Rudy Giuliani: President Obama doesn’t love America[W:649]

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

Objective Voice said:

That's not what you stated earlier...





So, which is it? Academics or the less educated....HS drop-outs because it can't be both.

EDIT: Just came across TD's later retort to the above...:shock:



There are quite a few things wrong with the above not the least of which is if you have a Masters Degree you're a long way from being "uneducated" or even "uninformed" about what takes place in America or its national history. Moreover, I seriously doubt lawyers will vote Democrat on the off chance they'll get lucky and win a civil law suite defending some uneducated smuck.

Talk about putting your junk out their, getting it stepped on and then ratcheting the old party tag line back all while doubling down and grasping at straws in the process. :lamo

Republican Administrations issue R&D grants to colleges and universities same as Democrat Administrations do. To think that grant approvals are one-sided based on party ideology is foolish. You apply for grants because you need the funding. Period.

However, you're right that in today's economic climate bereft with a strong Conservative bent and a corporate culture led by GOP supporters it's very understandable why these corporate CEOs would vote Republican! They want the "corporate welfare" with it's many tax credits and generous tax deductions (aka, "tax loopholes") to continue. Yes, I very much understand all the "keep more of what you own/less taxes on job creators..." arguments. I just don't believe the hype as the evidence of corporate elites using "their money" to create jobs on their own without government tax incentives and the wealth will magically trickle-down to the rest of us just hasn't come true. For if such were true, why would the gap between the rich, the poor and the middle-class continue to widen? Why would there be a 1% -vs- 99%?

DON'T BELIEVE THE GOP PROSPERITY HYPE!

Click to expand...

the bell curve apparently is hard for some to understand

the bottom of the educational curve vote DEMS as does people in academia

both groups are dependent on government funding.

its easy to understand

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

Objective Voice said:

So, now it's not "people vote Democrat because they're uneducated, liberal arts instructors or predatory attorneys". Now, it's "they vote Democrat cause they fear being lynched?"

Tell me, if their college is burned to the ground how are they suppose to get educated? Oh, that's right! They're suppose to vote Republican so their institutions of higher learning aren't destroyed by "mob violence" that can only come from the "left" all of whom are getting government handouts.

That's my comic relief for the entire weekend right there! :lamo

Hate to say it but if this is a snap shot of an educated American from the Right, we're doomed! :shock:

Click to expand...

black colleges have been burned to the ground? when in the last 50 years?

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

bubbabgone said:

Well ... a Country that's as old as ours, is supposed to live under a Constitution as we have, and may stray from it somewhat now and then but has the machinery built in to bring it back, doesn't require a fundamental change.
Especially a fundamental change that requires the elimination of checks & balances that has come about under this Administration.
And whatever cyclical societal change we're experiencing doesn't warrant a fundamental change if we still intend to live by a Constitution.

Click to expand...

But the changes sought I don't think aren't contrary to our Constitutional values. They are the exact opposite, IMO. For example...

People consider the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution to be an easy target for liaze-faire progressive policies. I think this is a very simplistic perspective. "General Welfare" in essence means to "take care" of the needs of the country, specifically, when the socio-economic mechanism fail to correct social or economic imbalances. When such happens, it IS the responsibility of government through good governance to bring balance back to so-called "social norms". This is usually done through Congress using their enumerated power to legislate. But as we have seen through US history, when Congress fails to act, refused to act or in capable of acting efficiently (or wisely), one of the other two branches of government tends to take the lead: The Executive (via Executive Order if not strong and forceful "process governance") or the Judicial (SCOTUS).

Now, it is permissible and right for one of the other co-equal branches to "reign the other in" should one over-steps its bounds, but the way that is normally done is through debate and compromise, not faux legal battles, poison-pill legislation or even a judicial system that tends to be more "legislative" than "interpretive".

Much of what we're seeing play out between the President and Congress is nothing more than one side either attempting to undermine the other or pull a power grab. It's messy politics for sure, but all it does for most Americans is leave them disgruntle and mistrusting of government and its ability to do that which is in the best interest of the country, not political party. Unfortunately, the actions of all involved amongst Congressional leaders and the White House (and the Supreme Court to a lessor degree) are all proving Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin both right...

1) Political parties will destroy this country; and,

2) Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

TurtleDude said:

black colleges have been burned to the ground? when in the last 50 years?

Click to expand...

But you were the one who made reference to very possibility of such happening today based on perceived fears a specific voting block might have if they didn't vote a certain way. If you're going to question anything question the merits of that which you've posted.

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

Objective Voice said:

But you were the one who made reference to very possibility of such happening today based on perceived fears a specific voting block might have if they didn't vote a certain way. If you're going to question anything question the merits of that which you've posted.

