President Rudy Guiliani (1 Viewer)

[ArcticEdge]

I remember a certain President whose extramarital affair galvanized the right so would it be hypocritical for the same base that chastised Wild Bill to support Rudy?  I know way different context but cheating is cheating.  Although I admit a RUDY chant would be cool.

The problem with Bill Clinton was that he lied under oath. He committed perjury. He committed a crime. He became a criminal at that point. His law license was suspended and he paid a large fine. He should have resigned or been removed from office. I have zero respect for him in how he clung to power and any decent human being who believes in the rule of law should not have an inkling for respect for him, either.The Left attempted to spin the issue by saying it was all about family values and having an affair, which it was not. If the Left had its way, everyone would forget the perjury.

Don't forget his "wag the dog" move by bombimg and killing 2,000 innocent Christian Serbians....

 

[Koya]

He won't win.

I loved Rudy for a while - he is a GREAT general.  Not so great peacetime leader.  Unable to build consensus except for time of extreme duress.  When he has to go under the scrutiny of a national campaign, I don't think his misteps will pass muster (his affairs, the way he handles business).  There are some things New Yorkers may not care about that the nation as a whole, especially for President, will.  Very very much an ends justify the means guy as well.

That said, he did immeasurable good for the City of New York in completely cleaning up the City and getting through 9/11.  But once things started to settle down, his weaknesses were becoming more and more apparant.

Interesting. The only dislike you have for him that you clearly stated was that you think he is "unable to build consensus".You have no issues with his policies?

I have a lot of issues with him on ideologies, but he was a GREAT wartime mayor. By wartime, I include the 90's when he simply wouldnt take any bull####, got the city cleaned, MUCH safer, invigorated the police force, saw a huge economic boom with many blighted or marginal areas becoming vibrant, very safe neighborhoods.His ability to lead post 9/11 was remarkeable and a great success.

That said, by the end of his time in office, you could see the chinks in the armor. The very definition of great general, poor peace time leader.

His possible disregard for civil rights, his end justify the means approach - both of which are a bit magnified by his infidelities and HOW he handled them (look, people get weak, cheat, whatnot - but he really can and has acted an ###) and the aforementioned ethics questions create enough question and enough doubt.

I can not argue with the results he produced for some very difficult situations, but I also do not doubt that there are significant weaknesses in his person and persona - ideology and policy derived from that ideology just a part of that pie.

He is and always will be a cop. That can and has been a great positive. But I also believe it shades his decions, actions and behavior in a manner which would provide too much negative for the presidency.

 

[shining path]

I'd love it if I had to choose between whichever Democrat emerged and Guiliani.  I don't think that you'd be to happy with that choice though, BGP.

Sorry, I really don't read your posts much so I have to ask this.Do you consider yourself a leftist? Are you posting in response to my question to leftists?

Well, you're missing out.I don't consider myself a leftist. I do consider myself someone that you would think is a leftist.

I was pointing out the fact that Guliani (or however you spell it) is way to the left of what seems to be your position on a lot of different issues. If he were president, you probably wouldn't like a lot of his policies.

 

[shining path]

By the way, "leftist" has a definite negative connotation to it. If you were actually just looking for honest opinions from people to the left of the political spectrum, rather than conjure up images of violent Marxist revolutionaries, you might have considered using "liberal" or "progressive".

As a counter-example, if I'm looking to test the opinion waters from the FBG conservatives, I'd probably just use "Looking for opinions on Guliani from FBG conservatives", rather than "Looking for opinions on Guliani from reactionary militarists".

Edit - you might actually have been looking for opinions from violent Marxist revolutionaries, in which case my advice above does not apply.

 

[bueno]

By the way, "leftist" has a definite negative connotation to it. If you were actually just looking for honest opinions from people to the left of the political spectrum, rather than conjure up images of violent Marxist revolutionaries, you might have considered using "liberal" or "progressive".

As a counter-example, if I'm looking to test the opinion waters from the FBG conservatives, I'd probably just use "Looking for opinions on Guliani from FBG conservatives", rather than "Looking for opinions on Guliani from reactionary militarists".

