Clinton vs. Giuliani in 2008 - Page 2

dalem · 08-09-2007, 13:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

Right here.....I've been watchin'.

Excellent.

-dale

Dwarven Pirate · 08-24-2007, 08:36 AM

Time magazine published article on Giuliani:

Behind Giuliani's Tough Talk - TIME

Any thoughts? Personally, this guy seems like a bit of a demagogue to me. I havent been paying alot of attention to the republibans so far, but his rhetoric is, I think, too large for his election, let alone his nomination.

The page 2 comments juxtaposing his terrorism hyperbole and his dismissal of the opportunities presented him by the Iraq Study Group are amazing. I would expect any serious presidential candidate to jump at that chance.

This absurd comment floored me: "...Sometimes," he says, "we miss the forest for the trees when we sit in places and just analyze."

Granted, the whole thing casts him in a poor light. Any articles out there showing his good side (that doesnt dwell exclusively on the WTC)?

wkllaw · 08-24-2007, 11:27 AM

So far, CLinton and Giuliani is leading the polls for both sides, of course we still have to wait till the results come to be sure.

Bluesman · 08-24-2007, 19:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwarven Pirate

Time magazine published article on Giuliani:

Behind Giuliani's Tough Talk - TIME

Any thoughts? Personally, this guy seems like a bit of a demagogue to me. I havent been paying alot of attention to the republibans so far, but his rhetoric is, I think, too large for his election, let alone his nomination.

The page 2 comments juxtaposing his terrorism hyperbole and his dismissal of the opportunities presented him by the Iraq Study Group are amazing. I would expect any serious presidential candidate to jump at that chance.

This absurd comment floored me: "...Sometimes," he says, "we miss the forest for the trees when we sit in places and just analyze."

Granted, the whole thing casts him in a poor light. Any articles out there showing his good side (that doesnt dwell exclusively on the WTC)?

Just read the article below, which slams the hell out of TIME's hit-piece:

Quote:

Ripley’s Game

Posted by Fred Siegel on August 24, 2007 @ 2:17 pm

A front runner in a presidential campaign, such as Rudy Giuliani, has to expect robust attacks. Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney have criticized strongly his record on immigration and gun control. These are issues that create problems for Giuliani, but as long as his 9/11 reputation is secure, their effect will be limited. That’s why the recent assaults on his 9/11 record are potentially more significant. So far, however, it’s Giuliani’s good luck to have been subjected largely to inept criticism of his role at Ground Zero. Last month a video, made by the International Firefighters Association, which is tied to the Democratic Party, denounced him for failing to respond effectively to the 1993 World Trade Center Attack. Giuliani didn’t take office till January 1994.

Now comes a piece from Time magazine, written in the spirit of the Nexis word-game school of journalism. In her piece, reporter Amanda Ripley says that “an analysis of 80 of Giuliani’s major speeches from 1993 to 2001 shows that he mentioned the danger of terrorism only once, in a brief reference to emergency preparedness.” Her argument is that Giuliani has overstated his experience with and interest in terrorism.

But if Ripley had dug a little deeper, she would have discovered that pride of place in Giuliani’s 1993 inaugural speech went to the first World Trade Center attack. Her article goes on to quote former New York Office of Emergency Management Commissioner Jerry Hauer saying “We never talked about Islamic terrorism.” Hauer continued, “We talked about chemical terrorism, biological terrorism. We did talk about car bombs every now and then.” (Does Ripley think that Giuliani was preparing for attacks from Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers? Or ETA, the Basque separatist group?)

Her article also makes no mention of the controversy surrounding the command center Giuliani created in 1998 to deal with potential terror attacks. (Unfortunately, he made the mistake of placing it in 7 World Trade alongside the FBI, CIA, and FEMA offices, and it was destroyed on 9/11.) At the time, the criticism in the New York press was fierce: the conventional wisdom was that no terror danger existed outside Giuliani’s paranoia. The command center was called “Rudy’s Nuclear Palace” and “the nut shell.” Michael Daly of the Daily News compared it to Saddam Hussein’s underground shelters.

