<p>From Post #1: (Quote from poster who started the thread.)</p>
<p>“This just may be the moment the political world has been waiting for.
The moment when former mayor Rudolph Giuliani – he of the famous temper, the “nasty” streak, the colorful personal life, and a heretofore preternatural ability to overcome a shady past to remain the national GOP frontrunner – either does or does not effectively confront the central critiques of his candidacy.”</p>
<p>From Post #141. (Quote from same poster.)</p>
<p>“I just don’t understand why people even if the are afraid make up nasty things to say about political candidates just because they disagree with the candidate. Why not tell why you are opposed to the candidate and make your case?”</p>
<p>Also quote from same Poster in #141. “I think it is wrong and bad for the nation to lie about political candidates.”</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Some cc posters are not afraid of a woman president at all. They may not feel that THE only woman candidate currently running for President is an acceptable or appropriate candidate for them. Gender is not the issue.</p></li>
<li><p>The IQ issue may have nothing to do with why some cc posters don’t like or trust a candidate either. Honesty and integrity are very important to many voters. Some voters feel that certain candidates (even within the same party) are more honest than others. Honesty and integrity are not necessarily correlated to IQ.</p></li>
<li><p>Not all cc posters are comparing the only woman candidate to Republican candidates only. There are some cc posters (Democrats and Independents) who may be considering another Democratic candidate as a better choice for President. The primaries are still months away!</p></li>
<li><p>I don’t understand why the ardent Hillary supporters can’t accept the fact that some people just do not trust her or her campaign, - no matter how frequently they state it and how many examples of her deception are cited.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>“4. I don’t understand why the ardent Hillary supporters can’t accept the fact that some people just do not trust her or her campaign,- no matter how frequently they state it and how many examples are cited .”</p>
<p>Chill…whether you like it or not she will be your president. </p>
<p>Also some Hillary supporters don’t like the fact that no matter what the discussion is Hillary haters would interject either her or Bill. This thread is a prime example. It was started about Lusty Rudi. You don’t like her, fine. Start your own thread about her or write a book. Let me read about Lusty.</p>
<p>I’m sure if someone started a negative thread on Mrs. Clinton, and referred to her as “Lusty”, that would raise the ire of some. “Lusty” just seems so, - so mean spirited. :D</p>
<p>FYI Re: post 144 the words below that you have referred to were written by the people at “The Note” a publication of ABC news not me… go to the link I provided and read for yourself .</p>
<p>This just may be the moment the political world has been waiting for.
The moment when former mayor Rudolph Giuliani – he of the famous temper, the “nasty” streak, the colorful personal life, and a heretofore preternatural ability to overcome a shady past to remain the national GOP frontrunner – either does or does not effectively confront the central critiques of his candidacy."</p>
<p>…And the introduction of such is a tad bit disingenuous?</p>
<p>And I believe that a quote is only accurate as a quote if it is in quotation marks. Without quotation marks, one would assume that it is the words of the poster.</p>
<p>““Lusty” just seems so, - so mean spirited.”</p>
<p>do you like this version in post 124 better?</p>
<p>“It is actually worse than that. Randy Rudy only began the visits to the Hamptons after he was kicked out of the Mayor’s Mansion where he had carried on the affair for eight months with Juicy Judy at taxpayer expense while his wife and daughter were still living there, and was now shacked up with two gay men.”</p>
<p>And I believe that a quote is only accurate as a quote if it is in quotation marks. Without quotation marks, one would assume that it is the words of the poster.</p>
<p>you are correct I should have used quotation marks…sorry for the oversite</p>
<p>sorry simba: I’m not smart enough to interpret a comment w/o facts, some of which cgm addrf later. FEMA, for example, is not a matter lack of law enforcement, but sheer incompetence/stupidity. (Should Bush be held accountable, absolutely.)</p>
<p>re: ONE federal toy inspector – poor planning yes (and incompetence, probably) – but, that too, is a budgetary issue as a result of Congressional budget limits. CPSC’s budget and staff have been shrinking for 40 years, including during Clinton 1. Perhaps some sleuths could search the federal records to see when all the toy inspectors were eliminated, and which Congress approved it (and, yes, Congress does see org charts and set head count limits for executive departments).</p>
<p>IMO, there is a BIG difference between incompetence and purposely thwarting Congressional laws, which conspiracy theorists seem to imply.</p>
<p>it is NOT a budgetary issue, for heavens sake</p>
<p>and FEMA was planned…they didn’t like FEMA so did what they could to wreck it and if you know your history, read up on Nixon…that was his style as well as Reagans and the Bush Boys</p>
<p>If you care about a program you don’t appoint incompent people- you appoint people with experience</p>
<p>In that last few years, toys coming from China have increased to 80 of all toys in the US—that fact seems to have been lost on the Bush appointee</p>
<p>And that is just one case of dozens and dozens</p>
<p>FEMA was no accident, No Child Left Behind lack of funding is no accident, appointing people to run agencies who are supposed to moniotr coportation but are indeed PART of those corporations is no accident</p>
<p>And if you think that its all just “poor planning” you don’t understand how the world works</p>
<p>For instance, if you spend millions going after a few fraudelent voters, but do little to protect the rights of vast #s of voters, is that just being stupid, or is there a plan…</p>
<p>this is just too easy! Again, the senate approves all of those senior level turkeys, er, I mean appointments. If they weren’t any good, or thought to be good, the Dems coulda blocked them if they so desired. </p>
<p>Ted Kennedy was a main sponsor of NCLB…why not pick on him for the lack of funding? :D</p>
<p>“you don’t understand how the world works…” Actually, Washington DC is far, far from ‘the world’, and it works in rather strange ways, in which you can only learn while working on the Hill (which I did in a former life). For example, Congress micro-manages many federal agencies, with particular emphasis saved for regulatory agencies.</p>
<p>Normally I don’t post anything after the 3rd page of a thread because the topic gets feathered out into other politics and pointy comments. ladies/gentlemen?</p>
<p>Well, after wading thru this whole thread (some of it for the 2nd time - or more), I have only this to add:</p>
<p>If you want a President who will make you feel safe, optimistic & confident, who will have the knowledge & experience to know what to do & have the guts to do it, who will put his own personal agenda aside to do what is right for the country, who is fiscally conservative (to the point of displeasing some people!)…</p>
<p>I could go on here, but you get the idea!</p>
<p>It all comes back to John McCain. All of the issues you have with all of the other candidates just fall away when you consider McCain!</p>
<p>Forget Giuliani’s dalliances, Romney’s flip-flopping & sanctuary state, Huckabee’s inexperience w/ National Security, Clinton’s corruption, etc. and cast your vote for a true American Hero! He can lead America thru this crazy time & bring us out on the other side better than ever! You know it’s true! So be sure to VOTE!</p>
McCain doesn’t. I’m more worried about another pointless war we can’t afford and will serve as an even bigger recruiting poster for radical Islamists.</p>
<p>
Preferred but insufficient. Bush is optimistic and confident and look where that’s gotten us.</p>
<p>
Well, based on his policy stances he doesn’t have it now and I don’t think we can afford to wait.</p>
<p>
Back to Bush again. Having guts is important but only if you have them the right way. McCain doesn’t impress.</p>
<p>
Well, I’m not sure that I want someone who doesn’t pursue his own personal agenda. What do you mean? I want someone whose agenda is close to mine. McCain’s isn’t.</p>
<p>
There are nine-and-sixty ways of being fiscally conservative. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts that benefit the wealthy is a good thing. Putting our military adventurism on the budget books is a good thing. Cutting government services in lieu of repealing the Bush tax cuts is a bad thing. McCain is…clear as mud.</p>
<p>
Well…yes…</p>
<p>
I get it but don’t buy it.</p>
<p>
No they don’t. How do you manage to misread me so thoroughly?</p>
<p>
Being a “hero” is a lousy qualification for public office.</p>
<p>
An unsubstantiated assertion based on nothing more than hope.</p>
<p>
No I don’t.</p>
<p>
I certainly will. Hillary…more balls than any of her opponents.</p>
<p>
You know, Dr. Goebbels said that if you repeated something often enough, people would believe it. But in this case, repetition doesn’t serve.</p>
<p>Forget Giuliani’s dalliances, Romney’s flip-flopping & sanctuary state, Huckabee’s inexperience w/ National Security, Clinton’s corruption, etc. and cast your vote for a true American Hero! He can lead America thru this crazy time & bring us out on the other side better than ever! You know it’s true! So be sure to VOTE!</p>
<p>Gallup poll shows that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani remains in the lead for the Republican nomination, although his percentage of the vote is trending downward. Meanwhile, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has moved into a four-way tie for second place, only nine points behind Giuliani.</p>
<p>Read more:</p>
<p>Giuliani Still Leads Nationally, but Huckabee Is Gaining</p>
</p>