Edit - you might actually have been looking for opinions from violent Marxist revolutionaries, in which case my advice above does not apply.

Path, Leftist is a better fit for what people on the Left are. They forfeited the right to call themselves liberals when they started embracing socialism over liberty.

 

[shining path]

lol

:shakeshead:

 

[17seconds]

If Rudy is the GOP nom, it'll be the first time in my life I've ever been enthusiastic about voting for a president.

 

[Koya]

By the way, "leftist" has a definite negative connotation to it.  If you were actually just looking for honest opinions from people to the left of the political spectrum, rather than conjure up images of violent Marxist revolutionaries, you might have considered using "liberal" or "progressive". 

As a counter-example, if I'm looking to test the opinion waters from the FBG conservatives, I'd probably just use "Looking for opinions on Guliani from FBG conservatives", rather than "Looking for opinions on Guliani from reactionary militarists".

Edit - you might actually have been looking for opinions from violent Marxist revolutionaries, in which case my advice above does not apply.

Path, Leftist is a better fit for what people on the Left are. They forfeited the right to call themselves liberals when they started embracing socialism over liberty.

Is there any doubt why so many just tune out? Bueno, you are better than this, yet it is your M.O. almost constantly.

 

[BGP]

As a counter-example, if I'm looking to test the opinion waters from the FBG conservatives, I'd probably just use "Looking for opinions on Guliani from FBG conservatives", rather than "Looking for opinions on Guliani from reactionary militarists".

Uh, I think the counter-example would be "Looking for opinions from right-wingers."

 

[Keerock]

I'm a liberal Republican and I'd vote for him... especially if it means keeping Hillary out of office.

 

[BGP]

I'd love it if I had to choose between whichever Democrat emerged and Guiliani. I don't think that you'd be to happy with that choice though, BGP.

Sorry, I really don't read your posts much so I have to ask this.Do you consider yourself a leftist? Are you posting in response to my question to leftists?

Well, you're missing out.I don't consider myself a leftist. I do consider myself someone that you would think is a leftist.

I was pointing out the fact that Guliani (or however you spell it) is way to the left of what seems to be your position on a lot of different issues. If he were president, you probably wouldn't like a lot of his policies.

Well then your opinion isn't one that I was looking for when I started this thread so we'll move along.

 

[BGP]

By the way, "leftist" has a definite negative connotation to it. If you were actually just looking for honest opinions from people to the left of the political spectrum, rather than conjure up images of violent Marxist revolutionaries, you might have considered using "liberal" or "progressive".

As a counter-example, if I'm looking to test the opinion waters from the FBG conservatives, I'd probably just use "Looking for opinions on Guliani from FBG conservatives", rather than "Looking for opinions on Guliani from reactionary militarists".

Edit - you might actually have been looking for opinions from violent Marxist revolutionaries, in which case my advice above does not apply.

Path, Leftist is a better fit for what people on the Left are. They forfeited the right to call themselves liberals when they started embracing socialism over liberty.

Is there any doubt why so many just tune out? Bueno, you are better than this, yet it is your M.O. almost constantly.

I think bueno's point is an excellent one. The ones who should be afraid of being tuned out are the leftists. But it goes back to what I said about shortly after the 2004 election. The democrats saw this huge turnout at the polls and the GOP actually won and gained ground. They stopped and pondered that they just might be doing something wrong for about 5 minutes, and then they went right back to do doing all the things that have caused so many voters to tune them out for the past 30 years.The democrats wish that everyone would turn people like bueno out. Meanwhile I want to give leftists a microphone. How ironic.

 

[Sulla]

By the way, "leftist" has a definite negative connotation to it. If you were actually just looking for honest opinions from people to the left of the political spectrum, rather than conjure up images of violent Marxist revolutionaries, you might have considered using "liberal" or "progressive".

As a counter-example, if I'm looking to test the opinion waters from the FBG conservatives, I'd probably just use "Looking for opinions on Guliani from FBG conservatives", rather than "Looking for opinions on Guliani from reactionary militarists".

