Disgusting new Giuliani ad
Fearmonger much? :x
Is it just me, or does that ad play like a Nazi propaganda film?
Comments
-
That's disgusting. Truly.
I bet/hope he gets a lot of shit from organizations about that. -
It's so bad that it almost looks like one of Rudy's opponents put it together...
-
Subject: Re: Disgusting new Giuliani ad
Carnivore wrote:
IMO it's just you. What about the ad is not true? Facts are facts. At least he's concerned about these fanatics unlike your guy Obama who wants to pull out of Iraq and who has a D- rating on illegal immigration from the Americans For Better Immigration.
Fearmonger much? :x
Is it just me, or does that ad play like a Nazi propaganda film? -
IMO it's just you. What about the ad is not true? Facts are facts. At least he's concerned about these fanatics unlike your guy Obama who wants to pull out of Iraq and who has a D- rating on illegal immigration from the Americans For Better Immigration.
Now you've done it.
I was listening to a talk show debate on the radio and the oversimplified, hypothetical question was asked:
"Which candidate does Osama bin Laden/Terrorists want to win the 2008 election"?
The audience was allowed to answer by calling in, but as it turns out, the opinion was about 50/50 for the answer:
Any Democrat: Because he/she will pull completely out of the middle east militarily and allow radicalism and terrorism to thrive unchecked.
Any Republican: Because he will incite more war and add wind to the sails of terrorists and radicals.
Both perspectives, albeit oversimplified for the sake of posting, have some validity. We need someone will balls and brains. The problems in this world will not be solved by bombs alone. Diplomacy, economics, creativity and intellectual honesty, and yes, even some military action and security are going to be needed. The next president needs to be the best we can offer the world.
Choose wisely.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. -
Subject: Re: Disgusting new Giuliani ad
"it's just you. What about the ad is not true? Facts are facts. At least he's concerned about these fanatics unlike your guy Obama who wants to pull out of Iraq and who has a D- rating on illegal immigration from the Americans For Better Immigration."
someone is drinking rudy's kool-aid
http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2007/11/rudy-giuliani-9.html -
Subject: Re: Disgusting new Giuliani ad
eggcream wrote: IMO it's just you. What about the ad is not true? Facts are facts. At least he's concerned about these fanatics unlike your guy Obama who wants to pull out of Iraq...
I'd say it's more like just you. The vast majority of Americans agree with me about Iraq.
I think the fanatics I'm most concerned about are the neo-cons pushing for the elimination of our civil liberties and for endless war. The Iraq war has served absolutely no purpose other than to provide an excuse to continue to incrementally curtail our rights at home. There are way more terrorists in Iraq now than there were on the eve of our attack.
And there were no WMDs.
And Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
George Bush is exactly the kind of leader that James Madison was concerned about, and Giuliani would be another in the same mold (perhaps more dangerous because he's not quite as dim-witted).
Read this article from The Nation to see what I'm talking about:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/truthdig -
I can't think of Giuliani without remembering that Daily Show Specularium bit with John Oliver. He says he doesn't like to speculate but Giuliani is going to divorce his 3rd wife and his 4th wife will be a man named 9/11.
http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=vc&videoId=104552
-
A video made by an American soldier who served in Iraq. -
Nailed it on the head, that guy did.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/giuliani_to_run_for_president_of_9 -
Subject: Re: Disgusting new Giuliani ad
eggcream wrote: IMO it's just you. What about the ad is not true? Facts are facts. At least he's concerned about these fanatics unlike your guy Obama who wants to pull out of Iraq and who has a D- rating on illegal immigration from the Americans For Better Immigration.
Hmm. I wonder if you realize that your introducing Obama's immigration policy has done more to tell us about you than about Obama? -
Carnivore wrote:
what was this? it's been taken down...
A video made by an American soldier who served in Iraq. -
Having had a personal connection to the movie Why We Fight - I really got to speak to a lot of people who were in that film and the more I spoke to them the more I believe that this war was for certain people to make money off of.
