Okay Now how about Rudy Julee Oooly

[truckboy]

Next in my search for the correct Republican presidential hopefull (let's face it, the GOP smear and fear machine is just unbeatable) is Rudy Guliani.

So all I know about the Rude is that he cleaned up the Evil Empire City. I know my sister in law disliked him for his arrogance and hard line stance on the homeless. I'm pretty sure part of the cleanup was arresting those homeless formerly referred to as "Bums" but I also know he subscribed to the "broken window" philosophy whereby his police had an low tolerance for petty crimes, as the perps of those are, or will be, the perps of bigger crimes. I don't know if he did anything about higher levels of crime or corruption. I suspect not. I don't know if that's a Mayor's job. I guess it is to a degree.

Anyway - what do you boys have to say about Mr. NYC?

[Rych]

I like him, but he is unelectable. He could win a general election against the Democrats, however he wouldn't survive the primaries because the Christian right won't turn out for a pro-choice candidate.

[TrailBate]

I don't like him. He is WAY too supportive of the Iraq war, and the Patriot Act, imo. It seems to me he'd be a worse fascist than Bush.

[Slider]

I'm not so sure the Christian right will have the deciding influence next time around, as they did in '04. I think Bush has burned a lot of his support via mismanagement and corruption, and lots of Independents will go Democratic in 2008. And I think lots of people see that the Republican majority has allowed lots of bad things to go unchecked - Rove's treason, deLay's crimes, Halliburton's profiteering, etc.

It won't take much to change the outcome next time. Bush was elected with the smallest majority by a sitting president. Another manufactured war won't work. Of course, a few more tweaks of the voting machines might negate all that.

Slider

[GeepNutt]

As bad as Bush has screwed everything up, if the Democrats keep rolling out the embarrasments such as Kennedy, Schumer, Fienstein, etc, anyone the Repulicans put up with a smidge of respectibility will still take home the prize. After 2000 and 2004 they still havent' gotten it.

[catbbq]

What's it going to take to get an independent elected? I see some leanings out there towards third party thinking. Yeah, I know it's probably a pipe dream for 2008, but Truckboy has narrowed in on the mainline. Both the dems and reps are pretty much flying without a pilot right now. I don't see Hillary getting elected and the reps don't even seem to have a good Hillary right now.

Any third party contenders?

[truckboy]

I still like Nader. Of course neither big party wants him in the game. He actually wants to make things better for the general public, not just his cronies.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I'm not so sure the Christian right will have the deciding influence next time around, as they did in '04. I think Bush has burned a lot of his support via mismanagement and corruption, and lots of Independents will go Democratic in 2008. And I think lots of people see that the Republican majority has allowed lots of bad things to go unchecked - Rove's treason, deLay's crimes, Halliburton's profiteering, etc.

It won't take much to change the outcome next time. Bush was elected with the smallest majority by a sitting president. Another manufactured war won't work. Of course, a few more tweaks of the voting machines might negate all that.

Slider



This was the same logic used going into the 2004 election, the assumption that the Democrats will win by default because George Bush is so disliked. Well he may have won by a small margin, but he still garnered the greatest number of votes in election history. You might ask what brought out so many conservatives in number? Ironically, the Democrats did with their bevy of unlikable candidates and their pathetically inept strategy of negative campaigning. I think the Democrats would have a much, much greater chance of winning if they had any type of uplifting message instead of the constant doom and gloom and bitter handwringing over the increased nationalistic attitude following 9/11. And it doesn't look to be changing any from what I am seeing. Here we have the top Democrats voting no on Judge Roberts because giving these completely ******** excuses about civil rights and that their core expects them to simply oppose based on fundamental political differences. Nevermind that he may be the single most qualified candidate ever to cross the Senate for consideration. Hillary continues to show that she just doesn't understand the hearts and minds of the American people by standing on some kind of shaky principal in opposition. What a joke. And what a joke the Democrats will prove to be if she indeed becomes the billboard nominee for the party. However poor Bush's second term is looking in the eyes of more and more Americans will have nothing to do with whomever they put out there in 2008 if those same independent swing voters continue to see the Democrats as bickering whiners.

As for Guiliani... same logic as with Romney. The religious right will not back a pro choice candidate.

And please don't start another thread for Aahnold. There will not be a constitutional amendment to allow him to run, at least not in time for 2008... that is not unless Ariana Huffington is willing to run for the Dems and there is enough groundswell for two heavily accented foreigners.

Maybe the Democrats ought to consider Ms. Huffington, though. She's more intelligent than the lot of them, and not unpleasant to look at either.

