Presidential Candidate: Rudy Gulliani

[Jason Tate]

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, speaking of "the kind of president I will want to be," rallied California Republicans on Saturday with praise for President Bush and a declaration that victory over terrorism is "the great moral issue of our time."

---

"I think in a time of war, you don't talk about pulling out," said Giuliani.

---

Asked when he would formally announce his candidacy, Giuliani said: "If you go back to my speech, I think I may have. I'm not sure."

[Jason Tate]

:wallbash:

[TheOtherAndrew]

Asked when he would formally announce his candidacy, Giuliani said: "If you go back to my speech, I think I may have. I'm not sure."
The guy doesn't even know whether he's running for president or not huh?

And I thought you would never vote for Rudy because he's conservative on alot of issues.

[Jason Tate]

The guy doesn't even know whether he's running for president or not huh?

And I thought you would never vote for Rudy because he's conservative on alot of issues.
I'd vote for a Republican candidate if they were the best person for the job. I have no problem switching partylines in order to get who I believe is the best man/woman for the job.

[IAPAI]

It seems like both him and McCain are going to be really pushing for the far-right approach to all of the issues. I'm not familiar with Giuliani's stance on religion, but I can imagine that if he is going pro-war, he will probably go pro-Church too.

[x togepi x]

what a great campaign strategy! I want to be like bush who you already probably hate.

Right now I think the democrats stand a good chance.

[Jason Tate]

It seems like both him and McCain are going to be really pushing for the far-right approach to all of the issues. I'm not familiar with Giuliani's stance on religion, but I can imagine that if he is going pro-war, he will probably go pro-Church too.
I want to see how (according to what I've read) the man who told his ex-wife and kids via a press conference on TV that he was filing for divorce play the "moral religious man" card.

[thatwasamoment]

I want to see how (according to what I've read) the man who told his ex-wife and kids via a press conference on TV that he was filing for divorce play the "moral religious man" card.he probably went to rehab for a couple weeks and now everything is just fine.

[unwritten]

I'm from New York and I don't believe in the hype behind Rudy. Yes, he stepped up during the events of 9/11 but as a politician prior to that he was practically hated around here.

[Jason Tate]

Now reading even more from OntheIssues.org:

“You are either with civilization or with terrorism,” he said in a speech before the start of a weeklong General Assembly debate on terrorism. “This is not a time for further study or vague directives,” he insisted. “Look at that destruction, that massive, senseless, cruel loss of human life, and then I ask you to look in your hearts and recognize that there is no room for neutrality on the issue of terrorism.“

Rudy Giuliani told the United Nations, “Let those who say we must understand the reasons for terrorism come with me to the thousands of funerals we’re having in New York City-thousands-and explain those insane, maniacal reasons to the children who will grow up without fathers and mothers, and to the parents who have had their children ripped from them for no reason at all. Instead, I ask each of you to allow me to say at those funerals that your nation stands with America in making a solemn promise and pledge that we will achieve unconditional victory over terrorism and terrorists.“

These quotes sound like Bush-lite.

[unwritten]

I will be following this campaign extremely close because I believe it may be one of the most crucial of our time and America's decision will dictate our future as a people.

[Lueda Alia]

As I've been saying, it would be hypocritical for people to vote for him if they hated Bill Clinton.

[Mike Kraft]

hahaha, come on Jason, you know you'd love to have him as prez.

[Jason Tate]

hahaha, come on Jason, you know you'd love to have him as prez.
:shake:

[Mike Kraft]

Now reading even more from OntheIssues.org:

“You are either with civilization or with terrorism,” he said in a speech before the start of a weeklong General Assembly debate on terrorism. “This is not a time for further study or vague directives,” he insisted. “Look at that destruction, that massive, senseless, cruel loss of human life, and then I ask you to look in your hearts and recognize that there is no room for neutrality on the issue of terrorism.“

Rudy Giuliani told the United Nations, “Let those who say we must understand the reasons for terrorism come with me to the thousands of funerals we’re having in New York City-thousands-and explain those insane, maniacal reasons to the children who will grow up without fathers and mothers, and to the parents who have had their children ripped from them for no reason at all. Instead, I ask each of you to allow me to say at those funerals that your nation stands with America in making a solemn promise and pledge that we will achieve unconditional victory over terrorism and terrorists.“

These quotes sound like Bush-lite.

Well, it is kind of old news that he is a Bush supporter. I tuned him out as soon as he said he supported Bush and the war.

[Salomonbz90]

Hillary 2008

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

I find it interesting how Obama's experience has been called into question and yet has anyone brought up the fact that Rudy was a mayor. a mayor. sure of new york, but still, a mayor.

also, Obama > Hillary

[MPS_]

It seems like both him and McCain are going to be really pushing for the far-right approach to all of the issues. I'm not familiar with Giuliani's stance on religion, but I can imagine that if he is going pro-war, he will probably go pro-Church too.

Actually, surprisingly enough...

“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded. Source: CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999

[Trainsaw]

I'm from New York and I don't believe in the hype behind Rudy. Yes, he stepped up during the events of 9/11 but as a politician prior to that he was practically hated around here.

See, I never really got the reasoning in everyone thinking he's this amazing politician because he stepped up after 9/11, what exactly did people expect someone to do in that situation, run away to Canada? He pretty much did his job, which is why he was voted in, anyone would have done the same in that situation.

[IAPAI]

Actually, surprisingly enough...

“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded. Source: CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999

hmm, well that is very interesting. thank you for that.

[1Roth4]

See, I never really got the reasoning in everyone thinking he's this amazing politician because he stepped up after 9/11, what exactly did people expect someone to do in that situation, run away to Canada? He pretty much did his job, which is why he was voted in, anyone would have done the same in that situation.

he was a figurehead of strength for a difficult time. as was president Bush.. hence why his approval rating was through the roof.

takes a pretty extraordinary figure to captivate and calm a country like Bush/Rudy did.

say what you want.

[jstames]

politics are crazy.
its definitely something that people should know about though.

i get really bummed on people.
Bush is our president, whether a lot of people like it or not, he is our elected leader, and although he does not make the best decisions all of the time, we as a country should get behind him and support him, as our leader.

i think as a country it is our greatest weakness. we say, "yeah, we strong, we've been through a lot of crap." but at the same time, is a family strong if the children dont heed to the parents advice? there is no unity. everyone is content on pleasing themselves and thinking what they want is 100% correct.

i dont mean to step on anyones toes but just think about it...

[thejetstolehome]

complacencey is, for lack of a better word, bad. it's our duty as citizens of a republic to voice our opinions on not only our leaders but their policies as well. if that isn't done, it weakens our democracy.

[1Roth4]

politics are crazy.
its definitely something that people should know about though.

i get really bummed on people.
Bush is our president, whether a lot of people like it or not, he is our elected leader, and although he does not make the best decisions all of the time, we as a country should get behind him and support him, as our leader.

i think as a country it is our greatest weakness. we say, "yeah, we strong, we've been through a lot of crap." but at the same time, is a family strong if the children dont heed to the parents advice? there is no unity. everyone is content on pleasing themselves and thinking what they want is 100% correct.

i dont mean to step on anyones toes but just think about it...

i agree with you.

but prepare for a shit storm of "It's our democratic right to question/critcize the President"

[1Roth4]

complacencey is, for lack of a better word, bad. it's our duty as citizens of a republic to voice our opinions on not only our leaders but their policies as well. if that isn't done, it weakens our democracy.
1.

[Music4Torching]

politics are crazy.
its definitely something that people should know about though.

i get really bummed on people.
Bush is our president, whether a lot of people like it or not, he is our elected leader, and although he does not make the best decisions all of the time, we as a country should get behind him and support him, as our leader.

i think as a country it is our greatest weakness. we say, "yeah, we strong, we've been through a lot of crap." but at the same time, is a family strong if the children dont heed to the parents advice? there is no unity. everyone is content on pleasing themselves and thinking what they want is 100% correct.

i dont mean to step on anyones toes but just think about it...

yes, bush is our elected leader, and that does mean something. if he makes a smart decision with something or takes steps in the correct direction, then yes, we should support him and stand behind him.

but you can't expect the nation to blindly follow him with every decision he makes. that's not only stupid, it's also irresponsible. there are few nations in the world where citizens have a right to outwardly stand up and protest their government and their leader. when bush screws up it's our duty to not sit by and let it go unnoticed. that's democracy. pussy-footing around him and his shortcomings isn't showing that we're a strong country. doing that would in fact be our greatest weakness.

[thejetstolehome]

i agree with you.

but prepare for a shit storm of "It's our democratic right to question/critcize the President"

1.

why is this a bad thing?

[1Roth4]

why is this a bad thing?

its not, im just saying, its the other side of the debate. and its like beating a dead horse... ecspecially in here, because everyone has insider information about politics, and everyones beleifs are right.

If I praise Obama for one thing its being co-operative regardless of party affiliation.... something more americans/ canadians need to familliarize themselves with

[thejetstolehome]

its not, im just saying, its the other side of the debate. and its like beating a dead horse... ecspecially in here, because everyone has insider information about politics, and everyones beleifs are right.

If I praise Obama for one thing its being co-operative regardless of party affiliation.... something more americans/ canadians need to familliarize themselves with

word. i'm a registered Democrat but i voted for 2 Republicans in the most recent election.

[Jason Tate]

he was a figurehead of strength for a difficult time. as was president Bush.. hence why his approval rating was through the roof.

takes a pretty extraordinary figure to captivate and calm a country like Bush/Rudy did.

say what you want.
Rudy's decisions were not what a great leader would make. His blunders on 9/11 were very costly.

[Jason Tate]

politics are crazy.
its definitely something that people should know about though.

i get really bummed on people.
Bush is our president, whether a lot of people like it or not, he is our elected leader, and although he does not make the best decisions all of the time, we as a country should get behind him and support him, as our leader.

i think as a country it is our greatest weakness. we say, "yeah, we strong, we've been through a lot of crap." but at the same time, is a family strong if the children dont heed to the parents advice? there is no unity. everyone is content on pleasing themselves and thinking what they want is 100% correct.

i dont mean to step on anyones toes but just think about it...
Why does someone need to support a leader? Where's the checks and balances in that?

"A people should not be afraid of it's government, a government should be afraid of it's people."

[1Roth4]

Rudy's decisions were not what a great leader would make. His blunders on 9/11 were very costly.

blunders?

we must be thinking of different 9/11's :-|

[1Roth4]

Why does someone need to support a leader? Where's the checks and balances in that?

"A people should not be afraid of it's government, a government should be afraid of it's people."

there is a difference between not supporting your leader and criticizing his every step. There needs to be some national pride, some sense of unity like our friend said. The polarization in the U.S today is making the country look weak.

i'm not pointing at you in particular jason, but alot of people i talk to on here, blindly dismiss the president and what he's doing.

[Jason Tate]

blunders?

we must be thinking of different 9/11's :-|

I present the blunders (http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Illusion-Untold-Story-Giuliani/dp/0060536608/sr=1-2/qid=1171253636/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-7731112-9319254?ie=UTF8&s=books).

there is a difference between not supporting your leader and criticizing his every step.

Criticism is the only way the country stays together. Blind faith is ridiculous.

There needs to be some national pride, some sense of unity like our friend said.

National pride need not be mistaken for blind patriotism.

The polarization in the U.S today is making the country look weak.

I don't see how that's possible.

i'm not pointing at you in particular jason, but alot of people i talk to on here, blindly dismiss the president and what he's doing.

Understood, I just feel as though the voice of dissent is needed most in times of controversy and war.

[selftitled85]

I'm from New York and I don't believe in the hype behind Rudy. Yes, he stepped up during the events of 9/11 but as a politician prior to that he was practically hated around here.

if you remember nyc before rudy and after rudy you will see that what he did for that city was incredible. not counting 9/11...he fixed up the police dept (barring a few incidents), cleaned up the streets, made nyc more pleasurable then it had been in a looong time.

that said i dont agree with a lot of his beliefs but what he did for nyc was great.

[chronomic]

although rudy does have more of a 'bush' approach to the war and things, one thing i do really like about him is one of the same reasons i like obama: honesty. his views may be different than mine with things but at least i feel some sincerity in his words, unlike bush.

with that said i will not vote for rudy but at least he truly wants to do the right thing.

[Jason Tate]

if you remember nyc before rudy and after rudy you will see that what he did for that city was incredible. not counting 9/11...he fixed up the police dept (barring a few incidents), cleaned up the streets, made nyc more pleasurable then it had been in a looong time.

that said i dont agree with a lot of his beliefs but what he did for nyc was great.
Fired the Police chief after HE cleaned up the department.