Edit - you might actually have been looking for opinions from violent Marxist revolutionaries, in which case my advice above does not apply.

Path, Leftist is a better fit for what people on the Left are. They forfeited the right to call themselves liberals when they started embracing socialism over liberty.

Is there any doubt why so many just tune out? Bueno, you are better than this, yet it is your M.O. almost constantly.

I think bueno's point is an excellent one. The ones who should be afraid of being tuned out are the leftists. But it goes back to what I said about shortly after the 2004 election. The democrats saw this huge turnout at the polls and the GOP actually won and gained ground. They stopped and pondered that they just might be doing something wrong for about 5 minutes, and then they went right back to do doing all the things that have caused so many voters to tune them out for the past 30 years.The democrats wish that everyone would turn people like bueno out. Meanwhile I want to give leftists a microphone. How ironic.

IMO, I think extremist right-wingers (e.g. bueno) have a warped sense of humor. And what's really funny is those who take them seriously (e.g. BGP).

 

[Sulla]

Giuliani would be a vast improvement over George W. Bush.

Then again, W set the level of expectations so low, even Katherine Harris would be an improvement.

The 2008 election will definitely bring an improvement in our leadership, no matter which party wins.

 

[17seconds]

Giuliani would be a vast improvement over George W. Bush.

Then again, W set the level of expectations so low, even Katherine Harris would be an improvement.

The 2008 election will definitely bring an improvement in our leadership, no matter which party wins.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

that BGP is a curious little fellow.

 

[BGP]

I think this thread might work better if people would state if they are leftist before giving their opinion. The only thing I've learned in this thread is that its been so long since I've consistently read posts in the FFA that I don't recall where most of you stand anymore.

 

[ScottNorwood]

I think this thread might work better if people would state if they are leftist before giving their opinion. The only thing I've learned in this thread is that its been so long since I've consistently read posts in the FFA that I don't recall where most of you stand anymore.

Isn't "leftist" a purely subjective term?

 

[shining path]

I will tell BGP if I'm a leftist as soon as he tells me if he's a reactionary war-monger.

 

[BGP]

I will tell BGP if I'm a leftist as soon as he tells me if he's a reactionary war-monger.

So what you are saying is that America has shifted rightward so much that being any sort of leftist = an extremist? I disagree.

 

[pinequick]

he can't count on the support of ny republicans. what makes you think he can be the candidate for the rest of the GOP?

with his performance during 9/11 he managed to obscure his rising unpopularity as mayor. his modest support as a senatorial candidate in the election versus a polarizing carpetbagger like hillary ought to tell you something. he's a basically good man who will be a tough sell to religous conservatives.

If he gets elected at the objection of the religious right, I'm all for it.

And now you know why he'll never make it out of the primaries. . .

 

[Sulla]

I will tell BGP if I'm a leftist as soon as he tells me if he's a reactionary war-monger.

So what you are saying is that America has shifted rightward so much that being any sort of leftist = an extremist? I disagree.

 

[BGP]

I think this thread might work better if people would state if they are leftist before giving their opinion. The only thing I've learned in this thread is that its been so long since I've consistently read posts in the FFA that I don't recall where most of you stand anymore.

Isn't "leftist" a purely subjective term?

No.The concepts are clearly defined.

The left believes in social freedom and economic controls.

The right believes in social controls and economic freedom.

Someone is leftist or right-wing because they agree more with one side than the other.

Its a pretty simple concept.

For me, I'm a libertarian. I believe in social freedom and economic freedom. However, I agree more with the right than the left. I think the left doesn't make any sense at all, really, except on an emotional level.

I think when someone says "subjective" they really mean they don't understand the difference between the two concepts.

 

[shining path]

I will tell BGP if I'm a leftist as soon as he tells me if he's a reactionary war-monger.

So what you are saying is that America has shifted rightward so much that being any sort of leftist = an extremist? I disagree.