Again - my worst fear is what Carni said - losing our privacy and civil liberties. -
LeffertsGirl wrote: [quote=Carnivore]
what was this? it's been taken down...
A video made by an American soldier who served in Iraq.
It was a soldier speaking out against the war, and outraged by the Repugs' statements that we needed to stay until we could "leave with honor." -
Subject: Re: Disgusting new Giuliani ad
Carnivore wrote: [quote=eggcream]IMO it's just you. What about the ad is not true? Facts are facts. At least he's concerned about these fanatics unlike your guy Obama who wants to pull out of Iraq...
I'd say it's more like just you. The vast majority of Americans agree with me about Iraq.
I think the fanatics I'm most concerned about are the neo-cons pushing for the elimination of our civil liberties and for endless war. The Iraq war has served absolutely no purpose other than to provide an excuse to continue to incrementally curtail our rights at home. There are way more terrorists in Iraq now than there were on the eve of our attack.
And there were no WMDs.
And Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
George Bush is exactly the kind of leader that James Madison was concerned about, and Giuliani would be another in the same mold (perhaps more dangerous because he's not quite as dim-witted).
Read this article from The Nation to see what I'm talking about:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/truthdig
Really, what rights have you lost? Who's pushing for endless war? -
Subject: Re: Disgusting new Giuliani ad
eggcream wrote: Really, what rights have you lost? Who's pushing for endless war?
You clearly haven't been paying attention for the last 7 years. -
I'm sure you remember the rallying cry from the Clintonistas about Saddam and his WMD's. I guess if a liberal is in office then there are WMD's.
Shattering Conventional Wisdom About Saddam's WMD's
By John Loftus
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, November 16, 2007
Finally, there are some definitive answers to the mystery of the missing WMD. Civilian volunteers, mostly retired intelligence officers belonging to the non-partisan IntelligenceSummit.org, have been poring over the secret archives captured from Saddam Hussein. The inescapable conclusion is this: Saddam really did have WMD after all, but not in the way the Bush administration believed. A 9,000 word research paper with citations to each captured document has been posted online at LoftusReport.com, along with translations of the captured Iraqi documents, courtesy of Mr. Ryan Mauro and his friends.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F715A709-2614-4EA5-967C-F6151F94A364 -
That article is long on allegations and speculation and short on evidence. But I wouldn't expect otherwise, given the source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FrontPage_Magazine -
9.11 was staged
read what Sibel Edmonds has to say about the Pakistani / 9-11 / American ties from the Sunday Times Online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece -
Subject: Re: Disgusting new Giuliani ad
eggcream wrote: Really, what rights have you lost? Who's pushing for endless war?
* The November 13, 2001, Presidential Military Order gave the President of the United States the power to detain a non-citizen suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an unlawful combatant. As such, it was asserted that a person could be held indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.
* Although the Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress, it has been criticized from its inception for weakening protections of civil liberties. In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; "sneak and peek" searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of "National Security Letters," which allow the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. The Fourth Amendment was created to protect us from such unwarranted searches and siezures.
* Perhaps one of the most controversial parts of the legislation were the National Security Letter (NSL) provisions. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order they were criticized by many parties. In November 2005, BusinessWeek reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions". Before this was revealed, however, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of NSLs in court. In April 2004, they filed suit against the government on behalf of an unknown Internet Service Provider who had been issued an NSL, for reasons unknown. In ACLU v. DoJ, the ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the Patriot Act failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. The court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the subpoena could not challenge it in court it was unconstitutional.
* Another provision of the Patriot Act brought a great deal of consternation amongst librarians. Section 215 allows the FBI to apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Amongst the "tangible things" that could be targeted, it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items".
...In other words, it is now LEGAL for the government to come and search your apartment WITHOUT a warrant, based only on someone with a bug up their butt about you giving them a tip. And it is now LEGAL for the government to go to your local library and get all the records of the books you checked out for the past year or two, and woe betide you if you'd ever had the notion to check out a copy of the Q'uran to check something quick. -
Looks like things are picking up in Iran....some kind of almost scuffle between the Navy and smaller Iranian ships....hmmmm
US Comes Close To Firing On Iran Ships
How hard would it be to say President John McCain....the question still is can Hillary or Obama beat McCain if some crap starts going down in the middle east.
