More dodgin and weavin. Quit dancing, and answer the question. All I ever see you do is spew hate for Fred.

jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Look it up yourself. It’s all over HA if you really cared to find out.

Answer the question – quit dodging.

jdawg on July 12, 2007 at 9:38 PM

Nice try. Take your straw man argument to someone who will fall for it.

Answer the question.

Do you hate Fred! so much you would vote for Hitlery if he were the nominee?

Quit dancing. If you refuse to answer, I’ll have to assume the answer is _yes_ you would.

jdawg on July 12, 2007 at 6:45 PM

I doubt fred? will make it the nomination vote, much less having to vote for him in the general.

freds? gots lots of ‘splaining to do.

All other issues aside, are you telling us that you hate him so much you’d vote for Hitlery if he was the nominee?

“liar fred?”, YOU STINK!

tommylotto on July 11, 2007 at 7:43 PM

That’s why I don’t take your word that Rudy is the better candidate than Fred!

Splitting the party and allowing professor Wilson to be elected. Being liberal back then was a good thing. Liberalism didn’t jump the shark in my opinion until the late 60’s early 70’s.

It’s this part that makes me sad about Teddy Bear. Wishy-washy in his elder years. This is the BEST example of 3rd party spoilers that I know. And we never learn from history now do we? There are lots of similarities to what just happened and is happening in the Senate to this era. People do strange things when disenchanted with their leaders and feeling not “heard”!

There are many aspects to admire about Pres. T. Roosevelt but the Progressive Party Platform wasn’t one of them. Liberalism at that time was a good thing? Hmmm.. pray-tell… why don’t you enumerate the items below that were a good thing and which items you’d have Rudy impliment in the current atmosphere? Seems there are a number of issues that are still quite relevant today, huh?:

“The Progressive Party, Platform (August, 1912)

The conscience of the people, in a time of grave national problems, has called into being a new party, born of the nation’s sense of justice.

We of the Progressive party here dedicate ourselves to the fulfillment of the duty laid upon us by our fathers to- maintain the government of the people, by the people and for the people whose foundations they laid.

THE OLD PARTIES

Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people.

From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.

To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

The deliberate betrayal of its trust by the Republican party, the fatal incapacity of the Democratic party to deal with the new issues of the new time, have compelled the people to forge a new instrument of government through which to give effect to their will in laws and institutions.

Unhampered by tradition, uncorrupted by power, undismayed by the magnitude of the task, the new party offers itself as the instrument of the people to sweep away old abuses, to build a new and nobler commonwealth.

EQUAL SUFFRAGE

The Progressive party, believing that no people can justly claim to be a true democracy which denies political rights on account of sex, pledges itself to the task of securing equal suffrage to men and women alike.

CORRUPT PRACTICES

We pledge our party to legislation that will compel strict limitation of all campaign contributions and expenditures, and detailed publicity of both before as well as after primaries and elections.

PUBLICITY AND PUBLIC SERVICE

We pledge our party to legislation compelling the registration of lobbyists; publicity of committee hearings except on foreign affairs, and recording of all votes in committee; and forbidding federal appointees from holding office in State or National political organizations, or taking part as officers or delegates in political conventions for the nomination of elective State or National officials.

THE COURTS

The Progressive party demands such restriction of the power of the courts as shall leave to the people the ultimate authority to determine fundamental questions of social welfare and public policy. To secure this end, it pledges itself to provide:

1. That when an Act, passed under the police power of the State, is held unconstitutional under the State Constitution, by the courts, the people, after an ample interval for deliberation, shall have an opportunity to vote on the question whether they desire the Act to become law, notwithstanding such decision.

2. That every decision of the highest appellate court of a State declaring an Act of the Legislature unconstitutional on the ground of its violation of the Federal Constitution shall be subject to the same review by the Supreme Court of the United States as is now accorded to decisions sustaining such legislation.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

We believe that the issuance of injunctions in cases arising out of labor disputes should be prohibited when such injunctions would not apply when no labor disputes existed.

We believe also that a person cited for contempt in labor disputes, except when such contempt was committed in the actual presence of the court or so near thereto as to interfere with the proper administration of justice, should have a right to trial by jury.

SOCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL JUSTICE

The supreme duty of the Nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice. We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in State and Nation for:

Effective legislation looking to the prevention of industrial accidents, occupational diseases, overwork, involuntary unemployment, and other injurious effects incident to modern industry;

The fixing of minimum safety and health standards for the various occupations, and the exercise of the public authority of State and Nation, including the Federal Control over interstate commerce, and the taxing power, to maintain such standards;

The prohibition of child labor;

Minimum wage standards for working women, to provide a “living wage” in all industrial occupations;

The general prohibition of night work for women and the establishment of an eight-hour day for women and young persons;

One day’s rest in seven for all wage workers;

The eight-hour day in continuous twentv-four-hour industries:

The abolition of the convict contract labor system; substituting a system of prison production for governmental consumption only; and the application of prisoners’ earnings to the support of their dependent families;

Publicity as to wages, hours and conditions of labor; full reports upon industrial accidents and diseases; and the opening to public inspection of all tallies, weights, measures and check systems on labor products;

Standards of compensation for death by industrial accident and injury and trade disease which will transfer the burden of lost earnings from the families of working people to the industry, and thus to the community;

The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use;

The development of the creative labor power of America by lifting the last load of illiteracy from American youth and establishing continuation schools for industrial education under public control and encouraging agricultural education and demonstration in rural schools;

We favor the organization of the workers, men and women, as a means of protecting their interests and of promoting their progress. . . .

BUSINESS

We demand that the test of true prosperity shall be the benefit conferred thereby on all the citizens, not confined to individuals or classes.

We therefore demand a strong National regulation of inter-State corporations. The corporation is an essential part of modern business. The concentration of modern business, in some degree, is both inevitable and necessary for national and international business efficiency. But the existing concentration of vast wealth under a corporate system, unguarded and uncontrolled by the Nation, has placed in the hands of a few men enormous, secret, irresponsible power over the daily life of the citizen – a power insufferable in a free government and certain of abuse.

We urge the establishment of a strong Federal administrative commission of high standing, which shall maintain permanent and active supervision over industrial corporations engaged in interstate commerce, or such of them as are of public importance.

Such a commission must enforce the complete publicity of those corporate transactions which are of public interest; must attack unfair competition, false capitalization and special privilege.

We favor strengthening the Sherman Law by prohibiting agreement to divide territory or limit output; refusing to sell to customers who buy from business rivals; to sell below cost in certain areas while maintaining higher prices in other places; using the power of transportation to aid or injure special business concerns; and other unfair trade practices.”

Planned parenthood gives adoption counseling? What a joke. Trust me when I say, they only give the appearance of it. In the 80′s we sent girls into the clinics to see what kind of “counseling” they received and not once did they advise adoption. This is a multi billion dollar business that profits off the agony of women and the destruction of their children.

Teddy Bear is my favorite President of all time because he held most of my ideals. However, I wouldn’t consider Teddy conservative either. He held a lot of liberal opinions. Sultry Beauty on July 11, 2007 at 6:11 PM

What’s not to like about T.R.? Except maybe splitting the party and allowing professor Wilson to be elected. Being liberal back then was a good thing. Liberalism didn’t jump the shark in my opinion until the late 60′s early 70′s.

Rudy, on the other hand, has opposed all restrictions to abortion. He supports abortion so much that in the’90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood, the largest owner and operator of abortion facilities in the country.
Rightwingsparkle on July 11, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Actually from his web site:

Rudy Giuliani supports reasonable restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on partial birth abortion – except when the life of the mother is at stake. He’s proud that adoptions increased 66% while abortions decreased over 16% in New York City when he was Mayor. But Rudy understands that this is a deeply personal moral dilemma, and people of good conscience can disagree respectfully.

He has also made the promise to appoint judges similar to Roberts and Alito. From what we know of Fred, I see little difference.

Yes Rudy did give small cash contributions to a group that gives both adoption and abortion counseling, but what’s more “culpable” from a pro-life standpoint, to give a small amount of money, or to take a large amount of money from one of these organizations to use your political clout to lobby for an easing of restrictions on abortion. I dunno.

Rudy and Fred’s stance on abortion are no where near similar. Starting with the worst, Partial Birth Abortion. Rudy was against the ban and Fred voted for the ban. This is big because almost all Americans are against this gruesome procedure.

Fred may have been somewhat pro-choice in the early 90′s, but he says the birth of his daughter solidified his convictions on the pro-life issue and his voting record reflects that. Especially important to me as a parent, he supported parental consent for a minor and a 24 hour waiting period. And he voted against public funding for abortions in the military.

Rudy, on the other hand, has opposed all restrictions to abortion. He supports abortion so much that in the’90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood, the largest owner and operator of abortion facilities in the country.

If anyone is a liar, it is Rudy. He says he thinks abortion is morally wrong and he would always encourage anyone to have the baby, yet he gives his personal money to a organization that promotes and destroys our most vulnerable. I mean give me a break. You can be of the mind not to want the govt involved, but to contribute your own money to something you think is “morally wrong?” Rudy has hardly been straight with us.

tommylotto on July 11, 2007 at 5:42 PM

See… I have a serious problem with the whole: you can’t vote for Fred! because he’s really a RINO but I can vote for Rudy because he is a RINO we can trust.

I remember with the Straight Talk Express vs. W thing that I was being told how conservative Pres. Bush was compared to Sen. McCain. That’s true, compared to Sen. McCain most conservatives are REALLY conservative.

I’m tired of letting the mainstream (i.e. non-conservatives or those that hold more moderate to mainstream political views)define candidates I may or may not vote for when it comes to Republicans. You can have an R behind your name doesn’t make you conservative. I don’t have moderates or liberals define conservatives for me. I define them for myself and know a conservative by the actions they take. Pres. Bush is not conservative. Yet most moderates, liberals, and the MSM will have me believe he’s not only conservative but ultra conservative to the point of extreme.

Teddy Bear is my favorite President of all time because he held most of my ideals. However, I wouldn’t consider Teddy conservative either. He held a lot of liberal opinions. What I did like is the conservative views devoid of big business idealogy. Conservative entrepreneurial ingenuity is important. Big business dictating to the little folk without our ability to have an address of greivances, not okay. Imigration is a clear example, and how we end up with conservatives going against their own principals. Principals before personalities is my motto.

tommylotto: My ex-husband’s ethnicity is Sicilian. That’s all I really needed to know about you. But you’re a lawyer on top of that? Are you sure you’re conservative? I must say your vendetta against Fred! shows your Italian roots. You have so much vigor in defending the L.A. Times and a couple of Democratic hacks. Or is that just the lawyer in you?

Sultry Beauty on July 11, 2007 at 4:40 PM

Arguing can be fun. Not sure if that’s because of the Sicilian thing or the lawyer thing. Does it matter?

I have to gag when I think I may have help the LA Times. I posted about “Keep The Change” on a few sites early yesterday afternoon, then a few hours later the LA Times issues its correction explaining the dissapearing information. If I thought I helped the LAT explain its bad journalism, I would throw-up. I subscribe to the print version and yell at it every morning. I tied canceling it once before, but have you ever tried reading the LA Daily News? — its pathetic.

Hawkish? Yes, Patriotic? Yes, America First? Yes, Conservative? I dunno. That lable is pretty broad.

I attack Fred, because I like Rudy. Their abortion stands are very similiar, if not the same. Rudy has the guts to be straight with us, while Fred is just pandering (re, lying) to the base for political expeidency (like Mitt). Someone needs to tell the social conservatives, with their hot button issues, that there are much more important issues facing our nation. All the good Republican candidates have to be disingenuous and flip flop to think they have a chance. Rudy has shown courage to stand up to them. Fred and Mitt, not so much. We know Rudy can fight the mob and win. We know he can keep his head while buildings collapse around him. We know he can b!tchslap a room full of NYT reporters. We know he understands the war on terror. He is a proven executive with leadership skills. Fred has no executive experience, has never demonstrated leadership skills, and yet the Fredheads on this site think the sun shines out his a$$ even though he is just as big a RINO as Rudy — just not as honest and without the experience and leadership skills.

Good grief.

I have never referred to anyone who was once pro-choice and now pro-life as a “flip flopper.” I don’t think Romney was either. I like Romney. I think he would be a great candidate too. I am also not saying Frdd is a principled evolver. I’ve been around politics long enough to know that most politicians aren’t principled about anything.

Btw, I did admit I was wrong about McCain several times on Ace’s threads. So there…again.

No, I really dont think you were……

doriangrey on July 11, 2007 at 4:10 PM

Yea, I really was. If you go and read some of the threads at Ace you will see exactly what I am talking about. Same argument all pro-lifers make until they realize their candidate ain’t gonna win and then they try to convince themselves that while some candidates are flip floppers, others are principled evolvers.

And stop sucking up.

Oh…and quit picking on the cutie pie…..

And I was so close……

No, I really dont think you were……

And I was so close……