http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070517/pl_nm/usa_politics_giuliani_dc

madanthonywayne in his glazed hysteria swore all the Republicans would dutifully line up behind social liberal Rudolph Giuliani.
All Republican candidates must renounce their own beliefs and kneel to the US Christian Right to win a nomination. McCain did it, Romney did it and now Giuliani is sunk.
The Republican Party is controlled and financed by fundamentalist Christians, anyone that thinks they can win a nomination in a far right religious party like that is fooling themselves.
So long Rudolph, the Party of God (GOP) has zero tolerance for you.

You don't get around much.:confused: Any comments on Giuliani's fall from God's grace? If not gtf out of my thread! Thanx so much.
NEXT!

You don't get around much.

Indeed, toilets are your true calling.I would think you'd detest Giuliani. Isn't this Glorious news to you and your Party of God?

btw who isn't 'called' to the toilet at least once a day?

Dobson is an idiot. Let's hope the primary voters are smarter than him. G is the only chance the Reps. have...

Dobson is an idiot. Let's hope the primary voters are smarter than him. G is the only chance the Reps. have...I personally would rather see G win over Hillary, he's more left. But he alienates the far rightwing religious base of the Party Of God (GOP) Moderates have no power in the party either.
Republicans will put up a religious conservative, or the party loses their $$$ from the religious right voters and contributors.
G is Doomed. No Way will the GOP move that far to the left.

G is not more leftist than Hillary. That's a ridiculous statement. Look at their records.

G is not more leftist than Hillary. That's a ridiculous statement. Look at their records.
I know the Clintons support anti union "Right to Work" legislation, the Clinton's support the death penalty, Hillary voted for Bush's war, the Clintons supported further restrictions on abortion rights and the Clinton's both oppose gay marriage.
The Clinton's are far from liberal. They both are conservative machine democrats.

Genji,
Most Republicans are pragmatic. Is Rudy the perfect candidate? Of course not This is not the year for the perfect candidate. This is the year for the candidate who can win, and is right on the war.

On both counts, Rudy is the man.

And look who the Democrats are putting up. Hilary, Obama, and Edwards. Holy fucking shit. According to the "Pick your President" tool, Obama is as liberal as Dennis Kucinich! Who's that leave, Hilary or Edwards? That's like asking do you want to be kicked in the nuts or punched in the face.

Give me Rudy, baby. He'll be the nominee and the next president.

G is not more leftist than Hillary. That's a ridiculous statement. Look at their records.G supports abortion rights, opposes anti union legislation, supports gay marriage, opposes the death penalty and has spoken out against Hillary's voting for Bush's war.

Genji,
Most Republicans are pragmatic. Is Rudy the perfect candidate? Of course not This is not the year for the perfect candidate. This is the year for the candidate who can win, and is right on the war.

On both counts, Rudy is the man.

And look who the Democrats are putting up. Hilary, Obama, and Edwards. Holy fucking shit. According to the "Pick your President" tool, Obama is as liberal as Dennis Kucinich! Who's that leave, Hilary or Edwards? That's like asking do you want to be kicked in the nuts or punched in the face.

Give me Rudy, baby. He'll be the nominee and the next president.Without support and $$$ from the religious conservative base of the party he will not win the nomination, hence my link.

I think you're intentionally trying to mislead people about the former mayor of New York, and you're very obviously trying to connect Hillary with Bill, which isn't intellectually honest. Bill was a centrist who often worked with Republicans to get the job done. Hillary was the zealot who torpedoed health care with her foaming at the mouth, remember?

Look at Hillary's voting record in the Senate? It's quite the opposite from G's record as a fiscal conservative...

I think you're intentionally trying to mislead people about the former mayor of New York, and you're very obviously trying to connect Hillary with Bill, which isn't intellectually honest. Bill was a centrist who often worked with Republicans to get the job done. Hillary was the zealot who torpedoed health care with her foaming at the mouth, remember?

Look at Hillary's voting record in the Senate? It's quite the opposite from G's record as a fiscal conservative...
Yet that same record will show BOTH Clinton's less socially liberal than G.

Give me five votes by Hillary that backs your claim...

Look, even if Genji comes up with "conservative" votes by Hillary, they're bogus. The whole point of her Senate election, or her not divorcing Bill, is to be elected president.

She has been "moving" to the right ever since she was elected. Hell, her vote for the war was just such a move. Her only problem is the radicalized Democratic primary may find her too conservative!!!! (Of course, in her case, it's all an act. She's hiding a raging liberal inside)

It's pretty ironic, but to get thru the primary, one must appeal to the base. No one else really comes out to vote in primaries. So each party is beholden to its most extreemist members.

But once the real election comes along, the nominees must face real voters. So the extreemist nominated by the base may be in deep shit in the general election (look at the Lieberman situation. He was too conservative to get the democratic nomination, but the guy who got nominated was too liberal to win.)

So here we have the two strongest candidates (Hillary and Guilanni) possibly too centrist to get their parties nomination!

"leftists" in america are far right wing in europe.

You all have good points about Rudy but the truth is we never supported him. We may not ever. We don't have our candidate yet. It's way too early.
Romney is the most presidential. If he was a Christian, he'd be a shoe-in. People are talking about Fred and Ron Paul who I don't think can win.

Rudy may be the GOP's best chance but I honestly don't think he can win the nom. He has alienated way too many conservatives. (He has other major issues too like his looks and health.)

I may be wrong. But I would not vote for him.

Vote for jesus and save your soul!

Jesus is dead. That might make him the best candidate I don't know.

Jesus is alive and well and living inside all His children. He is the most awesome experience you can ever possibly imagine. He makes life worth living.:xctd:

Vote for jesus and save your soul!

No soul to save. When I die, I'll be worm food.

But you're right Spurious; most of my fellow Americans do believe in such moronic concepts as the existence of a human "soul". Appealing to such concepts is the only way to be elected.

No. When you die, your body will be worm food. Your spirit will be hell food (if you're unsaved.)

Genji,
Most Republicans are pragmatic.

You are underestimating the christian right. they will never vote for a pro-choice candidate...

No. When you die, your body will be worm food. Your spirit will be hell food (if you're unsaved.)

Every now and then I choose the option of viewing one of your posts, even though I have you on ignore. I always regret it afterwards.

There is no proof, nor any good reason to believe, that anything about a human survives death. That fact that so many Americans unquestioningly accept that there is something about us that survives beyond death is a severe indictment of the failure of our educational system.

With your beliefs Sandy, you must be quite eager to die. Being certain of going to a paradise where you will exist forever after death, this existence must seem trite and boring. May I suggest that you take up high risk sports, in order to increase your chances to get where you are going sooner? Skydiving, free solo rock climbing, swimming in shark infested waters; these activities will increase your chances of getting to heaven soon.

Put me back on ignore then. I have never personally attacked you. That's the only reason to put someone on ignore.

The proof is in the Bible. That's enough for me.

The proof is in the Bible. That's enough for me.
Dear oh dear.

I am surprised that.....Ralph Reed hasn't spoken out too against Giuliani.

Sorry, I still do not buy this Christian right phobia held by many marxists and others express. Goldberg's book is not convincing. I think she makes some legitimate points, but they seem more hyperbole than true causes for concerns. It is more like she is trying to be preventative that in itself is an interesting position.

Anyhow, I would love to see the following be the next president. Someone will Bush's persistency on security abroad, Reagan's spirit and political wisdom (I think that won't draw too much wrath seeing how marxists hate Bush far worse than they ever hated Reagan), FDR's leadership, Truman's scrappiness, and Clinton's charisma and believability (yes, righties Clinton had a way of making you stand up and say yes. and make you believe in what he was saying).

I like Paul. I just do not think he would be strong enough to defeat the terrorism threat. But then, the whole idea of going to war is tough for me. I think the line between defeating yourself and faith is very blurry; when dealing with those who would just as soon see you dead simply because you are an American.

G supported his bid for Lt. Gov. in Georgia. That's why Reed, who hasn't a shred of credibility anyway, won't attack him...

Sorry, I still do not buy this Christian right phobia held by many marxists and others express.

Alot of regular people are wary of the power of the Christian right. I don't care what silly beliefs you have in private, but I don't want it in my government. In the 21st century, they still deny evolution and human induced global warming.

Hillary was the zealot who torpedoed health care with her foaming at the mouth, remember? ? Foaming?

Righty rant radio will rot your soul.