Updated:19:08, Monday January 07, 2008
Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats have threatened three US Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz in what is being called a "serious provocation".
American forces were on the verge of firing on the vessels after being harrassed and provoked, according to Pentagon officials.
But, as the captain of one of the US ships was in the process of giving the order to fire, the Iranian boats suddenly veered away and ended the episode.
Iran has admitted the incident happened - but described it as "ordinary" and said it was resolved.
A US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said: "It is the most serious provocation of this sort that we've seen yet."
He said the five Iranian speedboats "pretty much swarmed" the three US vessels in international waters with the Iranians threatening that one of the US ships would blow up in minutes.
The radio transmission from one of the Iranian ships reportedly said: "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes."
The White House has warned Tehran against taking such actions in the future.
Interesting and timely developments. -
gulf of tonkin anyone?
-
I heard about that and I couldn't decide if the whole thing was an American propaganda ploy or whether it was proof that Ahmadinejad had lost his mind. (Not that he had much mind to lose.)
-
quijibo wrote: 9.11 was staged
The Sunday Times has been taken in by faked things before, so I'm not inclined to believe this any further than I could throw it.
read what Sibel Edmonds has to say about the Pakistani / 9-11 / American ties from the Sunday Times Online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece -
the U.S. video of the Iranian "encounter" is a fake
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hooman-majd/its-a-fake_b_80682.html -
queencallipygos wrote: [quote=quijibo]9.11 was staged
The Sunday Times has been taken in by faked things before, so I'm not inclined to believe this any further than I could throw it.
read what Sibel Edmonds has to say about the Pakistani / 9-11 / American ties from the Sunday Times Online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece
ok. here you go. top 40 reasons why 9/11 was staged
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646 -
quijibo wrote: [quote=queencallipygos][quote=quijibo]9.11 was staged
The Sunday Times has been taken in by faked things before, so I'm not inclined to believe this any further than I could throw it.
read what Sibel Edmonds has to say about the Pakistani / 9-11 / American ties from the Sunday Times Online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece
ok. here you go. top 40 reasons why 9/11 was staged
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646
....That isn't a list of 40 "reasons why 9/11 was staged," that's a list of 40 nits about the official story that some people are picking. I don't see a single claim on there that states that the incident was "staged" or faked; it reads to me like they think something real did go down, but that they have questions about the official government story.
But clearly you seem to think that this points to something being staged. If that's the case, who do you think staged it and why? ...you're not honestly suggesting that Giuliani staged it so he could become president now, are you?
(sits back to wait) -
queencallipygos wrote: But clearly you seem to think that this points to something being staged. If that's the case, who do you think staged it and why? ...you're not honestly suggesting that Giuliani staged it so he could become president now, are you?
i thought you wanted some information and i gave you some
(sits back to wait)
i have no desire to change your opinion, that can only happen through your own desire for knowledge, and your own investigation
who do you think killed JFK? -
It's pretty clear that this latest incident was staged.
9/11 was not. It happened as a result of massive intelligence failure, among other things. And this intelligence failure was not extraordinary by any means. Apparently, this is par for the course.
This article says it better than I could:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=288641 -
Skeptic Magazine, definitely a source that approaches something like this with an open mind, did a whole issue on the 9/11 conspiracy theory and concluded pretty decisively that the conspiracy theories are bunk. I have the issue if anyone wants to borrow it.
-
Carnivore wrote: Skeptic Magazine, definitely a source that approaches something like this with an open mind, did a whole issue on the 9/11 conspiracy theory and concluded pretty decisively that the conspiracy theories are bunk. I have the issue if anyone wants to borrow it.
i definitely would like to read a copy, is it available on newstands?
or only by subscription?
and isn't the proper spelling "sceptic"?
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds