A word from the next President?
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 16 years ago
http://www.nysun.com/article/48402

"What I don't get is the non-binding resolution," Mr. Giuliani said. "I don't get that. In the business world if two weeks were spent on a non-binding resolution, it would be considered non-productive," he said to widespread laughter from the crowd.

"They just can't decide any tough questions. A nonbinding resolution is a comment without making a decision..What we pay people in Washington for is to make decisions,"

"Presidents can't do nonbinding resolutions. Presidents have to make decisions and move the country forward, and that's the kind of president that I would like to be, a president who makes decisions."




And you thought voting Democrats into power would make them stop babbling like a feckless minority.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5100) 16 years ago
Using your logic, can you explain why the Republicans threatened to filibuster a useless, non-binding resolution?
Top
Posted by Jay (+275) 16 years ago
Next pres. Lets hope not. Mr. G. is a RINO
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5100) 16 years ago
SHHHHHHH.

Don't tell Rick that.
Top
supporter
Posted by Shu (+1800) 16 years ago
Better Giuliani than Hillary, that's for sure! She's already served in the White House and she didn't do that well the first time.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9508) 16 years ago
This isn't the Dennis Kucinich thread?
Top
Posted by Jay (+275) 16 years ago
HIllary and Pelosi (the San Francisco treat and her fuzzy Californa gang) now that is really scary.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5100) 16 years ago
Could it be worse than what we've got going now?

Just askin'
Top
Posted by Jay (+275) 16 years ago
You have to ask?
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+10355) 16 years ago
Say what you want about Rudy Giuliani. . . . but If he wins his White House bid, it will make for some great photo shoots at the inaugural ball.

http://www.google.com/sea...gle+Search

http://images.google.com/...a=N&tab=wi
Top
Posted by Jay (+275) 16 years ago
Right on Hal. That is about the only thing that will come about.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3718) 16 years ago
Guliani would be an interesting presidential candidate and I think he would be a much better manager in the white house than Bush. I can't really see a pro-choice pro gay marriage pro gun control candidate getting through the primary though, and I would personally be pretty concerned that he doesn't have enough respect for civil liberties.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5100) 16 years ago
Guliani would be an interesting presidential candidate and I think he would be a much better manager in the white house than Bush. I can't really see a pro-choice pro gay marriage pro gun control candidate getting through the primary though, and I would personally be pretty concerned that he doesn't have enough respect for civil liberties.

-------------------------------

Who wouldn't be a better manager than Bush? Bush is a dreadful manager.

I'm cool with Guiliani's stands on social issues.

I too, am concerned about civil liberties in a Guiliani presidency.
Top
Posted by Roxanna Brush (+119) 16 years ago
I think that we should throw out the political parties and get down to business. Who cares what party they are from. I would vote for Hillary unless Guliani runs. Not your typical republican.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5100) 16 years ago
Roxanna:

I agree with you.

Unlike some idealogues who post on this site, *COUGH* *RICK K.* *COUGH* I've never voted a straight party line ticket in my entire life.

I'm open to Guiliani as a candidate, I need to get a better idea on some of his positions before making a choice. And it's a long, long, time until November 2008!
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 16 years ago
You guys and your "stand" on "civil liberties"

It almost seems like you've forgotton that the worst "civil liberties" president over the last 30 years has been Bill Carnivore V-Chip Clinton.

Imagine for a moment that Bush, instead of Clinton, had pushed a "Communications Decency Act" (internet censorship) all the way to a Supreme Court challenge, where his effort was rebuked by all justices in two separate opinions.

Justice Stevens, writing for the majority...

"The vagueness of the CDA is a matter of special concern for two reasons. First, the CDA is a content based regulation of speech. The vagueness of such a regulation raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech...Second, the CDA is a criminal statute. In addition to the opprobrium and stigma of a criminal conviction, the CDA threatens violators with penalties including up to two years in prison for each act of violation. The severity of criminal sanctions may well cause speakers to remain silent rather than communicate even arguably unlawful words, ideas, and images."

Had it been Bush, you'd all have come unglued. Clinton(T) however, is immune because if there's one thing the MSM always teaches us, it's that Democrats(T) respect* "Civil Liberties"

After all, they don't even need a war to justify wiretapping and warrantless searches
http://www.nationalreview...200946.asp
because deep down inside, we all know they respect* our "Civil Liberties"

How could Giuliani possibly fare any worse?




*Respecting* "Civil Liberties" - to enact whatever regulation best amplifies progressive speech/thought, and/or restricts conservative speech/thought.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15484) 16 years ago
hmmm... thinking out loud... "should I announce my candidacy on MC.com or go stand in front of the MC street cam?" Decisions, Decisions.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5100) 16 years ago
Rick:

Buddy, you've got to do better than "Clinton did it too."
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3718) 16 years ago
You can't trust either side of the aisle not to steal your freedoms. The Republicans want to wiretap your phone, search your house without a warrant, and throw you in a jail that's outside the legal system. The Democrats want to take your guns away, ban any activity they don't approve of, and dictate what you do with your private property. Giuliani apparently likes to do all of that from both sides.

That said, I wouldn't rule out voting for him if I felt he was going to provide good leadership for the country and not do anything radical on the civil liberties side. It would just be a concern of mine with him.

[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (edited 2/14/2007).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3718) 16 years ago
hmmm... thinking out loud... "should I announce my candidacy on MC.com or go stand in front of the MC street cam?" Decisions, Decisions.

You need to think big. I bet if you went out with a bell and a bullhorn, wearing nothing but a couple strategically placed "Bonine '08" signs, you could get on Billings TV if not the national news.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15484) 16 years ago
"Mr. G. is a RINO"

No, he is a republican who is trying to create the perception that he is conservative. At best, he is Conservative In Name Only. Most modern day republicans are not conservative.
Top
Posted by Jay (+275) 16 years ago
Then call him a CINO. Still would not vote for him.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6125) 16 years ago
Richard - Need you be reminded AGAIN that there is more than just one kind of conservative? While you're correct that many of today's Republicans are not FISCAL conservatives, it does not mean that they're not TheoCons, NeoCons, RichCons, CorporateCons, LibertarianCons (you'd probably fit into this subgroup), PaleoCons or MilitaryCons.

There are many different categories of conservatives, just as there are many different categories of liberals (It is terribly simplistic to use the Liberal = tax and spend/Conservative = spendthrift model). It is more more accurate to deliniate between Liberal and Conservative along ideological or philosophical terms.

My source for the seven types of conservatives listed above was http://adamash.blogspot.c...-some.html, but there are several different lists with different permutations of the basic groupings.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15484) 16 years ago
Looks like you are going to remind me wheather I need it or not.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6125) 16 years ago
Ain't I helpful?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 16 years ago
I think many conservatives are willing to set a few things aside if it means avoiding the election of the next Neville Chamberlain
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 16 years ago
Using your logic, can you explain why the Republicans threatened to filibuster a useless, non-binding resolution?

If the war is such a moral imperative, what in the world is the majority party doing with non-binding resolutions? I guess we all knew Democrats admired the UN model of governance. But if the whole point is to make a statement, then why are Democrats in such a rush to close discussion?

It's typical politics. They don't want to solve any problem, they just want to ride it for awhile. This kind of gamesmanship used to be off-limits when lives were on the line.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 2/15/2007).]
Top
Posted by MGE (+7) 16 years ago
Guiliani a beter "Manager?" How 'bout Water Boy for B. Obama!?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5100) 16 years ago
Guiliani a beter "Manager?" How 'bout Water Boy for B. Obama!?

-------------------------

Six words:

"You're doin' a heckuva job Brownie!"

Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5100) 16 years ago
Guiliani a beter "Manager?" How 'bout Water Boy for B. Obama!?

-------------------------------

Bush couldn't "manage" a fart after eating three cans of baked beans.
Top