[captainhampton]

As I've been saying, it would be hypocritical for people to vote for him if they hated Bill Clinton.

why? it would be if the reason most republicans hated Clinton because he was a bad husband. but that's a common misconception, most of us dislike Clinton because he LIED UNDER OATH. that and his extremely weak foreign policy.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

why? it would be if the reason most republicans hated Clinton because he was a bad husband. but that's a common misconception, most of us dislike Clinton because he LIED UNDER OATH. that and his extremely weak foreign policy.


clinton lied because he was too much of a coward to tell the truth

rudy divorced his wife and kids in a press conference cause he was too much of a coward to do it to their face


they sound strikingly similar

[Jason Tate]

why? it would be if the reason most republicans hated Clinton because he was a bad husband. but that's a common misconception, most of us dislike Clinton because he LIED UNDER OATH. that and his extremely weak foreign policy.
Republicans seem to only get mad at someone if it's under oath -- any other time and it's fair game. But, yeah -- lying about sex sure seems to be something worth getting worked up over.

:rolleyes:

[captainhampton]

Republicans seem to only get mad at someone if it's under oath -- any other time and it's fair game. But, yeah -- lying about sex sure seems to be something worth getting worked up over.

:rolleyes:
cmon the president should not lie under oath about anything. anyways, I'm not gonna get worked up, I'm not really much of a Bill Clinton hater.

[Jason Tate]

cmon the president should not lie under oath about anything. anyways, I'm not gonna get worked up, I'm not really much of a Bill Clinton hater.
I'd say the President should not lie about anything, why stop at "under oath"?

[x togepi x]

why? it would be if the reason most republicans hated Clinton because he was a bad husband. but that's a common misconception, most of us dislike Clinton because he LIED UNDER OATH. that and his extremely weak foreign policy.

Bush's officials lie under oath all the time. Like the liberal cliche goes, I wish Bush would cheat on Laura so we would impeach him too.

I do have to ask why this oath matters? So Bush officials lying our way into a war is okay because it wasn't under oath, but Clinton is bad because his was?

I'm pretty sure thousands of our troops didn't die in relation to that blowjob. Monica couldn't have been *that* good.

The whole using Clinton as a boogeyman thing was so 2002 anyway.

[sweet tragedy]

Republicans seem to only get mad at someone if it's under oath -- any other time and it's fair game. But, yeah -- lying about sex sure seems to be something worth getting worked up over.

:rolleyes:

That whole situation was so bizarre. I don't even like Clinton and I thought it was dumb that he was essentially on trial for cheating on his wife.

Anyway, I'm not very impressed with Guliani. I don't think he is a very strong candidate. As far as the Republican ticket goes, I prefer McCain.

[Jason Tate]

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/rudy_giuliani

[music3chick]

i agree with you.

but prepare for a shit storm of "It's our democratic right to question/critcize the President"

People who think like you scare me

It's stated in the constitution that you have a "right to petition" your government, so when you see them doing something questionable you should, hopefully, say something about it.

It makes me wonder what if people never protested for civil rights out of fear of not being patriotic enough and going against authority. The government then didn't recognize women or African-Americans as having the same rights as white males, but does that make it okay? No.

[1Roth4]

People who think like you scare me

It's stated in the constitution that you have a "right to petition" your government, so when you see them doing something questionable you should, hopefully, say something about it.

It makes me wonder what if people never protested for civil rights out of fear of not being patriotic enough and going against authority. The government then didn't recognize women or African-Americans as having the same rights as white males, but does that make it okay? No.

i dont know why ppl like me scare you, just because I have different views than you. I think patriotism is great.. not blind patriotism.. but some sense of unity.

I was just stating the other side of the arguement which is just as valid.

[1Roth4]

1Criticism is the only way the country stays together. Blind faith is ridiculous.



2National pride need not be mistaken for blind patriotism.



3Understood, I just feel as though the voice of dissent is needed most in times of controversy and war.

1. I agree blind faith is rediculous. However, I don't see my faith as blind persay. I'm a realist, and thats where my personal ideology stems from

2. Exactly correct.

3. I completely agree. I would never dispute that.

[Love As Arson]

I will continue to dismiss President Bush as an imperialist, who cares little for those without wealth and must be challenged at every step.

[1Roth4]

I don't see how that's possible.




i dont think that can be refuted. a country where the majority isn't on the same wavelength as its leader or party in power, looks weak.
when 29% of the ppl approve of the presdient and his party.. its not a very flattering statistic.

but I would say, they're just opinion polls... facts... from books... not very reliable. ;-)

[Love As Arson]

A nation that overextends its power such that it finds that it is being beaten by insurgents makes itself look weak.

[1Roth4]

A nation that overextends its power such that it finds that it is being beaten by insurgents makes itself look weak.

because the issue in iraq is an easily solvable one.

[Love As Arson]

because the issue in iraq is an easily solvable one.
Immediate withdrawal is easy enough. But, you miss my point, it is not the divisions that make the US weak, rather it is a foreign policy that has precipiated a war which is quite clearly unwinnable.

[1Roth4]

Immediate withdrawal is easy enough. But, you miss my point, it is not the divisions that make the US weak, rather it is a foreign policy that has precipiated a war which is quite clearly unwinnable.

immediate withdrawal is not what Iraq needs to become a free and democratic society. The U.S does not have much of a foreign policy option. As a superpower in the International Community its role is simply to spread American ideals and values throughout the world.. to spread democracy.. to promote peace.

I don't think any war is winable. Not when the opposition has no face, and no territory. I dont see Iraq as an easily solvable problem. I never thought that President Bush gave the mission the respect it deserved. It could take years and years for its effect to be seen. But If you were to ask me if I think it will benifit the middle east one day. I would say yes.

[Jason Tate]

As a superpower in the International Community its role is simply to spread American ideals and values throughout the world.. to spread democracy.. to promote peace.

That's quite imperialistic - be careful where you tread.

[1Roth4]

That's quite imperialistic - be careful where you tread.

It is reality Jason. Why were organizations like the UN formed. To Americanize, to westernize the world. I'm not saying its right, but its reality. I'd personally rather the U.S spread democracy than have China spread communism.

[Jason Tate]

It is reality Jason. Why were organizations like the UN formed. To Americanize, to westernize the world. I'm not saying its right, but its reality. I'd personally rather the U.S spread democracy than have China spread communism.
I think you've greatly trivialized the intents and goals of the United Nations and it's predecessor the League of Nations.

The stated aims (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html) of the United Nations are to prevent war, to safeguard human rights, to provide a mechanism for international law, and to promote social and economic progress, improve living standards and fight diseases.

[1Roth4]

power breads order, and order breads stability.

[1Roth4]

I think you've greatly trivialized the intents and goals of the United Nations and it's predecessor the League of Nations.

The stated aims (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html) of the United Nations are to prevent war, to safeguard human rights, to provide a mechanism for international law, and to promote social and economic progress, improve living standards and fight diseases.

wouldnt you say those are american values?

[1Roth4]

the league of nations fell because of one reason. It did not have the support of the united states.

would you agree with that?

[1Roth4]

I'm reading an article by Donald J. Punchala called "World Hegemony and the United Nations"
I thought it was quite accurate.

[Jason Tate]

wouldnt you say those are american values?
I'd say they're almost universal values.

[sweet tragedy]

It is reality Jason. Why were organizations like the UN formed. To Americanize, to westernize the world. I'm not saying its right, but its reality. I'd personally rather the U.S spread democracy than have China spread communism.

Obviously the UN is not strictly concerned with doing the will of the United States, as they did not approve of the use of force in Iraq.

[1Roth4]

Donald J. Punchala "world hegemony and the united nations" (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2005.00533.x?cookieSet=1)

[1Roth4]

i'd say we got a little off topic.

im not so sure about Rudy.. I really haven't seen a candidate im impressed with.

[Love As Arson]

immediate withdrawal is not what Iraq needs to become a free and democratic society.
Iraq does not need an occupying power to dictate how it should structure its society. It is quite presumptuous to come to the conclusion that they desire an American style democracy. Moreover, if we were at all interested in democracy, then there would be no occupation, as the people have called for immediate withdrawal.

The U.S does not have much of a foreign policy option. As a superpower in the International Community its role is simply to spread American ideals and values throughout the world.. to spread democracy.. to promote peace.
What you are insinuating is "The White Man's Burden", whereby a "superior" nation goes about civilising other societies by conquering them. By this logic, what makes a nation superior is simply force, therefore sovereignity is irrelevant. Moreover, American does not spread peace and democracy, rather it causes destruction and places dictators in power for purely economic reasons. The ideal you speak of is merely an empty rationale for economic and military imperialism.


I don't think any war is winable. Not when the opposition has no face, and no territory. I dont see Iraq as an easily solvable problem. I never thought that President Bush gave the mission the respect it deserved. It could take years and years for its effect to be seen. But If you were to ask me if I think it will benifit the middle east one day. I would say yes.
Evidence shows that, since the Iraq war, terrorism has increased and the Middle East has been destabilised. The US-supported regime's tacit acceptance of the war has amplified pre-existing tensions between the leaders and their populations, which can lead to a number of revolutions throughout the Arab world.

[Love As Arson]

wouldnt you say those are american values?
No, they were derived from the Age of Enlightentment which occurred in Europe, as did the structure of the American government.

[1Roth4]

Iraq does not need an occupying power to dictate how it should structure its society. It is quite presumptuous to come to the conclusion that they desire an American style democracy. Moreover, if we were at all interested in democracy, then there would be no occupation, as the people have called for immediate withdrawal.



what do you think Iraq wants? Immediate withdrawl? I dont think so. I've spoken to several Iraqi-Canadians, and they are tickled to bits that Saddam was removed.
You know what though, we're both basing our beleifs off of media sources and whatnot, and we're both not really sure whats going on over there. I'll give President Bush's plan a chance, and if this one fails, I may agree with you eventually. As for now though, I have faith that this is the right course and only course of action.

[1Roth4]

What you are insinuating is "The White Man's Burden", whereby a "superior" nation goes about civilising other societies by conquering them. By this logic, what makes a nation superior is simply force, therefore sovereignity is irrelevant. Moreover, American does not spread peace and democracy, rather it causes destruction and places dictators in power for purely economic reasons. The ideal you speak of is merely an empty rationale for economic and military imperialism.




in this case, Iraq hiding behind sovereignty is a cop out. You're not going to deny the awful things Saddams regime did.
I think your cynical views of your country are dangerous.

[Jason Tate]

what do you think Iraq wants? Immediate withdrawl? I dont think so. I've spoken to several Iraqi-Canadians, and they are tickled to bits that Saddam was removed.
You know what though, we're both basing our beleifs off of media sources and whatnot, and we're both not really sure whats going on over there. I'll give President Bush's plan a chance, and if this one fails, I may agree with you eventually. As for now though, I have faith that this is the right course and only course of action.
According to the polls (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm), that's exactly what they want.

Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

[1Roth4]

According to the polls (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm), that's exactly what they want.

Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

Well I won't dispute that. Do you think thats a smart move Jason? Do you honestly think, (serious question) leaving Iraq in the state its in right now, will benifit Iraq?

[1Roth4]

I think it would be a terrible costly mistake.

[sweet tragedy]

Costly for whom?

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

what do you think Iraq wants? Immediate withdrawl? I dont think so. I've spoken to several Iraqi-Canadians, and they are tickled to bits that Saddam was removed.
You know what though, we're both basing our beleifs off of media sources and whatnot, and we're both not really sure whats going on over there. I'll give President Bush's plan a chance, and if this one fails, I may agree with you eventually. As for now though, I have faith that this is the right course and only course of action.


who gives a crap what several Iraqi-Canadians say, they're not watching tanks roll down there streets

[Love As Arson]

what do you think Iraq wants? Immediate withdrawl? I dont think so. I've spoken to several Iraqi-Canadians, and they are tickled to bits that Saddam was removed.
You know what though, we're both basing our beleifs off of media sources and whatnot, and we're both not really sure whats going on over there. I'll give President Bush's plan a chance, and if this one fails, I may agree with you eventually. As for now though, I have faith that this is the right course and only course of action.

The director of another Iraqi polling firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared being killed, said public opinion surveys he conducted last month showed that 80 percent of Iraqis who were questioned favored an immediate withdrawal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721_pf.html

The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml



Almost four in five Iraqis say America's military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.
http://www.nysun.com/article/40624

[Love As Arson]

Well I won't dispute that. Do you think thats a smart move Jason? Do you honestly think, (serious question) leaving Iraq in the state its in right now, will benifit Iraq?
What Americans think is irrelevant, as the country belongs to the Iraqis.