I think we're talking past each other on this. It's kind of a minor point, but the connotations of "leftist" are a bit more negative and sinister than those for "liberal". That's why I used "reactionary" as an analogy on the right side of the political spectrum. Sure, there's overlap between "leftist" and "liberal" and between "conservative" and "reactionary", but if I'm trying to kick off a rational debate with a conservative, and I want him to take me seriously, I don't start out by calling him a reactionary.Maybe the words don't have the same meanings for you, but they do for most other people. Just giving you a heads up.

 

[Sulla]

I think this thread might work better if people would state if they are leftist before giving their opinion. The only thing I've learned in this thread is that its been so long since I've consistently read posts in the FFA that I don't recall where most of you stand anymore.

Isn't "leftist" a purely subjective term?

No.The concepts are clearly defined.

The left believes in social freedom and economic controls.

The right believes in social controls and economic freedom.

Someone is leftist or right-wing because they agree more with one side than the other.

Its a pretty simple concept.

P.S. I'm sorry to be rude, but no other answer is possible faced with this gross oversimplification of political ideology.

 

[BGP]

The thing I like about the right-wing belief (social controls and economic freedom) is that to achieve economic freedom, you ultimately cut government. You weaken government. You empower the people. And when you do that, it makes it increasingly difficult for the right-wing to enforce social controls.

In effect, right-wing beliefs lead to libertarianism.

The opposite is true of the leftists. They believe in social freedom and economic controls. Well, social freedom flows from economic freedom. What I'm saying is, if you take away economic freedom, that places enormous power in the hands of government. It takes power away from the people. That only works as long as the government is benevolent. As you continue to change leadership, eventually you will wind up with a government that isn't as benevolent, one that will start to press its power to impose its will in other arenas, such as social issues.

Eventually, leftism leads to a dictatorship, even though I don't believe that is the intention of many leftists. They simply see this utopia they want to create and are oblivious to the consequences.

 

[Brave Sir Robin]

I am a leftist.

Guliani's moderate positions seem more sincere and less calculated than McCain's moderate positions (This is not to say that I think McCain is a complete dirtbag or anything).

After watching Clinton triangulate himself into impotence and George HW Bush compromise himself out of office, I tend to view sincerity as a respectable political attribute. I think this may be where Hillary leaves folks a bit uneasy.

SP is right about leftist being a pejorative term usually reserved for Communist rebels trying to overthrow a banana republic. The term "lefties" is more appropriate for what you are after. It includes those here on the board that are bit more than just left of center. The phrase "liberal" or "progressive" really isn't quite right either 'cause it sparks off topic debates.

Often those that embrace progressive ideas are those that have thought through the ramifications of what they want and don't want. Leftists and "Sullists" just want wealthy people to die a slow painful death and to dismember and distribute their remains to soup kitchens and prisons cafeterias. I hope this clears things up for you.

 

[shining path]

The thing I like about the right-wing belief (social controls and economic freedom) is that to achieve economic freedom, you ultimately cut government. You weaken government. You empower the people. And when you do that, it makes it increasingly difficult for the right-wing to enforce social controls.

In effect, right-wing beliefs lead to libertarianism.

The opposite is true of the leftists. They believe in social freedom and economic controls. Well, social freedom flows from economic freedom. What I'm saying is, if you take away economic freedom, that places enormous power in the hands of government. It takes power away from the people. That only works as long as the government is benevolent. As you continue to change leadership, eventually you will wind up with a government that isn't as benevolent, one that will start to press its power to impose its will in other arenas, such as social issues.

Eventually, leftism leads to a dictatorship, even though I don't believe that is the intention of many leftists. They simply see this utopia they want to create and are oblivious to the consequences.

Historically, the most sure-fire route to a dictatorship is the misuse of armed men, not food stamp programs. Governments don't need to infantilize their citizens with welfare programs in order to dominate them. They just need organized men with guns and the willingness to use them.

 

[Lumpasaur]

Historically, the most sure-fire route to a dictatorship is the misuse of armed men, not food stamp programs. Governments don't need to infantilize their citizens with welfare programs in order to dominate them. They just need organized men with guns and the willingness to use them.

God Bless the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Native]

We would be lucky to have him as our President.

