Rudy Giuliani on Freedom

Status
Not open for further replies.
What an asshole, I am taking off my license plates and driving through red lights on my way to my 13 yr old girlfriends house.
 
ToxicAdam said:
What an asshole, I am taking off my license plates and driving through red lights on my way to my 13 yr old girlfriends house.
Click to expand...

What you say is true but I'd like more clarification on his part.
 
Warm Machine said:
What you say is true but I'd like more clarification on his part.
Click to expand...

What's there to clarify? He thinks obeying all the laws that he thinks are necessary is part of being free. You're free because you're choosing to obey them...

Read the article if you need more clarification, all that "death penalty for jaywalkers!" stuff in Seinfeld kind of had some sort of basis in reality.

Anyway, most of the gripes I have with him and his policies are 4th amendment based, and for the most part I'm resigned to not really having that one any more anyway...
 
Incognito said:
Seems the dam has broken on Rudy. Four exposes within the week. I'd wager a bet that a few rival campaigns have been feeding some juicy oppo-research to these guys...

Chronicle

Village Voice

Harpers

And the latest, a huge profile of Mr 9/11 from the New Yorker
Click to expand...

i think even a lot of republicans would rather lose with Thompson or Romney than win with Rudy. Its going to be great to see the right wing start to canibalize itself and Rudy get swift boated.
 
Macam said:
JayDubya is going to have a field day with that one.
Click to expand...

I already did. Old. ;)

At any rate, this dude sounds like a fucking fascist in this quote. Which is pretty much what I said the last time I flipped out over this quote.

Ron Paul was already getting onto Gules and the Fox News debate hosts for using newspeak. This is "Freedom is Authority / We've always been at war with Eurasia" level.

Edit: Found the post.

A more complete quote of that speech is as follows.

'Freedom Is About Authority': Excerpts From Giuliani Speech on Crime

...

We constantly present the false impression that government can solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve. Families are significantly less important in the development of children today than they were 30 or 40 years ago. Religion has less influence than it did 30 or 40 years ago. Communities don't mean what they meant 30 or 40 years ago.

As Americans, we're not sure we share values. We're sometimes even afraid to use the word values. We talk about teaching ethics in schools -- people say, "What ethics? Whose ethics? Maybe we can't." And they confuse that with teaching of religion. And we are afraid to reaffirm the basics upon which a lawful and a decent society are based. We're almost embarrassed by it.

We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

[ Interruption by someone in the audience. ]

You have free speech so I can be heard.

[ Another interruption. ]

At the core the struggle is philosophical. There are many, many things that can be done in law enforcement to protect us better. There are many things that can done to create a government that is more responsive and more helpful. The fact is that we're fooling people if we suggest to them the solutions to these very, very deep-seated problems are going to be found in government. . . .

The solutions are going to be found when we figure out as a society what our families are going to be like in the next century, and how maybe they are going to be different. They are going to have to be just as solid and just as strong in teaching every single youngster their responsibility for citizenship. We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens. Schools exist in America and have always existed to train responsible citizens of the United States of America.

If they don't do that, it's very hard to hold us together as a country, because it's shared values that hold us together. We're going to come through this when we realize that it's all about, ultimately, individual responsibility. That in fact the criminal act is about individual responsibility and the building of the respect for the law and ethics is also a matter of individual responsibility.
Click to expand...
 
Not much sense worrying about it, he pretty much always had a snowballs chance in hell at the white house anyway.

guilianidrag.gif


Yeah... this guy is going to win the republican party nomination? :lol :lol :lol
 
JayDubya said:
A more complete quote of that speech is as follows.
Click to expand...
That speech doesn't even seem to have internal consistency, but one thing's clear. Whether it's from government, parents, teachers, whatever, a good citizen is a citizen that obeys.
 
This guy is a creep. Seriously, the more I read about him, the creepier he seems to me.

As much as I hate Mitt Romney I'd almost feel better with him ending up ahead of everyone else.
 
well i've always said that a Giuliani administration would make Bush's concept of the unitary executive seem, to use Alberto Gonzales' favorite word, quaint. it's good to see that wasn't hyperbole.
 
The solutions are going to be found when we figure out as a society what our families are going to be like in the next century, and how maybe they are going to be different. They are going to have to be just as solid and just as strong in teaching every single youngster their responsibility for citizenship. We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens. Schools exist in America and have always existed to train responsible citizens of the United States of America.

If they don't do that, it's very hard to hold us together as a country, because it's shared values that hold us together. We're going to come through this when we realize that it's all about, ultimately, individual responsibility. That in fact the criminal act is about individual responsibility and the building of the respect for the law and ethics is also a matter of individual responsibility.
Click to expand...

He seems to be implying that what defines an American citizen from a non-citizen is what they have learned in school. Basically he is saying that American citizenship should be awarded through an educational process, or revoked if said process is not followed through or if the person fails at the process.

That is very clear from his quote.

I think he is clearly ahead of his time. :lol Slow down Rudy, United States of Dystopia will come, but not in 08.
 
McCain tanked.

