1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Giuliani Calls On Republicans To ‘Ease Up’ And Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by Dan82, Nov 3, 2010.

  1. Dan82

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago IL
  2. Kevin42

    Kevin42 Guest

    I saw this whole interview on TV and I have to say he really gained some of my respect. I wasn't a big fan of him in the last primaries, but he seemed really reasonable in this interview. Perhaps too reasonable for him to ever get elected. :/
     
  3. Shevanel

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,403
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Little Neck, NY
    Hell yeah Giuliani <3 I was 5 feet away from him one night :grin: the night before the Thanksgiving Day Parade in the city one year. :grin:
     
  4. Mogget

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,397
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    New England
    Politically speaking, the GOP has wormed its way into a pretty nasty situation. They pretty much have the hate vote locked in, but that means that any move towards being decent human beings loses them votes, moreso than it earns them new ones (there are gay people who'd vote Republican if the GOP were gay-friendly, but not as many as there are homophobes who'd stop voting Republican).

    But this isn't a good long-term strategy. The GOP's voters are, to be blunt, dieing off, especially wrt LGBT issues (well, LGB issues, the T probably less so *sigh*) and at some point they'll have to embrace LGBT issues (I could go on about this for ages, basically I think LGBT people are going to be brought wholly into the kyriarchy, but that's an essay for another day). When this happens, expect full denials that they were ever anything but pro-gay.
     
  5. RedState

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Southeastern Conference
    >>>The GOP's voters, to be blunt, are dying off.
    Well, I wouldn't say that. With the biggest party take over in the House since the 1940's, 9 Governorships won (even in traditionally blue states such as Maine) and I believe 12 state legislatures flipping from Dem to Republican control (which is more important from a long-term standpoint) Even some of the Democrats that won on Tuesday night ran as Ronald Reagan. So, I would not agree at all with that statement.

    I would agree with you that the traditional generation that opposes DADT based on "moral grounds" or because they don't like gays or they don't understand homosexuality is dying off. Younger generations, while some still may not understand it, are a little less passionate in opposing laws such as DADT, and are a little more accepting than the old-timers.
     
  6. RaRa

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    The GOP's gains were due to pissy Americans wanting change so quickly and not understanding that major changes take time. Once they realize that the Republicans are gonna suck just as bad, they'll change their vote again.

    Although there is some truth that the GOP's voter base is (or is going to start) dying off. The majority of young voters are Democrats and they'll probably pass that along to their children. I'm sure the GOP will be hurting when their precious 65+ voter base dies.
     
  7. RedState

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Southeastern Conference
    >>>I'm sure the GOP will be hurting when their precious 65+ voter base dies.
    Well then thank goodness they have people like me who are 29 and will always vote conservative.

    It's the line of thinking that it's just "pissy americans" voting because they just don't "understand" is the exact attitude that got The White House and House Democrats in trouble in the first place. The main difference between the House and Senate in this election is this: The Senate, for the most part, is somewhat quiet in what they do...even on controversial issues they don't make a big production out of things. The House was made such a production of it's arrogance (such as Pelosi leading the parade through the streets with her gavel on the way to the Capitol before the healthcare vote) that people finally did begin to pay attention...and they didn't like what they saw.

    The argument of pissy americans could be legitimate if the Republicans took the House majority by a few seats (which does happen typically in mid-term elections when the opposing party holds The White House). However, this is something different. When you take into account the sheer numbers and the fixtures that were defeated (Spratt, Dingle, Feingold, and the fact that a woman that belongs in a mental institution was even within 10 points of defeating the Senate Majority Leader) and on top of that the over 500 state legislative seats, the governorships I think it tells a very different story. I think it tells the story of an outright rejection of this Administration's policies and it is basically the American People issuing a Restraining Order against the current leadership.

    But The Administration still doesn't get it. They still believe that this beating is because they didn't communicate well enough. No, they communicated fine...the problem is that most voters didn't LIKE what they were communicating, and they indicated that at the ballot boxes.

    But if he continues on his current course and refuses to alter, he'll be creating jobs alright...for Congressional Republicans that is.

