Posted on 02/18/2007 4:12:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Glad you enjoyed it. The pure entertainment value of this medium is VASTLY UNDERRATED.
post 776-
I didn't call you a sinner. I asked you to explain to me why helping to elect hillary is not infinitely more sinful than voting for Rudy. Your insertion of yourself into the question is telling.
The purpose of this question is to underscore the moral disconnect of those planning to vote 3rd party or sit home. And your obvious unease with the question, your personalization of the question, and your refusal to acknowledge the unique danger posed by the clintons give additional credence to the moral-disconnect thesis.
As for the other posts, they are my descriptions of what I perceive to be your moral ambiguity. You say you are insulted by those descriptions; I can understand that. Frankly, I would be, too.
"I support the rightward most VIABLE candidate.
W F Buckley
(paraphrase)
If you think I'm doing a good job 70% of the time vote for me, if you think I'm doing a good job 100% of the time..see a physciatrist
Ed Koch
wow, just wow. unbelievable.
If you want to split and DIVIDE the Republican Party WIDE OPEN--
A LIBERAL LIKE RUDY IS JUST THE MAN FOR THE JOB!
That is the dumbest thing ive ever heard!
you have no concept of WHY prolife folks wont vote. Rudy is pro choice, hitlery is pro choice. there is not lesser evil there.
I think my heads going to explode reading this thread. my gawd.
Don't let Mia give you a headache. She has lost ALL credibility with her anti-Clinton postings--since she supports the leading, liberal, Clinton-Apologist. Just ask Mia why she is supporting not only a Clinton-apologist,,,,but the MOST VOCAL CLINTON-APOLOGIST,,,in the Republican Party (since he is a RINO--I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here). THE MOST VOCAL ONE DEFENDING HIM!
Mia, do you really think for one second, yes, ONE SECOND that Rudy would agree with ANY of your anti-Clinton postings? ANY OF THEM?
EVEN ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM??
I'd like to bet some real money on that one! Why don't you send a few of them to Rudy--and get his thoughts on them...lol.
And while your at it, ask him why the Republican Party wanted no part of him and his liberals way in '96--so much so, that they didn't even invite him to the Republican Convention!!
And yet you support him. Amazing.
Thanks:)
I dont see how folks dont see that he is clinton (bill that is) oh sure rudy wasnt diddling interns, but cheating is cheating, right? Also Rudys stance on the 2A is exactly the same as clintons and nearly word for word the same as john kerry on the 2A, abortion, homosexual agenda, enviroment etc....
Rudy may be good for the WOT, but I have yet to see a convincing argument. Sure he rose to the occasion after 9/11, but nearly any mayor would (aside from nagen). Its funny to watch them compare rudy to him-nothing like scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Its also annoying as hell to listen to folks try and convince prolife voters to vote the lesser of two evils. they dont get it. pro choice vs pro choice offers no lesser degree of evil. they just look ignorant.
Im tired of hearing folks bash clinton and kerry and then praise Rudy and within that same breath condem prolifers and social conservatives. dont they realize what that says about them? HELLO!
This thread has some of the most amazing posts ive seen to date. amazing (and not in a good way).
Dont worry about the headaches, i got lots of excedrin-though something stronger as the election goes on might be required LOL
:-)
Would you really expect anything more from someone who considers FDR to be a better president than Ronald Reagan? (See Al's profile)
If you check my previous post, I never wrote that it can't happen. I wrote: "I don't think that is a likely scenario."
It seems that so many people spend so much time on this board wringing their hands over imagined possibilities that have somewhere between a 1% and 15% chance of happening. For this reason, they always post pessimistic takes on virtually every issue. I refuse to be sucked in to vortex these "nattering nabobs of negativity" seem to thrive upon.
Meanwhile, there are some issues that have a virtual 100% chance of happening that get short shrift by some on this board. For instance: if we leave Iraq without completing our mission, there is a 100% probability that we will fight this war on our streets in the coming years. This fact supercedes all others since it pertains to our civilization's viability. While in years past I might not give someone like Rudy G more than a moment of my time since I lean more conservative on social issues, this time around I have an open mind to listen to his pitch. The primary reason is that he has done an excellent job of selling this war to his audiences. For whatever reason, Bush and his administration have faltered on this. The next President needs to be someone with the credibility and charisma to sell the War in Iraq and the War on Terror to the American people.
Yet he is - along with Reagan - one of the two greatest presidents of the 20th century (It pains me to rank him ahead of TR, but the only thing keeping TR from the 'top 3' is the lack of a major crisis during his presidency. That he ranks so high despite that fact speaks for itself.)
Now back to FDR. Pre-WWII, FDRs single biggest contribution was to:
1. Restore the confidence of the American people in our system of government - at a time when the alternatives of fascism and communism were on the ascendancy and looking mighty good to an awful lot of out-of-work folks on this side of the pond;
2. Provide optimism and a hope in the future, which also served to keep the twin evils from spreading;
Post-WWII, his achievements were even greater:
1. By his Lend-Lease Act he may well have single-handedly tipped the balance in the Battle of Britain at a time when she was the only power still fighting Hitler in the West. And this kept the second front open and gave us the vital base for our own invasion of Europe that would have otherwise not been there and we would have been pretty helpless watching the Nazi juggernaut even as we fought Japan in the Pacific.
