Don’t know about you – you may look at this character on TV and see a really great guy – but w/me he has never passed the ’split-second’ smell test. (The test is simple: if you look at a person and have instant misgivings about his integrity, they don’t pass.)

If the word has two meanings and they are 1. MONKEY and 2. A RACIAL SLUR, how is this not completely racist? … This was a word he would have heard quite often being the progeny of immigrants from TUNISIA.

If the word is also racist within Tunisian society, then what does that suggest about his family upbringing? (I don’t mean to slander his parents; I don’t know anything about them, so it’s entirely possible that young George acquired the vocabulary and the sense to use it all on his own.)

Stick a fork in him…

… and watch the oil ooze out.

P.S. My bad & I will apologize if I really do have this guy pegged wrong.

If the word has two meanings and they are 1. MONKEY and 2. A RACIAL SLUR, how is this not completely racist? I mean, say he didn’t mean it as a “RACIAL” slur, wouldn’t it be just as bad if he called the guy a MONKEY? Wouldn’t that be a racial slur as well? Of course it would. The problem is that the confederate loving Sen Allen has been using the word to refer to people like Sidarth and I daresay, myself, since childhood. This was a word he would have heard quite often being the progeny of immigrants from TUNISIA.

Stick a fork in him…

And to all the libs I leave you with this quote..
The time for honoring yourselves will soon come to an end, what you do in this life….echoes through eternity. (Gladiator)

That said, Sidarth is the new addition to the Cindy Sheehan group of useful liberal idiots.

Decency in accepting mistakes, errors and apologies, in the MSM and on the Left, applies only to half-apologies from the Left. Ask Messrs Biden, Jackson et Co. and some already mentioned.

Even knowing how our resident diety feels about her, I’m glad A. Coulter never apologized to the 4 dames. Then again, she’s not running for re-election in the Senate either.

1. I’m with you all the way on this one. (But isn’t it also worth floating the idea that Rudy might make a good Defense Secretary, or National Security Advisor, or maybe even head of the FBI?)

2. I think you will be very disappointed with Rudy’s position on immigration.

3. He might do ok here.

4. He has a pretty good record on cutting taxes, and would probably be more willing to get some actual reforms passed than Bush was… but not sure how far he would be willing to go.

5. I have no idea where Rudy stands on Social Security reform… do you know something I don’t? (It’s reasonable to assume that he might be in favor of it, but Bush’s proposal went absolutely nowhere with the spineless Senate.) You need someone really willing to commit to this and apply a great deal of pressure to make it happen. Does Rudy really have that kind of hard-on for this issue?

What about a New Yorker and a Bostonian? Not exactly the reddest states in the union we are talking about here.

In fact, I have heard a very respected professional liberal say that any Hispanic that votes for a Republican “ought to be taken out back and shot.”

Rick on August 24, 2006 at 3:32 PM

Oh, reeeeeealllllyyyy? Well, then, come and get me, libs. Be warned, however, that I live in a Castle Law state.

2. Immigration – Do something. Stop the hemmoraging now. Shut the border and then we can figure out what to do with those here illegally. You can’t attack this problem in one fell swoop. Take it in pieces but do something.

3. Stop the reckless spending – Reagan wasn’t afraid to veto a budget and no president should. Get rid of the earmarks. We don’t need a teapot museum or study of the mating habits of 2 toed tree frogs.

4. Tax Reform – Give serious consideration to the Fair Tax

5. Social Security Reform – Just do it

There is my list and none of them are Social Issues unless that is how you classify Social Security. No stem cell, no abortion, no gay marriage. I want my federal goverment to protect me from real physical harm, not insults, spend the money they get from me wisely and frugly. Adapt a tax policy that reduces loopholes, not only on the rich but those on the other end whom I have to support.
Real simple.

Wait a minute…I’m confused. Who can and who cant be a racists now? If all conservatives are racists, and a black person(p.c. African American) is a conservative….can that person be a racists?

Conservative minorities are called “sell-outs”, “uncle Toms”, “house slaves”, and any other name liberals can think of. Liberals consider them the worse of the worst or bottom of the heap. Liberals also feel it’s okay to call them any racial slur in the book — they’ve earned it.

I hate to tell you this, but the chances of getting those Catholic Hispanics is pretty slim. I have a lot of them in my family, and they are Democrats. Sure, they’re attracted to conservative views on abortion, but the Tancredo wing of the Republican party is making them feel unwanted.

My point is that advocating for social issues is fine, but let’s concentrate our resources where they will be effective – on the state level. Let’s put warriors like Rudy in the White House.

I am soooo confused.

The point is many Catholic Hispanics and religious blacks are turning to the Republican Party because of SOCIAL issues. Don’t you remember what the exit polls in 2004 stated was the top issue for voters? If the Republican party nominates a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage “moderate,” we are no longer the party of conservative social issues.

This would be most unfortunate at a time when there could be a seismic shift in political allegiance.

All this for a candidate–Rudy Giuliani–who has a lot of baggage because of his cheating on his wife.

Although a Catholic and a Mormon on the ticket? Hmm.

I’d nominate a dog with a sign over its head if it means keeping McScrew the 1st Amendment out of the White House.

Becuase the Bush presidency has shown me the limits of presidential power in those areas. If Rudy can convince me he’s going to nominate good judges, then he will be acceptable to this conservative voter.

Honestly, I think conservatives overall have spent too much time relying on the federal government to deal with these issues, which are more property handled on the state level.

Rudy/Mitt ‘08.

Entelechy has posted this link on the McCain thread on Republican Michael Steele’s growing support among blacks.

Why on earth would conservatives and the Republican Party be so stupid as to nominate pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, probably “moderate” on immigration issues Rudy Giuliani in 2008? This would be even more boneheaded now that many Hispanics and blacks are turning to the Republican Party because of its conservative stance on school choice and vouchers, abortion, and family issues.