[Jason Tate]

Well I won't dispute that. Do you think thats a smart move Jason? Do you honestly think, (serious question) leaving Iraq in the state its in right now, will benifit Iraq?
It's not my decision to make. I find ethnocentrism to be the wrong way of looking at the world.

I know only this from personal experiences, and it's the only comparison I can credibly make: If I was ever told what was best for me - by my parents, teachers, or whoever I've come in contact with my life - I would ignore what I was told and forge ahead on my own. I'd rebel. I can't argue if this is human nature; but it appears as though telling someone what's best for them and forcing the change upon them - has never been a viable or successful course of action.

[johnx]

I'd vote for a Republican candidate if they were the best person for the job. I have no problem switching partylines in order to get who I believe is the best man/woman for the job.It's sad more people don't think this way, because I feel the same way. My US History teacher has basically told us he will never vote republican, ever. That's sad because if I saw a democratic candidate who deserved the job, I'd vote for him.

[1Roth4]

who gives a crap what several Iraqi-Canadians say, they're not watching tanks roll down there streets

however their families are

[chronomic]

decisions decisions, man i could never be president.

[1Roth4]

What Americans think is irrelevant, as the country belongs to the Iraqis.

who voted in their prime minister.

Who in turn, wants the United States to continue their mission

[Love As Arson]

who voted in their prime minister.

Who in turn, wants the United States to continue their mission
The US chose who it is that could be elected. If, however, you agree that the Iraqis should self-rule, then we must leave.

[johnx]

if you remember nyc before rudy and after rudy you will see that what he did for that city was incredible. not counting 9/11...he fixed up the police dept (barring a few incidents), cleaned up the streets, made nyc more pleasurable then it had been in a looong time.

that said i dont agree with a lot of his beliefs but what he did for nyc was great.I agree, Rudy did so much for the city as far as crime. Our crime rate was at its lowest point with Giuliani in office and made the city a place where people actually wanted to visit again.

Fired the Police chief after HE cleaned up the department.Ray Kelly caught a lot of flak for the Republican National Convention protests in 2004, but he's done a great job before and after 9/11. I can't imagine why Rudy would fire him.

[Jason Tate]

I agree, Rudy did so much for the city as far as crime. Our crime rate was at its lowest point with Giuliani in office and made the city a place where people actually wanted to visit again.

Ray Kelly caught a lot of flak for the Republican National Convention protests in 2004, but he's done a great job before and after 9/11. I can't imagine why Rudy would fire him.
Kerek.

[1Roth4]

The US chose who it is that could be elected. If, however, you agree that the Iraqis should self-rule, then we must leave.

Personally, I dont think thats a reasonable option. However, I guess we'll wait and see what happens whatever course they choose.

[sweet tragedy]

I'm still waiting to find out why pulling out of Iraq would be extremely costly, and who it would be costly for.

[1Roth4]

Kerek.

You own the politics forum. I think we've found your calling after your fed up with AP.net

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

I'm still waiting to find out why pulling out of Iraq would be extremely costly, and who it would be costly for.


well if was advantageous for us we would do it, so since we arent doing it, i guess we know who it would be costly for.

[1Roth4]

I'm still waiting to find out why pulling out of Iraq would be extremely costly, and who it would be costly for.

Iraqi's, Americans, anyone who beleives in freedom. I think a civil war would ensue within the country. But, who am I to guess that. We'll just wait until the democrats take power Jan. '08

[sweet tragedy]

Iraqi's, Americans, anyone who beleives in freedom. I think a civil war would ensue within the country. But, who am I to guess that. We'll just wait until the democrats take power Jan. '08

If, as stated in this thread, Iraqi's don't even want us there, how is it costly to them?

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

Iraqi's, Americans, anyone who beleives in freedom. I think a civil war would ensue within the country. But, who am I to guess that. We'll just wait until the democrats take power Jan. '08


what would you call what is going on there now?

[chronomic]

what would you call what is going on there now?

your username always makes me think of that old senses fail song. steeVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN! haha










08bama!

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

your username always makes me think of that old senses fail song. steeVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN! haha










08bama!

haha awesome

[1Roth4]

If, as stated in this thread, Iraqi's don't even want us there, how is it costly to them?

just because they don't think American troops there now is benificial doesnt' mean troops being taken out of the area will make the unrest in that region disappear

[1Roth4]

what would you call what is going on there now?

i guess you can call it whatever you want. i don't think it matters what we call it. I personally think withdrawing troops from Iraq will be distasterous

[IamTheINDUSTRY]

he probably went to rehab for a couple weeks and now everything is just fine.



hahahah way to use current events.

[Sleepaway]

I'll be happy if he wins the election.

[Jason Tate]

I'll be happy if he wins the election.
Thanks, us Americans are glad to know that.

[aminorthreat55]

Iraq does not need an occupying power to dictate how it should structure its society. It is quite presumptuous to come to the conclusion that they desire an American style democracy. Moreover, if we were at all interested in democracy, then there would be no occupation, as the people have called for immediate withdrawal.


What you are insinuating is "The White Man's Burden", whereby a "superior" nation goes about civilising other societies by conquering them. By this logic, what makes a nation superior is simply force, therefore sovereignity is irrelevant. Moreover, American does not spread peace and democracy, rather it causes destruction and places dictators in power for purely economic reasons. The ideal you speak of is merely an empty rationale for economic and military imperialism.


Evidence shows that, since the Iraq war, terrorism has increased and the Middle East has been destabilised. The US-supported regime's tacit acceptance of the war has amplified pre-existing tensions between the leaders and their populations, which can lead to a number of revolutions throughout the Arab world.
Once again, Dom is right.

[johnx]

Kerek.Oops, my mistake.

[aminorthreat55]

what do you think Iraq wants? Immediate withdrawl? I dont think so. I've spoken to several Iraqi-Canadians, and they are tickled to bits that Saddam was removed.
You know what though, we're both basing our beleifs off of media sources and whatnot, and we're both not really sure whats going on over there. I'll give President Bush's plan a chance, and if this one fails, I may agree with you eventually. As for now though, I have faith that this is the right course and only course of action.
The mention of Saddam is a red herring suggesting the ends may justify the means. Furthermore, the fact that they are glad Saddam was removed has no bearing on the American occupation as you are attempting to imply.

[aminorthreat55]

I think your cynical views of your country are dangerous.
They are mostly accurate.

[aminorthreat55]

What Americans think is irrelevant, as the country belongs to the Iraqis.
Bingo.

[aminorthreat55]

It's sad more people don't think this way, because I feel the same way. My US History teacher has basically told us he will never vote republican, ever. That's sad because if I saw a democratic candidate who deserved the job, I'd vote for him.
I think that's a bad way to vote as it dismisses candidates without a sound evaluation. I will never ever vote a straight ticket for one party.

[johnx]

I think that's a bad way to vote as it dismisses candidates without a sound evaluation. I will never ever vote a straight ticket for one party.Exactly, it annoys me that the country has taken parties over better candidates.

[aminorthreat55]

Exactly, it annoys me that the country has taken parties over better candidates.
Seriously. My state is generally democratic but almost every democrat won by a wide margin in the past election, which is most likely due to straight ticket voting. Solid republican candidates lost solely because they had an 'R' next to their name.

[1Roth4]

They are mostly accurate.

my problem with the way alot of people think about politics stretches far beyond this forum and this issue.

Its not the Republican ideology, its not the democratic Ideology that I dispise. Its the way people view their governments. I've said this before, and Tate will grill me for saying it again. I know you need to have checks and balances in your democratic system. I understand that. The way elections are formulated, the way that an opposition party holds seats in the house, the way that each state elects two senators... all checks and balances. The way a leader is elected through the people of its nation, a check.. and a balance.

The problem lies in the mistrust of government. Have they made mistakes, of course. I won't be nieve to that fact, but are they working towards bettering america, and better the world; yes. Do they know all the answers and where each mission/agenda will take them, No; probably not, no one could ever possibly answer that question.

Politicians are people like you and I, and the majority of people in these forums in the majority of the public view them as theives, itching to steal your wallet and rape your sister when opportunity provides the chance.

Question your government, yes. Bash it, tear it down, disapprove of everything it does, neglect any good things they have done for you, the country, and the world; thats plain wrong.

[Trainsaw]

Politicians are people like you and I, and the majority of people in these forums in the majority of the public view them as theives, itching to steal your wallet and rape your sister when opportunity provides the chance.

I agree there are good politicians out there, but the past has taught people that politicians aren't just like you and I. The majority of them were born out of a silver spoon family never really having to struggle for a thing in their lives. How could someone possibly relate to that kind of person when they live a life nothing like that. The actions of previous politicians have ruined the perception of a politician by everyone, and very few of them are doing much to refute this reputation

[1Roth4]

I agree there are good politicians out there, but the past has taught people that politicians aren't just like you and I. The majority of them were born out of a silver spoon family never really having to struggle for a thing in their lives. How could someone possibly relate to that kind of person when they live a life nothing like that. The actions of previous politicians have ruined the perception of a politician by everyone, and very few of them are doing much to refute this reputation

yet they relate to the Jessica Simpsons, the Fall Out Boys, the Anna Nicole Smiths.

politicians have a shitty job, that doesnt' really have many pay offs, yet all people do is bitch about them at every chance they get. Its disheartening. Makes me question why I'm even studying it.

[aminorthreat55]

my problem with the way alot of people think about politics stretches far beyond this forum and this issue.

Its not the Republican ideology, its not the democratic Ideology that I dispise. Its the way people view their governments. I've said this before, and Tate will grill me for saying it again. I know you need to have checks and balances in your democratic system. I understand that. The way elections are formulated, the way that an opposition party holds seats in the house, the way that each state elects two senators... all checks and balances. The way a leader is elected through the people of its nation, a check.. and a balance.

The problem lies in the mistrust of government. Have they made mistakes, of course. I won't be nieve to that fact, but are they working towards bettering america, and better the world; yes. Do they know all the answers and where each mission/agenda will take them, No; probably not, no one could ever possibly answer that question.

Politicians are people like you and I, and the majority of people in these forums in the majority of the public view them as theives, itching to steal your wallet and rape your sister when opportunity provides the chance.

Question your government, yes. Bash it, tear it down, disapprove of everything it does, neglect any good things they have done for you, the country, and the world; thats plain wrong.
I think I speak for all of us (the collective you are addressing in this post) when I say that this is generally a mischaracterization of our position. The reason we seem so mistrusting is not because we disagree with everything that the government does, but rather by the nature of political criticism, we discuss the things we disagree with and believe are improper, not the things we approve of. Why would we sit here and talk all day about how wonderful a certain Senate resolution is for low income families if we all agree that it is effective? The nature of politics and being a responsible citizen is pointing out the inherent flaws and discussing them; searching for a meaningful solution worthy of broad support. Again, it is not that we are the absolute cynic, rather we are attempting to improve the areas where we find our government lacking. That's all there is to it.

[Trainsaw]

yet they relate to the Jessica Simpsons, the Fall Out Boys, the Anna Nicole Smiths.

politicians have a shitty job, that doesnt' really have many pay offs, yet all people do is bitch about them at every chance they get. Its disheartening. Makes me question why I'm even studying it.

They don't relate to those people they strive to imitate them and aspire to be like them, they're fascinated by those people. Politicians have a hard job, they're required to do what they say they're going to do, and when they fail to do that it gives the whole "profession" a black eye, no matter if what they promised was realistic or not. And if the payoffs are worth it is determined by the high level of those people, I'd argue that high level politicians don't receive enormous payoffs.

[1Roth4]

I think I speak for all of us (the collective you are addressing in this post) when I say that this is generally a mischaracterization of our position. The reason we seem so mistrusting is not because we disagree with everything that the government does, but rather by the nature of political criticism, we discuss the things we disagree with and believe are improper, not the things we approve of. Why would we sit here and talk all day about how wonderful a certain Senate resolution is for low income families if we all agree that it is effective? The nature of politics and being a responsible citizen is pointing out the inherent flaws and discussing them; searching for a meaningful solution worthy of broad support. Again, it is not that we are the absolute cynic, rather we are attempting to improve the areas where we find our government lacking. That's all there is to it.


I understand that, and this isnt directed at you in particular. More the uneducated who watch their 5 oclock news, and complains that the government is fucking them over.. somehow.

This even applies to the Iraq situation. You probably don't agree with war, I can sense that; but do you really think the intentions of the American government was as sinister as most beleive?

[Trainsaw]

I understand that, and this isnt directed at you in particular. More the uneducated who watch their 5 oclock news, and complains that the government is fucking them over.. somehow.

This even applies to the Iraq situation. You probably don't agree with war, I can sense that; but do you really think the intentions of the American government was as sinister as most beleive?

I know the question wasn't directed towards me, but I don't believe that we spent billions of dollars and lives for an altruistic reason of providing freedom for those people

[1Roth4]

im out for now, ill check back on all of you later.

regardless of our views, I love how you guys resond with such professionalism and politeness. Makes discussions like these worth it. And this forum has come a long way.

Regardless of what we all think, I think we all learn a little something from threads like this, and thats the point of it, isnt it?

cheers guys

[1Roth4]

I know the question wasn't directed towards me, but I don't believe that we spent billions of dollars and lives for an altruistic reason of providing freedom for those people

what did they do it for then?

[aminorthreat55]

This even applies to the Iraq situation. You probably don't agree with war, I can sense that; but do you really think the intentions of the American government was as sinister as most beleive?
I would not characterise them as sinister per se but rather extremely misleading. Again, any talk of motive is generally speculative, no matter how close we feel we are to finding out why we really went to war. The major problem I have is not in the fact that the government's reasoning was sinister (which it very well may have been) but rather the fact that the public has ruitinely been lied to by this administration regarding the war. I'm sure in their minds, the administration felt that their cause was just and legitimate (which I completely disagree with across the board), so the term sinister is not completely accurate. However, the fact that they used intelligence and other means to their advantage to con the public into believing in their cause is what really angers me.

[Love As Arson]

The problem lies in the mistrust of government. Have they made mistakes, of course. I won't be nieve to that fact, but are they working towards bettering america, and better the world; yes.
One must consider in whose interests they are acting. When the poor are left to wait for five days after a devastating storm for government aid, which has not yet proven to be adequate, can one say that government is acting in our interests? When wealth inequality is at the worst it has ever been, can one argue that they are acting in the best interests of America? Can one suggest that they are working for a better world when they support regimes that have conditions similar to Apartheid, that have homosexuals murdered in the town squares and use the military to intervene in the sovereignity of nations purely for economic reasons? I would suggest that is not the case, rather the US government works for the interests of those with the most wealth. That which we have gained, such as civil rights, an eight hour day, minimum wage, women's rights, etc. have not been received by voting, but by forcing government to make concessions to a class that it seeks to repress.


Do they know all the answers and where each mission/agenda will take them, No; probably not, no one could ever possibly answer that question.
They do have one agenda: Accumulate profit. No care is given to the reprecussions of such actions.


Politicians are people like you and I, and the majority of people in these forums in the majority of the public view them as theives, itching to steal your wallet and rape your sister when opportunity provides the chance.
Politicians have different priorities and class interests. The reason that individuals have such a conception of politicians is because they have contributed to the repression of the common man.

Ex:

The consent of both democrats and republicans in making it more difficult for working individuals to declare bankruptcy.

Ex2:

Both parties renewing the Patriot Act, an act which severely inhibits our rights.


Question your government, yes. Bash it, tear it down, disapprove of everything it does, neglect any good things they have done for you, the country, and the world; thats plain wrong.
Any good that the majority has received has been done by themselves, not through the acts of an altruistic politician. Moreover, it behooves an individual to assess the institutions of society and determine whether or not they are legimitate institutions. When I look upon our government and the way in which society functions, I cannot legitimize it, for merely one percent are enjoying it, while the other ninety percent suffer. As such, I argue for its abolition and the replacement of a government that benefits the whole.

[richter915]

stupid rudy. If he played his cards right he coulda really won over the metro NY area...not in overwhelming numbers but more so than any previous Republican candidate in my opinion.

[Jason Tate]

the February 14 edition (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/14/lkl.01.html) of CNN's Larry King Live, host Larry King told former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R): "I know you're pro-choice. You've always been pro-choice." Giuliani replied, "I am." However, as Media Matters for America noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200702140004), Giuliani began his 1989 mayoral campaign an opponent of Roe v. Wade (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html) and abortion rights. Newsday reported on February 22, 1989, that leaders of New York's Conservative Party said Giuliani "assured them he was personally opposed to abortion, did not favor government funding or criminal penalties, did favor an exemption in cases of rape or incest, and was in favor of overturning the U.S. Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion, Roe v. Wade." In an April 9, 1989, New York Times article, Giuliani was quoted as saying, ''I have indicated in the past that as a lawyer, and also for religious reasons, I would be opposed to Roe against Wade. ... That, however, is not something that would come before me as mayor.'' However, Giuliani reportedly shifted his position nearer to Election Day. In an October 13, 1989, article, the Associated Press explained: "Once an outright opponent, [Giuliani] now says he supports abortion rights, and would not seek to reduce funds or services, even though he remains personally opposed."
In an April 6, 1989, article, The New York Times called Giuliani's abortion position "flexible," noting that Giuliani was both "opposed to abortion and even the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision" and had "tempered his abortion position so that it is similar to that of other prominent New York Catholic politicians, like Gov. Mario M. Cuomo. But Giuliani does not always shift like that, because he wants to appeal to Republicans as well as Democrats."
A leaked (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0212072giuliani1.html) 1993 "Rudolph W. Giuliani Vulnerability Study" similarly acknowledged that Giuliani was inconsistent in his position on abortion rights. The 1993 "Vulnerability Study" was, as the New York Daily News reported (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/497016p-418919c.html), written by "two Giuliani advisers [who] wrote frankly about how parts of Giuliani's past could come back to haunt him -- from the 'weirdness factor' of his first marriage to his second cousin, to his draft history during the Vietnam War, to his work as assistant attorney general in Reagan's Justice Department." The study warned (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0212072giuliani2.html) that Giuliani "is vulnerable on ... his flip-flops on various issues [and] the reversals of many of his major convictions" and also (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0212072giuliani26.html) that "Giuliani's lack of consistency on major issues, like abortion, also reinforced criticism that he would do anything to get himself elected." The study could only say (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0212072giuliani6.html) that Giuliani "has been consistently pro-choice for at least four years."
From the February 14 edition of CNN's Larry King Live:
KING: Let's move to some things domestic. You've had some quotes lately that -- that seem contradictory.
I know you're pro-choice. You've always been pro-choice.
GIULIANI: I am.
KING: Yet you'll say you'll appoint judges who are strict constructionists. If that's the case, they're going to vote to overturn Roe versus Wade, which you don't want.
GIULIANI: I don't know that. You don't know that.
KING: Well, what is strict constructionist?
GIULIANI: Well, OK, there are a lot of ways to explain that. I mean --
KING: Do you still favor Roe versus Wade?
GIULIANI: I am pro-choice, yeah. But I -- I'm also, as you know -- always have been -- against abortion, hate abortion, don't like it, wouldn't personally advise anyone to have an abortion and -- but I believe a woman has a right to choose. And you can't have criminal penalties, and I think that would be wrong.

[Jason Tate]

Rudy's travel rider.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0216071giuliani1.html?link=rssfeed

[IAPAI]

Rudy's travel rider.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0216071giuliani1.html?link=rssfeed

And Giuliani is very picky about how he is to be photographed at gigs, apparently concerned that "direct, on-camera flash bulbs" result in none-too-flattering images

Haha. What, like he's going to be a GQ model if they shoot him from the side?

[senatorlamb]

If Rudy gets the nomination, the social conservatives and right-wing evangelicals will sit the election out. It would also be interesting to see how Republicans would use the "family values" mantra if he were to be their candidate, considering Rudy would be the first President to have had three wives.

I think there is a only a handful of GOP candidates this time around that can balance moderate politics with social conservatism. Despite Bush being the worst President of all time, he was a pretty decent candidate. He managed to strut his conservative credentials to his base while seeming reasonable and non-ideological to the moderate suburbs. Basically it was sunny Reagan conservatism 2.0. Mitt Romney can maybe do that, though we know now he is flip-flopping a whole bunch to do it. Then there is Gov. Huckabee who is not on the radar right now, but could be a compromise candidate, and then John McCain, who is getting crazier by the day and breaking all his former stances to suck up to the Falwells of the world. Should be interesting.

[Ambulance Y]

Rudy's travel rider.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0216071giuliani1.html?link=rssfeed

A.M. Politics Thursday, February 15, 2007

- Rudy Giuliani says he'll stop accepting paid speaking engagements that earn the former New York mayor as much as $100,000 per appearance. Instead, the campaign said, "He is committing the time and energy necessary to getting his message out across the country." Giuliani made the announcement the same day he delivered one of those lucrative speeches in San Diego, and while he will not take on any new speaking dates the campaign plans to ask the Federal Election Commission (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021401700.html) whether he should accept payment for Wednesday's speech as well as upcoming engagements already on his calendar.


(http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,252169,00.html)

[Jason Tate]

Since 2002, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) has traveled nationwide and around the world to deliver countless speeches on the topics of "leadership" and "crisis management" at business conferences, motivational seminars, fundraisers, and universities. In these addresses -- for which he charges a reported $100,000 apiece -- Giulani regularly speaks at length about his first-hand experiences during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As Media Matters for America has noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/itembody/200702080002), significant questions surround Giuliani's record on homeland security and public safety, including his performance during, before, and after the 9-11 attacks. Nonetheless, the media have routinely advanced the depiction of Giuliani as a "hero (http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200702020007) of 9/11 (http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200702080002)" and "America's (http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200605080006) Mayor (http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200702060002)," bolstering his image and enhancing his credibility. Now, as he explores a run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, will the media properly scrutinize how Giuliani has capitalized on this image -- legitimate or not -- for substantial personal profit?
According to the Associated Press, in 2002, Giuliani's estimated income from the lecture circuit exceeded $8 million (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/21/politics/main512992.shtml). This would indicate that he gave more than 80 speeches that year, assuming he consistently collected his reported $100,000 speaking fee. Various (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0702070063feb07,1,7692936.story?col l=chi-news-hed) reports (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://nydailynews.com/front/story/485597p-408745c.html) have indicated that Giuliani has maintained a similarly brisk schedule of speaking engagements in the years since, including an estimated 20 paid speeches (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usrudy0216,0,3149485.story?coll=ny-main-bigpix) since he announced (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/13/giuliani.president/index.html) his presidential exploratory committee on November 15, 2006. In a February 7 article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0702070063feb07,1,7692936.story?col l=chi-news-hed), the Chicago Tribune detailed the luxurious treatment Giuliani requested from one of his hosts, a state university:
Since he left office, Giuliani has leveraged his image as "America's mayor" to his decided financial advantage and in ways that belie his man-of-the-people persona.

He commands $100,000 for a speech, not including expenses, which his star-struck clients are happily willing to pay. In one speech last year at Oklahoma State University, Giuliani requested and received travel on a private Gulfstream jet that cost the school $47,000 to operate. His visit essentially wiped out the student speakers annual fund.
Like other high-priced speakers in the private sector, Giuliani routinely travels in style. Besides the Gulfstream, which is a standard perk on the big-time speakers circuit, his contract calls for up to five hotel rooms for his entourage, including his own two-bedroom suite with a preferred balcony view and king-size bed, in the event of an overnight stay.
The Tribune further reported that Giuliani's contract for this address restricted "what questions he might be asked":
The Oklahoma contract also required a sedan and an SUV, restrictions on news coverage and control over whom Giuliani would meet, how he would be photographed and what questions he might be asked.
In 2006, Giuliani's speaking schedule showed no sign of slowing, including at least these speeches:

