What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

President Rudy Guiliani (1 Viewer)

Hey BGP,

I have agree that the term "leftist" is not the best word to use. However, not wanting to focus on that small issue I would be thrilled to see Rudy G win the nomination from the radical extremist reactionary party.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Being against changing the definition of marriage is not curbing sexual preferences.I totally agree with your point regarding decreased role of governemnt and believe that is why Republican contempt for Congress is so low.

 
I'm definitely from the left side, at least if you define the right by Bush and his cabal of corporate plutocrats.

I saw (didn't hear because the TV volume was down at the brewpub) Jerry Falwell discussing Giuliani on MSNBC early this past week. Pretty apparent that Falwell has major problems with Giuliani, which automatically makes me like Giuliani more.

Giuliani pros:

- Cleaned up the Fulton St. Fish Market which was historically corrupt

- Pro choice Catholic, which makes him Satan incarnate to many eager believers in the Bible Belt

- Demonstrated more leadership than Bush, Pataki, and every other leader in the world following 9/11. I'd trust him with the best interests of the nation in a crisis.

Cons:

- Had the Thunderbolt coaster ripped down before the preservationists could act.

- Banned beer at street festivals afer the wilding at the Puerto rican Day parade, despite the fact that alcohol at the street fair had nothing to do with it.

- Has a rather Gestapo-like means of dealing with those he does not care for.

Given that, I'd take him in a heartbeat over McCain. I lost all respect for McCain when he backed Bush after being the recipient of serious Rovian mudslinging and fearmonegring during the 2000 primaries. If someone were to slander and disrespect me the way that Bush & Co. did him, I'd sooner spit on their graves than give them my support. Very weak on McCain's part.

 
I'd like to point out that a neo-con is a liberal that has moved over to the right.

Or maybe they are people who were liberals until the Left moved so far away from their positions that they weren't considered liberal anymore.

 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Being against changing the definition of marriage is not curbing sexual preferences.I totally agree with your point regarding decreased role of governemnt and believe that is why Republican contempt for Congress is so low.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about redefining marriage. If I had it my way, the government would sanction civil unions between two people and leave marriage (which I do believe to be a union of a man and a woman to the grace of God) to the various religions to decide. I'm talking about the Puritanical view of sex that some of these people have.... particularly when it deals with pornography, premarital sex, different sexual prefrences between consenting adults (including homosexual relations) and the expression of sexuality in the media.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Being against changing the definition of marriage is not curbing sexual preferences.I totally agree with your point regarding decreased role of governemnt and believe that is why Republican contempt for Congress is so low.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about redefining marriage. If I had it my way, the government would sanction civil unions between two people and leave marriage (which I do believe to be a union of a man and a woman to the grace of God) to the various religions to decide. I'm talking about the Puritanical view of sex that some of these people have.... particularly when it deals with pornography, premarital sex, different sexual prefrences between consenting adults (including homosexual relations) and the expression of sexuality in the media.
Click to expand...
I don't recall any attempts by anyone not in the lunatic fringe to outlaw what happens in a bedroom.
 
I'd like to point out that a neo-con is a liberal that has moved over to the right.

Or maybe they are people who were liberals until the Left moved so far away from their positions that they weren't considered liberal anymore.
Click to expand...
I think that the Bush neo-con is a conservative who feels that they suffered under the Clinton Presidency and are therefore "owed" one.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Being against changing the definition of marriage is not curbing sexual preferences.I totally agree with your point regarding decreased role of governemnt and believe that is why Republican contempt for Congress is so low.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about redefining marriage. If I had it my way, the government would sanction civil unions between two people and leave marriage (which I do believe to be a union of a man and a woman to the grace of God) to the various religions to decide. I'm talking about the Puritanical view of sex that some of these people have.... particularly when it deals with pornography, premarital sex, different sexual prefrences between consenting adults (including homosexual relations) and the expression of sexuality in the media.
Click to expand...
I don't recall any attempts by anyone not in the lunatic fringe to outlaw what happens in a bedroom.
Click to expand...
The further the country moves towards a particular political direction.... the closer the lunatic fringe of that particular political philosophy moves to the center of the party.
 
From the very first hints that Rudy the Terrible would run, I told you all he stood ZERO chance. Aside from the TONS of baggage which the nation does not even yet know about, the guy took an utterly foolish strategy.

 
You Americans should be happy you even have the ability to vote against people you don't like. You should be happy Giuliani didn't go Khrushchev on his rivals.

 
Boris Spassky said:
You Americans should be happy you even have the ability to vote against people you don't like. You should be happy Giuliani didn't go Khrushchev on his rivals.
Click to expand...
He's got the tools to do it too. The NYPD has Sipowicz, Barney Miller, Briscoe and Logan, all the hard core guys. We'd be repressed in no time.
 
No way I'm reading through all of this thread, but did anyone point out that the OP misspelled President Giuliani's name?