[truckboy]

What I wanna know is why is the religious ( self) right(eous) so effing powerful. Why are these wackos determining who runs the country? Seems to me moderates on both sides but close to the middle make up a bigger percentage of voters. We need a candidate who's a uniter, not a divider. I wish those zealots could get it through their heads that they are putting men in office who are stealing from them while praising Jesus.

BTW - thanks for the idea.

[GeepNutt]

What I wanna know is why is the religious ( self) right(eous) so effing powerful. Why are these wackos determining who runs the country? Seems to me moderates on both sides but close to the middle make up a bigger percentage of voters. We need a candidate who's a uniter, not a divider. I wish those zealots could get it through their heads that they are putting men in office who are stealing from them while praising Jesus.

BTW - thanks for the idea.


I don't believe it is religion more than it is morals. Frankly, the Republicans are more in line with their moral values. They look at the Democrats as the party of anything goes in this society and their not going to take it anymore. They are tired of having this crap pushed down their throats on a daily basis. Things get more and more bizarre in this country all the time. Just when you think you've seen it all along comes something else that'll blow your mind. Just a few examples, Hollywood movies and TV shows, Music, Video Games, Gay marriage, clothing styles, etc.

[Mr_Cheeze]

What I wanna know is why is the religious ( self) right(eous) so effing powerful. Why are these wackos determining who runs the country? Seems to me moderates on both sides but close to the middle make up a bigger percentage of voters. We need a candidate who's a uniter, not a divider. I wish those zealots could get it through their heads that they are putting men in office who are stealing from them while praising Jesus.


BTW - thanks for the idea.


Believe it or not, something like 80% of this country still believes in the Christian god, which only goes to show that we still have a long, long, long goddamned way to go before even half the population is prepared to adjust to life without having to constantly worry about what is going to happen when its over.

GeepNut does lay out a stark example as to how the religious right thinks.. which is to say, nutso. The only forcing of morality I see is that which is done by the right(eous) on the rest of society. The problems in this country are not lack of morals, but quite possibly too much stress upon them. We are a culture still overly mired in the past. Science and technology get left behind when religion gets in the way. Many of the greatest scientific ideas that sprouted from American and European minds that had to contend with close minded conservatives for long periods before finally going mainstream. Imagine how advanced the people of this world may be were the Bible never invented. Yea, another debate for another time I guess.

[TrailBate]

What I wanna know is why is the religious ( self) right(eous) so effing powerful. Why are these wackos determining who runs the country? Seems to me moderates on both sides but close to the middle make up a bigger percentage of voters. We need a candidate who's a uniter, not a divider. I wish those zealots could get it through their heads that they are putting men in office who are stealing from them while praising Jesus.

BTW - thanks for the idea.


I don't believe it is religion more than it is morals. Frankly, the Republicans are more in line with their moral values. They look at the Democrats as the party of anything goes in this society and their not going to take it anymore. They are tired of having this crap pushed down their throats on a daily basis. Things get more and more bizarre in this country all the time. Just when you think you've seen it all along comes something else that'll blow your mind. Just a few examples, Hollywood movies and TV shows, Music, Video Games, Gay marriage, clothing styles, etc.




Yeah, if only we could force people to be Christian, and start burning everyone else. That would be good, huh?

[GeepNutt]

What I wanna know is why is the religious ( self) right(eous) so effing powerful. Why are these wackos determining who runs the country? Seems to me moderates on both sides but close to the middle make up a bigger percentage of voters. We need a candidate who's a uniter, not a divider. I wish those zealots could get it through their heads that they are putting men in office who are stealing from them while praising Jesus.

BTW - thanks for the idea.


I don't believe it is religion more than it is morals. Frankly, the Republicans are more in line with their moral values. They look at the Democrats as the party of anything goes in this society and their not going to take it anymore. They are tired of having this crap pushed down their throats on a daily basis. Things get more and more bizarre in this country all the time. Just when you think you've seen it all along comes something else that'll blow your mind. Just a few examples, Hollywood movies and TV shows, Music, Video Games, Gay marriage, clothing styles, etc.




Yeah, if only we could force people to be Christian, and start burning everyone else. That would be good, huh?


I never said anything about forcing Christianity on anyone. It's amazing how you twist peoples statements around.

What I said was that the Democrats have a history of aligning themsleves with issues and lifestyles that a lot of people (mostly red states) morally object to. Period.

[TrailBate]

What I said was that the Democrats have a history of aligning themsleves with issues and lifestyles that a lot of people (mostly red states) morally object to. Period.