01/24/06 (http://www.google.com/rd?http://www.iqpc.com/cgi-bin/templates/document.html?topic=241&event=8498&document=62514&slauID=2&#Rudy): Keynote address, 7th Annual Six Sigma Summit, Miami Beach
02/22/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.tata.com/0_media/news/events/2006/2006_feb_events.htm): Keynote address, 15th Annual Sir Dorab Tata Memorial Lecture, Mumbai, India
03/05/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://jckinvitational.expoplanner.com/shownews/030606.pdf): Keynote address, The JCK NYC Invitational, New York City
04/04/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.uic.edu/orgs/daleyforum/schedule.html): Keynote address, Richard J. Daley Urban Forum, Chicago
04/05/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://icc2006.lava.org/): Keynote address, Investment Capital Conference, Los Angeles
04/12/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://afcs.ftasiaevents.com/2006/programme.php): Keynote address, The Financial Times Asian Financial Centres Summit, Seoul, South Korea
04/21/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.iveybuilds.com/content/conference/half.htm): Keynote address, Ivey Builds Conference, London
04/25/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.acca.com/php/chapters/index.php?page=7&story=36): Keynote address, Washington Metropolitan Area Corporate Counsel Association monthly luncheon, Washington, D.C.
04/26/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.practicalbioethics.org/cpb.aspx?pgID=961&newsID=62&exCompID=142): Keynote address, Center for Practical Bioethics' Annual Dinner, Kansas City
05/2006 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.alm.com/pressRelease.asp?record=197): Keynote address, Third Annual Corporate Counsel Forum, New York City
05/04/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.winnipegcitysummit.ca/speakers.asp): Keynote address, Winnipeg City Summit, Winnipeg, Manitoba
05/07/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.shorememorial.org/pdfs/sharings-july2006.pdf): Keynote address, 17th Annual Stainton Society Brunch, Atlantic City, New Jersey
05/10/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=2442): Keynote address, RedPrairie's 9th Annual User Conference and Logistics Industry Summit, Tucson, Arizona
05/11/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.accenter.com/PressRelease/PressRelease84.asp): Keynote address, 26th Annual MAILCOM Global Conference and Exhibition, Atlantic City
05/12/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://blogs.denverpost.com/haley/2006/04/24/giuliani-acting-like-a-candidate-sometimes/): Keynote address, Project Management Institute Mile Hi Chapter Symposium, Denver
05/21/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/21/armstrong_giuliani_dole_out_inspira tion_and_zingers/): Commencement address, Suffolk University Law School, Boston
05/22/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.middlebury.edu/about/pubaff/addresses/giuliani_2005.htm): Commencement address, Middlebury College, Vermont
05/22/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2006/05/04/an_extreme_example_of_lucres_allure /): Keynote address, Boston Business Hall of Fame Gala, Boston
06/02/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.ciab.com/Template.cfm?Section=20066&CONTENTID=5340&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm): Keynote address, Fifth Annual Employee Benefits Leadership Forum, White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia
06/05/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.renolan.com/newsroom/events/conf2006.htm): Keynote address, Insurance Accounting & Systems Association Annual Conference, Boston
06/09/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.ahip.org/links/institute2006/keynotes.htm): Keynote address, America's Health Insurance Plans Annual Meeting, San Diego
06/15/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://news.dallaschamber.org/e_article000558051.cfm?x=b11,0,w): Keynote address, Greater Dallas Chamber Leadership Luncheon, Dallas
09/19/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.davisprop.com/article.asp?id=1060): Keynote address, Walton County Chamber of Commerce 80th Anniversary Annual Meeting, Destin, Florida
09/20/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.wacphila.org/programs/rudy_giuliani.html): Keynote address, World Affairs Council of Philadelphia Suburban West Speakers Series, Philadelphia
10/05/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.issa.com/news/news_detail.jsp?typeId=1&newsid=517&page=1&startPage=1): Keynote address, ISSA/INTERCLEAN USA 2006, Chicago
10/16/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.iir.pl/konf/GIULIANI_english.html): Keynote address, Institute for International Research, Warsaw, Poland
10/25/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://fr.wbfeurope.com/english/EventBrochure.pdf): Speech, World Business Forum, Frankfurt, Germany
10/26/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.investinitaly.com/news_detail.jsp?ID_NEWS=328&GTemplate=search.jsphttp://www.investinitaly.com/news_detail.jsp?ID_NEWS=328&GTemplate=search.jsp): Speech, World Business Forum, Milan, Italy
11/11/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.ihmrs.com/content/hospitalityleadershipschedule.htm): Keynote address, 2006 Hospitality Leadership Forum, International Hotel/Motel & Restaurant Show, New York City
11/14/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.nuvomagazine.com/cibc_wood_gundy_hosts_giuliani/): Keynote address, 2006 Global Leadership Forum, Vancouver, British Columbia
11/14/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111700029.html): Keynote address, 2006 Global Leadership Forum, Edmonton, Canada
11/18/06 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/leadership2006/coverage_18110602.shtml): Keynote address, Hindustan Times Leadership Summit, New Delhi, India Giuliani's current schedule indicates that he will continue to appear at such events in the future. Indeed, on January 31, he addressed (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://newsblaze.com/story/2007012314010200001.ew/topstory.html) the AFCEA/U.S. Naval Institute Warfare and Technologies Conference in San Diego, and on February 13, he gave the keynote address (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/breaking_news/16690984.htm) at the 40th World Ag Expo in Tulare, California. Further, he is scheduled to speak at the National Truck Equipment Association Annual Convention (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.ntea.com/im/wts/2007/press_releases_detail.asp?pr_id=280 ) in Indianapolis in early March, as well as at the 19th Annual Buyouts Symposium East (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.financial-conferences.com/events/E49448.htm?ginPtrCode=00000&identifier=) in New York City in April.
In advertising himself as a paid speaker, Giuliani emphasizes his first-hand experiences on September 11, 2001. Until recently, the Washington Speakers Bureau (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/) managed his speaking engagements. Its online description (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:uAKAr72r2kcJ:www.was hingtonspeakers.com/speakers/Speaker.cfm%3FSpeakerID%3D3337+%22w ashington+speakers+bureau%22+%22rud y+giuliani%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a) (via Google cache) of Giuliani depicted him as "someone who found himself on the frontlines of the War on Terror" and "helped lead New York -- and the U.S. -- out of the devastation that followed the attacks on 9-11." From the Washington Speakers Bureau biography of Giuliani:
Sharing with audiences the principles of leadership which he detailed in his book, Rudy Giuliani looks back at the important lessons he learned in a lifetime of public service and how he drew on those lessons to provide strength at a defining moment in America's history.
[...]
Perhaps there's no greater test of a leader or leadership skills than to lead during difficult times. It's during trying or complicated circumstances that people turn to leaders for direction, motivation and understanding - and studying their actions for guidance. Perhaps no one understands that better than Rudy Giuliani, who helped lead New York -- and the U.S. -- out of the devastation that followed the attacks on 9-11. Giuliani shares his strategies about leading during trying circumstances, providing audiences with unparalleled insights and compelling anecdotes to help them overcome unforeseen or unprecedented challenges -- and put them back on the path towards success.
[...]
As someone who found himself on the frontlines of the War on Terror, Giuliani understands the grave personal price already paid to maintain freedom.
In his speeches, Giuliani regularly describes his experiences on the day of the attacks. For instance, in his May 21, 2002, commencement address (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://sunews.syr.edu/story_details.cfm?id=603) at Syracuse University, Giuliani depicted the scene near the World Trade Center on 9-11 as akin to "a nuclear holocaust" and referred to those who perished in the attacks, including "people that I love and care about and people I had seen 25 minutes before they died."
From the address:
GIULIANI: When I got out on the street, it was like being in a nuclear holocaust. It was cloudy, almost impossible to see and debris falling through the street. I was trying to communicate with people in New York City, to try to tell them to remain calm, that everything was being done that could be done and to evacuate to the north, because that's what the head of the fire department, who died about 20 minutes after I talked to him, told me to do, Chief Gansey.
[...]
GIULIANI: And immediately, even within 30 to 35 minutes of the collapse and extricating ourselves from a building, I began to get a sense of strength and optimism, that something was happening here that would overwhelm the ferociousness of this attack. And then later that day, as I thought about the enormity of the numbers of people that we had lost, including close friends of mine, and people that I love and care about and people I had seen 25 minutes before they died, as I was feeling the burden of that, I first saw a copy of a photograph that I know you've seen.
But it was the first time I really felt optimism and strength. And it was the photograph of the three firefighters who placed the American flag on top of six stories of fallen building. I knew what those firefighters were encountering. The flames there were 2,000 to 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit. The flames were going on below them, and they were standing six stories above, and they raised the American flag, and it said to me right there emotionally that there's nothing stronger than the spirit of a free people.
Giuliani similarly evoked his personal experiences on 9-11 several years later in a May 22, 2005, commencement address (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.middlebury.edu/about/pubaff/addresses/giuliani_2005.htm) at Middlebury College:
GIULIANI: But when I got to the site of the World Trade Center, and I got below the North Tower at the fire department command post, and the police were telling me to look up because debris was falling down, I realized in one particular moment that what I was watching was not debris falling down, but a man who was throwing himself out of the 101st, 102nd floor because he wanted to escape the awful flames.
And I stopped and froze and watched it, and my emotions and my intellect just changed. I said to myself, this is way beyond anything that we've ever faced before. It is much worse, and we're not prepared for this, and we don't have a plan for it. And I said that to my police commissioner and the other people that were there with me.
And then we just had to respond. We couldn't think that very long, so we had to ask for air support, ask for fighter jets to protect the city because we thought we'd be attacked again by air. We had to deploy the police to different parts of the city that we thought would be the next ones to be attacked by suicide bombers. We had to close down the bridges and the tunnels. We had to set up evacuation routes. We had to triage the hospitals. We had to bring in generators to light up Ground Zero.
While transcripts of the numerous addresses Giuliani has given to private conferences and institutions are generally not available, reports of these speeches suggest that his September 11, 2001, anecdotes are a consistent feature.
From a July 16, 2005, Palm Beach Post article on Giuliani's keynote address a day earlier at the Southeast Building Conference:
Speaking without notes for 45 minutes and forgoing the speaker's podium, Giuliani admitted he was afraid when he arrived at the World Trade Center the day of the terrorist attacks. His city had at least 25 different plans to deal with fires, bombs and power outages, but none to handle a catastrophe of such unthinkable horror.
"We didn't have a plan for airplanes being used as missiles attacking our buildings," he said.
He didn't even realize the scope of the human tragedy that had befallen his city.
"I didn't know how bad the damage really was until I arrived at the base of the north tower and saw a man throw himself out of the 102nd floor," Giuliani said.
"I turned to the police commissioner and said 'This is off the charts. We have to come up with a plan quickly.' "
He and his team did just that, and so can you, Giuliani said, outlining principles of leadership.
"The most important is to have strong beliefs," he said. "You have to know what you believe if you're going to lead other people. You can't make decisions based on public opinion."
From an October 6, 2005, Washington Times article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://washingtontimes.com/business/20051005-093645-5695r.htm) on a keynote address Giuliani delivered at a conference on identity theft in Washington, D.C.:
He said when he arrived at ground zero on September 11, 2001, after terrorists rammed hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center, he told a police officer who accompanied him, "We have no plans for this."
Instead, New York City officials improvised with parts of other disaster plans for fires, subway derailments and chemical attacks to figure out a response, he said.
The lesson for the financial security industry is that, "Success comes about because of relentless preparation," said Mr. Giuliani, now the chief executive of Giuliani & Partners, a consulting firm that has a security division.
About 10 percent of U.S. consumers believe they have been victims of identity theft, according to a report from McLean-based credit-card issuer CapitalOne.
Debit and ATM card theft alone cost U.S. consumers $2.75 billion in the year prior to May 2005, with an average loss of $900, according to a study released in August by information technology firm Gartner Inc.

[cortezthekilla]

he's got my vote.

[aircourtneys]

oh golly

[NWADOC]

... New York Mayors are like Cancer Treatments. They only make you feel sicker and sicker when they clean you up.

[loveisdead]

... New York Mayors are like Cancer Treatments. They only make you feel sicker and sicker when they clean you up.
ignorant.

[BitterBuffalo]

I want Gulliani to win. He's pro-choice and supports gay rights. Not your typical Republican, eh? I don't know very much on where he stands on the war, but most all Republicans will be for it, and most all Democrats will be against it. If he won, I'd be okay with that. Either him or Obama and then I'll be happy. No Clinton or McCain.

[Spewk]

I like some things about him, and greatly dislike somethings about him, but seeing as i cant vote i guess it doesnt matter.

[Dynamic1]

Giuliani is the ONLY candidate who is a social conservative while NOT being something of a right wing nut job in the social area. Keep the government out of my sex life, and keep my taxes low, and I'll vote for you.

[Nevuk]

Giuliani hates ferrets : http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/02/audio_rudy_giul.html

He kind of... overreacts a little when questioned about why ferrets aren't allowed to be in New York City.

[Justin_stacy]

Rudy's got my vote, but he has a very tough primary season ahead of him and his VP pick is crucial to cement his conservative credentials. 8 years of Bush is going to make conservatives very wary this election year of picking someone like Guliliani so he has to put this part of the party base at easy. and he didn’t accomplish that on Thursday.

[Syz]

I'm laughing while reading all the comments. You're acting like we have a viable government. I've heard the same useless blather from both sides for too many years to keep on pretending with the rest of you. We have a broken two-party system and a non-functioning judiciary and every socialist and marxist handing out Bread Services to keep the populace voting for them while they work their way into our government. It's my fellowman I'm disgusted with. You base your decisions on what you hear instead of what you research on your own.

Like all wars, they are not about the courage or cowardice of men in battle, but about which side of history you want to be on: those who connect to Freedom or those who disconnect to achieve tyranny.

Obviously, Pelosi and her congress have chosen tyranny as our contribution for the Iraqi citizens and worse, they all represented themselves to our enemies as Americans.

[Lueda Alia]

I wouldn't be upset if Giuliani wins the primaries.

[Nevuk]

There is no way he'll win any republican primaries... he just came out as pro abortion, pro gun control, and pro gay rights. That is, unless the parties are about to swap sides again.

http://www.americablog.com/2007/05/rudy-comes-out-says-that-yes-he-is-pro.html

[KidLightning]

i agree with you.

but prepare for a shit storm of "It's our democratic right to question/critcize the President"
it's not our democratic "right", it's our democratic duty

the most important part of a government of, by, and for the people is "the people" . . . not one man's ill-founded ideology

[KidLightning]

So he is basically a democrat?

Economically both are the same they just differ on minor social issues...

But isn't the illusion of democracy great.
did you just call abortion, gun control and gay rights "minor social issues"?

these are probably some of the biggest and most decisive issues of our time

[KidLightning]

They are small decisions which may trouble the average citizen but are practically meaningless in the scheme of things. What matters is economics and foreign policty. These are the things which really affect the lives of your average citizen and are the difference between living in prosperity and living in a mud hut. Of course your average man or woman doesnt have time for this stuff.
anything that has to do with personal freedoms - as all 3 of these do - is quite important and are part of what make america the great and free country it is supposed to be. personally i am a proponent of a laissez faire economy (the market will handle itself, and often does despite what the government tries to tell it to do) and our foreign policy problems stem from the US worrying too much about what everyone else is doing and thus pre-emptively invading countries for no good (and even falsified) reasons, and provoking hate for our country and way of life

[Nevuk]

Laissez faire economics are what led to the last extreme monopolies, and an insane amount of corruption. Its just one of those systems that makes oligarchies better.

[Lueda Alia]

There is no way he'll win any republican primaries... he just came out as pro abortion, pro gun control, and pro gay rights. That is, unless the parties are about to swap sides again.

http://www.americablog.com/2007/05/rudy-comes-out-says-that-yes-he-is-pro.html
No one is pro abortion; people are pro-choice.

[Nevuk]

True, that was FUD.

[unwritten]

No one is pro abortion; people are pro-choice.

haha, "politically correct" term.

[Lueda Alia]

haha, "politically correct" term.
It's only the truth. If people are pro-abortion, then the ones at the other end are anti-choice.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

It's only the truth. If people are pro-abortion, then the ones at the other end are anti-choice.

the difference is im not sure why a pro-life person would not want to be referred to as anti choice. they are anti choice. you are either ok with abortion or you aren't you can say that you would never do it and thats fine. but you are still ok with it happening with that said however, i like Gulliani's stance on this because he is in favor of working for less abortions which is honestly something i think we can all hope for

[Justin_stacy]

they are anti choice. you are either ok with abortion or you aren't you can say that you would never do it and thats fine.

or they feel the "choice" was made prior to the point where abortion comes into play....


Regardless, Gulliani just needs to stand his ground on this subject, as he did tonight in SC, and work on areas where he and the RNC primary base agree.

[Iamhome]

The ferret rant was pretty funny... For any of you who may not have caught 'you decide 2008 - the republician presidential debate,' here are the highlights...

yG7jRj7BhGs

[theguy77]

I'd vote for a Republican candidate if they were the best person for the job. I have no problem switching partylines in order to get who I believe is the best man/woman for the job.

likewise thats why Obama is my choice. :) theres something spittingly annoying about each of the other candidates for me. Guiliani's stance in the war on terror is endearing. but hes mixing the war on terror with iraq. it doesnt have a fucking thing to do with the iraq war. the iraq war is international interventionism, and though right now it is necessary to stay to try to stabilize the civil war in iraq in order not to be complete fuck ups, our focus should be in two places: keeping up with the economic competition from india and china, and those western borders of afghanistan. the war on terror is dire and important, yet with no correlation to our current activity in iraq.

[FallingOut]

Just the fact that he wanted to extend his term as mayor by 3 months, just because of 9/11, makes me digsuted. He is suddenly really popular and sees a good opportunity for self promotion so he feels he has the right to change the law. What a great guy. I cannot believe people are going to vote for this moron.

[peacelovemusic]

Just the fact that he wanted to extend his term as mayor by 3 months, just because of 9/11, makes me digsuted. He is suddenly really popular and sees a good opportunity for self promotion so he feels he has the right to change the law. What a great guy. I cannot believe people are going to vote for this moron.

What pisses me off is that he's using 9/11 as a campaign tool. He says that he knows how to deal with a real American tragedy because he dealt with 9/11.
Pop quiz: If the mayor of New Orleans came out and said they knew a real American tragedy because they dealt with Katrina, how would that work out for them? It's the same thing that Gulliani's doing.

[justinzuccon]

I'm a Canadian but I think that Gulliani is right for the job as the leader of the Republicans because he embodies many conventional GOP beliefs and qualities. He is pro-Iraq to a degree but that is right up the Republican alley and I don't think he'd do too bad of a job regarding homeland security as well. Hopefully he doesn't cut off travel from Canada to the States by imposing more restrictions like your current President has because I really like visiting your country

[justinzuccon]

For the record though Obama is useless and so is Hillary Clinton, it would have been best if Kerry or Gore stepped up instead of resigning

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

What pisses me off is that he's using 9/11 as a campaign tool. He says that he knows how to deal with a real American tragedy because he dealt with 9/11.
Pop quiz: If the mayor of New Orleans came out and said they knew a real American tragedy because they dealt with Katrina, how would that work out for them? It's the same thing that Gulliani's doing.

Except that Guliani handled 9-11 15 times better than the mayor of "The Chocolate City" did.

[Rock'N'Roll]

Well...I Have Alot Problems With Rudy...Milking 9/11 For Votes Is As Stated Above Disgusting And His Habit Of Playing Fear Politics Is Pretty Screwed Up Too...He Doesn't Know How Well A Democrat Would Or Would Not Protect Us...And I Hear Alot About His National Security Background...But Quite Frankly I Think McCain(Whom I As An Independent Am Supporting) Is Far More Qualified Then He Is...And The Most Qualified This Election Should Be Decided On Iraq Policy Followed Very Closely By National Security Policy(In Terms Of Preventing Terrorism For The Most Part)

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

Well...I Have Alot Problems With Rudy...Milking 9/11 For Votes Is As Stated Above Disgusting And His Habit Of Playing Fear Politics Is Pretty Screwed Up Too...He Doesn't Know How Well A Democrat Would Or Would Not Protect Us...And I Hear Alot About His National Security Background...But Quite Frankly I Think McCain(Whom I As An Independent Am Supporting) Is Far More Qualified Then He Is...And The Most Qualified This Election Should Be Decided On Iraq Policy Followed Very Closely By National Security Policy(In Terms Of Preventing Terrorism For The Most Part)

i dont want to be a jerk

but am i the only one who can hardly make it through this whole post with out having a seizure?

and as far as McCain goes...come on man. the guy is all over the place. if i hear him say "books have been written" one more time, i'm gonna throw up.

[FallingOut]

Please tell me how anyone could actually support Giuliani as their best choice for the upcoming election. This man has done nothing to earn a nomination as President of the United States. Being the mayor on 9/11 does not qualify you.

[kbauer]

i guess he has my vote as of right now but seriously im not pleased with any of the canidates republican, democrat or independant. good thing i still have a lot of time i guess but out of everyone i dislike him the least.

i have a friend who is on the religious far far faaaar right and he told me that i guess born agains plan on voting democratic if guliani wins the republican nomination because of his stance on abortion. apparently this would send a message to the rebuplicans that their votes arent gurenteed. i wanted to lol @ that but it would had been rude so i held it in.

[kbauer]

For the record though Obama is useless and so is Hillary Clinton, it would have been best if Kerry or Gore stepped up instead of resigning


I think Gore would win going away and thats why i dont understand why he didnt run in '04 or again in '08. my guess is the democrats are pumped with obama and hil-dog because of the new blood it gives them.

[Syz]

i guess he has my vote as of right now but seriously im not pleased with any of the canidates republican, democrat or independant. good thing i still have a lot of time i guess but out of everyone i dislike him the least.

i have a friend who is on the religious far far faaaar right and he told me that i guess born agains plan on voting democratic if guliani wins the republican nomination because of his stance on abortion. apparently this would send a message to the rebuplicans that their votes arent gurenteed. i wanted to lol @ that but it would had been rude so i held it in.
I haven't found God to be opposed to abortion considering he has performed probably billions of them since time began and what better place for a child to be if he is not wanted on earth, so the abortion issue is absurd to me and should be to the Conservatives who cling to it for no reason. We are told The Glory of God is where we should strive to be which places earth at a very insignificant stopping off place until we get to The Real Place.

[Syz]

Please tell me how anyone could actually support Giuliani as their best choice for the upcoming election. This man has done nothing to earn a nomination as President of the United States. Being the mayor on 9/11 does not qualify you.
I would support Guiliani. I've had to vote defensively for a Conservative for years. What has no appeal to me is liberal Socialism and the strange determination they have to live under Total Government Control----I'm laughing at the remark about Clinton and Obama being new blood. I think the Clinton thing qualifies as "we've been there, done that." It's old news with stronger socialist determination. No Thanks

[Syz]

I think Gore would win going away and thats why i dont understand why he didnt run in '04 or again in '08. my guess is the democrats are pumped with obama and hil-dog because of the new blood it gives them.
I think Gore and Kerry were at their best "going away"

[Syz]

i dont want to be a jerk

but am i the only one who can hardly make it through this whole post with out having a seizure?

and as far as McCain goes...come on man. the guy is all over the place. if i hear him say "books have been written" one more time, i'm gonna throw up.
Guiliani had the good sense to sit down with Dr. Thomas Barnett who is known as the great stragegist of our time and his web site and interviews on c-span have shown him to be just that. Guiliani also has a superior health program and an understanding of the value of privitizing social security to keep our representatives from continually stealing from it. There's more in there to steal rather than take postage stamps from the Federal Post Office, then return them for cash. Am I the only one who remembers that? What a bunch of rotten apples we have running the store. Yikes! Wake up out there.

[Syz]

I'm a Canadian but I think that Gulliani is right for the job as the leader of the Republicans because he embodies many conventional GOP beliefs and qualities. He is pro-Iraq to a degree but that is right up the Republican alley and I don't think he'd do too bad of a job regarding homeland security as well. Hopefully he doesn't cut off travel from Canada to the States by imposing more restrictions like your current President has because I really like visiting your country
Iraq is not about The United States, It's about the millions of lives already saved through the efforts of our fighting Patriots. Iraq is about what side of History you want to be on. Those who connect to Freedom for mankind or those who demand withdrawal achieving tyranny for humanity as the reward of cowardice. The cost of cowardice is the higher price.

[boykosaurus]

:wallbash:

lol, my thoughts exactly

[boykosaurus]

Iraq is not about The United States, It's about the millions of lives already saved through the efforts of our fighting Patriots. Iraq is about what side of History you want to be on. Those who connect to Freedom for mankind or those who demand withdrawal achieving tyranny for humanity as the reward of cowardice. The cost of cowardice is the higher price.

hmmmm...interesting...

[i bowled a 220]

What pisses me off is that he's using 9/11 as a campaign tool. He says that he knows how to deal with a real American tragedy because he dealt with 9/11.
Pop quiz: If the mayor of New Orleans came out and said they knew a real American tragedy because they dealt with Katrina, how would that work out for them? It's the same thing that Gulliani's doing.
i disagree. the mayor of new orleans is a complete fucking idiot and dealt with katrina very poorly. granted he probably did not get what he thought was adequate support from the federal government, he turned the ordeal into a publicity stunt by changing the focus from helping the people that voted for him on his own to putting blame on the authorities (that he was in charge of, btw) and the white house for being "racists". natural disasters are not the president's responsibility, they are that of the local and state government. in the san francisco earthquake of 1989, the federal government was not attacked for its limited intervention because the local and state government handled it responsibly, and they certainly didn't blame the white house's lack of iniative on the matter on homophobia. that may not be the best comparison, but you get the point. 9/11 on the other hand, was an issue of national security and was a terrorist attack in which far more people's lives were considered to be at stake and far more people were in fear than katrina. the two cannot be compared. while i may not be the biggest rudy giuliani fan in the world, he's far classier than ray nagin, considerably more intelligent and responsible, and he is a good leader. that cannot be debated.

[peacelovemusic]

I think that if Hillary Clinton becomes president, she will be the first and last female president. She just does not seem stable enough to become president, and it will ruin any other woman becoming president.

All I know is that Gulliani cannot be elected unless we want the country to explode. Bush is right now signing off every bill so that he can pass as many laws as he can so that he will still be in partial control of the country when he's gone. The country is takiong a turn for the worst and Gulliani can only make it worse.

