Time and time again whenever Giuliani says anything against the dems trying to bring socialism to our medical industry or argues that indeed the president should stand up to people who want to kill Americans, Obama and Edwards come up with a weak statement. It usually says something about "divisiveness," "politics as usual," or "we need to unify."
Should we accept their premise to just agree to whatever foolish and destructive plan they decide to form in an effort to be nice or is an election really about figuring out who has the best views on the issues? If they want to build trust, shouldn't these candidates try to muster a reasonable argument for their side instead of throwing out cliches?
2007-05-31 10:29:03 · 16 answers · asked by Dan 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
No. but it is probably the best they can do.
2007-05-31 11:23:52 · answer #1 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋
"We need to unify" = "ignore all the things I do to divide us, shut up, and give me what I want"
"divisiveness" = "they're pointing out things that will make people turn against me"
"politics as usual" = "pointing at things I want to hide"
I love free speech. Let them speak up, on both sides. I'm an old style democrat.
Free speech even for republicans! (assuming they'll stand in the way and help protect me when the socialists start throwing rocks at me...).
2007-05-31 10:40:18 · answer #2 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think they are going to take all the good points that are being
made and later on say that they said them.
Edwards, Obama, Hillary, etc do not have any idea what
should be done. They just want the power to do whatever
they want.
Wait and see. They are so wishy-washy that they need to
hire people to tell them what the people want to hear.
2007-05-31 12:02:32 · answer #3 · answered by Blessed 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
properly, being a Christian, that does no longer somewhat fulfill me, considering the fact that Zeus seems to have features that are thank you to human, and altogether diverse from the character of God that i comprehend. it sort of feels to me that maximum atheist arguments fail (by employing no ability all) because of the fact of an incomplete expertise of who God quite is. different than for that, i think of its a surprising argument for only about all of Christians who forget approximately actuality to stay contained in the "secure zone."
2016-10-06 09:53:11 · answer #4 · answered by arieux 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whoa, you make too many "logical" leaps here. This primary race has started so early that the candidates are just getting their position papers ready. It's appropriate to respond to divisive cliches and by calling them what they are. The point the Democrats are making is that we should discuss the issues.
2007-05-31 10:35:53 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Are you kidding? Giuliani's response to every question is "9/11!!" and you're criticizing John Edwards, who has the most concrete plans to deal with health care (among other issues) of any presidential candidate?
Maybe you should listen to what he's actually saying instead of assuming he has nothing to say.
2007-05-31 10:37:05 · answer #6 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Dems/Libs have never been known to react or counter back with facts or rational mature responses. They have the same reaction as a three year old who doesn't get their way.
2007-05-31 10:33:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Who actually believes those snake oil salesmen? Those Socialists can never be trusted.
2007-05-31 10:53:56 · answer #8 · answered by Bawney 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's just them.
Edwards & Obama want to hit Rudy with their "little purses".
2007-05-31 10:33:35 · answer #9 · answered by wolf 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Your questions is kinda nit picky...its real early in the season to put every statement under a microscope.
2007-05-31 10:38:15 · answer #10 · answered by Laughing Man Copycat 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Just wait. It's still very early. Rudy has tons of skeletons in his closet. They will soon be brought out and examined.
2007-05-31 10:33:14 · answer #11 · answered by notyou311 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