 
I'm pretty sure BGP repeated about 1000x that this was conditional on the fact that front-runners very often "shoot themselves in the foot". And that Giuliani did it by hiding until the Florida primary, allowing rivals to take him down.

NCCommish said:
BGP said:
I believe the only true way to overcome a front-runner is that the front-runner must shoot himself in the foot. Fred Thompson is that team on the edge of the playoffs that isn't in control of their own destiny. If Giuliani shoots himself in the foot with a scandal out of nowhere or doing something stupid (which candidates sometimes do from time to time, see Gary Hart or Howard Dean), Thompson can win the nomination just by doing little more than hanging around in 2nd place. Then if the democratic nominee shoots him or herself in the foot, he could be president. And yah, in 1988 it actually happened TWICE - Gary Hart was the front runner and got caught up in a sex scandal, and then Dukakis was the front runner until that stupid photo of him in a tank, and Bush41 got elected.
Click to expand...
There is certainly truth here but I don't think Thompson is number two. I think Romney is way ahead of him, in every meaningful category, and that even Huckabee may have more momentum at this point. I think Thompson would have to run a perfect campaign and have several people shoot themselves.
Click to expand...
Here NCC seemed amicable to the notion.
BGP said:
Hillary Clinton, in sports terms, would be like am NFL football team that hasn't been eliminated but is also not in control of their own playoff destiny. Play hard, and hope good things occur.

In her case, the polls show Both Giuliani and McCain would defeat her 1v1. So both would probably have to suffer self-inflicted wounds. Sounds unlikely, but having TWO front-runners shoot themselves in the foot in the same year occured in both 1988 and 1992.
Click to expand...
BGP points out years where multiple front-runners shot themselves in the foot.
BGP said:
The polling data for the 2008 White House race has shown that Giuliani is the favorite and has been for years.

Historically, favorites in this position CAN lose. Here are some recent elections, focusing on those favorites that failed to win and what happened to them:

1980: Reagan favored

1984: Reagan favored

1988: Gary Hart led the polling data over George H. W. Bush. Hart found himself in a sex scandal and dropped out.

1988: Dukakis became the favorite. Picture of him riding in a tank sunk his popularity.

1992: Bush was the clear front-runner until the recession came along with his tax hike.

1992: Perot emerged as the front-runner but then inexplicably dropped out of the race.

1996: Clinton favored

2000: Bush favored

2004: Bush favored

If there is a trend here, its that when white house favorites lose, its from some sort of self-inflicted wound. I can't find a case where an underdog candidate ran a good campaign and turned the polls around alone. They had to have help.

Giuliani is and has been the favorite. He probably would have to shoot himself in the foot to change that. Giuliani just needs to say little, stay positive, and he probably wins.
Click to expand...
Here he goes over yet AGAIN how front-runners shoot themselves in the foot, and even notes the Giuliani would have to shoot himself in the foot (which he did)
Pai Mei said:
Chase Stuart said:
Once again, for those saying to bet R -- more people think D at 65 is a better bet than think R at 34 is, according to this poll so far. :jawdrop:
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that nominees shoot themselves in the foot in the general election quite a lot. We've had election cycles where multiple candidates have sunk themselves with major scandals and such. I'd like any nominee that is well below 50 this far out from the election.
Click to expand...
Here he talks about it again.
Pai Mei said:
Well here we have a front-runner losing that status and now dropping out. My contention is that front-runners cannot be beaten - they have to shoot themselves in the foot to lose. The criticism that seems to be emerging about Giuliani 2008 is that he ran a terrible campaign by not fighting hard to the end for attention in Iowa and New Hampshire. He allowed himself to finish so poorly that it ruined his popularity. He came off as "not really wanting it" so supporters drifted elsewhere. Can this be construed as "shooting himself in the foot?" It seems that way. There was constant criticism of this campaign tactic to be sure.
Click to expand...
Here he comments on Giuliani's flagging campaign as it happens.Well, I think my work is done here. This is not a case of BGP being wrong - its a case of the peanut gallery trying to misrepresent his views. He said over and over and over that Giuliani could shoot himself in the foot. Case closed.

 
kaa said:
Well, I think my work is done here. This is not a case of BGP being wrong - its a case of the peanut gallery trying to misrepresent his views. He said over and over and over that Giuliani could shoot himself in the foot. Case closed.
Click to expand...
OK, this talking about yourself in the third person has GOT to stop. Jeez.
 
kaa said:
I'm pretty sure BGP repeated about 1000x that this was conditional on the fact that front-runners very often "shoot themselves in the foot". And that Giuliani did it by hiding until the Florida primary, allowing rivals to take him down.

NCCommish said:
BGP said:
I believe the only true way to overcome a front-runner is that the front-runner must shoot himself in the foot. Fred Thompson is that team on the edge of the playoffs that isn't in control of their own destiny. If Giuliani shoots himself in the foot with a scandal out of nowhere or doing something stupid (which candidates sometimes do from time to time, see Gary Hart or Howard Dean), Thompson can win the nomination just by doing little more than hanging around in 2nd place. Then if the democratic nominee shoots him or herself in the foot, he could be president. And yah, in 1988 it actually happened TWICE - Gary Hart was the front runner and got caught up in a sex scandal, and then Dukakis was the front runner until that stupid photo of him in a tank, and Bush41 got elected.
Click to expand...
There is certainly truth here but I don't think Thompson is number two. I think Romney is way ahead of him, in every meaningful category, and that even Huckabee may have more momentum at this point. I think Thompson would have to run a perfect campaign and have several people shoot themselves.
Click to expand...
Here NCC seemed amicable to the notion.
BGP said:
Hillary Clinton, in sports terms, would be like am NFL football team that hasn't been eliminated but is also not in control of their own playoff destiny. Play hard, and hope good things occur.

In her case, the polls show Both Giuliani and McCain would defeat her 1v1. So both would probably have to suffer self-inflicted wounds. Sounds unlikely, but having TWO front-runners shoot themselves in the foot in the same year occured in both 1988 and 1992.
Click to expand...
BGP points out years where multiple front-runners shot themselves in the foot.
BGP said:
The polling data for the 2008 White House race has shown that Giuliani is the favorite and has been for years.

Historically, favorites in this position CAN lose. Here are some recent elections, focusing on those favorites that failed to win and what happened to them:

1980: Reagan favored

1984: Reagan favored

1988: Gary Hart led the polling data over George H. W. Bush. Hart found himself in a sex scandal and dropped out.

1988: Dukakis became the favorite. Picture of him riding in a tank sunk his popularity.

1992: Bush was the clear front-runner until the recession came along with his tax hike.

1992: Perot emerged as the front-runner but then inexplicably dropped out of the race.

1996: Clinton favored

2000: Bush favored

2004: Bush favored

If there is a trend here, its that when white house favorites lose, its from some sort of self-inflicted wound. I can't find a case where an underdog candidate ran a good campaign and turned the polls around alone. They had to have help.

Giuliani is and has been the favorite. He probably would have to shoot himself in the foot to change that. Giuliani just needs to say little, stay positive, and he probably wins.
Click to expand...
Here he goes over yet AGAIN how front-runners shoot themselves in the foot, and even notes the Giuliani would have to shoot himself in the foot (which he did)
Pai Mei said:
Chase Stuart said:
Once again, for those saying to bet R -- more people think D at 65 is a better bet than think R at 34 is, according to this poll so far. :football:
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that nominees shoot themselves in the foot in the general election quite a lot. We've had election cycles where multiple candidates have sunk themselves with major scandals and such. I'd like any nominee that is well below 50 this far out from the election.
Click to expand...
Here he talks about it again.
Pai Mei said:
Well here we have a front-runner losing that status and now dropping out. My contention is that front-runners cannot be beaten - they have to shoot themselves in the foot to lose. The criticism that seems to be emerging about Giuliani 2008 is that he ran a terrible campaign by not fighting hard to the end for attention in Iowa and New Hampshire. He allowed himself to finish so poorly that it ruined his popularity. He came off as "not really wanting it" so supporters drifted elsewhere. Can this be construed as "shooting himself in the foot?" It seems that way. There was constant criticism of this campaign tactic to be sure.
Click to expand...
Here he comments on Giuliani's flagging campaign as it happens.Well, I think my work is done here. This is not a case of BGP being wrong - its a case of the peanut gallery trying to misrepresent his views. He said over and over and over that Giuliani could shoot himself in the foot. Case closed.
Click to expand...
Yep. Fred Thompson did well in tonight's debate.
 
I love how our favorite delusion case keeps speaking about himself in the third person while quoting both his last and most infamous alia. It"s precious.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RBM said:
timschochet said:
cosjobs said:
RBM said:
Wouldve been a better candidate than McCain
Click to expand...
That's a very long line for him to stand in.
Click to expand...
This is bunk. John McCain was BY FAR the best Republican candidate, the best GOP candidate in the last 20 years, and probably the best for the next 20 years.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: And you wont vote for him
Click to expand...
McCain can't have been a very good candidate, because apparently he was dead.http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...0,6173297.story

Despite a fiercely contested Democratic primary in May, won narrowly by Sen. Hillary Clinton, few—if any—anticipated the drama that has unfolded in the Hoosier State. One Indiana lobbyist predicted last spring that the Democratic nominee would be clobbered by "any Republican who happens to be alive."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Flying into Myrtle next week - need advice
Replies
31
Views
592
Desert_Power
Desert_Power
Max Power
  • Locked
Election Thread?
Replies
27
Views
543
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Scoresman
2024 NCAA Tournament - Second Quarters Draft - Filled!
3 4 5
Replies
231
Views
5K
Battersbox
Battersbox

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top