The writing is on the wall for Rudy. He is already starting to backpedal.

I suppose it will be up to Romney, the Thompsons, etc. to continue on.
 
The Experiment said:
McCain tanked.

The writing is on the wall for Rudy. He is already starting to backpedal.

I suppose it will be up to Romney, the Thompsons, etc. to continue on.
Click to expand...

Thompson dropped out after the straw poll.
 
If it isn't gonna be Giuliani vs. Hilary with Obama as a running mate, what is it gonna be instead? I had my mind made up, but if Giuliani is really self-destrucing, maybe... who the fuck are the Republicans gonna elect?
 
Ah...more hard evidence that Rudy is nothing but a fucking clown. Keep preaching on about freedom you 9/11 hero you.
 
Phoenix said:
Ruddi was always a facist, (possibly) racist, nut job - what the fuck took America so long to get the hint?
Click to expand...
Unlike New Yorkers, the rest of America hasn't really had to deal with his bullshit and the biggest national exposure he's had was simply "being there" for 9/11.

Fuck Giuliani.
 
perryfarrell said:
if Giuliani is really self-destrucing, maybe... who the fuck are the Republicans gonna elect?
Click to expand...
Except he's not really "self-distructing." This, for example, is old. What's happening is, the hit squads are coming out in full-force, as evidenced by all the exposés that just happened to spontaneously appear at the very same time for some reason.
 
APF said:
What's happening is, the hit squads are coming out in full-force, as evidenced by all the exposés that just happened to spontaneously appear at the very same time for some reason.
Click to expand...

Vast left wing conspiracy?
 
perryfarrell said:
If it isn't gonna be Giuliani vs. Hilary with Obama as a running mate, what is it gonna be instead? I had my mind made up, but if Giuliani is really self-destrucing, maybe... who the fuck are the Republicans gonna elect?
Click to expand...

Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee

These are the only three I think that are going to be a President or Vice President.

Giuliani may very well be nominated but he will end up being a John Kerry: hated by virtually everyone in his own party and election poison unless the Democratic nominee is even worse. Which I hope won't happen because the 2000 and 2004 candidates sucked ass.

Giuliani's fascist comments are going to hit hard. People don't buy the fearmongering as much as they used to, if at all anymore. Rudy is playing a losing hand with this one. If he is hoping to depend on 9/11 and the War on Terror to secure a victory, he is going to find himself losing virtually every poll he is in. McCain was once on top, said too many of the wrong things, and tanked.

He best be watching himself.
 
As usual I disagree with GAF general sentiment. I don't think the general public is nearly as obsessed with all these little things as GAF is. He still has a good chance of being the nominee. I still say Thompson is the only guy who can beat him and Thompson the ideal is a lot better than Thompson the actual candidate.

He does remind me of Kerry though in the sense that the party feels he is the only real "electable" candidate which is a two edged sword.
 
Cheebs said:
more to freedom than just citizenship.
Click to expand...
So more of the same we've been getting from both parties throughout my lifetime then? While I agree with your overall opinion of the guy, some of the [other folks'] comments in this thread are pure lulz.

Stoney Mason said:
Vast left wing conspiracy?
Click to expand...
Or right-wing--or both, perhaps.
 
I see how he got to this.

Start: We have freedom in this country --> we have a government who has rules --> this is the meaning of freedom.

Well, maybe you should clook closer to the meaning of freedom and just conclude that America isn't a free country. Just like almost all countries. We all have to obey rules, we can't do what we want, so we are not free.
 
Stoney Mason said:
As usual I disagree with GAF general sentiment. I don't think the general public is nearly as obsessed with all these little things as GAF is. He still has a good chance of being the nominee. I still say Thompson is the only guy who can beat him and Thompson the ideal is a lot better than Thompson the actual candidate.

He does remind me of Kerry though in the sense that the party feels he is the only real "electable" candidate which is a two edged sword.
Click to expand...

It already happened with McCain who tried trumpeting the Bush Doctrine. He thought that his "Rogue Senator" persona would cover his ass. Instead, he wound up failing. Many thought McCain was going to be the nominee for sure. Now he doesn't stand a chance.

Same can happen with Giuliani. Times are different and you can't depend on 9/11 and War on Terror to get nominated. It might win you some brownie points with a few voters but most Americans have other priorities now than security (although security is still an important one).

Well, maybe you should clook closer to the meaning of freedom and just conclude that America isn't a free country. Just like almost all countries. We all have to obey rules, we can't do what we want, so we are not free.
Click to expand...

Most people know that freedom isn't entirely free. The idea here is that ideas were created some 200 years ago over what rights and liberties the citizens have. In the past 20-30 years, they have seriously eroded and in the past 7 years, it has accelerated severalfold.
 
The Experiment said:
Same can happen with Giuliani. Times are different and you can't depend on 9/11 and War on Terror to get nominated. It might win you some brownie points with a few voters but most Americans have other priorities now than security (although security is still an important one).
Click to expand...