 

[saintfool]

I remember a certain President whose extramarital affair galvanized the right so would it be hypocritical for the same base that chastised Wild Bill to support Rudy? I know way different context but cheating is cheating. Although I admit a RUDY chant would be cool.

The problem with Bill Clinton was that he lied under oath. He committed perjury. He committed a crime. He became a criminal at that point. His law license was suspended and he paid a large fine. He should have resigned or been removed from office. I have zero respect for him in how he clung to power and any decent human being who believes in the rule of law should not have an inkling for respect for him, either.The Left attempted to spin the issue by saying it was all about family values and having an affair, which it was not. If the Left had its way, everyone would forget the perjury.

Nixon authorized the Watergate break-in. Reagan authorized Iran-Contra. You forgot to mention you contempt for those men....

 

[saintfool]

I remember a certain President whose extramarital affair galvanized the right so would it be hypocritical for the same base that chastised Wild Bill to support Rudy? I know way different context but cheating is cheating. Although I admit a RUDY chant would be cool.

The problem with Bill Clinton was that he lied under oath. He committed perjury. He committed a crime. He became a criminal at that point. His law license was suspended and he paid a large fine. He should have resigned or been removed from office. I have zero respect for him in how he clung to power and any decent human being who believes in the rule of law should not have an inkling for respect for him, either.The Left attempted to spin the issue by saying it was all about family values and having an affair, which it was not. If the Left had its way, everyone would forget the perjury.

Don't forget his "wag the dog" move by bombimg and killing 2,000 innocent Christian Serbians....

Kosovo was a NATO operation.

 

[jamny]

RUDY!

rudy, rudy, he's our man. If he can't do it, no one can.

I'm all for Rudy as President. Anyone that doubts him just doesn't know the man. He's as normal a President as we'd ever have. Down to earth, realistic and smart.

RUDY 2008!!!

 

[BGP]

The thing I like about the right-wing belief (social controls and economic freedom) is that to achieve economic freedom, you ultimately cut government. You weaken government. You empower the people. And when you do that, it makes it increasingly difficult for the right-wing to enforce social controls.

In effect, right-wing beliefs lead to libertarianism.

The opposite is true of the leftists. They believe in social freedom and economic controls. Well, social freedom flows from economic freedom. What I'm saying is, if you take away economic freedom, that places enormous power in the hands of government. It takes power away from the people. That only works as long as the government is benevolent. As you continue to change leadership, eventually you will wind up with a government that isn't as benevolent, one that will start to press its power to impose its will in other arenas, such as social issues.

Eventually, leftism leads to a dictatorship, even though I don't believe that is the intention of many leftists. They simply see this utopia they want to create and are oblivious to the consequences.

Historically, the most sure-fire route to a dictatorship is the misuse of armed men, not food stamp programs. Governments don't need to infantilize their citizens with welfare programs in order to dominate them. They just need organized men with guns and the willingness to use them.

The refusal to stop Hitler early on led to his dictatorship spreading across Europe. Neville Chamberlain and friends "misused his armed men by not using them at all. But somehow I don't think that was what you meant.

 

[suspected]

I have a lot of issues with him on ideologies, but he was a GREAT wartime mayor. By wartime, I include the 90's when he simply wouldnt take any bull####, got the city cleaned, MUCH safer, invigorated the police force, saw a huge economic boom with many blighted or marginal areas becoming vibrant, very safe neighborhoods.

His ability to lead post 9/11 was remarkeable and a great success.

That said, by the end of his time in office, you could see the chinks in the armor. The very definition of great general, poor peace time leader.

His possible disregard for civil rights, his end justify the means approach - both of which are a bit magnified by his infidelities and HOW he handled them (look, people get weak, cheat, whatnot - but he really can and has acted an ###) and the aforementioned ethics questions create enough question and enough doubt.

I can not argue with the results he produced for some very difficult situations, but I also do not doubt that there are significant weaknesses in his person and persona - ideology and policy derived from that ideology just a part of that pie.

He is and always will be a cop. That can and has been a great positive. But I also believe it shades his decions, actions and behavior in a manner which would provide too much negative for the presidency.