    You are correct in one thing you stated though, should the GOP screw up they will suffer as well. They do not have the votes to accomplish much (even if they had taken over The Senate) because of the Veto. But what they can do is put the breaks on some of the nonsense that has been rushed through, something in the last years of their (Republican) reign they failed to do and paid for it.

    This was not a complete embrace of the Republican party, no one in DC thinks that....and if Republicans again stray from their core fiscal/small government beliefs again, then they should get smacked down.

    Scott Rasmussen said it best: "The American People don't want to be governed from the far left or the far right. They want someone in Washington that understands that the American People want to govern themselves" Meaning, they don't want government in every aspect of their lives. Which both parties have been guilty of meddling where they shouldn't. Hopefully with this new crop of freshman lawmakers, that will change.
     
    #7 RedState, Nov 4, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2010
  8. HackmanWIU

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicagoland USA
    This wasn't a vote for republicans, people are just pissed off; if unemployment doesn't go up by 2012 I'll bet anything their jobs will be in trouble too.
     
  9. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    republicans say fiscal/small goverment to get votes... their record is the opposate. They tend not to defund, so much as shift money into wasteful spending, such as billions alone wasted on paying haliburtan for services that were never rendered because they refused to put oversight into ensuring the money was being used as contractually obligated.

    Gulliani did skew far right, but he still is a moderate at heart... you cant survive new york politics by pushing coorporate facisem as your guiding princible. I think he realized his far right stunts hurt him (yes, rudi, there were terrorists attacks on america and american interests under george w. bush... you might remeber the morning of 9/11 gulliani... need i remind you bush was president on that day) so it seems he is returning to the roots that made him a generally popular mayor of new york city, which is not a easy feat to achieve.

    if he had not tried to pander to the fringe on the right, he would have been a viable presidential canidate for the republicans, because he was popular with independents, moderates, and blue dogs.

    Gulliani can pull back to popularity... but the 9/11 denials will need to be rectified by him first for alot of people.

    it is good that he is on the way back to what made him popular in the first place.

    ---------- Post added 4th Nov 2010 at 01:17 PM ----------

    I love that republicans do not like to acknowledge that under the full 8 years of bush, less jobs were created than have been under and year and a half of obama... and when obama took over, he inheriented a out of control collapsing econamy, where as bush inherinted a stable econamy with a strong middle class and a budget surplus.

    just think what obama would have been able to do if he had inheriented a clinton econamy, not a bush econamy...

    the democrats were not agresive enough with the facts, which hurt them... because republicans were as always agressive with the lies, fabrications, and misrepresentations.
     
  10. excuseyou77

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Duluth, GA
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    So true. I'll admit, I have my issues with the democratic party, but more people should have realized it would take years to get out of this economic hole; Obama himself said this during his inauguration speech. I'd be willing to bet the next two years government wise are going to be a nightmare with little to nothing getting done and things will just flip back again in 2012.
     
  11. RedState

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Southeastern Conference
    >>>Think of what Obama would have been able to do if he had inherited a Clinton economy.

    Well THANK GOD he didn't...because Lord knows what they would have spent then.
    Atleast it took Bush and the "Republican" Congress 6 years to rack up a whopping debt.

    It only took this crowd 20 months to almost double the 10 year projected deficit.

    >>>The Republicans were always aggressive with lies, fabrications and misrepresentations.
    I let out a big guffaw on that one...Let's not play tit for tat shall we? I think both sides are pretty good at that.

    I'm not quite sure that I get your reference to the GW Bush Administration and the 9/11 attacks. Please tell me you are not one of these kooks that believe that Bush orchestrated the entire attack on the WTC...I certainly hope you are not, because I gave you a little more credit than that.

    Me personally, I hope The Administration and the DNC keeps this dismissive attitude...because if they do the Republicans will ride that dismissiveness all the way to another landslide in 2 years. Right now, the Republicans greatest asset is The President and the Congressional Democrats.

    Besides, traditionally, things work pretty well under a divided government. Everyone needs adult supervision every once in a while. Look at Reagan, Tip O'Neil and the Democratic Congress...under that team they created 18 million jobs and ended the Cold War. Look at Clinton, Newt, and the Republican Congress in the 90's...under that divided government they created 21 million jobs, balanced the budget and reformed welfare.