I'm in the middle of a poker game so I can't type a very intelligent response but security is still a big issue in the South and Midwest. Now Rudy has some qualities that will also turn off some of these voters but when he sticks to the general notion of security he is on very safe ground imo. He starts to lose that footing when he focuses on the war which Americans hate.
 
ugg. I really hate all of the available candidates to vote on. WTF. Do these assholes represent the best we have to offer? Are we really this fucked?
 
sorry but...fucking idiot...

I mean this has been the US way for a while....'we say your free/this is freedom.'

Anyway, his words are a disgrace...what a fool

Of course, nobody is free in the absolute sense, but you might strive for a sense of freedom...its a personal thing, its something that comes from an internal source... a state of mind. His definition is just gobsmacking, however. Freedom to me is more choice, more ability, more critical analysis, many paths to walk and to chose your own destinity...whatever, the groundings of society are....Society certainly isnt the ultimate expression of humanity...or at least not the society that is present today...
 
Flo_Evans said:
ugg. I really hate all of the available candidates to vote on. WTF. Do these assholes represent the best we have to offer? Are we really this fucked?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. It's going to be Clinton versus Giuliani, which is no choice at all since the only difference I can detect in their core values is a little letter next to their names.

I just want to take this opportunity to mention that between Gules, Bloomberg, and Clinton, that goddamn, people always rag on Texas politics and politicians, but seriously, New York, seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Obama / Romney I dislike but could tolerate, but seriously, Clinton / Giuliani? Ugh.
 
Flo_Evans said:
ugg. I really hate all of the available candidates to vote on. WTF. Do these assholes represent the best we have to offer? Are we really this fucked?
Click to expand...

Mate, its the same all over the western world...actually, in almost every country in the world. Most intelligent people, seem to stay away from politics
 
So inbetween all the 1984 references, what exactly is the direct, calm objection on a philosophical level to what he's trying to say there? I'd like to have that discussion; a discussion re: the meaning of freedom, the question of what it means to be free in a society with laws, what it means to be a "free country" in the first place, etc., and how your opinions on that matter differs substantively from what he's saying there, that part being able to be a "free people" is, ironically, assenting to certain laws and constraints upon those freedoms. Most people here are making a logical leap, based on what they feel emotionally about Rudy and his authoritarian streak, rather than addressing what he's saying here directly, IMO.
 
APF said:
So inbetween all the 1984 references, what exactly is the direct, calm objection on a philosophical level to what he's trying to say there? I'd like to have that discussion; a discussion re: the meaning of freedom, the question of what it means to be free in a society with laws, what it means to be a "free country" in the first place, etc., and how your opinions on that matter differs substantively from what he's saying there, that part being able to be a "free people" is, ironically, assenting to certain laws and constraints upon those freedoms. Most people here are making a logical leap, based on what they feel emotionally about Rudy and his authoritarian streak, rather than addressing what he's saying here directly, IMO.
Click to expand...

jokerpopyw4.gif
 
APF said:
So inbetween all the 1984 references, what exactly is the direct, calm objection on a philosophical level to what he's trying to say there? I'd like to have that discussion; a discussion re: the meaning of freedom, the question of what it means to be free in a society with laws, what it means to be a "free country" in the first place, etc., and how your opinions on that matter differs substantively from what he's saying there, that part being able to be a "free people" is, ironically, assenting to certain laws and constraints upon those freedoms. Most people here are making a logical leap, based on what they feel emotionally about Rudy and his authoritarian streak, rather than addressing what he's saying here directly, IMO.
Click to expand...


As I said in the previous thread, this quote in context almost seems acceptable, if you don't scrutinize it.

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

Upon applying scrutiny, however, this is insidious.

"Ceding to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do" is not freedom, it is the grounds for a police state.

In terms of running a government, freedom is not about authority. Freedom is liberty, and liberty is freedom. Safety is about authority. You are very safe in a police state if you follow all the rules.

Of course, yes, you have to cede certain basic behaviors - namely, those that infringe on the rights of others - this is the social contract, and it is the basis for all governments and societies. Rights have to be carefully defined, however, less this all go to shit.

And of course, they are carefully defined, but people keep wanting to fuck with them.
 
JayDubya said:
Of course, yes, you have to cede certain basic behaviors - namely, those that infringe on the rights of others - this is the social contract, and it is the basis for all governments and societies. Rights have to be carefully defined, however, less this all go to shit.
Click to expand...
But how, really, is he saying anything different than what you say here? While I agree that it's bizarre wording to say freedom is about authority, the ability to be free (a free people) does require IMO as minimal a conflict between your freedoms and the freedoms of others as possible--meaning as you say, an individual needs to relinquish Total Possible Freedom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Controversial opinion: NeoGAF should allow political discussions, because freedom of speech IS BACK!!
10
826
Wheeljack539 replied
  • Locked
Tate brothers free and on their way to Freedomland
2
50
2K
RJMacready73 replied
Ramble On
2
319
od-chan replied
  • Poll
Singles on valentines 💝 day
25
940
daffyduck replied
What are your thoughts on humility?
32
940
CGNoire replied
Top Bottom