Sounds like he would be perfect to lead a war against Iran. That should take about 4-8 years.

 

[CNUTZ]

I remember a certain President whose extramarital affair galvanized the right so would it be hypocritical for the same base that chastised Wild Bill to support Rudy?  I know way different context but cheating is cheating.  Although I admit a RUDY chant would be cool.

The problem with Bill Clinton was that he lied under oath. He committed perjury. He committed a crime. He became a criminal at that point. His law license was suspended and he paid a large fine. He should have resigned or been removed from office. I have zero respect for him in how he clung to power and any decent human being who believes in the rule of law should not have an inkling for respect for him, either.The Left attempted to spin the issue by saying it was all about family values and having an affair, which it was not. If the Left had its way, everyone would forget the perjury.

Don't forget his "wag the dog" move by bombimg and killing 2,000 innocent Christian Serbians....

Kosovo was a NATO operation.

Correct, it was a NATO action but Mr. Clinton led the charge. He threatened Milosevic many times and then got NATO together to take action. US Envoy Richard Holbrooke was in negotiation on behalf of NATO.

 

[Serenity Now]

The thing I like about the right-wing belief (social controls and economic freedom) is that to achieve economic freedom, you ultimately cut government.  You weaken government.  You empower the people.  And when you do that, it makes it increasingly difficult for the right-wing to enforce social controls.

In effect, right-wing beliefs lead to libertarianism.

The opposite is true of the leftists.  They believe in social freedom and economic controls.  Well, social freedom flows from economic freedom.  What I'm saying is, if you take away economic freedom, that places enormous power in the hands of government.  It takes power away from the people.  That only works as long as the government is benevolent.  As you continue to change leadership, eventually you will wind up with a government that isn't as benevolent, one that will start to press its power to impose its will in other arenas, such as social issues. 

Eventually, leftism leads to a dictatorship, even though I don't believe that is the intention of many leftists.  They simply see this utopia they want to create and are oblivious to the consequences.

Historically, the most sure-fire route to a dictatorship is the misuse of armed men, not food stamp programs. Governments don't need to infantilize their citizens with welfare programs in order to dominate them. They just need organized men with guns and the willingness to use them.

The refusal to stop Hitler early on led to his dictatorship spreading across Europe. Neville Chamberlain and friends "misused his armed men by not using them at all. But somehow I don't think that was what you meant.

Hang on, am I reading you wrong or are you saying that you think Hitler was a communist? Or are you saying that leftism leads to dictatorships in other countries?

 

[shining path]

The thing I like about the right-wing belief (social controls and economic freedom) is that to achieve economic freedom, you ultimately cut government.  You weaken government.  You empower the people.  And when you do that, it makes it increasingly difficult for the right-wing to enforce social controls.

In effect, right-wing beliefs lead to libertarianism.

The opposite is true of the leftists.  They believe in social freedom and economic controls.  Well, social freedom flows from economic freedom.  What I'm saying is, if you take away economic freedom, that places enormous power in the hands of government.  It takes power away from the people.  That only works as long as the government is benevolent.  As you continue to change leadership, eventually you will wind up with a government that isn't as benevolent, one that will start to press its power to impose its will in other arenas, such as social issues. 

Eventually, leftism leads to a dictatorship, even though I don't believe that is the intention of many leftists.  They simply see this utopia they want to create and are oblivious to the consequences.

Historically, the most sure-fire route to a dictatorship is the misuse of armed men, not food stamp programs. Governments don't need to infantilize their citizens with welfare programs in order to dominate them. They just need organized men with guns and the willingness to use them.

The refusal to stop Hitler early on led to his dictatorship spreading across Europe. Neville Chamberlain and friends "misused his armed men by not using them at all. But somehow I don't think that was what you meant.

I don't really know what your point is here.

 

[Clayton Gray]

null vote.

 

[Darth Cheney]

The thing I like about the right-wing belief (social controls and economic freedom) is that to achieve economic freedom, you ultimately cut government. You weaken government. You empower the people. And when you do that, it makes it increasingly difficult for the right-wing to enforce social controls.