2. Massively helping Stalin in materiel to help him defeat Hitler has been criticized, but, between the two of them, Hitler was by FAR the greater danger to the security of the USA had he created his European empire.
3. That he actively supported Britain early (unlike Woodrow Wilson in WWI) speaks volumes about his keen insight as to America's interests.
3. Sure, he was weakened and gave up too much at Yalta - but what could he do? Threaten Stalin with war if he did not withdraw from eastern Europe? Do you really think that would have been even remotely politically possible at home after the bloodletting of 1941-1945? To go to war against an ally with a bigger and frankly better equipped, and more tough Army than we could hope to muster in Europe? The T-37 tank would have wiped out anything that we had - and they had more of them anyhow. Stalin got to keep what he conquered in exchange for the blood of 24 million Russians.
Hey - I stand second to no man in my hatred of communism, but I'm not crazy.
The fact that Russia was a lesser threat than Hitler is demonstrated by the success of containment and the eventual fall of communism.
So maybe now that you have been historically educated by someone who was trained as a historian, particularly in European history, perhaps you'll see FDR in a different light.
The isolationism of Woodrow Wilson in WWI helped to nearly lose the war in Europe for the allies, and by prolonging that war was a direct factor in allowing the rise of communism in Russia; FDR's pro-active policy of helping Britain pre-US entry into the war - as well as his wise decision to make the war in Europe the #1 priority ahead of Japan was a farsighted decision without which the world might look an awful lot different now.
And I guarantee you one thing - had Hitler won in Europe, what followed would have made the cold war look like a piece of cake. And the steps that we would have had to take to combat that threat here at home would very well, out of necessity, have eroded those liberties that you - and I hold most dear.
So there you have a rational historical reassessment of the legacy of FDR - overlooked by those who can't see past the New Deal - which was a very good thing for the morale of the nation in the 1930s as discussed above, regardless of what future administrations expanded it into.
Consider yourself educated.
Yes, now THAT was "some invective".
You got me there. ;>)
Dear Al Simmons,
I thought that you were tired of this thread?
"Consider yourself educated."
"How's that for a 'rational discourse' and a 'half-hearted attempt to lay out a case', you inflexible, near-sighted maroons?"
* chuckle *
You really are a pompous ass, aren't you? I'm sure that's one of your better traits. ;-)
Anyway, this thread's about Mr. Giuliani, not about FDR. So, you're a bit off-topic in your rationalizations.
sitetest
Which is why I just started another thread on FDR.
"You really are a pompous ass, aren't you? I'm sure that's one of your better traits."
I certainly CAN be when I feel it appropriate. I believe in fighting fire with fire. I'm not one of those 'go-along-to-get-along' types who proves ineffective when confronted by an opponent who plays 'street rules'. On the contrary, I tend to go nuclear on him immediately, just to let him know what he is dealing with.
I learned that tactic by debating commies - who play by 'street rules' and attempted intimidation. (Not a comment on you, just a bit of historical background)...
And in the final analysis, I AM also an entertainer...people who miss that get mad without seeing the enjoyment of a good natured rought-and-tumble around here sometimes...
I know conservative baptists and your not one!
Dear Al Simmons,
"I AM also an entertainer..."
Yes, your splutterings and flusterings, your invectives and insults, can be very entertaining.
"On the contrary, I tend to go nuclear on him immediately, just to let him know what he is dealing with.
"I learned that tactic by debating commies - who play by 'street rules' and attempted intimidation."
That's nice. My own interpretation of folks who try to intimidate folks, especially when engaging someone for the first time, is usually that they're insecure, incompetent bullies with little worthwhile to say. Unable to make a clear case for their own position, they resort to verbal abuse. Afraid that folks will see them for what they are, they start out by trying to control others through their attempts at intimidation.
You only get to make one first impression.
And my first (and lasting) impression of you is of a certain eagerness to insult and denigrate rather than to discuss, someone more interested in generating heat than light, and a cartoonishness and real lack of seriousness when attempting to engage someone, especially for the first time.
So, although I will continue to appreciate the entertainment value of your posts, when they aren't growing tiresome, you'll understand if I don't take you seriously.
;-)
sitetest
LOL. Yes, actually I am. Totally, 100 percent. Graduated from a Christian college, too.
People who hide their core beliefs/opinions usually do so for a reason....
Somehow I think what we have going here is a difference of personality.
I get the feeling that if you 'had my back' a few years back I'd have been in trouble.
You, OTOH could have relied on me to take a bullet meant for you.
Since you are a cipher courtesy of your blank webpage, enlighten us as to what branch of the service you were in and where you served?
Or did you not "put your money where your BIG mouth is?"
Dear Al Simmons,
Aw, c'mon now, Al. Is this the best that you can do?
Attack me because I have a blank HOMEPAGE??
LOL!!
You're becoming a real disappointment.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.