[halifaxrocks]

as far as i can tell, he's got my vote as of now

[Syz]

i disagree. the mayor of new orleans is a complete fucking idiot and dealt with katrina very poorly. granted he probably did not get what he thought was adequate support from the federal government, he turned the ordeal into a publicity stunt by changing the focus from helping the people that voted for him on his own to putting blame on the authorities (that he was in charge of, btw) and the white house for being "racists". natural disasters are not the president's responsibility, they are that of the local and state government. in the san francisco earthquake of 1989, the federal government was not attacked for its limited intervention because the local and state government handled it responsibly, and they certainly didn't blame the white house's lack of iniative on the matter on homophobia. that may not be the best comparison, but you get the point. 9/11 on the other hand, was an issue of national security and was a terrorist attack in which far more people's lives were considered to be at stake and far more people were in fear than katrina. the two cannot be compared. while i may not be the biggest rudy giuliani fan in the world, he's far classier than ray nagin, considerably more intelligent and responsible, and he is a good leader. that cannot be debated.
I was listening to the radio during the Katrina fiasco. The Mayor was literally begging the people to get on the buses he had sent to the locations and explained over and over that the levi would not hold up under the expected force, yet the people refused. He announced this over and over again so I have to blame the people of New Orleans who refused to listen. Others do not do things to us, we allow it to happen.

[Syz]

as far as i can tell, he's got my vote as of now
He has mine also. Great Health Care Plan, Private SS program, pro individual thought, Government out of our lives. I haven't listened to the debates, they serve no pur

Comrade Hillary's abuse of women is frightening. I fought too long and hard most of my life for the rights of women and it wasn't for them to end up in berkas, cowering in corners while the yellow striped First Lady of the Land used her bully pulpit to ruin the lives of several women by claiming them guilty when she knew they were innocent just to protect her predator husband. You can't get more vicious than that. Both are seasoned predators of their fellowman and country.

[LatticeProject]

giuliani's my boy. the less time you've spent in washington the more integrity you've got as far as i'm concerned. the amount of corruption and deceit that occurs on both sides of the aisle in congress is absolutely deplorable.

[Syz]

giuliani's my boy. the less time you've spent in washington the more integrity you've got as far as i'm concerned. the amount of corruption and deceit that occurs on both sides of the aisle in congress is absolutely deplorable.
Yes, we have a broken two party system and that word integrity always brings back the memory of my Dad explaining life to me when I was a kid. "Integrity is the most costly thing you'll ever own, but it will be the best expenditure of your life". At the time it seemed a bit sappy to me, but the years have proven him right. Too bad our leaders don't even know what the word means.

[emokid333]

So I don't know if its true or what but I heard he is real tied in with the mob, like is dad is in jail and everything.

[boykosaurus]

this man angers me more and more everyday.

In today's NYT, he is quoted in an add saying, "These times call for statesmanship, not politicians spewing political venom". Very mature Mr, Giuliani, maybe you should practice what you preach. He constantly singles out the Democrats as weak politicians who will give up our country to the terrorists and allow attacks to occur. He claims that the Republicans are on the offense, the Dems on the defense; basically vote Republican or choose terror and death.

His childish and immature attacks on the democratic party is not necessary in during this trying time; funny how he can take so many positions.

and moveon.org is a larger bag of crap than joinrudy2008.com

Im sick of this

[Name_Taken]

Now reading even more from OntheIssues.org:

“You are either with civilization or with terrorism,” he said in a speech before the start of a weeklong General Assembly debate on terrorism. “This is not a time for further study or vague directives,” he insisted. “Look at that destruction, that massive, senseless, cruel loss of human life, and then I ask you to look in your hearts and recognize that there is no room for neutrality on the issue of terrorism.“

Rudy Giuliani told the United Nations, “Let those who say we must understand the reasons for terrorism come with me to the thousands of funerals we’re having in New York City-thousands-and explain those insane, maniacal reasons to the children who will grow up without fathers and mothers, and to the parents who have had their children ripped from them for no reason at all. Instead, I ask each of you to allow me to say at those funerals that your nation stands with America in making a solemn promise and pledge that we will achieve unconditional victory over terrorism and terrorists.“

These quotes sound like Bush-lite.
how can anyone possibly not agree with that quote?

i think he would make a great president, and if i could vote he would definately have mine.

[Jason Tate]

how can anyone possibly not agree with that quote?

i think he would make a great president, and if i could vote he would definately have mine.
Guess I'm glad you can't vote then.

[Name_Taken]

Guess I'm glad you can't vote then.
yea sorry, it just feels right to me to be against terrorism.

[Jason Tate]

yea sorry, it just feels right to me to be against terrorism.

Saying you're "against" terrorism is liking saying you're against murder. Giant no shit.

[Zach Cool]

Just view this guy's YouTube channel and everything will be A-OK! ;-)

http://youtube.com/subscription_center?s=yOoUfHUNtsY

[Name_Taken]

Saying you're "against" terrorism is liking saying you're against murder. Giant no shit.
exactly, which is why i would vote for him.

[Jason Tate]

exactly, which is why i would vote for him.
:wallbash:

[Shatter590]

he was once a great mayor.

keyword there is "Once"

i wont vote for him

[thejetstolehome]

how can anyone possibly not agree with that quote?

i think he would make a great president, and if i could vote he would definately have mine.

maybe because the world isn't as fucking black and white as "civilization and terrorism." maybe because it just seems like a quote that could lead to even more senseless war which leads to more senseless and cruel loss of life...maybe.

[Name_Taken]

maybe because the world isn't as fucking black and white as "civilization and terrorism." maybe because it just seems like a quote that could lead to even more senseless war which leads to more senseless and cruel loss of life...maybe.
i would go into discussion about this if you hadn't responded to me in the other thread like you did.

[Name_Taken]

:wallbash:
haha, gotta love freedom of opinion ;-)

[Jason Tate]

haha, gotta love freedom of opinion ;-)
People are free to have any opinion they want - doesn't make that opinion valid.

[thejetstolehome]

i would go into discussion about this if you hadn't responded to me in the other thread like you did.

okay, cool. maybe i flew off of the handle a bit but i think it's just because so many damn people in that thread, or in general, are just saying "I hate Hillary" and have no real justification for it. i'm not even sure if i would vote for her but, obviously, it's for different reasons than those who lean right. so, i'm sorry.

[Name_Taken]

okay, cool. maybe i flew off of the handle a bit but i think it's just because so many damn people in that thread, or in general, are just saying "I hate Hillary" and have no real justification for it. i'm not even sure if i would vote for her but, obviously, it's for different reasons than those who lean right. so, i'm sorry.
its cool, i understand completely.

[Name_Taken]

People are free to have any opinion they want - doesn't make that opinion valid.
true

[simplelivin_GCH]

i wish this guy didnt scare me..in my opinion he seems like another war monger...i think he could be worse for this country than george bush...but whatever happens in this election we, the people, have no control over what this government does so im beginning to think this is all just a waste of time

[atticus1492]

i wish this guy didnt scare me..in my opinion he seems like another war monger...i think he could be worse for this country than george bush...but whatever happens in this election we, the people, have no control over what this government does so im beginning to think this is all just a waste of time

That is the spirit.

[anamericangod]

i wish this guy didnt scare me..in my opinion he seems like another war monger...i think he could be worse for this country than george bush...but whatever happens in this election we, the people, have no control over what this government does so im beginning to think this is all just a waste of time

I think that is a fairly accurate assumption.

[simplelivin_GCH]

That is the spirit.

seriously...once they send out national surveys questioning each citizens beliefs about certain issues and form a consensus from each one, we have no control.....if we did george bush would not be in office, we would not be at war, we wouldnt be in debt instead of the surplus we used to have...and we'd be involved in causes that need our attention (i.e all the crazy shit in africa that no one cares about, the environment, and our OWN problems at home)

[TranscendTrends]

i wish this guy didnt scare me..in my opinion he seems like another war monger...i think he could be worse for this country than george bush...but whatever happens in this election we, the people, have no control over what this government does so im beginning to think this is all just a waste of time

i completely agree. this dude scares the bejesus outta me. if he seriously gets elected, then i have no reservations about moving out of america. that's how frightened i am. and i've never even ventured out of the country.

personally, i really hope that barack is the democratic candidate, b/c hillary is a war hawk as well. but if it comes down to the unfortunate pairing of hillary vs. rudy, then i'll be forced to vote for her. that's how big of a douchebag i think that guilliani is.

*drops the mic*

[boykosaurus]

This man has the capability to ignite World War III

[EricStrategy]

ron paul 2008

[asmolitor]

seriously...once they send out national surveys questioning each citizens beliefs about certain issues and form a consensus from each one, we have no control.....if we did george bush would not be in office, we would not be at war, we wouldnt be in debt instead of the surplus we used to have...and we'd be involved in causes that need our attention (i.e all the crazy shit in africa that no one cares about, the environment, and our OWN problems at home)

maintaining a surplus isn't economically viable over the long term.

[simplelivin_GCH]

maintaining a surplus isn't economically viable over the long term.

haha ok

[asmolitor]

haha ok

no, seriously. read up on mercantilism. i'm not saying a deficit is the right way to go about things, but trying to maintain a surplus doesn't work either.

[simplelivin_GCH]

no, seriously. read up on mercantilism. i'm not saying a deficit is the right way to go about things, but trying to maintain a surplus doesn't work either.

ok thats what i thought you were saying...ill deff read up on it, im bored as fuck haha

[asmolitor]

ok thats what i thought you were saying...ill deff read up on it, im bored as fuck haha

haha, you have to be... because the wikipedia article starts going with adam smith's criticisms. it's a complete bore-fest.

[oldwirehands]

there is a difference between not supporting your leader and criticizing his every step. There needs to be some national pride, some sense of unity like our friend said. The polarization in the U.S today is making the country look weak.

i'm not pointing at you in particular jason, but alot of people i talk to on here, blindly dismiss the president and what he's doing.

How in the world could anyone think its right to support someone they didn't trust? Yes, we should be standing together as a country and have a sense of pride but take a look around and ask yourself what kind of country we live in? We are all terrorist suspects in the eyes of our government.

This country has turned into a disgusting cesspool comprised of greed, pride, and lust. I hate the world I live in but I make the best of it and will continue to push for change. I promote peace, love, and nature. We are all human and we all live on this place we call Earth. Until people understand that we are one, there is no hope for mankind.

[bossman calling]

We are all terrorist suspects in the eyes of our government.
How so?

This country has turned into a disgusting cesspool comprised of greed, pride, and lust.
How so?

I promote peace, love, and nature.
As opposed to what?

[oldwirehands]

How so?


How so?


As opposed to what?

Phone tapping. Paris Hilton. Violence and mass control.

[bossman calling]

Phone tapping. Paris Hilton. Violence and mass control.
Hasn't phone tapping been around long before the current wave of terrorism? Do you have examples of phone tapping being misused without consequence against American citizens? I don't agree with warantless phone tapping against US citizens, but do you think that it is being used on a mass scale against "all" of us?

How is one person a solid example on how the country is supposedly a cesspool of greed, pride and lust, what is your alternative to that and what do you propose to get there?

And when you say things like "peace, love and nature," and "violence and mass control," what is your context?

[oldwirehands]

Hasn't phone tapping been around long before the current wave of terrorism? Do you have examples of phone tapping being misused without consequence against American citizens? I don't agree with warantless phone tapping against US citizens, but do you think that it is being used on a mass scale against "all" of us?

How is one person a solid example on how the country is supposedly a cesspool of greed, pride and lust, what is your alternative to that and what do you propose to get there?

And when you say things like "peace, love and nature," and "violence and mass control," what is your context?

Explaining myself would be a waste of my time. Nobody in this country is willing to open their mind or think on their own. Everyone is illiterate and owned by their TV's and iPods.

Thats all I really have to say anymore.

[bossman calling]

Explaining myself would be a waste of my time. Nobody in this country is willing to open their mind or think on their own. Everyone is illiterate and owned by their TV's and iPods.

Thats all I really have to say anymore.
You realize though, that by using bumper sticker slogans in your arguments, you are coming off as exactly one of those people...right?

[oldwirehands]

You realize though, that by using bumper sticker slogans in your arguments, you are coming off as exactly one of those people...right?

I've never seen, or heard of, such bumper stickers. This discussion is over.

[bossman calling]

Sorry...wouldn't want to make you think or anything.

[supersonic182]

I'm interested in Rudy Guliani. He was a great and respectable New York City Mayor, and was partially responsible for bringing NYC's crime rate considerably down.