What you have is a buch of hypocritical Christians who believe in "less government", except when it comes to forcing their moral beliefs on everyone else, which somehow does not include invading countries and violating civil rights. If these people want to live in a country dominated by one religion, with it's laws and values based on that religion, and if they want to oppress everyone else, they oughta move to a country like Iraq, the very type of country Americans are fighting against.

[catbbq]

What I wanna know is why is the religious ( self) right(eous) so effing powerful. Why are these wackos determining who runs the country? Seems to me moderates on both sides but close to the middle make up a bigger percentage of voters. We need a candidate who's a uniter, not a divider. I wish those zealots could get it through their heads that they are putting men in office who are stealing from them while praising Jesus.

BTW - thanks for the idea.


I don't believe it is religion more than it is morals. Frankly, the Republicans are more in line with their moral values. They look at the Democrats as the party of anything goes in this society and their not going to take it anymore. They are tired of having this crap pushed down their throats on a daily basis. Things get more and more bizarre in this country all the time. Just when you think you've seen it all along comes something else that'll blow your mind. Just a few examples, Hollywood movies and TV shows, Music, Video Games, Gay marriage, clothing styles, etc.




The problem is actual Christians for the most part, it is, as truckboy said, the self righteous with a mission.

Real Christians are, for the most part, very kind tolerant people. The Bible says you should be. Sure, they often have political ideas that non-Christians don't necessary believe. For example, abortion. The Bible says that Jesus knew you in the womb and that you shouldn't commit murder. Those two things make Christians believe abortion are wrong. The same way pro-choice people believe it is a woman's right to choose.

Yeah, I am sure there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. Some people are just *******s.

I knew real Christians when I lived in the Midwest and South. They are easy to recognize. They are usually happy and happy to help out. Very few are preachy.

I haven't met anyone that is an obvious Christian since I moved to New England. Could just be people are more closed off until you get to know them. Maybe its just the crowds I associate with.

So hopefully it isn't Christians you have a problem with. If it is, then your no better than a nazi bigot.

[truckboy]

I can see Geepnutt's point about the left going too far in permissiveness, but that is religion based as well. The Bible says you should live a certain way and love thy neighbor as thyself. It doesn't say force thy neighbor to live as thyself. The liberal permissiveness comes out of the idea that other people's relationship with God is their business, not mine.

Personally, I'd prefer having a gay married couple next door than somebody who thinks killing arabs is a good idea but that aborting an unwanted pregnancy in a 13 year old girl is wrong. I'd prefer a stem cell researcher to an enron executive. I'd prefer teaching birth control and letting teenagers screw to teaching abstinence and hating them for getting pregnant.

My point isn't far from catbq's last regarding christians. I just think the zealots need to get off their high horse and look around at the destruction they are allowing with their naive loyalty to men who pay lip service to thier moral/religious fears and hopes.

[Slider]

I think it is wrong to mess with anyone's choice of faith. Believe what you want, whatever gets you through the night and all that. On the other hand, start messing with my freedom to believe as I see fit, and I am going to do something about it.

Most people want to impose their ideas of morality on others. It helps their sense of security and identity to believe in the absolute truth of their own faith, and they feel the world needs the benefit of their own enlightenment. Since we are in a democracy, any particular group can do just that, if they can organize themselves adequately to get and maintain power. But fortunately for all of us, we live in a diverse country, with pretty good mechanisms for preventing any one group from assuming permanent dominance. It truly takes all kinds to make a world, and the pendulum always swings back.

Recent conservative gains won’t hold on forever, because the downside of the inflexibility of the conservative philosophy will be apparent to enough voters to cause its own demise. If there’s a backlash strong enough to give liberals a decisive edge, they’ll probably, over time, go far enough into the tax-and-spend route that some neo-neo conservative approach will be needed to rein them in. It is all good, and democracy is messy but still the best choice we have.

Slider

[catbbq]

Your absolutely right, the current apparent trend of conservatism will swing (I think it already is) back to the left in the pertetual pendulum of politics.

Beyond one's faith, do you think there are absolute truths when it comes to right and wrong? Do you think things are getting better? And what does that mean? Sure, we have a high population in America that is below the "poverty" line, but nearly all of them have color TVs, cars, air conditioners, etc. And those of us well above the poverty line, you think we are happier than our parents or grand parents were?

[Slider]

Your absolutely right, the current apparent trend of conservatism will swing (I think it already is) back to the left in the pertetual pendulum of politics.

Beyond one's faith, do you think there are absolute truths when it comes to right and wrong? Do you think things are getting better? And what does that mean? Sure, we have a high population in America that is below the "poverty" line, but nearly all of them have color TVs, cars, air conditioners, etc. And those of us well above the poverty line, you think we are happier than our parents or grand parents were?



