Sanding our assholes with 150 grit.

Romney & Giuliani support president's authority

to imprision American citizens without charges.

"That is the modern Republican Party. Its base, its ruling factions, simply do not believe in our most basic Constitutional guarantees. For anyone who wants to dispute that, how is it possible to reconcile the above with any claim to the contrary?"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/01/romney_giuliani/index.html
Permalink politico 
April 1st, 2007 12:48pm
Rudy gets to coddle Bush's left testicle. His poll numbers give him the upper hand, so to speak.
Permalink blahty heartsheep 
April 1st, 2007 12:54pm
> Rudolph W. Giuliani says that if he were president, his wife would be permitted to attend cabinet meetings and advise him on federal policy, an unusually overt role in government decision-making for a first lady.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/us/politics/30judy.html?bl&ex=1175572800&en=4d2081c64847788c&ei=5087%0A

OMG, he needs to feel someone else's balls. He's lost his own.
Permalink blahty heartsheep 
April 1st, 2007 12:58pm
After 9/11 Giuliani wanted to defy the law and remain in office one more year. The guy's a fascist of the first order and should not be allowed into the white house.
Permalink Send private email Сергей РахманиноB 
April 1st, 2007 3:15pm
Rudy can make his wife a cabinet member and have her cleared, but he can't bring her in to top secret meetings unless she's been cleared, that would be illegal.
Permalink Practical Economist 
April 1st, 2007 3:39pm
And people thought that Nancy Reagan consulting an astrologer was bizarre.
Permalink Send private email xampl 
April 1st, 2007 4:28pm
> The guy's a fascist

Scratch a republican and that's what you find.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 2nd, 2007 12:09am
No, no, scratch a neo-con and you find a fascist.

The Republican party historically has a pretty good record of advocating smaller government and reduced spending.  Historically.

That the current crop of Republicans in the White House have repudiated that history should not tar all Republicans with the same brush.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
April 2nd, 2007 9:56am
Advocating something and implementing it are different things.  I'm too young to remember Nixon, but even if the Republicans changed after him that's, what, 20% of the party's life?

The whole "they're not Republicans -- they're Neo-Cons," thing always makes me bristle.
Permalink Lurk Machine 
April 2nd, 2007 10:03am
Since all the neo-cons ARE Republican, I do believe the Republican party shares some of the responsibility for them.  Especially the rubber-stamp Republican congress.

But all Republicans are not neo-cons, and I think they should get a little credit (not a lot) for that.  I'm thinking that once the neo-cons have completely discredited themselves, and been disowned by true conservatives, we'll STILL have a Republican party that's STILL trying to dismantle the Social Security state.

My point is, that to be effective, criticism needs to be aimed correctly.  Punish the guilty, not the innocent, in other words.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
April 2nd, 2007 10:49am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: April, 2007 Other topics: April, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics