I allways said to the weak ass libs on this forum the southern and mid western coservatives will choose Giuliani as their candidate over their religous beliefs..National security and low taxes is what unites this party..get ready for 4 more years of republican president i cant possibly see Clinton or Obama beating Rudy at this point in time..heres the results
Among self-identified Republicans, Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain continue to lead the pack: 34 percent support Giuliani and 22 percent McCain. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is unannounced but appears to be considering a run, captures the third slot with 15 percent.
Giuliani not only has a higher favorable rating than the other Republicans, but he also bests the Democratic candidates. Moreover, Giuliani’s positive rating puts him slightly ahead of a beloved Democrat — former President Bill Clinton (52 percent favorable).
Among Republicans, 83 would be comfortable with Giuliani in the White House, 75 percent McCain and 30 percent Romney. Among Democrats, 84 percent would be comfortable with Clinton as president, 70 percent Edwards and 60 percent Obama.
Giuliani puts the largest number of voters at ease: two-thirds of voters (65 percent) say they would be at least somewhat "comfortable" with Giuliani as president, 58 percent McCain, 56 percent Edwards, 53 percent Clinton, 48 percent Obama and 21 percent Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney. Still, only 8 percent express complete comfort in a Giuliani presidency
Many Americans are happy that Mass. Sen. John Kerry—the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee— has decided against a second run for the White House. Last week, after making a speech on Iraq on the Senate floor, Kerry announced his plans not to run. A 54 percent majority says they are happy that Kerry bowed out, and 15 percent are disappointed. Among Democrats, 43 percent are happy and 23 percent disappointed; 9 percent of Republicans are sorry that Kerry will not be a candidate.
ShaE
02-04-2007, 02:20 PM
Jamez, another reason why I can't stand to read your shit is b/c you're more concerened w/ shitting on " weak ass liberals", pointing the finger, and nonsense rhetoric than looking at candidates objectively and the issues. It's not b/c I choose to "remain ignorant" , it's that you come across as eloquently as bush, drunk, on coke.
Every one of your posts makes at least a few references to " insert deragory adjective here.... liberals" bla bla, liberals, bla bla, CLINTON SUCKS, BLA BLA.
If you want to discredit liberals' policies , and want to point out why your party is on the right course, it comes across a lot clearer and well received if you drop the bullshit and write coherently. If someone's got something to say about an important topic and they actually want to be HEARD and get a response , but they start out with...'well it's b/c of these fucking morons like you liberals, etc etc"
do you REALLY expect anyone to want to hear you nevermind consider your opinion? You sound like a complete blowhard, which also makes you seem narrow minded and easily led. You make huge sweeping generalizations about " liberals" as anyone outside of YOUR way of thinking, then collectively blame ALL of them for the nations' ills. Why would anyone want to read your lengthly posts when that's how you come off? It's borderline nuts sometimes.
You post this crap, then bitch and moan that we respond only to portions, or not at all. Why do you suppose that is? B/c your style of communication sucks, kinda like bush. :shrugger
ShaE
02-04-2007, 02:41 PM
Back to the topic of the post though, polls are general especially this far in advance. A year, is forever in political time. I like Obama, Giuliani, and Clinton...plenty left to see/hear on them.
The republicans got the christian conservatives b/c they adopted christian conservative values, that's how democrats lost the south after Clinton. Bush's morals and values crowd. That, however, got thrown in the shitter through Bush's administration. He alienated his base, and that was clear by the midterms. I think christian voters are hard starved for a candidate that backs their views as of yet, but if one should come forward these people love nothing more than a bible to thump and they'll follow in step.
jameznyhc
02-05-2007, 11:01 AM
Jamez, another reason why I can't stand to read your shit is b/c you're more concerened w/ shitting on " weak ass liberals", pointing the finger, and nonsense rhetoric than looking at candidates objectively and the issues. It's not b/c I choose to "remain ignorant" , it's that you come across as eloquently as bush, drunk, on coke.
Every one of your posts makes at least a few references to " insert deragory adjective here.... liberals" bla bla, liberals, bla bla, CLINTON SUCKS, BLA BLA.