My college was mostly anthropology and archaeology courses. I never really intended to be an archaeologist, but I was wrestling with the “are things getting better?” and “who are we?” questions. I don’t think theology, philosophy or psychology answer them very well, since they don’t address cultural differences, only individual ones. They give a lesson in logic and self-analysis, but don’t address the bigger structures, like culture, that are the framework for everything else. I think looking at similarities and differences between cultures give lot more insight into who we are individually than those more near-sighted approaches.

To shorten the story, I think we are largely the same as we’ve been for many thousands of years, facing the same issues with the same set of responses that mankind has always employed. We have families, we associate with others that live near us, we use the same language, and we end up thinking similarly to our neighbors. We do so because we have to in order to get along rather than fight with them. This is a vast simplification, but the idea is that there are no absolutes, but we come to accept things as absolute because we, and those around us, have tacitly agreed to do so to enable us to understand each other. Without a common language, for example, we couldn’t cooperate on a hunt. Without a similar approach to viewing the world inside our heads, we couldn’t even agree that hunting was the right way to get food. It may or may not be, but it definitely is if it is the approach we can all agree on.

You mention microwaves, etc. I see those as trappings only. The same humans that cooked over fires use microwaves, but it takes less time to cook. A better example is the way people behave in cars. There’s absolutely no reason to cut someone off who has put on his directional to change lanes, but it happens all the time. To me, this is a vestige of territorialism, from a time when a stranger hunting in your preferred spot was a true threat to your survival. Highway, forest, same human response.

Red states/blues states, Christian/Muslims, ATVers/cyclists, it is all territory to some degree, with we humans stuck with the same set of impulsive responses. We form alliances with those that think like us, and try to advance our common issues. They aren’t absolutes, but they are important to us and our friends, and that makes us accept them as absolute. Unfortunately, in a world where it is very easy to cause a global catastrophe via war or environmental abuse, we really need more than ever to get past that old set of responses. I am not sure I see that happening.

Slider

[truckboy]

It's a tough question to answer. As a country, I think, yes, we are better off. But I also think that if you compare the wealthy to the poor, we are doing pretty bad. We COULD be doing a lot better, but I think it's human nature that gets in the way, not any political structure. We're all too damn selfish.

[Rych]

The people who are poor in this country are fortunate that they are poor in the richest country in the world. Just because someone cannot afford internet access they are not poor.

[catbbq]

It's a tough question to answer. As a country, I think, yes, we are better off. But I also think that if you compare the wealthy to the poor, we are doing pretty bad. We COULD be doing a lot better, but I think it's human nature that gets in the way, not any political structure. We're all too damn selfish.


I think we need to be a bit more selfish. People are way to easy to give away what doesn't belong to them. You are free to give as much as you make to help the poor of this nation or any other. Just don't expect me to work harder so others don't have too.

[truckboy]

You guys would be singing a different tune if the shoe were on the other foot. You don't have to give away any more. Your taxes are plenty. We could be doing better.

[catbbq]

I got no problem helping someone get back on their feet, but I have a huge problem keeping them there.

Unfortunately the system is too big to manage. Local churches do a pretty good job of helping the poor. I am in favor of giving tax dollars to local churches instead of checks to breeders.

[Rych]

You guys would be singing a different tune if the shoe were on the other foot. You don't have to give away any more. Your taxes are plenty. We could be doing better.


Maybe, but the way I look at it, my grandfather work in the leather factories to give his kids a better life. My dad did a better as a union truck driver to put me through college that eventually led me to a high tech job. My wife and I work hard so my two girls can hopefully do better than us. It’s not my job to give the poor the resources to excel in life; it’s their obligation to make their children’s life a little better through hard work. Nothing is owed to them.

[truckboy]

No. Nothing is owed to anybody. But generation after generation of poverty puts people at a definite disadvantage. It benefits us all if the motivated and smart ones can get a little help. That looks to me like it's getting increasingly difficult to find, with the widening gap between rich and poor.

I agree that people need to work for themselves and I don't want to pay for a bunch of lazy cows either. But I've seen people succeed and become contributing members, with a little help in the form of free education, counseling, and actual welfare.

I think you have to take a broader view. Poor people getting welfare pisses me off way less than corporate criminals stealing millions.

[catbbq]

There are laws against stealing from corporations. Maybe being poor should be illegal.

[TrailBate]

Yes, let's throw poor people in Jail. If you Ask Barbara Bush, she'd tell you that that would "work out very well for them (*chuckle*)"