A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

If you won't agree to that, could you at least admit that I have a point that the Union leaders do not necessarily represent the feelings and/or views of those they represent?

Even in so-called "democracies" where the leaders got elected with 99.998% those didn't necessessarily feelings and/or views of those they represented but they spoke nevertheless officially for them.

Which here again is Foxy's original point... which was; the fire fighters union's position may or may not have reflected the views of the fireman. Some were no doubt ready for closure (while I personally doubt many were, any more than the family's of the 2,000 or so MIA/POW's in SE Asia were ready to declare their loved ones lost forever.)

How long is long enough to spend sifting through wreckage to find bits and pieces of decomposing human tissue that may or may not be identifiable? Is this really a major consideration in assessing Giuliani's credentials? Or is it a predictable way for the left to counter the "Giuliani was a hero on 9-11" mantra? Does anyone think if Giuliani were running as a Democrat (which really isn't that far fetched), the left and right wouldn't switch sides and argue the exact same points? From where I'm sitting; this is as predictable as it is mundane... and the piling on Foxy for slightly inconsistent tangential points that have no bearing on the issue at hand is silly... but predictable as well.

I didn't know she had that many personalities and usernames.

Anyway, thanks for adding the exclamation to my point, Cyclops. As if infidelity belongs to a party. Hypocrisy runith over. As if the Left's favorite poster boy didn't publicly humiliate his wife over and over. Me; I'm more concerned about Foreign and Domestic Policy.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I didn't know she had that many personalities and usernames.

Anyway, thanks for adding the exclamation to my point, Cyclops. As if infidelity belongs to a party. Hypocrisy runith over. As if the Left's favorite poster boy didn't publicly humiliate his wife over and over. Me; I'm more concerned about Foreign and Domestic Policy.

Me too. I don't give a damn about the private lives of my elected representatives. But, I'm not a member of a party which has dedicated itself to being the 'moral' party. That's the hypocrisy.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I didn't know she had that many personalities and usernames.

Anyway, thanks for adding the exclamation to my point, Cyclops. As if infidelity belongs to a party. Hypocrisy runith over. As if the Left's favorite poster boy didn't publicly humiliate his wife over and over. Me; I'm more concerned about Foreign and Domestic Policy.

Me too. I don't give a damn about the private lives of my elected representatives. But, I'm not a member of a party which has dedicated itself to being the 'moral' party. That's the hypocrisy.

Cycloptichorn

Take a closer look at the collective politics of the pilers on (including your own). You appear to be mischaracterizing them. :wink:

Interesting; I would have thought Giuliani vs Obama would be more competitive.

Interesting; I would have thought Giuliani vs Obama would be more competitive.

Thus far; the polls could hardly agree with you less.

Meanwhile, back more closely to the topic: Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) postponed a decision on whether to get into the race. Mr Hagel is, I believe, an early and ongoing opponent to our involvement in Iraq.
He says that he wants to focus on that issue for awhile and not get distracted by running for President.
Clearly (at least in my mind), Mr Hagel has made a strategic decision to keep his powder dry for a few months.
And there is this: Ron Paul, a nine-term (ie 18 yr) congressman from Texas announced his candidacy as a Republican. He describes himself as a lifelong libertarian.
Sorry for interrupting yall's mind numbing discussion.

And somewhere deep down, I'm not 100% convinced that Condi Rice couldn't be drafted if she was seen as the best hope to run against a popular Democrat woman and/or a popular Democrat black man. Double threat, divide and conquer, and all that.....plus she's got an impressive background and she's very smart and articulate. Smile

In doing a prelimary search earlier today, I couldn't find much to suggest the firemen were upset that the search for identifiable remains was being closed down at the time it happened.

<snip>

You would think you would find more references to criticism of Giuliani if they were seriously upset when the operation was finally closed down, however.

I didn't say they weren't angry at the time of the protests. I'm quite aware of the protests at the time they occurred

...and, according to most sources, these involved a few hundred people, probably mostly firemen.

I also was not referring to the reduction in rescue workers which prompted that protest. I was referring to ending the rescue operation...

which I believe is what the suit in question is about.

The protest occurred many weeks before the search and rescue was stopped entirely.

I'm not positive, but I believe the top Union Boss agreed with the Mayor on that and the anger was directed more at the Union boss than at the Mayor at the time. I think the Mayor at some point never reduced the workers to 25 but allowed 50?

Hundreds of firefighters broke down barricades around the site, known as "Ground Zero" since the devastating terror attack of September 11, and five police officers were injured in the scuffles.

Those arrested included a retired fire captain, a fire marshal and three union leaders, and they face charges of assault, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.

I do not believe there was any protest of any kind at the time the rescue operations stopped.

So none of this in any way changes my negative opinion about the Union bringing public criticism now more than five years later.

Are you saying that when the President speaks, he is speaking your opinions, feelings, social, and/or political views? Unless you will answer that question, I will not respond to you further on this.

I want an answer to this question. It can be answered with a yes, no, or sometimes but not always. I do not want the answer to a different question.

Bush: President Silva, the people of the United States of America welcome you to the White House.

da Silva: Don't give me that crap.

Bush: What are you talking about?

da Silva: Who the hell are YOU to extend me welcome on behalf of the people of this country? I don't see any demonstrations outside welcoming me here. I don't see any polls showing that Americans care if i am here or not!

Bush: But Silva, as President I have the right to speak for the people of this country in welcoming you.

da Silva: But I have no idea at all that you know the people on this "welcome" issue at all. What evidence do you have that they welcome me?

Bush: They elected me to speak for them.

da Silva: They elected you to be president. There is no evidence that they elected you to welcome anyone to the country. What a lying pig you are, Bush. You have nothing to make me think that the American people actually know or care that I am here, but you claim to speak for them anyway!!!