In effect, right-wing beliefs lead to libertarianism.

The opposite is true of the leftists. They believe in social freedom and economic controls. Well, social freedom flows from economic freedom. What I'm saying is, if you take away economic freedom, that places enormous power in the hands of government. It takes power away from the people. That only works as long as the government is benevolent. As you continue to change leadership, eventually you will wind up with a government that isn't as benevolent, one that will start to press its power to impose its will in other arenas, such as social issues.

Eventually, leftism leads to a dictatorship, even though I don't believe that is the intention of many leftists. They simply see this utopia they want to create and are oblivious to the consequences.

How does this view jibe with the current administration or the devout religious organizations that seem to run the Republican party. It's my belief that the religious right is fine with you leading your own life.... as long as you lead it by their standards; primarily those that try to curb an individuals sexual prefrences. Also, how is Republicanism ( in its current state) for the shrinking of big government? I realize that traditional Republican values call for the decreased role of government... but that does not seem to be the case today.......I think you are also being shortsighted in your comment that leftism leads to dictatorship. Both conservatism and leftism leads to totalitarianism forms of government.

 

[Serenity Now]

I think you are also being shortsighted in your comment that leftism leads to dictatorship. Both conservatism and leftism leads to totalitarianism forms of government.

 

[NCCommish]

Rudy can not win in the GOP primaries because the main people that turn out for them are social conservatives . Guiliani can not win those votes. He is also carrying mucho baggage that I would think a guy like BGP would have saved somewhere in his vast media files. If you don't BGP you can bet everyone else does. He will get savaged in the primaries all you have to do is look at what the GOP did to McCain to get a taste of how that works.

Way to early to even be discussing these candidacies anyway. We dont even know who is running yet for sure and we won't really until after the next cycyle as that's when everyone will start taking stock and seeing if they want to take a shot for the most part.

 

[Spiderman]

For those that do not know, Guiliani has pretty much been polling as the top choice of voters ever since the 2004 race ended. He's getting more favorable numbers than McCain, and would whip anyone the democrats offered.

What polls are you referring to ???

 

[Spiderman]

For those that do not know, Guiliani has pretty much been polling as the top choice of voters ever since the 2004 race ended.  He's getting more favorable numbers than McCain, and would whip anyone the democrats offered.

that says as much about the desperation and current state of affairs in the GOP that he's your #1 candidate at this point....

Who is the likely Democratic nomination ? H.Clinton ?

 

[bueno]

By the way, "leftist" has a definite negative connotation to it.  If you were actually just looking for honest opinions from people to the left of the political spectrum, rather than conjure up images of violent Marxist revolutionaries, you might have considered using "liberal" or "progressive". 

As a counter-example, if I'm looking to test the opinion waters from the FBG conservatives, I'd probably just use "Looking for opinions on Guliani from FBG conservatives", rather than "Looking for opinions on Guliani from reactionary militarists".

Edit - you might actually have been looking for opinions from violent Marxist revolutionaries, in which case my advice above does not apply.

Path, Leftist is a better fit for what people on the Left are. They forfeited the right to call themselves liberals when they started embracing socialism over liberty.

Is there any doubt why so many just tune out? Bueno, you are better than this, yet it is your M.O. almost constantly.

I think bueno's point is an excellent one. The ones who should be afraid of being tuned out are the leftists. But it goes back to what I said about shortly after the 2004 election. The democrats saw this huge turnout at the polls and the GOP actually won and gained ground. They stopped and pondered that they just might be doing something wrong for about 5 minutes, and then they went right back to do doing all the things that have caused so many voters to tune them out for the past 30 years.The democrats wish that everyone would turn people like bueno out. Meanwhile I want to give leftists a microphone. How ironic.

IMO, I think extremist right-wingers (e.g. bueno) have a warped sense of humor. And what's really funny is those who take them seriously (e.g. BGP).

When you make a class of people dependent on government largess and consider the good of the whole more important than the rights of the individual, you no longer deserve to be called liberal.