Click to expand...

that makes no sense whatsoever. and your posts appear to be quite the product of Dem hackery as opposed to a "moderate"

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

TurtleDude said:

so why is it that Jews who came here after suffering the worst genocidal terror in known history or the boat people who fled Vietnam with nothing have -in the last 40 years, turned out more IVY phi beta kappas than blacks have in the same period of time?

BTW it wasn't the GOP that kept blacks down

Click to expand...

Da Joos!

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

TurtleDude said:

BTW it wasn't the GOP that kept blacks down

Click to expand...

Who praytell did?

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

TurtleDude said:

so why is it that Jews who came here after suffering the worst genocidal terror in known history or the boat people who fled Vietnam with nothing have -in the last 40 years, turned out more IVY phi beta kappas than blacks have in the same period of time?

BTW it wasn't the GOP that kept blacks down

Click to expand...

Sure it was...the GOP of the post-Civil War era going into the Civil Rights era was the Democrat Party. Today, Democrat politics of old have largely shifted to what were once Republican ideals. And what were once Republican-held ideals are now the same old brushed off ideals Democrats used long ago. They may be "conservative" in nature, but they were still formulated by the Grand Old Party that was once owned and operated by that political machine that once supported the "Southern Strategy" - the Democrats. A political shell game if ever there was one!

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

TurtleDude said:

that makes no sense whatsoever. and your posts appear to be quite the product of Dem hackery as opposed to a "moderate"

Click to expand...

There it is...the old "attack the messenger or his political lean" fallback when you're losing your argument. It happens as sure as one can expect that Hitler reference to show up eventually in just about every debate. Typical. :roll:

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

Gill said:

Walker has nothing to do with it.

Giuliani said basically the same thing that Obama said about Bush in 2008. I'll assume you attacked Obama at the time??

Click to expand...

Montecresto said:

Can you show me that?

Click to expand...

I'm with you here. When did candidate Obama every publically state that President GW Bush didn't love America?

Gill said:

Show you what ??

Everything I posted is common knowledge.

Click to expand...

About 25 pages in and I still haven't seen a link that responds to the above accusation.

Gill,

You'll have to do better than falling back on the "it's common knowledge" defense. A link to a quote, please.

Re: Rudy Giuliani: President Obama doesn’t love America

Hatuey said:

I should have made organised that post better. When I said there were some who got the medal of honor, it went with my previous statement that Canadians joined the military. I apologise, sometimes I write things in posts, and then slice the ideas in two because I want to add in more facts.

Canada and the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peter C. Lemon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Hopefully this clears it up.



I don't really understand the difference you're trying to make here. If they were born in Canada, they are Canadians.

Click to expand...

Yes, but they aren't Canadian soldiers. While individual Canadians did support the American effort in Vietnam, Canada as a nation did not.

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

Hatuey said:

Well, he was born in the US according to the State of Hawaii. Wouldn't that make the US his country?

Click to expand...

He certainly doesn't act like it.

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

countryboy said:

He certainly doesn't act like it.

Click to expand...

Well how he acts is irrelevant. I asked you why you said this wasn't his country. Does he hold any other nationalities?

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

countryboy said:

He certainly doesn't act like it.

Click to expand...

Well, that depends on your definition of what 'American born' is, doesn't it? If it means you are a right wing nut job who hates everybody who isn't a right wing nut job, then I guess you are right.

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

Wiggen said:

Well, that depends on your definition of what 'American born' is, doesn't it? If it means you are a right wing nut job who hates everybody who isn't a right wing nut job, then I guess you are right.

Click to expand...

Not that I am that, but, how would that be any different than being a left wing nut job?

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

Objective Voice said:

I'm with you here. When did candidate Obama every publically state that President GW Bush didn't love America?


About 25 pages in and I still haven't seen a link that responds to the above accusation.

Gill,

You'll have to do better than falling back on the "it's common knowledge" defense. A link to a quote, please.

Click to expand...

This is typical of the Far Right. They make these patently false statements, and when they're challenged they slink away into whatever sewer they emerged from.

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

countryboy said:

Not that I am that, but, how would that be any different than being a left wing nut job?

Click to expand...

You're the one that's deciding who qualifies as an American, not me. And apparently you have decided the President does not. Anybody who doesn't believe that the President is an American who loves his country is clearly a right wing nut job.

Re: Rudy Giuliani: President Obama doesn’t love America

Objective Voice said:

Actually, it does.

