English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I would have to say Clinton.... Giuliani makes my skin crawl.

2007-07-25 23:38:11 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Elections

31 answers

Between those two Clinton. I had looked at Guiliani as a possibility, maybe close to a moderate Republican, but then I went to his website and l watched the Debate, really no substance that I could see. He still lists his greatest accomplishment as "Times Man of the year" right after 9/11, yeah..wow..alot of people have been on Time's cover, it doesn't make them a President. Also, he demonstrated a real lack of thought and leadership Preceeding 9/11. I say that because, many people perceive his visibility on 9/11 as a sign of leadership, but the reason that he was so visible was because, against all intelligent advice, he put the Emergency Command and control center in WTC so it was in the middle of the disaster and therfore he had no command center to coordinate communications, a big complaint from that day-no communications. The NY firemen and policemen aren't supporting him they can't stand him, so that should tell you something. And in the last debate, he was asked "Knowing everything that we know now (about Iraq) what would you do differently?" and his response was "Absolutley nothing, I would make all the same decisions" Wow, really, knowing everything we know now? you would still do the same thing, that is just crazy. Its one thing to make a mistake, not knowing for sure the outcome, but to know of the tragic outcome and not make decisions to keep those tragic outcomes from happening is irresponsible and poor leadership. So i guess it is not so much for Who Clinton is as it is who Guiliani is not.

2007-07-25 23:56:13 · answer #1 · answered by Myles D 6 · 4 4

There is not a simple answer to this!

The guiding principle in medicine is "first - do no harm". A vote for Hillary would send the country into an econopmic downturn that would be tough to recover from. We have had the Billary team already and seen the great things they can do. If a country attacks the US interest...shoot 1 cruise missle and run. If we need to provide military support outside the US...send in too few troops to do the job. If there is a way to steal money from the White House travel office, do it and then pay your publicist to get you out of it. Get a bunch of people together and develop a swindle called Whitewater, then pardon everyone while you are in office. We have seen how Bill and Hillary work together... the only decisions Hillary wasn't in on was whether or not to pay to dryclean Monica's dress. Hillary is too left wing and PC to get an effective job done. We would have rampant social programs started that would cause greater debt than we have now, and, in trying not to offend anyone, she would open the borders fully and say "everyone into the pool.

I'm all for controlled legal immigration. Everyone in this country except the native americans is here due to immigration from some other country (voluntary or not)

Additionally, we have great problems in the world with countries that have shown a disrespect for women.. I don't feel that any woman could work with them at this time. That is not meant to be a comment on the woman's abilities, but more a comment on how she would be received.

The G-man...no way

Let's face it... there is no good candidate running at this time.

We will have to line them up and decide who would do the least damage.

Hillary definately is not the one who would do the least damage.

2007-07-26 10:57:16 · answer #2 · answered by US_DR_JD 7 · 1 2

We barely made it through the 1st Clinton. I was a single parent and my tax returns were cut by $2000 the first year. Do we really want Bill back in the whitehouse, playing around? Although I don't agree with all Giuliani's thoughts, especially on abortion, I'd have to steer away from a Clinton, and a woman, who some countries would not respect.

2007-07-26 09:29:53 · answer #3 · answered by nita5267 6 · 1 3

So why isn't Ron Paul on this list. Clinton and Giuliani are both war mongering socialist scum. But if just those two, I'd vote neither and stock up more on ammo in case they say guns are bad.

2007-07-26 22:03:47 · answer #4 · answered by Ted S 4 · 0 1

Stelle d. evidently does not pay attention. Hillary is the founding father of "It takes a village" philosophy. The "Village" being the government. She believes the government is better than the individual at doing everything. She believes the government should raise your kids, feed your kids, educate your kids, tell you what you can watch, read, listen to or say (political correctness anyone?). If you do not comply, they will make you.
There is no way I would vote for Hillary. My parents ar die-hard Dems who have voted so for ever and ever. they have both stated that they would never vote for Hilary. A fairly recent poll showed that 51% of those asked would not vote for Hillary, ever. Giuliani is a proven leader under extreme pressure but I am not tickled about several of his stances on critical issues.