 

[bueno]

By the way, "leftist" has a definite negative connotation to it.  If you were actually just looking for honest opinions from people to the left of the political spectrum, rather than conjure up images of violent Marxist revolutionaries, you might have considered using "liberal" or "progressive". 

As a counter-example, if I'm looking to test the opinion waters from the FBG conservatives, I'd probably just use "Looking for opinions on Guliani from FBG conservatives", rather than "Looking for opinions on Guliani from reactionary militarists".

Edit - you might actually have been looking for opinions from violent Marxist revolutionaries, in which case my advice above does not apply.

Path, Leftist is a better fit for what people on the Left are. They forfeited the right to call themselves liberals when they started embracing socialism over liberty.

Is there any doubt why so many just tune out? Bueno, you are better than this, yet it is your M.O. almost constantly.

At least I'm consistent

 

[bueno]

I am a leftist.

Guliani's moderate positions seem more sincere and less calculated than McCain's moderate positions (This is not to say that I think McCain is a complete dirtbag or anything).

After watching Clinton triangulate himself into impotence and George HW Bush compromise himself out of office, I tend to view sincerity as a respectable political attribute. I think this may be where Hillary leaves folks a bit uneasy.

SP is right about leftist being a pejorative term usually reserved for Communist rebels trying to overthrow a banana republic. The term "lefties" is more appropriate for what you are after. It includes those here on the board that are bit more than just left of center. The phrase "liberal" or "progressive" really isn't quite right either 'cause it sparks off topic debates.

Often those that embrace progressive ideas are those that have thought through the ramifications of what they want and don't want. Leftists and "Sullists" just want wealthy people to die a slow painful death and to dismember and distribute their remains to soup kitchens and prisons cafeterias. I hope this clears things up for you.

What about Vegans?

 

[Koya]

By the way, "leftist" has a definite negative connotation to it.  If you were actually just looking for honest opinions from people to the left of the political spectrum, rather than conjure up images of violent Marxist revolutionaries, you might have considered using "liberal" or "progressive". 

As a counter-example, if I'm looking to test the opinion waters from the FBG conservatives, I'd probably just use "Looking for opinions on Guliani from FBG conservatives", rather than "Looking for opinions on Guliani from reactionary militarists".

Edit - you might actually have been looking for opinions from violent Marxist revolutionaries, in which case my advice above does not apply.

Path, Leftist is a better fit for what people on the Left are. They forfeited the right to call themselves liberals when they started embracing socialism over liberty.

Is there any doubt why so many just tune out? Bueno, you are better than this, yet it is your M.O. almost constantly.

At least I'm consistent

That, you are. Maddeningly so.

 

[bueno]

The thing I like about the right-wing belief (social controls and economic freedom) is that to achieve economic freedom, you ultimately cut government.  You weaken government.  You empower the people.  And when you do that, it makes it increasingly difficult for the right-wing to enforce social controls.

In effect, right-wing beliefs lead to libertarianism.

The opposite is true of the leftists.  They believe in social freedom and economic controls.  Well, social freedom flows from economic freedom.  What I'm saying is, if you take away economic freedom, that places enormous power in the hands of government.  It takes power away from the people.  That only works as long as the government is benevolent.  As you continue to change leadership, eventually you will wind up with a government that isn't as benevolent, one that will start to press its power to impose its will in other arenas, such as social issues. 

Eventually, leftism leads to a dictatorship, even though I don't believe that is the intention of many leftists.  They simply see this utopia they want to create and are oblivious to the consequences.

Historically, the most sure-fire route to a dictatorship is the misuse of armed men, not food stamp programs. Governments don't need to infantilize their citizens with welfare programs in order to dominate them. They just need organized men with guns and the willingness to use them.

See Venezuela and Bolivia - well on their way to loss of democracy

 

[LHUCKS]

Considering Bush is now being considered by the vast majority of the world(and the majority of Americans) as one of the worst Presidents of all time if not the very worst, as a Democrat I can honestly say you could put Mickey f'ing Mouse in the oval office and we'd see improvement.

What an astonishingly bad six years this has been. It's almost more embarrassing for those that voted for this a-clown than Bush himself.