Anyone who fights you fair is liable to lose. I like to start by shivving you when you ain't looking. :hihi: Now you're talkin'. Let's take it a step further . . . and here is the crux of our disagreement. I think the international criminals of Al Qaida is the enemy that must be relentlessly destroyed. The rest of Islam is really not a major problem. Problems exist, of course, but it is not a "them or us" situation. Many islamic countries are our allies and others are willing to live and let live. The extremists among them are trying to create a religious war by making it seem to us that all of islam is against us. They do the same to the muslim world by depicting us as crusaders, come to destroy them all. We beat them in this propaganda war by not buying into it. First of all, we must recognize what is a threat and what isn't. I don't think Islam is a threat on its own. I think that there is a threat from small groups of muslim extremists that hide among the other muslims of the middle east. Flying airplanes into US buildings is a threat--Al Qaida is Responsible for this. The Third World rhetoric that is common in the Middle East is not a threat. Saddam can promise "the mother of all battles" and Ahmadinejad can declare that "Israel must be wiped off the map". Strongmen and dictators talk big all of the time so their people are impressed. But the truly powerful can safely ignore this bombast. We must ignore those many muslims who only talk loudly and we must focus our wrath against those few muslims who really take action. It is a poor strategy to make war on all muslims when only a few thousand are the enemy. As we have seen, it makes them join together to oppose us. A smarter strategy (see Sun Tsu) would be to divide them. Most of these muslim countries hate each other and in our absence will fight each other. We should play them against each other better than we currently do and give them incentives to give up the extremists hiding among them. Then we can begin the free trade that others have mentioned and all the muslims and all of the rest of the world can pursue the American Dream and all try to get rich and happy.
And they are all awesome. I mean come on, how can someone not vote for a guy with such amazing fiscal conservative and social liberal views? If nothing else that gets my vote right there.
How's that Christian vote doing now? http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/03/republicans.debate.ap/index.html "SIMI VALLEY, California (AP) -- Alone among 10 Republican presidential contenders, Rudy Giuliani said in campaign debate Thursday night "it would be OK" if the Supreme Court upholds a 1973 landmark abortion rights ruling. "It would be OK to repeal it. It would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent," said the former New York city mayor, who has a record of supporting abortion rights."
Giulani's ass must really hurt from sitting on the abortion fence. He's going to have to do better than that if he expects to get the conservative votes. And I don't get all this love for Romney. Besides all his flip flopping on issues over the years, something about that guy just doesn't sit well with me. I don't trust him. Tommy Thompson had a major screw up last night. He said it was ok for businesses to fire gays. While I don't care about gays, it is illegal in many states to discriminate against them. Can't believe we're already having debates. And I really can't believe I'm watching them.
I agree with you on Giuliani. His indecision on such an important topic will not help him. I like Romney. So far I think he is the best of the lot despite flip-flopping on the abortion issue. I have no problem with people changing their opinions on a subject. It shows they are thinking about it. I would be more concerned about someone who never changes an opinion. There is a big difference between consistency and intellectual stagnation. A candidate changing his opinion on a issue does not mean he is inconsistent so long as he does not make it a habit. But admittedly it could be a problem for Romney as far as some voters are concerned. It depends on why he changed his opinion. He said the cloning issue was the key factor. That's fine with me. What you don't want to see is someone constantly changing their opinion, or worse not having an opinion, as with Guiliani and the abortion issue. I disliike fence-sitters. That tells me they are basing their values on the polls.
You're right. A major mistake. Gays are American citizens and have rights like any other citizen. I missed the debate, but this will be a long campaign (in my opinion, too long) and there will be other debates. I am real curious to see if former Senator Fred Thompson throws his hat in the ring. Years ago when he was in the Senate I really hoped he would run against Clinton, but he never did. His time may have passed him by, but I have always been impressed with him.
Me too. Can't say that I'm excited over any of the current candidates. Would like to hear more from him, but I've always liked him.
No, Giuliani is smart. He saw what happened to former front-runner John McCain who got broad support from moderate republicans and independents and even some democrats in 2000. McCain got passed on the right by Bush, so he decided to take some of those ultra-conservative votes back by re-establishing a relationship with Rev. Falwell and by promoting the Iraq "surge". Result . . . McCain gained little ultra-con support but loss much of his moderate republican base and all of his independents and moderate democrats. Shot himself right in the foot. Giuliani knows that he's a moderate republican candidate and that the voters want a swing to the middle. He's not going to abandon his moderate base, especially with a lead like he has. I mean really, . . . when it ends up Giuliani versus a democrat, the ultra-cons aren't going to vote for Hillary or Obama, are they? He's going to end up with their votes anyway, so he's not going to alienate his support in the middle just to kiss their ass.
Fred is the man to put an end to the republican race no doubt. If he doesn't run, then it comes down to does the average American want Hillary and/or Obama in the white house. I think the answer is no, and the republicans will put someone out there they think can win. Giuliani is the only possible choice. Social issues will take a back seat. Fear of the democratic candidate will bring social conservatives to the polls regardless of who the republican is. That's why I think Edwards is the democrat's best chance to win. He is bland enough to get conservatives to sit at home and not vote.