    But, we will see.
     
    #11 RedState, Nov 4, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2010
  12. Shevanel

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,403
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Little Neck, NY
    9/11 doesn't belong in this thread. So stop talking about it. Please. =/
     
  13. Lady Gaga

    Lady Gaga Guest

    This.

    Has nothing to do with the topic really.
     
  14. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    I was merely exploring how far right gulianni went during the elections when he said no terrirosts attacks happened during bush.

    ironic that 60% of the current deficit came from the bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and that a sizeable portion left over came from bush's bailouts *yes, tarp funds were created by bush, not obama, obama merely agreed to continue.

    like it or not, the econamy is not the fault of obama. it has stabilized under him, and has shown signs of growth... which it didnt do under bush.

    gulianni skewed far right, and DADT repeal support from him clearly shows that he is making a effort to bring himself back to his moderate, centerist history that he abandoned in a attempt to appeal to the far right. but he has a history of skewing he has to politically repair from and yes, that is 9/11 denial... ironic for the man who became americas mayor.


    bama, if the econamy had not been destroyed by your party in the 8 years of bush, would obama, if elected, have had to spend money to get it back on track?

    you cant legitimately say that obama and the democrats caused this, becaue it happened before even the democrats had control of congress, and bush was highly hostile towards any attempts to change his economic track until the very end when he couldnt ignore the econamy anymore, then started to try to fix his mess.

    the econamy has grown since obama, and that was with republicans refusing to support him, instead pushing all the policies responcible in the first place.
     
  15. Lady Gaga

    Lady Gaga Guest

    Or ignore Shevanel's message.
     
  16. RedState

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Southeastern Conference
    Have I ever denied that the Bush administration left with a debt. No. At least I can take responsibility for my party's misgivings. I find it sad, and comical at the same time, that many Democrats still refuse to take responsibility for their actions...even in the moment of their defeat...after all...it was just the "stupid" American who doesn't "understand" that booted them out of office..atleast in The House.

    The actual deficit for FY 2009 came in at $1.41 trillion, meaning that the new President added some $220 Billion to the total.

    Far more significant, however, was the President's misstatement that Bush left the country with $8 Trillion in debt over the next 10 years. Funny how facts get in the way of a good story...this goes back to your statement of how Republicans do noting but lie and misrepresent. Well, I suppose Mr. Obama didn't bother to read the actual report by the CBO that said that the projected 10 year deficit when he took office was $4 Trillion.
    But hey...I suppose that doesn't matter.
    Now, according to the CBO, the 10 year debt is $7.7 Trillion. Almost double. But yes, let's blame that on Bush too...since he had so much power during the first 2 years of the current Administration.

    But, for the sake of comparison, let's look at YOUR party's fiscal record over 10 years. In 2007 the CBO projected a $380 Billion surplus over the next decade. After 4 years of Congressional control (and 2 under Obama) the projected deficit is $7.7 Trillion.

    This deterioration of US fiscal policy is one of the worst in history...and this was brought to us courtesy of a Congressional leadership that pledged "pay as you go". Well, thank goodness the one's that pledged "pay as you go" "went" out of leadership.

    And the genesis of the economic situation dates back to 1977 with the CRA...which led to the eventual creation of sub-prime lending which in turn set off a domino effect on everything.
     
    #16 RedState, Nov 4, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2010
  17. RaRa

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I agree. Especially on the bit that were in for another 2+ years of getting nothing done.

    Even though im in full support of universal health care, im not completely opposed to a compromise with more conservative view points on the economy.

    What I have a problem with is a wave of right-wing extremists taking over the government because of their view on social issues. Gay rights would go nowhere (even backward) and this tea party movement seems incredibly racist with the amount of slurs they throw out with no regard whatsoever. It sickens me.

    If in 2012 the people elect even more of these tea baggers I'm going to start my own movement to have California secede from the union, because I'm sick of federal laws completely ruining our progression.
     
    #17 RaRa, Nov 4, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2010
  18. Jay

    Jay
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    East Boston, MA