Hillary's health care plan was a corporate machine politician's effort, a gift to the insurance industry, and what it torpedoed was the dangerously rising popularity (at the time, and sooner or later in the future) of single-payer reform.

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/119/9/945

http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1993/12/mm1293_03.html
Insurance companies are a central component of the U.S. health care problem. Yet ClintonÆs plan would further empower the insurance monoliths, and rely on them to serve as the agents of his solution. Most critically, the Clinton program puts patients at the mercy of insurance carriers, who are required to control health care costs, but are given no way to effectively limit costs except through denial of medical care.

The plan would transform most health insurance enrollment from a group basis to individual choice.
There's your "foaming" lefty: enshrining corporate control of health care delivery, mandating individual enrollment rather than organized bargaining power for the patient, and burying the whole thing in a pile of bureaucracy that would require pofessional navigation for every patient - corporate supplied, of course.

Don't miss Hillary's little provisions in there to limit malpractice suits and plaintiff's lawyer's fees - sweet, if you're an insurance company with legal help on retainer and liability for those suits and fees.

"Hillary the leftist" ? Started as a joke, probably: the righties don't always get jokes very well.

See the other thread where I roundly chastise you for admitting no one is "liberal" or "leftist", simply because you appear to be some sort of super-liberal.

The bottom line: If you don't think Hillary is on the left side of the spectrum in American politics, then you don't understand American politics...

Alot of regular people are wary of the power of the Christian right. I don't care what silly beliefs you have in private, but I don't want it in my government. In the 21st century, they still deny evolution and human induced global warming.

You clearly have bought into the separation of church and state trap.

First, there is no such a thing constitutionally. (Let me explain contrary to yo making claims without support,ie; human induced global warming) The first amendment is not a no involvement or not allowed to. It is a cannot force. The government cannot force you to believe a certain thing concerning religion.

This does not mean they cannot endorse religion in general. Yes, I agree that this line can get blurred and we must be diligent to see to it that it does not. But, this is not the cannot have any religious involvement whatseoever thing that many seem to think it is. I agree that some religious people have become far too radical over America being a pluralist society. But, as it is with those who believe in no religion at all, they have as much right to express as the next guy. Additionally, it seems to me that the real problem for most is morality. However, I think that what many fail to recognize including many here is that any law in the book is a morality play. Morality comes from somewhere irrespective of where that somewhere is located. No god is the same a a god. It comes from somewhere.

Furthermore, to give great deference to the Suprem Court on this issue or any other issue is to mistake the proper meaning of separation of powers.To many separation of powers means, durimg this administration, whoever disagrees with Bush has the power to overturn anything from Bush. But this incorrect, separation of powers is meant to check and balance out each branch, so that one does not become too powerful. Irrespective of what many think, this has worked; even if the central reason has been a diligent following of the Constitution when it comes to maintaining the executive branch. If anything, it is the supreme court that has run amok with power.

Second, the primary problem, as alluded to above, is the basic misunderstanding of what constitutes a violation. Naturally, this springs immediately from the first misunderstanding. If the government wanted to sponsor a specific religious event that featured one specific religion it could. Where it draws the line is forcing us to convert to that religion. Lets say a school has on its curriculum a course in bible study. Lets say that it is even going to be taught from a specific perspective. Nothing has been violated at this point. The violation occurs when students fail the class because they choose not to convert. I would admit that it would be a little troublesome for the school to offer this from one perspective all the time. It would be better if it were offered from different perspectives, kind of like rotating from semester to semester. But, the violation is force not exposure.

As to your statement on evolution, I think you would be wise not clump everyone under one umbrella in that regard. Personally, I belive there is room for both. I do not dismiss anything someone says on the basis of what they believe. my argument comes with the implications of what they say. Please distinguish this from merely being contentious because one is not aligned with me.

But then again, what would I know. I have no ability to think for myself. I simply march to the beat of republicans. Forget that I consider myself a classical liberal (which incidentally total hacks me off the way the all media uses the term liberal), and that I really dislike Bush with one lone exception. I never did like him. I simply believed him to be the lesser of two evils. There I got that caveat out of the way. So you won't have go through that part of your drivel response.

