I'm going to tell you a secret: All New Yorkers love Rudy Giulani. That they know it or not is another story, but look at the throngs of cash-wielding tourists in Times Square, our clean streets and the relative safety of our city and you have to put politics aside and give props to our former mayor.That said, he'd never get my vote for President.
Rudy's game of footsie with Conservatives who would like nothing more than for my city to become an asceptic strip mall of churches and Walmarts is offensive.
While a city like New York needs a tough hand to make it work, America's problem isn't mass transportation and homeless people armed with squeegies. Our problem is that our government has been taken from us by people who look fondly to Reagan and Nixon and the McCarthy era. The Conservative movement is firing Jesus and national security at us in the hopes that everyone will quietly rescind to the 1950s.
While a city like New York needs a tough hand to make it work, America's problem isn't mass transportation and homeless people armed with squeegies. Our problem is that our government has been taken from us by people who look fondly to Reagan and Nixon and the McCarthy era. The Conservative movement is firing Jesus and national security at us in the hopes that everyone will quietly rescind to the 1950s.
That a former mayor of New York, the REAL city on a hill, would have the gall to compare himself to Reagan is appalling. Says the New York Times' Caucus Blog: Mr. Giuliani used the former president’s “peace through strength’’ theme to talk about combating terrorism; he used the former president’s personal responsibility theme to talk about workfare vs. welfare; he vowed his support for lower taxes; and he embraced Mr. Reagan’s style of “optimistic leadership.’’
Bla bla bla. After Reagan the nation plummeted into a recession and that was only after he let AIDS run amok. Guess he was too busy invading Grenada to worry about a killer virus that was claiming Americans left and right.
But this isn't about Reagan, it's about Rudy Giuliani's ill-advised move to embrace a dead-end ideology for the sake of the Presidency. If Rudy were smart, he'd have become the kind of Republican that some of us can stomach, like John McCain, and he'd have made a case for workfare and lowering taxes without making us think of that punk Reagan. America is sick of Liberals and Conservatives. What our country wants is vision and a leader with the resolve to get us out of Iraq, put Iran in check and become a humanitarian nation as opposed to the harbinger of death.
On that note, do stay tuned for my thoughts on Hillary Clinton...
12 comments:
What's offensive is liberals demonizing an alleged "theocracy" while giving a pass to real theocracies and the fanatic Islamo-fascists who fight to install it. While you and your ilk are blasting the neighborhood church, you're completely ignoring the fanatic mosque behind you. Then when it bites you in the ass, you'll swear you deserved it because you hurt the brown man's feelings.
The REAL city on the hill? No arrogance there.
As far as AIDS, what the sweet feathery fuck makes it Reagan's or any other president's responsibility? I tripple-dog dare you to answer that, but I know you won't. You NEVER answer my questions because you don't dare.
And I'd also like for you to explain to me why liberals demand to soak the middle class with higher taxes.
My students used to look bewildered when I would tell them, "Just because the telephone rings, doesn't mean you have to answer it."
A "triple dog dare" is pretty much like a ringing telephone. (But I like being reminded of my childhood. Thank you.)
The point is that as far as social transmission goes, the responsibility lies with those who pass it on. Not with the federal government. But of course whenever there's a problem, liberals who eschew ANY personal responsibility demand that the government do something.
My other point is that GCL throws grenades and hides for a few days. He doesn't back up his claims either because he's not able and/or does not possess the testicular fortitude to do so. If he can back up his claim, I'd sure as hell love to see it.
TGC, when you're right you're right. I don't always answer people's posts but I do read every comment and appreciate them. That may sound like a canned response, but it's true. Your point of view has taught me a lot and oftentimes I find myself at square one on issues I thought I'd made up my mind about.
Regarding your question about Ronald Reagan, his culpability for AIDS lies in his looking the other way while the disease ravaged countless lives. He didn't think it was a priority because it was claiming people that he and his party felt were undesirable. Today the mention of SARS and Bird Flu sends us into a panic, but when a couple of fags started dying off it was shrugged off.
And as for NY being the city on a hill -- it really is. The 9-11 terrorists didn't go to Tulsa or Wichita, they came to NY because it represents everything America stands for: tolerance, prosperity, opportunity and enlightenment.
While I wouldn't like to call my posts grenades, I see your point about me disappearing for a few days after incendiary posts. I would love to post every day. In my dream world I'd live blog about the news and be a cross between Perez Hilton and Arianna Huffington (though she has a huge team of writers)but alas, I have to work and it's taking up more of my time than I would like.
GCL- "City on the hill" is reference to a model CHRISTAIN city that would serve as beacon for the rest of the new world. NYC hardly fits that bill.
Also, your friends attacked America, not NYC.
As for Aids, do you honestly believe that the federal government would have been able to do anything to help stem the surge of AIDS? I doubt very much that a new 100 million dollar department would have done anything except pay the federal employees who managed the money.
