Post by: camacho on November 19, 2007, 02:43:28 PM
Personally, I am very excited that Rudy G. is loosing steam. I hope it's a trend!
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 19, 2007, 03:03:51 PM
Post by: Len Budney on November 19, 2007, 03:13:12 PM
Only Giuliani has a decent shot at defeating Hillary...
Then the election is over and Hillary is the President, because Giuliani has NO chance of beating her. Aside from the fact that Giuliani is a blackmailer's wet dream, he's tailor-made for Clinton's needs: a candidate alongside whom she can look anti-war AND pro-war.
Paul is the only candidate that can beat Hillary in the general election, although I concede that his chances of emerging as a candidate in the first place are not great.
--Len.
Post by: camacho on November 19, 2007, 03:17:39 PM
Quote
Only Giuliani has a decent shot at defeating Hillary.
Even if true (which I do not think is the case), is it worth defeating her just to put someone who is of the same mold as she is but with even more extreme view of foreign policy than our current President. I just do not think we are getting a bargain here. All of us want Hillary defeated but at the cost of putting someone who is as bad (if not worse) as she is?
?Quote
On Friday, he declared 2A is a personal right in front of the Federalists Society, so he might not be as bad about RKBA as previously thought.
You are not seriously believing that because of his declaration he will stick to it when elected. Look at his record. Him and Romney will say anything to get elected and will stick to none after the election.
Post by: SomeKid on November 19, 2007, 03:28:45 PM
Post by: The Swamp Fox on November 19, 2007, 04:05:42 PM
Quote
Only Giuliani has a decent shot at defeating Hillary. Sad, but true. On Friday, he declared 2A is a personal right in front of the Federalists Society, so he might not be as bad about RKBA as previously thought.
These are not the droids you are looking for. Maybe dropping to third place is causing some issues.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 20, 2007, 06:54:54 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 20, 2007, 07:45:15 AM
Only Giuliani has a decent shot at defeating Hillary...
Paul is the only candidate that can beat Hillary in the general election
Post by: Manedwolf on November 20, 2007, 07:51:21 AM
Only Giuliani has a decent shot at defeating Hillary...
Paul is the only candidate that can beat Hillary in the general election
No, he's not. He's drunk deeply of the...
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 08:07:49 AM
Only Giuliani has a decent shot at defeating Hillary...
Paul is the only candidate that can beat Hillary in the general election
You're kidding, right?
NO pro-war republican has ANY chance of winning the white house. All the democrats and most of the republicans are as ticked as they can be at George the second. This election is the democrats' to lose, and Hillary would have to kill someone on live TV to lose it.
The only chance against Hillary is an anti-war republican. And there's only one of those.
So yes, I'm serious.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 20, 2007, 08:19:51 AM
Post by: Paddy on November 20, 2007, 08:20:18 AM
Quote
NO pro-war republican has ANY chance of winning the white house.
Ditto that. The American people are done with this 'war' and the debt and ruin it has brought to this country. Only a small minority of pro-Bush extremists, as represented on APS, still buy the 'stay the course' mantra.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 20, 2007, 08:21:24 AM
Quote
NO pro-war republican has ANY chance of winning the white house.
Ditto that. The American people are done with this 'war' and the debt and ruin it has brought to this country. Only a small minority of pro-Bush extremists, as represented on APS, still buy the 'stay the course' mantra.
Yeah, that's why when Paul said that Americans were against Iraq, he got a resounding BOOOOOO! ...
Post by: Paddy on November 20, 2007, 08:29:41 AM
Quote
Yeah, that's why when Paul said that Americans were against Iraq, he got a resounding BOOOOOO! ...
That's the small minority of pro Bush extremists I was referring to. Thanks for making my point. You don't really think the American people are going to vote for continuing the policies of a President whose approval rating is lower than OJ Simpson's, do you?
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 08:33:22 AM
Quote
NO pro-war republican has ANY chance of winning the white house.
Ditto that. The American people are done with this 'war' and the debt and ruin it has brought to this country. Only a small minority of pro-Bush extremists, as represented on APS, still buy the 'stay the course' mantra.
Yeah, that's why when Paul said that Americans were against Iraq, he got a resounding BOOOOOO! ...