This does not mean they cannot endorse religion in general. Yes, I agree that this line can get blurred and we must be diligent to see to it that it does not. But, this is not the cannot have any religious involvement whatseoever thing that many seem to think it is. The government may make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

It may not, in other words, endorse any religion, discourage any religion, or involve itself in any religious dispute, in any of the laws it makes. All of its laws must ignore religion, completely.

If you want to check on the "original meaning" as it was understood at the time, notice that an early Postmaster General ( a staunch Christian) mandated that the US Mail be delivered on Sundays, to avoid conflicting with it.

The bottom line: If you don't think Hillary is on the left side of the spectrum in American politics, then you don't understand American politics... There is no left in the American political spectrum - barring a few mavericks. Hillary's political philosophy, as revealed in her legislation and votes, is center-right authoritarian.

There is no left in American politics? Is there no right or center as well? Assuming you would say there is, then there has to be left. The definitions, of course, are all relative, but your insistence on arguing "there is no left" is beginning to look pig headed and silly. If there is a spectrum at all, it has shades of all colors. So to reiterate: You obviously don't understand American politics, or politics at all for that matter...

I would think you'd detest Giuliani. Isn't this Glorious news to you and your Party of God?
I'm an Independent, and an atheist. I have neither a party, or a god.

I've never been secretive of my personal biases. So I must conclude that your reading comprehension is in the toilet, too.
btw who isn't 'called' to the toilet at least once a day?
Now you're the comedian. :D

There is no left in American politics? Is there no right or center as well? Assuming you would say there is, then there has to be left. The definitions, of course, are all relative, No, they aren't.

Let me repeat that: "left" has a meaning, in political discourse. It doesn't mean "not as far right as the Grand Wizard of the Klan". It doesn't mean "opposed to the government". It doesn't mean "opposed to self-labeled conservatives". It refers to an established perspective on political events, an economic one, derived from the writings of people like Adam Smith and Karl Marx and that one Spanish guy I can never recall the name of.

There are degrees of leftiness, of course, as with rightiness. The basic advocacy of communally organized economic structure, community ownership, public ownership and management of economic production and services, is defining, but there's lots of different ways to actually do that. Nevertheless, you cannot claim to be a lefty if, say, you advocate a public health care plan that involves levying payroll taxes to pay private insurers to manage and compensate privately employed medical pros to deliver care to individaully contracted claimants.

To incorporate that kind of complexity and take that degree of trouble to ensure private ownership, management, control, and delivery of medical care

rather than the leftist approach of community ownership and management of public health care

is rightist.

Hillary Clinton's health care proposal was a rightist one. That doesn't make it a bad one, but it does make it a non-leftist one.

Similarly with the rest of the establishment Dems. Rightists, to a one, in varying degree. Most of them further right than Giuliani, as others have mentioned. There is no left, barring a few mavericks, in the US Congress or the national US political scene.

No, they aren't.

Let me repeat that: "left" has a meaning, in political discourse. It doesn't mean "not as far right as the Grand Wizard of the Klan". It doesn't mean "opposed to the government". It doesn't mean "opposed to self-labeled conservatives". It refers to an established perspective on political events, an economic one, derived from the writings of people like Adam Smith and Karl Marx and that one Spanish guy I can never recall the name of.
Wrong again. Left refers to those who opposed the monarchy at the national assembly prior to the French Revolution. They happened to sit on the left side of the aisle while those supporting the monarchy sat on the right. Ever since, those who support traditional values have been described as "right" and those who oppose them as 'left".

You are underestimating the christian right. they will never vote for a pro-choice candidate...That's why I'm hoping for the party to split.
Fiscal conservatives on one side and zealots on the other. If the Democrats cater to the fiscal side they may do well.

It may not, in other words, endorse any religion, discourage any religion, or involve itself in any religious dispute, in any of the laws it makes. All of its laws must ignore religion, completely.

If you want to check on the "original meaning" as it was understood at the time, notice that an early Postmaster General ( a staunch Christian) mandated that the US Mail be delivered on Sundays, to avoid conflicting with it.



Endorsing or discouraging is not the same as establishing or de-establishing. Practice this thought and see if you can honestly say they are the same. Keep in mind God, a god, gods, or no god at all, is not the same as a religion. Perhaps with more contemplation, I could percieve this differently.