2007-07-26 10:13:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Definetly not Giuliani. Giuliani is arrogant, a bully, bigoted, ill tempered and a womanizer. He divorced his 2nd wife, Donna Hanover, by announcing it at a press conference instead of telling her in person first. He was having an affair with an aide while living at Gracie Mansion & while still married and mayor of NYC while taking credit for all the good things that were done by others in “the city”. He fired William Bratton; the police commissioner in 1994 when he found out he made the cover of Time magazine because he (Giuliani) wanted to take the credit for the innovative crime fighting. I lived in NY during his dictatorship, and believe me; I would not want him as president. His character is far worse than Bush & Clinton's worse faults rolled into one, if you can believe that's possible. Even his own kids don’t talk to him, now, what does that tell you? His name should be Mussoliani.

As for 9/11…. he’s no hero, he just happened to be in the right place at the right time. The real heroes of 9/11 were the NYC firefighters & police plus all the other rescue workers from the surrounding tri-state areas who voluntarily came to pitch in & help us.

It has also been recently discovered that he had mob ties & that his father was a convicted felon. I’m sure as time goes by more skeletons will come out of his closet.

OK, here’s some links:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17081159/sit...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17427328/site/newsweek/

http://bluetiderising.blogspot.com/2007/03/firefighters-turn-against-ruy-giuliani.html

YA: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070316145855AAMZam9

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17439294/site/newsweek/
Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2160285/

Giuliani warns about another 9/11 if a democrat wins the presidency
http://today.reuters.com/News/ArticleBlog.aspx?type=politicsNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL&src=blogBurst_politicsNews&bbPostId=CzBhsi93ZandcCzE5hO3Df3AuBCzDMBNCSKApJUB1J7LQRD5OBM
http://www.crooksandliars.com/media/down...

2007-07-26 08:46:54 · answer #6 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 4 4

The true tragedy is we have a choice between a New Yorker or a New Yorker.

Hillary for sure. Imagine how full we could stuff the prisons with all the right-wing kooks coming out the woodwork! Wow! It just staggers the imagination.

2007-07-26 10:17:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Giuliani!

2007-07-26 08:54:06 · answer #8 · answered by Pro-American 3 · 1 4

Boils down to who is the less odious of the two. My answer is Hillary. Since they are both on the same page on social issues, it becomes a simple question of which one is going to impinge on my liberties the least. Rudy is as pro-gun control as Hillary is, but far more willing to sacrifice my liberties to fight against a terrorist threat that is far less of a danger to me than slipping in my bathtub and braining myself.

Further, since Guiliani has drunk the neo-con kool aid, and the supply side kool aid, he's more likely to leave a bigger hole to dig out from under than Hillary is.

If this is the choice, I'll find it distasteful, but I'll pull the lever for Hillary, and try to convince my friends and neighbors to do the same, I find Rudy Guiliani to be that scummy.

2007-07-26 09:20:57 · answer #9 · answered by waytoosteve 3 · 2 1

Hillary Clinton. Why? Well, just lately they have given us Rep Foley of Fla., a gay-bashing guy who turned out to be a sexual predator of male interns. Then, the Republican leadership did nothing, as power is more important than values, honesty, and morality. Now, we have Senator Vitter from La., who ran on family values. Little did we know his values include hookers from the "DC Madam". Further, under Republican leadership, our national debt is through the roof, and funded by the (drum roll) Chinese! And the grand prize goes to....G.W.Bush, an alcoholic coward and former cheerleader who thought, along with his cronies, that having countless thousands of innocent Iraqis die alongside our troops was a better idea than hunting bin Laden and al Queda.
Hillary Clinton. If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

2007-07-26 08:31:15 · answer #10 · answered by Eskimo2007 1 · 4 3

fedest.com, questions and answers