If he can back up his claim, I'd sure as hell love to see it.
Liberals can NEVER support their idiotic assertions with facts. I don't think they even try anymore. The more facts get in the way, the louder they yell "Bush lied, people died!!"
Is it not a fact that the Bush administration did not plan adequately for post-invasion Iraq?
Is it not a fact that none of the 9/11 murderers were Iraqi?
Is it not a fact that all of the proffered meetings between Al Qaeda and Hussein were based on doubious intelligence to begin with but were touted as proof of collusion?
Is it not possible that, no matter how many "facts" liberals may offer, supporters of Mr. Bush will not believe them? So, what's the use of engaging in a barrage of "fact"?
Out of interest, however, might one ask for a "fact" which will prove that liberals give "a pass to real theocracies and the fanatic Islamo-fascists who fight to instill it."
Painting people's attitudes with a broad brush is never wise. That is true. One is best advised to avoid it.
Agape.
Addendum. Thanks for the references to city on the hill. I wondered, went to Google, and found this (FYI):
City upon a hill is the phrase often used to refer to John Winthrop's famous sermon, "A Model of Christian Charity,", of 1630, based on the one of the metaphors of Salt and Light in the Sermon on the Mount ("You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid."), in which he warned the Puritan colonists of New England who were to found the Massachusetts Bay Colony that their new community would be a "city on a hill," watched by the world.
Mas agape.
Regarding your question about Ronald Reagan, his culpability for AIDS lies in his looking the other way while the disease ravaged countless lives. He didn't think it was a priority because it was claiming people that he and his party felt were undesirable.
That is a patent lie the GayLeftBorg has been wanting desperately for us to believe for decades now.
In 2003, Deroy Murdock wrote a piece titled Anti-Gay Gipper, A lie about Reagan. which debunks the lie. He points out that almost $6 billion was spent on AIDS during Reagan's administration. He even shows evidence that Reagan clearly was not a homophobe.
Mr. Murdock cites several examples and includes the fact that Reagan opposed a California proposition, in 1978, which would have barred gay teachers. Mr. Murdock also writes:
As much as Reagan evidently has exhibited tolerance of homosexuality in his private life, when it comes to public policy, he opposed the persecution of gays and devoted considerable taxpayer resources to AIDS research and treatment.
So the whole notion that he didn't care about gays and AIDS is demonstrably false and is a lie foisted on the American people by, who else, the liberals. Those who knew him, dispute it and those who had no clue still shovel it like manure.
As for you, GCL, I can understand your being busy. I get that way myself. I just expressed frustration that I've asked you several questions, even in an e-mail, which you haven't answered. Even when you do get back to your blog, you haven't answered them.
I should have used the qualifier "It seems" that you toss grenades and then run for cover. I can appreciate the fact that you have better stuff to do than avail yourself to us on a regular basis though.
Is it not possible that, no matter how many "facts" liberals may offer, supporters of Mr. Bush will not believe them?
I for one have never suggested that Iraq was the right war to fight after 9/11. However, like it or not, it has become a very important battle that should not be under-estimated.
However, I can't believe the hypocrisy with which the left attacks this president and I am determined to expose it as much as possible. Don't forget that most of the anti-war rhetoric coming from the democrats is coming from people who VOTED FOR THIS WAR. They saw, or should have seen, the same intelligence that the president saw. (in fact, almost none of them bothered to read it).
I think you will find there are PLENTY of conservatives who do not support this war.
what's the use of engaging in a barrage of "fact"?
Indeed! why even bother with it, eh??
Not supporting the war does not speak to the "facts" of the Bush Administration's mis-steps.
If anyone is underestimating the importance of this current battlefield, they should stand corrected. Who, specifically, is doing this underestimating; and if we're going to assign culpability for underestimation, shouldn't we, again, go back to the post-invasion planning of the administration?
There are, indeed, PLENTY of conservatives who do not support this war. Isn't it fair to say that most of that particular plenty have become anti-war after the administration's mis-steps? Is it possible to identify a major conservative voice opposed to the invasion pre-March 2003?
I cannot believe the senators and representatives who voted for the authority to use force against Iraq after certain conditions had been met saw the "same" intelligence as did the President. You may be correct, but such sharing flies in the face of the Executive authority of which this administration has been so jealous.
The facts have been offered. They have not been refuted. Why continue?
The meme (not simply here, but elsewhere also) has become a stalemate. Nothing new is being offered. The surge will play out; it will be successful or not.
I certainly hope it is successful.
Agape.
(If any of you guys are coming to Palm Springs for the White Party, give me a call.)
As far as NYC being a "REAL city on a hill":
Somehow it fades considering they have the highest taxes in the land and can't even afford their subways.
Post a Comment