This is, no doubt, not the last of these sorts of attacks; Giuliani did make mistakes in his security policy, and he’ll pay a political price for them. But he can only hope that future hit-pieces similarly will be inept.

alesis · 11-03-2007, 15:15 PM

Gooliani For President

HistoricalDavid · 11-03-2007, 15:20 PM

alesis can you please say something more intelligent than reductio ad Nazium?
-----
'Freedom Is About Authority': Excerpts From Giuliani Speech on Crime - New York Times

Quote:

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.

Deeply disturbing inversion.

alesis · 11-03-2007, 15:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

alesis can you please say something more intelligent than reductio ad Nazium?
-----
'Freedom Is About Authority': Excerpts From Giuliani Speech on Crime - New York Times

Deeply disturbing inversion.

Something more intelligent? ok. sorry. how about this:

Giuliani should be President because he cares about the safety and well-being of Americans. His "conservative" values and unshakable stance on crime will scare the terrorists away and prevent another 911 type attack. He will direct our armed forces to police the world and hunt down and capture Bin laden who cleverly eluded the Bush Administration. Rudy loves liberty and freedom and will work tirelessly to uphold our constitutional rights as cititzens.

HistoricalDavid · 11-03-2007, 17:44 PM

Are you sleep-deprived? Are you drunk? Are you illiterate? Are you plain flat-out retarded? I posted a disturbing piece about Giuliani, what makes you think I support him? I don't. I also don't support tirelessly unoriginal Godwin's Law idiots, like you. Get some new material and stop cheapening debate.

HistoricalDavid · 11-03-2007, 18:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

The U.S. is not ready for a woman president and wont be for years to come. Hilliary wont make it and you can quote me on it. Its not that I have anything against her the U.S. is just not ready for a woman to be president. Pehaps in the next 10-20 years things may change and a woman president may be a welcomed change as well.

On the off-chance that you will reply now, was Britain in 1979 ready for a woman prime minister? If so, what makes America unready today?

Gonzo · 11-09-2007, 21:19 PM

Finally got my password straightened out...Rudy for me if it comes down to it.

Remarkable to see how much further to the right my gut level reactions are these days. ...not that I'm that proud of them all.

Dreadnought · 11-28-2007, 14:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

On the off-chance that you will reply now, was Britain in 1979 ready for a woman prime minister? If so, what makes America unready today?

Hey David, (Sorry for the time lapse)
IMHO Maggie Thatcher was a one of a kind woman and IMO she was very much liked here in the U.S. (Others can criticise now).
Maggie made some tough decisions and stood behind what she said. This may not apply to her entire time in office as most of you Brits i'm sure know much more about her. We only know what we have seen of her.

IMO Hilliary could only hope to become such a woman somewhere years from now when the Clintons release the truth behind alot of paperwork that is supposedly "held up" from being released to the public. Plus the fact that Sandy Berger is still walking a free man bothers alot of people that paid attention to the Clinton administration and what is possibly hidden from the publics eye just before the debates began. Between this and her husbands past makes her/him untrustworthy to run America.

Hillary is not even in the same state as Maggie Thatcher was much less ball park. And she by no way posesses the "stones" that Maggie did in her day.

Thanks

**Julie** · 11-28-2007, 14:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

The U.S. is not ready for a woman president and wont be for years to come. Hilliary wont make it and you can quote me on it. Its not that I have anything against her the U.S. is just not ready for a woman to be president. Pehaps in the next 10-20 years things may change and a woman president may be a welcomed change as well.

No more so, than a black President. And, if you haven't looked lately, the white woman and black man, are the two top runners. If THAT doesn't tell you Americans want change, I don't know what would.

I intend to hold you to this after the election.

Dreadnought · 11-28-2007, 14:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

No more so, than a black President. And, if you haven't looked lately, the white woman and black man, are the two top runners. If THAT doesn't tell you Americans want change, I don't know what would.

I intend to hold you to this after the election.