...from a stacked Fox News audience.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 08:34:06 AM
You don't really think the American people are going to vote for continuing the policies of a President who's approval rating is lower than OJ Simpson's, do you?
OJ for president!
Post by: Manedwolf on November 20, 2007, 09:36:01 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 10:00:35 AM
Oh, yeah, I forgot...everything Fox News does is part of the vast UFO black-helicopter illuminati zionist freemason conspiracy.
Yawn. Stacking an audience doesn't require any black helicopters--nor even a conspiracy. And it is very well documented in this case. Do you sometimes take a break from (lousy) standup, and attempt intelligent discourse? Just wondering.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 20, 2007, 10:01:50 AM
Oh, yeah, I forgot...everything Fox News does is part of the vast UFO black-helicopter illuminati zionist freemason conspiracy.
Yawn. Stacking an audience doesn't require any black helicopters--nor even a conspiracy. And it is very well documented in this case. Do you sometimes take a break from (lousy) standup, and attempt intelligent discourse? Just wondering.
--Len.
Only when debating rational sorts, not rabid kool-aid drinkers whose devotion to a candidate is frighteningly close to a cult.
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 10:03:24 AM
Do you sometimes take a break from (lousy) standup, and attempt intelligent discourse? Just wondering.
Only when debating rational sorts, not rabid kool-aid drinkers whose devotion to a candidate is frighteningly close to a cult.
Um, I'm rubber and you're glue. Yeah. That's it.
Post by: Finch on November 20, 2007, 10:05:22 AM
...from a stacked Fox News audience.
Oh, yeah, I forgot...everything Fox News does is part of the vast UFO black-helicopter illuminati zionist freemason conspiracy.
Nobody said that, they were just referring to the FACT that those who attended the debate were prescreened by a questioner sent out to gauge a persons political preferences and subsequently picked those that would provide Paul with a negative response. DUH!
Post by: Manedwolf on November 20, 2007, 10:06:24 AM
...from a stacked Fox News audience.
Oh, yeah, I forgot...everything Fox News does is part of the vast UFO black-helicopter illuminati zionist freemason conspiracy.
Nobody said that, they were just referring to the FACT that those who attended the debate were prescreened by a questioner sent out to gauge a persons political preferences and subsequently picked those that would provide Paul with a negative response.
Citation for that claim? If it's a fact, provide a source for that.
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 10:37:17 AM
Citation for that claim? If it's a fact, provide a source for that.
This first-hand report by a Ron Paul detractor is a good start. He specifically reports the reaction to the one Ron Paul supporter who made it through their screening process, as well as the preferential treatment he himself received for toeing the party line. He's the guy in this video who called RP "certifiably insane," BTW.
This video notes that Giuliani started the booing, which certainly suggests that his supporters were the ones we hear next. Claims I can't substantiate at the moment say that Giuliani and Romney each had 1,000 tickets for the 3,000-seat auditorium.
--Len.
Post by: cosine on November 20, 2007, 10:40:51 AM
Take this as a warning.
More of the "polite" from ArmedPoliteSociety is needed.
Post by: DustinD on November 20, 2007, 10:41:07 AM
You know you have also posted more than a few wild conspiracy theories yourself. You know the old judge not unless ye be judged and all that.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 20, 2007, 11:12:25 AM
Manedwolf: Is there any person or group that you disagree with that is not a crazy conspiracy theorist or cult member in your mind?
You know you have also posted more than a few wild conspiracy theories yourself. You know the old judge not unless ye be judged and all that.
You know you have also posted more than a few wild conspiracy theories yourself. You know the old judge not unless ye be judged and all that.
Please cite a "wild conspiracy theory" I've posted.
And yes, I have no problem with nearly every group. It's the nutty Paulians I have a problem with. The ones here in NH think reality is a comic book, and they're the rebel heroes.
Post by: Werewolf on November 21, 2007, 07:46:13 AM
Quote
On Friday, he declared 2A is a personal right in front of the Federalists Society, so he might not be as bad about RKBA as previously thought.
This is trite and very cliche' but bears repeating:
How do you know when a politician is lying?
Their lips are moving.
If any pol ever fit that mold it's Giuliani
Post by: Glock Glockler on November 26, 2007, 05:22:45 AM
What criteria are you using for "finishing the job"? It seems like a rather ambigous term that doesn't necessitate any accountability on the behalf of the govt.