Laws are a play on morality. Most people that are so up in arms over religion are so because of morality. Laws cannot help but be religious, whether through a religion or a non religion. However, a non-religion is still a religion.

I do understand that there is much nuance in this kind of debate. The bottom line is that as far as this subject goes you are not going to change my mind, nor vice versa.

There is no left in American politics? Is there no right or center as well? Assuming you would say there is, then there has to be left. The definitions, of course, are all relative, but your insistence on arguing "there is no left" is beginning to look pig headed and silly. If there is a spectrum at all, it has shades of all colors. So to reiterate: You obviously don't understand American politics, or politics at all for that matter...

Counterzero you know I'm an avid leftist, but I have to agree with his statement. There's no True Leftist party in this country. The white house often changes parties, but the policies remain the same.

Republicans say that Jimmy Carter is a terrorist loving traitor! Bahahahahahaha Jimmy Carter my friend was the president who pushed for Centcom to be created, and the "Carter Doctrine" advocated total domination of the Persian gulf's oil resources. In his 1980 State of the union speech he said this.

The doctrine defines Persian Gulf oil as a "vital interest" of the United States that must be defended "by any means necessary, including military force."


This is the same policy that every President from that point forward has supported. Regan supported Al Queda in Afghanistan to repel the soviets from establishing a stronghold in the oil rich region.

George H.W. Bush invaded Iraq, implemented the no-fly zone. Giving us air superiority over the oil rich region.

Bill Clinton went on to support this policy during his presidency. Invading Iraq not once, but twice! And Bombing Al Queda in Sudan & Afghanistan!

Bill Clinton aslo went to war with Yugoslovia. Because the Caspian sea oil pipeline had to travel through that region.

On June 2, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency announced it had awarded the $588,000 grant to Bulgaria to carry out a feasibility study for the pipeline. Under the proposed plan, Caspian oil would be shipped by tanker from the Black Sea ports of Novorossiysk in Russia and from Supsa in former Soviet Georgia and then pumped by overland pipeline across Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania to waiting European consumers



And George W. Bush is just supporting the same policy. And yet Democrats are bashing Bush for doing the same thing their lord and savior Bill Clinton did.

See how the elite are playing us for the fools we really are? The US political system is a Good cop, Bad Cop dynamic. Have one party doing the bad stuff, and have another party condeming it. Take the Iraq war for instance. The Democrats could stop this war today if they wanted to! But are they? NO. They have a plethora of reasons to impeach George Bush, have they done it? NO!

So everyone needs to step back, and realize that both parties are bought and paid for by corporate interests. And instead of us fighting that power structure, we're fighting amongst ourselves, while the elite still perpetuate a system that continues to funnel the wealth out of the middle class. Remember, Old money despises "New Money" so in other words the "elite" believe that you don't deserve to have the finer things life. Example, remember what Barbara Bush said about the Katrina Victoms staying in the Houston Astrodome? And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this -- this [she chuckles slightly] is working very well for them." ---Barbra Bush after touring the Houston Astrodome, where thousands of refugees from hurricane Katrina are being sheltered. September 05, 2005

I rest my case.

Honestly, I'm fed up with this theoretical debate about whether there really is a left in the US.

For starters, it has nothing to do with this thread (see the topic).

For seconds, none of the enlightened individuals on this forum who posit themselves as gnostics who truly understand what is meant by "left" and "liberal" have ever bothered to tell the rest of us what they hell they mean by it. All I see is repeated yips about how they've magically determined that something isn't left, again, presumably because they have the secret knowledge and tend the hidden and hard to understand flame of liberalism in their mildew-free basements...

So some presidents from opposing parties followed similar policies? So what? Did it ever occur to you they kept to those policies because they were in the best interests of the nation they were leading? Or do you think the best interest of the nation should be subservient to one's personal ideology?

There is no left in the American political spectrum - barring a few mavericks. Hillary's political philosophy, as revealed in her legislation and votes, is center-right authoritarian.

I totally agree with Count. This is absurd. There is no left in American politics. You do not understand American politics. Then again, maybe you do. The leftist gameplan is that if you generally say something enough, it will magicaly be true.

Don't take my word for it do the research on all the statements made by lefties pre-Iraq and compare them to current Iraq. If you repeat it the assertion enough, plenty of ignoramuses will follow.