Be my guest Julie but I think you will find in the end Hillary is going to come up short.

I have no problem with her being a president one day. But certainly not now and not with having her bafoon husband back in the spotlight again. How can you trust either two when they are not forthcoming with those documents and one influences the other?

Obama, I have not a problem with him being black,blue,red or any other color for that matter. What does matter is that he has very little knowledge of foreign policy/affairs and many other fields and that certainly matters when it comes down to selecting a world leader in this specific time period. And no matter how much Opera

goes to the wall for him it wont matter in the least. He simply has no experience at the job in question.

Umm Julie, dont you mean the two top runners for the Dems. Which intern means there will be only one. And by the time those two get finished dragging one another across the coals the public will tire of it and more likely goes with the more conservative side of the Repubs.

And dont worry because I will be here to be held accountable if your correct and our country suffers a brainfart. But I will also be here to hold you accountable as well if it see the logic.

dalem · 11-28-2007, 15:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

No more so, than a black President. And, if you haven't looked lately, the white woman and black man, are the two top runners.

For less than half the country interested in politics right now. Meaningless. This country has long been ready for a black or female president. There are just never any viable candidates.

-dale

Dreadnought · 11-28-2007, 15:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

For less than half the country interested in politics right now. Meaningless. This country has long been ready for a black or female president. There are just never any viable candidates.

-dale

Bullseye Dale!

08-24-2007, 11:27 AM	#18 (permalink)
wkllaw Contributor Join Date: 03-07-07 Location: New York City or Hainan, China Posts: 591 Country:	So far, CLinton and Giuliani is leading the polls for both sides, of course we still have to wait till the results come to be sure. __________________ Those who can't change become extinct.

11-09-2007, 21:19 PM	#25 (permalink)
Gonzo New Member Join Date: 09-26-05 Location: USA Posts: 5	Rudy I suppose. Finally got my password straightened out...Rudy for me if it comes down to it. Remarkable to see how much further to the right my gut level reactions are these days. ...not that I'm that proud of them all.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Clinton and Iraq war	Major_Armstrong	Political Discussions	11	09-26-2008 04:46 AM
Hillary Clinton joins 2008 race	Karthik	2008 US Presidential Election	70	01-27-2007 00:08 AM
Giuliani takes first step toward '08 presidential bid	Julie	2008 US Presidential Election	13	11-15-2006 02:16 AM
Clinton vs. McCain	Julie	Political Discussions	30	03-15-2006 18:11 PM
Condoms Are Named for Clinton, Lewinsky	ZFBoxcar	World Affairs Board Pub	1	09-21-2005 19:38 PM

08-24-2007, 08:36 AM	#17 (permalink)
Dwarven Pirate Contributor Join Date: 08-20-07 Posts: 325	Time magazine published article on Giuliani: Behind Giuliani's Tough Talk - TIME Any thoughts? Personally, this guy seems like a bit of a demagogue to me. I havent been paying alot of attention to the republibans so far, but his rhetoric is, I think, too large for his election, let alone his nomination. The page 2 comments juxtaposing his terrorism hyperbole and his dismissal of the opportunities presented him by the Iraq Study Group are amazing. I would expect any serious presidential candidate to jump at that chance. This absurd comment floored me: "...Sometimes," he says, "we miss the forest for the trees when we sit in places and just analyze." Granted, the whole thing casts him in a poor light. Any articles out there showing his good side (that doesnt dwell exclusively on the WTC)?

11-03-2007, 15:15 PM	#20 (permalink)
alesis New Member Join Date: 11-03-07 Posts: 2	Gooliani For President

11-03-2007, 17:44 PM	#23 (permalink)
HistoricalDavid Distant Deeps or Skies *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-19-05 Location: North London, UK Posts: 2,129 Country:	Are you sleep-deprived? Are you drunk? Are you illiterate? Are you plain flat-out retarded? I posted a disturbing piece about Giuliani, what makes you think I support him? I don't. I also don't support tirelessly unoriginal Godwin's Law idiots, like you. Get some new material and stop cheapening debate.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)