Giuliani to visit NH

[Derek]

he may run again you never know, hopefully he campaigns better than in 2008

[Derek]

He's not my choice, but he ran a bad campaign. It would be nice to see him do better.

[Derek]

I'd be uncomfortable with Guiliani as the GOP nominee.

[Derek]

I'd be uncomfortable with Guiliani as the GOP nominee.

And for good reason. He's detestable.

What makes you say that?

[Derek]

I'd be uncomfortable with Guiliani as the GOP nominee.

And for good reason. He's detestable.

What makes you say that?

Rudy Giuliani hates our freedom.

How so? I'm not a big fan of him either but I'd like to hear exactly why ppl are so against him. I have my differences with him on abortion and guns.

[Derek]

I'd be uncomfortable with Guiliani as the GOP nominee.

And for good reason. He's detestable.

My that's almost as bad as Obama saying he wouldn't punish his girls with a baby if one of them got pregnant and almost as bad as Obama saying the war on terror isn't like a football game where he's worried about victory. Remember a few weeks ago when Obama said at some point he thinks someone has made enough money. Who is Obama to decide who makes what? As for Rudi Guiliani, I never did think he was a true conservative. Thanks for that quote btw!

What makes you say that?

Rudy Giuliani hates our freedom.

How so? I'm not a big fan of him either but I'd like to hear exactly why ppl are so against him. I have my differences with him on abortion and guns.

"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
--Rudy Giuliani

[Derek]

I never was a big Rudi fan and I never thought he was a true conservative. That quote sounds almost as bad as when Obama said that he wouldn't punish his girls with a baby if one of them got pregnant, or when he said that at some point people make enough money. Who is Obama to decide who can make what? Remember when Obama said that the war on terror is not like a football game where he is worried about victory too. Ok so Rudi isn't perfect and that's why I'd be uncomfortable with him as the GOP nominee.

[Derek]

Perhaps you do. But you'll find in most political philosophical ideologies, we will never been in a state of freedom unless the state is destroyed. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be out in the woods fending for myself. I don't mind ceding some of my liberties for the security I get from them. The only flaw in Locke's argument is that, in his mind, you should be free to leave civil society easily if you don't like it's laws, and you can't leave the US if you don't like it that easily.

Sorry, i had to go there. No more philosophy from me.

This is very true. We are free in the sense that we elect our own leaders but that is about it. However, I'm for states almost completely self governing. This would mean that if you don't like the laws in Rhode Island, then you could move to Texas. Yes, I know that is the case now, but most laws imposed on us today are from the federal government and that is not what the founders intended. Locke did not see the US that we live in today keep in mind and the founders would never reognize America today.

[Derek]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The founders are not a single entity with identical opinions on every issue. There certainly were founders who wanted and approved of a strong Federal Government if not identical to the one we have today. The constitution is made up of compromises on these issues.

Very true, the federalists and anti-federalists differed on alot but when it came time to defend this country from the beginning, they were all there together.

[Derek]

Perhaps you do. But you'll find in most political philosophical ideologies, we will never been in a state of freedom unless the state is destroyed. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be out in the woods fending for myself. I don't mind ceding some of my liberties for the security I get from them. The only flaw in Locke's argument is that, in his mind, you should be free to leave civil society easily if you don't like it's laws, and you can't leave the US if you don't like it that easily.

Sorry, i had to go there. No more philosophy from me.

This is very true. We are free in the sense that we elect our own leaders but that is about it. However, I'm for states almost completely self governing. This would mean that if you don't like the laws in Rhode Island, then you could move to Texas. Yes, I know that is the case now, but most laws imposed on us today are from the federal government and that is not what the founders intended. Locke did not see the US that we live in today keep in mind and the founders would never reognize America today.

That's why it is important that states begin seceding from the U.S. federal regime.

Well making it a crime doesn't stop anything. Once a state secedes, it is no longer illegal. What are you going to do if Texas secedes? Send tanks in there? I wonder how that would make America look. That's like saying the Revolutionary War was illegal.

[Derek]

     I strongly dislike Giuliani's policies, but I must say it would be interesting to see him run again. I cannot think of another candidate who polled so strongly for so long, yet was ultimately so irrelevant to the outcome of the campaign. Maybe he would hire more competent advisors the second time around, but I also suspect his brand might be rather...damaged from his dismal 2008 run.

He had a bad strategy but if the RNC gets its way in 2012, then waiting for the big states isn't a bad idea for him.

[Derek]

     I strongly dislike Giuliani's policies, but I must say it would be interesting to see him run again. I cannot think of another candidate who polled so strongly for so long, yet was ultimately so irrelevant to the outcome of the campaign. Maybe he would hire more competent advisors the second time around, but I also suspect his brand might be rather...damaged from his dismal 2008 run.

He had a bad strategy but if the RNC gets its way in 2012, then waiting for the big states isn't a bad idea for him.

     Waiting out the early primaries would still kill him, because you need to be at least competing in the early contests or else people will stop taking your candidacy seriously. Now if he could get states like NY & NJ to move their primaries up to the front of the schedule, he might have a fighting chance.

Very true. What I'm saying though is that it won't make a difference if the big states all vote on the same day which is what the GOP wants in 2012.

[Derek]

big states, small states, early states I believe are the 3 sets.

[Derek]

big states, small states, early states I believe are the 3 sets.

Um, I believe you're talking about the Ohio Plan, which is deader than dead.  The only change the RNC is making to the calendar is trying to push the whole thing a month later, with IA, NH, NV, and SC voting in February, and everyone else voting in March-June.  But there's no longer any effort to organize the other 46 states into groups voting on the same day.  That'd be left to the individual states to work out.

In fact, the push start things a month later will itself probably fail, because many states will violate the rule, and the RNC won't sanction them harshly enough to change their behavior.

I'm all for the states deciding, but unfortunately it's created a much longer political campaign. It used to be that people watched the conventions in order to find out who the nominees were going to be. Now the first Tuesday of the year Iowa is voting. I don't like it one bit. Yes, the states should decide but I'd like to see my party working closer with states to accomplish what they want.