Giuliani takes step toward '08 bid - Page 3

Dumpy Dooby · 11-14-2006, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Why? Bush was one; we should learn from our mistakes.

Polarization in the sense that conservative people cannot be liberal. The two are not mutually exclusive.

If someone is going to run as conservative (ie Republican) then they damn better be conservative.

He IS conservative. He holds some liberal stances on issues, but that doesn't make him a "progressive liberal."

What are the key issues that make you consider him "liberal"? Abortion? Gun control? List some.

ballz2wallz · 11-14-2006, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Because he agrees more with republicans? Because much of what stands for is part of the republican agenda, or at least used to be? Why can't we have a diverse party? It's been made obvious that the democrats do not want a diverse party, I for one welcome it even if I dont agree with the guy 100%.

I'm not really sure what you mean by 'diverse party'. If you mean our party is a mixture of liberals and conservatives, then I'm not really sure what being in a party really means. Usually people pick a party to be with because they agree with most of their beliefs and views. If our party doesn't really stand for any one thing, then why are we a party?

lew · 11-14-2006, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That type of polarization is what's so damaging to this country.

I agree, but you can't be saying he is a good candidate. He seems to be much more "big government" than Bush.

And abortion is a key issue to me. Homosexuality is not, but abortion is.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-14-2006, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I'm not really sure what you mean by 'diverse party'. If you mean our party is a mixture of liberals and conservatives, then I'm not really sure what being in a party really means. Usually people pick a party to be with because they agree with most of their beliefs and views. If our party doesn't really stand for any one thing, then why are we a party?

No I mean a diverse party where someone doesn't have to tow the party line. I'm ok with gay marriage and am ok with first trimester abortions. I do not necessary agree wiht the behavior or the actions but that doesn't mean people do not have a right to engage in such behaviors/activities. So does that make me a liberal? Does that mean I'm not welcome in the party I grew up believing in?

ballz2wallz · 11-14-2006, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

He IS conservative. He holds some liberal stances on issues, but that doesn't make him a "progressive liberal."

What are the key issues that make you consider him "liberal"? Abortion? Gun control? List some.

I don't know that I'd agree that he's conservative. After all, he did get elected by NYC.

ballz2wallz · 11-14-2006, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

No I mean a diverse party where someone doesn't have to tow the party line. I'm ok with gay marriage and am ok with first trimester abortions. I do not necessary agree wiht the behavior or the actions but that doesn't mean people do not have a right to engage in such behaviors/activities. So does that make me a liberal? Does that mean I'm not welcome in the party I grew up believing in?

Yeah I could care less about the homosexual issues or early abortions when it comes to running the country. I'd rather have someone that's gonna do the job that even enteertain the idea of messing around with idiotic social issues. It's a waste of time and money. Let the states deal with it.

But is he conservative in the areas of importance? Is he a conservative in the rest of government? Just because he's labeled himself as a Republican doesn't mean he's conservative where it counts.

Dumpy Dooby · 11-14-2006, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I agree, but you can't be saying he is a good candidate. He seems to be much more "big government" than Bush.

And abortion is a key issue to me. Homosexuality is not, but abortion is.

re:abortion, is that economically or socially (or both)? I know conservatives that are okay with letting women do it, as long as it's not being paid for by the government (basically, they don't want to fund something that they do not morally support).

I'm with that group. I don't think the government should pay for the abortions since it's inconsiderate of those that do not support it.

lew · 11-14-2006, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

re:abortion, is that economically or socially (or both)? I know conservatives that are okay with letting women do it, as long as it's not being paid for by the government (basically, they don't want to fund something that they do not morally support).

I'm with that group. I don't think the government should pay for the abortions since it's inconsiderate of those that do not support it.

I am opposed to it for both reasons. But especially for ecnomic reasons. There is no reason I should be forced to pay through taxation something of which I am adamantly against.

ballz2wallz · 11-14-2006, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I am opposed to it for both reasons. But especially for ecnomic reasons. There is no reason I should be forced to pay through taxation something of which I am adamantly against.

Even bigger than you personally, something that a large percentage of the country is adamently against.

Dumpy Dooby · 11-14-2006, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I don't know that I'd agree that he's conservative. After all, he did get elected by NYC.

What are the key issues that make you consider him "liberal"? Abortion? Gun control? List some.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-14-2006, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yeah I could care less about the homosexual issues or early abortions when it comes to running the country. I'd rather have someone that's gonna do the job that even enteertain the idea of messing around with idiotic social issues. It's a waste of time and money. Let the states deal with it.

But is he conservative in the areas of importance? Is he a conservative in the rest of government? Just because he's labeled himself as a Republican doesn't mean he's conservative where it counts.

Based on his record in a very liberal city, yes I'd say he's conservative.

ballz2wallz · 11-14-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Based on his record in a very liberal city, yes I'd say he's conservative.

And what about in comparison to a not-so-liberal country?

Dumpy Dooby · 11-14-2006, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Even bigger than you personally, something that a large percentage of the country is adamently against.

Most people don't favor abortions. I don't really know anyone that wakes up and says, "Hey it's Tuesday! Let's go get some abortions! YAY!

"

Socially, I'm cool with letting people elect to do it, though I am morally against abortion in most cases.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-14-2006, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And what about in comparison to a not-so-liberal country?

He's a moderate republican just as he's been all along.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-14-2006, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Socially, I'm cool with letting people elect to do it, though I am morally against abortion in most cases.

Thats correct.

Diesel66 · 11-14-2006, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

He'll appeal to liberals because of his stance on those issues.

And how is that a good thing ? The last two administrations have been runs to the middle. Clinton was a "liberal" that pushed some captalism deals. Bush is a "conservative" that pushes for more govt spending on education and medicare.

Why should we keep electing these moderate idiots ? I rather have a Green party member be President because at least they have some actual goals and ideas.

Dumpy Dooby · 11-14-2006, 03:29 PM

Giuliani has already proven that he can make a clusterfuck of pissed off New Yorkers get along. I'm sure he can handle blessed Christian conservatives in the south and the tree-huggin' hippies in California. The rest of the country doesn't matter (c'mon, the midwest sucks balls.... who actually likes Chicago?).

lew · 11-14-2006, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

And how is that a good thing ? The last two administrations have been runs to the middle. Clinton was a "liberal" that pushed some captalism deals. Bush is a "conservative" that pushes for more govt spending on education and medicare.

Why should we keep electing these moderate idiots ? I rather have a Green party member be President because at least they have some actual goals and ideas.

Agreed.

ballz2wallz · 11-14-2006, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

(c'mon, the midwest sucks balls.... who actually likes Chicago?).

That reminds me of a little story:

"Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?"