless]

Yes, let's "appeal to moderates" and hope for the best. That's worked well ever since the Iranian revolution. There hasn't been any terrorist attacks since Pres. Carter appealed to moderates, right?

 

[Hamfam]

It's interesting how both Karl Rove's domestic strategy for the Bush campaign, and the Bush Administrations strategy for foreign policy are so similar. Simply pander to your base.

I hope that this remains consistent, and a hypocricry where the Republican party attempts to appeal more to the moderates than to their more extreme base, while at the same time continuing a foreign policy based on a unilateral US nationanlism doesn't develop.

That way we can truly see which ones works better, and watch those of the failing phillosophy collapse together.

Of course, I can tell you right now, just as the Republican party moving towards a more extreme conservatism, would only lead to a more radical left-wing. (There's a reason hippies suddenly popped up all at once you know) Just as a more intense US nationalism, will only lead to a more intense nationalism to not only countries on the labelled Axis of Evil, but even in allied countries such as the UK.

What I'm suggesting, isn't an answer to War, or fighting the terrorists hard, but rather to pull away from this self-destructive ideology where your country has to have a dominance over all overs, in order to impose its apparent cultural superiority.

Multi-nationalism is the only way to fight this War against Nationalism. That's the real choice. Not a choice between 2 cultures and countries, but a choice between opposing nationalism on all sides, or fueling it.

 

[Slurpy]

I lost so much respect for Guliani after that speech. It was just so fucking lame and without substance. Talk about ass kissing. The roll-eye meter was also off the charts.

 

[Dilbert]

My source of amusement today has been the AP "future tense" news stories about tonight's speeches:

NEW YORK - Republican National Convention co-stars Laura Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger were commending President Bush (news - web sites) to the country Tuesday for four more years in office, praising him for unflinching leadership in a time of national testing. "I am so proud of the way George has led our country with strength and conviction" in the war on terror, the first lady planned to say.

Are they THAT concerned about meeting deadlines that they have to write the stories now? (They did the same thing every day during the DNC, too.)

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

POLITICS ARE FUN!!!!

 

[Outlaw Pro Mod]

They sure are Jimmy!

 

[Baron Aloha]

Elizabeth Dole is on now. God I hate that woman. Could she talk any slower?

Unbelievable. Here are a few quotes (she talking about how that judge wanted to remove the 10 commandments from that courthouse)...

"The constitution provides people with freedom of religion, not freedom from religion".

So according to her people don't have the right to not get religion shoved down their throats when they visit courthouses and other public buildings.

"Republicans did not invent the right to practice religion but its something republicans will defend."

When did the people's right to practice religion ever come under attack?

 

[Outlaw Pro Mod]

So according to her people don't have the right to not get religion shoved down their throats when they visit courthouses and other public buildings.

In this case, the monument was just there. Officers weren't forcing people to get in line and bow down before it or anything like that. Although, the issue did get out of hand. Strangely, folks were practically breaking the 2nd commandment...listed directly under their nose on said monument!