And I agree with him on most issues, aside from abortion.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm interested in Rudy Guliani. He was a great and respectable New York City Mayor, and was partially responsible for bringing NYC's crime rate considerably down.

And I agree with him on most issues, aside from abortion.
Getting lectured on family values by Gulliani, of all people, makes me question politics as a whole.

[boykosaurus]

I'm really concerned about his idea to lower taxes throughout the country to produce revenue. I'm not an expert on economics (B- in micro...holler), but I don't think what "worked" for a city will work for the entire country

[bossman calling]

Considering federal tax revenues have grown every year since the 2003 tax cuts, and set a record this year for most revenue ever, I'd say it does actually work like that. In fact, the rich actually pay more in dollar amount than they were before the cuts.

[boykosaurus]

Man, the rich get screwed so hard.

[boykosaurus]

is anyone else annoyed by his lisp?

[Nevuk]

Considering federal tax revenues have grown every year since the 2003 tax cuts, and set a record this year for most revenue ever, I'd say it does actually work like that. In fact, the rich actually pay more in dollar amount than they were before the cuts.
Is that taking into account Inflation and the weakened dollar?

[bossman calling]

Is that taking into account Inflation and the weakened dollar?

Yes.

[Until The Bombs]

All I need to know is that when he cracked down on drug trafficking in New York, many of the drugs came to my hometown. Which has just done so much a help a city that was in many ways already struggling.

[bossman calling]

Sounds like that's your town's fault, not Gulliani's...

[Nevuk]

Yes.
That's actually really interesting. The only plausible reason for that to occur is that they have on average more money than before, so even a smaller percentage of this is more than earlier?

Which in the end turns into praising of stratification.

[bossman calling]

They have more money that they are able to spend and invest, which has lead to much higher growth rates all around than it did when the same money was going to the government in taxes. Then, when it comes time to pay taxes on these increased investments at the new reduced capital gains rate, they now have more in dollar amount to pay, and more as a percentage of total government revenue than before, even if their own personal percentages are lower.

And this is not praising "stratification," because at the same time the number of those considered "wealthy" has risen, while the number we consider "poor" has either gone down or remained constant, depending on how you look at it.

[Nevuk]

They have more money that they are able to spend and invest, which has lead to much higher growth rates all around than it did when the same money was going to the government in taxes. Then, when it comes time to pay taxes on these increased investments at the new reduced capital gains rate, they now have more in dollar amount to pay, and more as a percentage of total government revenue than before, even if their own personal percentages are lower.

And this is not praising "stratification," because at the same time the number of those considered "wealthy" has risen, while the number we consider "poor" has either gone down or remained constant, depending on how you look at it.
By stratification I was referring to the middle class, as I've heard multiple people say that only during Reagan and Bush years has the middle class actually gotten smaler. Of course, I've never heard them cite their statistics, but some of them were respectable PHDs. This is probably one of those "it depends what angle you view it from" items, though.

The capital gains tax does make sense, I guess. They pay more taxes because they are more free to invest, and thus they pay taxes on money that otherwise would very rarely be touched by the government, as it wouldn't be worth the time and effort to invest under former tax laws. That's what I've gotten out of your explanation, is it correct? And its the way trickledown economics do work in theory (they are investing in the economy).

[bossman calling]

The middle class has gotten "smaller" because more of them have gone up, not down. Its funny to hear people complain about others supposedly praising stratification, but then bemoan the fact that the middle class is "shrinking" while ignoring the fact that more of them are simply moving up.

A shrinking middle class is only a bad thing if more people are falling into poverty, and that simply isn't happening.

[Nevuk]

The middle class has gotten "smaller" because more of them have gone up, not down. Its funny to hear people complain about others supposedly praising stratification, but then bemoan the fact that the middle class is "shrinking" while ignoring the fact that more of them are simply moving up.

A shrinking middle class is only a bad thing if more people are falling into poverty, and that simply isn't happening.
According to Plato its bad either way, but then Plato is full of shit the majority of the time.

[asmolitor]

Man, the rich get screwed so hard.

to be fair, the top 1% of the wealth scale pay 40% of the government's annual take in taxes.

[Nevuk]

to be fair, the top 1% of the wealth scale pay 40% of the government's annual take in taxes.
They also possess well over that percentage of the country's total wealth, making me somewhat lose my sympathy for them.

[bossman calling]

According to the Treasury Department, in 2005, the richest 5% paid 60% of all taxes, while the richest 1% paid 39%.

Contrast this to 2000 (before the Bush tax cuts), when the richest 5% paid 56% of all taxes, while the richest 1% paid 37%.

Contrast this further to 1990, when the richest 5% paid 44% of all taxes and the richest 1% only paid 25% of all taxes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html ($)
Taxes and Income
December 17, 2007; Page A20
Every Democrat running for President wants to raise taxes on "the rich," but they will have to do something miraculous to outtax President Bush. Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy.

Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.

For the political left and most of the media, this means only that the rich are getting richer, so of course they're paying more taxes. And it is true that the top earners have increased their share of total income. Yet, as the nearby table shows, the rich showed more rapid gains in reported income shares in the 1990s than in the first half of this decade. The share of the richest 1% jumped to 20.8% of total income in 2000, from 14% in 1990, but increased only slightly to 21.2% in 2005. This makes it hard to pin their claim of "rising inequality" on the Bush tax cuts, though the income redistributionists are trying. By this measure, the Clinton years were far worse for "inequality."

Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income. How could this be?

One explanation is that the Bush tax cuts reduced the income tax liability of middle and lower income households by more proportionately than the rich. The average family of four with an income of $40,000 saw its income tax liability fall by about $2,052 a year from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

The IRS statistics also tell a more complicated economic story than the media claim. First, America continues to be a society of upward income mobility. Over the past decade, millions of Americans have joined the once highly exclusive club of six- and seven-figure earners. Some 304,000 Americans earned $1 million or more in annual income in 2005, compared to 110,000 in 1996 and 176,000 in 2000. Because there is no cap on the top income share, this increase in millionaires pushes the top income (and taxes paid) share higher. The number of millionaire households in net worth also increased to nine million in 2006, up from six million in 2001, according to TNS, a global market research firm.

Liberals decry this as proof of a new "gilded age." But we'd say these gains are a sign that more Americans are joining the ranks of the truly affluent. More than 13 million American households, or about one in 10, had an income of more than $100,000 a year in 2005. This is the kind of upward mobility that a dynamic society should want because it means that incomes aren't stagnant and opportunity continues to exist.

Keep in mind as well that the IRS only records the income that taxpayers report. Its data don't include income that the rich hide in tax shelters or otherwise defer. And there is evidence that lower tax rates since 1981 have caused the rich to declare more of what they earn. In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share. With lower rates and fewer tax loopholes after the 1986 reform, there is less incentive to shelter income to avoid tax.

The IRS figures are also misleading because they include income that can make many Americans rich for only a single year. In 2005, for example, taxpayers earned an estimated $600 billion in income from capital gains, which is reported on tax forms as part of adjustable gross income. But that might include the one-time gain from a middle-class senior couple that has lived modestly for decades but suddenly retires and sells the family business or home for $1 million or more. They may be "rich" in Hillary Clinton's definition of the term, but in fact they are benefiting in one tax year from a lifetime of hard work and thrift.

The amount of capital gains declared on tax forms has doubled since the tax rate was cut to 15% from 20% in 2003, which has also contributed to more Americans being "rich." Dividend income has also increased by at least 50% since that rate was cut to 15% from nearly 40% in 2003. So part of the income gains of the rich are simply a result of assets that have been converted into taxable income -- in part because of lower tax rates.

We hate to break up the media's egalitarian chorus with these details, but facts are facts. If Democrats really want to soak the rich, they'll keep tax rates where they are, or, better, lower them some more.

[Nevuk]

According to the Treasury Department, in 2005, the richest 5% paid 60% of all taxes, while the richest 1% paid 39%.

Contrast this to 2000 (before the Bush tax cuts), when the richest 5% paid 56% of all taxes, while the richest 1% paid 37%.

Contrast this further to 1990, when the richest 5% paid 44% of all taxes and the richest 1% only paid 25% of all taxes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html ($)
I still can't agree that this is a good thing unless trickle down economics work in reality.

[bossman calling]

Here is your daily economics lesson -

If your definition of trickle-down is something unrealistic, like saying that it should mean that everyone gets rich, then no, it does not work. That is impossible, because of inflation. For example, if everyone had at least a million dollars, then a million dollars would probably only be worth about a hundred dollars in today's terms.

But if you look at comparisons of past generations and today, then you can see how it has been working, and how far more people are better off today, especially when comparing today with the 1970's, which is only what, two generations? We had this discussion in another thread:

Consider that among those who are considered "poor (http://gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/ArethePoorGettingPoorer.htm)" in this country, in our relative definition:


76% of poor Americans enjoy air conditioning in their homes; in 1971 only 32% of ALL Americans had it
97% of poor Americans own at least one color television; in 1971 only 43% of ALL Americans had a color television
78% of poor Americans own a VCR or DVD player
62% of poor Americans have cable or satellite
73% of poor Americans own a microwave; in 1971, only 1% of ALL Americans had a microwave.
33% own a dishwasher
46% own their own homes
75% own their own car
30% own two or more cars


Also:

Only 6% of poor households are considered to be overcrowded.
The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities.


And of course these figures are from 2001, and the end of the growth of the 1990's and during a small recession; since then, we've had another incredible period of economic growth so I can only assume that these figures are even better today. How many poor families have computers, internet access, XBox's or cell phones today?

The point is, trickledown economics does not mean that everyone gets rich; it means that more people have access to and can afford more things that make their lives better and allow them the opportunities to enhance their own well being and personal wealth...and obviously, that HAS happened in this country.

Think for a minute about when some new technology comes out, say a state of the art flat screen television. At first, only one or two companies make it, so it's going to be really expensive, and only wealthy people can afford it. But then other companies who make televisions see how wealthy people are buying it, so they start putting out their versions of the same product to see if they can tap into some of these sales. Now, to compete with each other, they all start cutting prices, and in the process are forced to come up with more efficient ways to manufacture and deliver the televisions. Suddenly, upper middle class folks can afford them, and then as more of them buy, middle class and eventually even some who are considered poor find the means to pay for them. On top of that, the tube-style televisions are now dirt cheap, because the flat screen types are more in demand, so just about anyone who can come up with $50 can go into a Wal-Mart and buy a television.

Now, replace "flat screen television" with anything else, like computers, life saving drugs, health care technology, cars, etc. THAT is how trickledown economics works. No, not everyone has a million dollars, but the dollars that they do have go further than ever in most areas, simply because firms are competing with each other to supply the demanded products, aiming for the money of the rich, but in the process of competing, lowering their prices and becoming efficient enough to be affordable to just about everyone.

[Nevuk]

More people can afford more things, thats true, but personal debt is also skyrocketing. And I don't really think the tv is a good thing - the fucker is brain rot. As for the rest of it, I can't really disagree- the only economics courses I've taken were a personal finance and an intro to business.

[bossman calling]

Actually, personal debt is not really skyrocketing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101556.html). Whenever someone brings out the figure "the average personal debt is $9,300," they are being misleading, either intentionally or unintentionally. That figure includes the debt of the self-employeed, and of those who own small businesses that were financed by being placed against their home or personal property. Most of those debts are very large and are actively being worked off through whatever business was started with them.

If you take that out, you come up with a much lighter figure of $2,300 per household, and only 46% of households even have a credit card balance each month.

And a television has many more benefits than just watching crappy entertainment shows...such as news sources that are virtually free if you stick to the networks, and the educational benefits for children in the forms of Sesame Street, etc.

[Nevuk]

Tv... the news on the television, at least locally, makes me want to blow chunks. Its sooo... sappy, and oriented towards random feel good stories. Or spending 4 years covering the assassination of a sheriff on the other side of the state.

Headline News/CNN/Fox are all better, to the point I'll watch them when bored. Or the weather channel, which serves a purpose. Surprised you support Sesame Street, for its positive portrayels of crackhouses (the rerelease got rated highly). Why not mr. rogers? If i'm making little sense, I've been up for way too long.

Fair enough on the rest. I'm not convinced in the long time feasibility of trickle-down economics, but you have convinced me that as of right now its no worse than it was before it was implemented- anything going on in a bad way isn't its fault.

[samused]

This idiot isn't even running ANYMORE?! WHY IS HE STICKY.

ADD RON PAUL TO THE STICKIES. Jesus Christ. I'm leaving this forum after being here for 5 years.

[Jason Tate]

Uh. Weird.

[rikfrommf]

Uh. Weird.

add a sticky and I'll leave. :-)

JK but he doesn't deserve one.