If you want to discredit liberals' policies , and want to point out why your party is on the right course, it comes across a lot clearer and well received if you drop the bullshit and write coherently. If someone's got something to say about an important topic and they actually want to be HEARD and get a response , but they start out with...'well it's b/c of these fucking morons like you liberals, etc etc"
do you REALLY expect anyone to want to hear you nevermind consider your opinion? You sound like a complete blowhard, which also makes you seem narrow minded and easily led. You make huge sweeping generalizations about " liberals" as anyone outside of YOUR way of thinking, then collectively blame ALL of them for the nations' ills. Why would anyone want to read your lengthly posts when that's how you come off? It's borderline nuts sometimes.
You post this crap, then bitch and moan that we respond only to portions, or not at all. Why do you suppose that is? B/c your style of communication sucks, kinda like bush. :shrugger
please your a hypocrite the exact same points you say I make about liberalls ..I can say you do the same when speaking of 75% of the countrys mid west and southern conservatives lol
You cut and paste my posts because you can never acknowledge or debate 80% of the points i make.. Many others in this forum reply to my entire posts..you chooos a sentence or 2 ..anyone with a brain can see that
You loose much more credibilty when you make false accusations when did i say Clinton sucked? he was elected twice because he was no liberal..he was far from it.. I clearly stated i supported his actions to Bomb Iraq he used the same reason George Bush used.. Bush at least went to the UN.. Clinton sidestepped them completley.. Also i wanted to show people in this forum The world hated us as much then as now.. I bash Clinton totally on his foreign policys.. Such as going to war in serbia, trusting Yasser Arafat and treating him like statesmen, oslo peace accords, etc..But if people just read your posts they would be under the impression the worlds hates us ONLY since Bush was elected..thats False
As for liberals your too young but alot of us on this board grew up during the Cuomo, Koch, Dinkins nyc..When Giuliani and Pataki were elected in 94 (do you realize how liberal policys have failed so much that nyc elects a republican mayor & Governor)..Not only in Nyc but in Boston (Mitt Romney), California, All liberal Meccas saw the destruction, and complete failure of liberalism
As for learning Candidates Lol!!! Im a political junkie ive been Following Giuliani since 1989 when he lost to dinkins first time around that was my first time voting.. Thats 18 years?? not too mention i read his book and saw him speak at the learning annex twice..and he was our mayor for 8 years ..And was the most effective results driven politician ive ever witnessed!!! Im sold on him 100%
Hillary i do not like but she does not scare me the way she does most conservatives and libertarians ..For this one reason..she would obliterate any country we went to war with .. and she would go after terrorists with an Iron fist ..She would have a green light from her allies in the media to be as ruthless as her Husband was when going to war..Although she not going to make it through the primaries.. The Documents Sander Berger destroyed before meeting with the 9/11 Commision and Clinton demanding to testify in Private will destroy her hopes ..this issue will be huge trust me..
As for calling people weak ass Libs ..you said i sounded like a "bleeding heart retarded liberal" ???? last week lol !!hypocrisy!!!.. Also many people yourself included were screaming Giuliani wont be the nominee due to conservative christians?? you act like theres no moderates or libertarians..So why shouldnt i respond when Giuliani polls much higher than McCain or Conservative Mike huckabee and Newt Gingrich in the south.. And i clearly stated AT THIS POINT IN TIME I cant see anyone beating out Giuliani..
jameznyhc
02-05-2007, 11:15 AM
As for issues..this is what i agree on with Giuiliani
I have not changed my opinion about taking the fight to the terrorists.. and enforcing the UN resolution 1442.. I also support Gen Petraeus troop surge as does Rudy
I believe lower taxes.. Rudy Cut taxes for 8 years
I believe in workfare not welfare.. Rudy invented workfare
Im pro-choice..so is rudy
Im for cutting spending and bringong fiscal resposibilty back to washington.. If Rudy could fix NYC finances the countrys will be a piece of cake
Rudy put his neck on the line by backing Bush's troop surge he stands on principle
Barack and Hillary are voting on a resolution thats non - binding (thats a big no no to play politics when were at war) cut the funding then if you believbe this plan is no good.. I dont see either one of them rallying congress for blocking this surge
Hillary had all the time she wanted to question Gen Petraeus at his confirmation hearings.. She running for president.. See is speaking against his plan.. Yet she doesnt question or scrutinize his plan ..instead she votes for him ??? please someone help me with this lol ...
I can list a dozen more im all about the issues where do you stand?