I've read his book, "Dreams from my Father," (as well as, "Audacity of Hope" and a few others about the man) and it does illustrate that the President had a very diverse background growing up. It wasn't until after he graduated from high school and switched colleges did his social and cultural views begin to change. And while I would admit that many of the views he has concerning "a great society" didn't being to take shape until he became a Community Organizer in Chicago, his beliefs that White Privilege is, in fact, real and that minorities - of all types - did and continue to receive the short end of the stick only reinforced in his mind, I'm sure, the belief that socio-economic reforms were necessary if this country were to ever return to an "All-In" approach to national prosperity where everyone has a piece of the action and an opportunity to succeed. I find nothing wrong with that if, in deed, the great "social contract" with America has, in fact, been broken.

Click to expand...

Except for his mother, all those people/orgs were from years when he had a choice of who he associated with and with whom he chose to.
So tell me, what were the diverse associations since he left his teen years behind him - since that's really the point, isn't it?

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

Objective Voice said:

But the changes sought I don't think aren't contrary to our Constitutional values. They are the exact opposite, IMO. For example...

People consider the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution to be an easy target for liaze-faire progressive policies. I think this is a very simplistic perspective. "General Welfare" in essence means to "take care" of the needs of the country, specifically, when the socio-economic mechanism fail to correct social or economic imbalances. When such happens, it IS the responsibility of government through good governance to bring balance back to so-called "social norms". This is usually done through Congress using their enumerated power to legislate.

But as we have seen through US history, when Congress fails to act, refused to act or in capable of acting efficiently (or wisely), one of the other two branches of government tends to take the lead: The Executive (via Executive Order if not strong and forceful "process governance")

Click to expand...

or the Judicial (SCOTUS).

Now, it is permissible and right for one of the other co-equal branches to "reign the other in" should one over-steps its bounds, but the way that is normally done is through debate and compromise, not faux legal battles, poison-pill legislation or even a judicial system that tends to be more "legislative" than "interpretive".

Much of what we're seeing play out between the President and Congress is nothing more than one side either attempting to undermine the other or pull a power grab. It's messy politics for sure, but all it does for most Americans is leave them disgruntle and mistrusting of government and its ability to do that which is in the best interest of the country, not political party. Unfortunately, the actions of all involved amongst Congressional leaders and the White House (and the Supreme Court to a lessor degree) are all proving Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin both right...

1) Political parties will destroy this country; and,

2) Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Click to expand...

Nope.
You could have stopped right there.
Unconstitutional Executive Orders are NOT a proper remedy for Legislative inaction about something the Executive branch wants for it's own political purposes.
Period.

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

Top Cat said:

Who praytell did?

Click to expand...

Southern Democrats

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

Objective Voice said:

Sure it was...the GOP of the post-Civil War era going into the Civil Rights era was the Democrat Party. Today, Democrat politics of old have largely shifted to what were once Republican ideals. And what were once Republican-held ideals are now the same old brushed off ideals Democrats used long ago. They may be "conservative" in nature, but they were still formulated by the Grand Old Party that was once owned and operated by that political machine that once supported the "Southern Strategy" - the Democrats. A political shell game if ever there was one!

Click to expand...

the addiction to government largesse and the subtle racism of low expectations tends to be a Democrat proclivity

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

Thrilla said:

you should include his "clarifications" on his initial comments....and i'm not sure why the OP didn't include them.

here are his "clarifications"





and of course.. another of his attacks


take from them what you will....

Click to expand...

Jetboogieman said:

It's the classic fascistic notion of the partisans.

"You don't believe as I do, therefore you don't love this country".

Click to expand...

I agree with your statement. Giuliani is eaten up with jealousy that an African American got the top job, the same one he was running for. But truth be known, that statement is the classic Rudy Giuliani. Being a native New Yorker, I got to observe this "freak" up close. When he was running for mayor at the same time David Dinkins was the first African American mayor, Rudy riled up the police to march on City Hall to attack Mayor Dinkins. For a while there it was thought Mayor Dinkins would have to call in the National Guard to protect himself from Rudy Giuliani and the police force. Another thing, what Giuliani did on 9/11 is highly overrated; just like Chris Christie who used the storm, Sandy, to make him look like a super Governor, so did Rudy use 9/11 the same way. I'm still wondering what the A-hole did that was so spectacular to be called America's mayor?!

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

TurtleDude said:

Southern Democrats

Click to expand...

Which for all intents and purposes are republicans. The south is as red as it gets. Who's kidding whom?

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

Top Cat said:

Which for all intents and purposes are republicans. The south is as red as it gets. Who's kidding whom?

Click to expand...

The GOP didn't pass the Jim Crow Laws.

Re: Giuliani, what a freak

Jetboogieman said:

It's the classic fascistic notion of the partisans.

"You don't believe as I do, therefore you don't love this country".

Click to expand...

Like when Obama called Bush unpatriotic?