But there’s a fundamental divide over who’s in charge. Some people believe that the purpose of government is to serve the citizens. Others believe that it’s the purpose of the citizens to serve the government. Bush and Guiliani are on one side of that divide and I’m on the other.
So Ron Paul is an anarchist? Really Liberal, you’re not this stupid. Your statement about fallacies was wrong, and this is a complete non-sequitur. Why not admit that you made an idiotic statement and be done with it?
Holy crap, how could I have forgotten about that “altar boy”, Dorismond?
Giuliani also successfully banned iguanas. Apparently the iguana lobby is not nearly as powerful as the ferret lobby.
I grew up in the burbs and have lived in the city since 1996. If he were still mayor, I would gladly vote for him for president just to get him the fuck out of New York.
OK, as the primaries occur, I’m getting more spam emails and seeing more thread titles like these that are ad hominy attacks designed to schock and dismay.
So, in a thread titled Giuliani = fascism in the completely factual and unbiased SDMB, I expected to find anecdotes illustrating how Giuliani imposed “strength through unity” policy, had an army of thugs controlling NYC, and deprived everyone in the city of their rights.
OK, he said something 14 years ago about authority, before he was mayor. Did he write books, organize propoganda machines, and lecture in public about the merits of authority since then? Can’t really tell. Surely his political philosophy couldn’t have changed since then? Nobody ever changes their minds.
The museum case, as far as I can tell, was not a victory for him. A judge overruled him on the prospect of withdrawing monetary support from the museum. Simplistic-looking painting with brown spots can still be shown everywhere. Fascism averted, if that’s what it actually was. He otherwise didn’t order the painting to removed, burned, or organize thugs to overrun the museum and bust some heads.
In D_Odds’s post, there’s a link to the Louima incident, but the only mention of Giuliani is when one of the cops told Louima he was going to give him a “Giuliani-style beating,” which Louima later recanted. The article doesn’t say anything about Giuliani’s real involvement, if any. He didn’t prevent the cops from getting thrown in jail or use an army of thugs to overthrow the verdict and set up their own justice system.
D_Odds’s Dorismund link showed how Giuliani authorized the release of the victim’s private juvenile records, and how that fuckup cost him the Senate race. But was that an act of facism, or a misguided attempt to show solidarity with the police, whom he works with daily and whose messes he has to clean up? Otherwise, he had no involvement with how the case turned out, and didn’t abrogate on paying Dorismund’s family $2.25 million.
D_Odds’s link about the Diallo case doesn’t mention Giuliani, not even in a beat-down term. I assume Giuliani said some things about it people didn’t like, which made them angry. He otherwise didn’t influence the case, since it changed venue to Albany. Diallo’s family also got $3 million out of the deal, which any good fascist would have refused to pay.
Maybe he wouldn’t make a good president, but where’s the fascism?
Knowed Out, in each of those three cases, Mayor Giuliani immediately sided with the NYPD (as opposed to Mayor Bloomberg’s “wait and see” with the more recent Sean Bell shooting), and as evidence in each of those cases piled up against the NYPD, he kept reiterating his support of the officers. The mayor’s office did the best to hatchet job each of the three victims.
I can understand wanting to show support and solidarity with the NYPD, and it is true that they are often scapegoated. However, at some point, you have to look at the individuals you are supporting, and realize that an individual or individuals in an otherwise good organization are rotten (or in the case of Louima, incompetent for their role) and fix the problem, not continue supporting them and attacking the victim.
Many NYers, myself included, thought that Mayor Giuliani was initially a change for the better from Mayor Dinkins. Dinkins was the Carter of NY mayors - ineffectual. Giuliani came in and started getting results, and things looked up. But as time wore on, his character, which is basically “my way or my way”, became apparent. Ask former NYPD head William Bratton, who should get at least as much credit as Mayor Giuliani (if not more) for cleaning up NY. Giuliani does not simply ignore any alternate viewpoint to his own, he openly mocks it and berates it. He is less open to new ideas, IMO, than Bush/Cheney. Great as long as you are with him step-for-step; bad if you ever disagree.
And for the record, he did have an army, which many considered and still consider thugs, that he empowered during his term. Fortunately, they mostly gave out tickets, but there was an underlying attitude among them that they were less likely to get in trouble during the Giuliani terms than during the Dinkins or Bloomberg periods.* No matter how much a facist he wanted to be (which I’m sure you recognize as a rhetorical device), the Constitution and Bill of Rights did their job and kept his bad tendencies well in check. Having seen those bad tendencies on a smaller scale, I’d rather not give him more power and potentially more ability to skirt those documents when they get in his way.
*Anecdotal: I only know a handful of officers, but all shared the attitude.
There’s hyperbole in the Pit? Holy fuck, it’s the end of the world!
I am absolutely certain this has been linked here before, but this article is well worth reading. And it doesn’t even mention cabaret licenses.
I’ll allow Liberal to defend his own idiocy or lack thereof, but I had the same reaction upon reading Bricker’s post. It seemed to suggest that if the OP finds the statement “freedom is about submission to authority” a mite disturbing and creepy-Orwellian coming from a Presidential candidate, he’s in favor of abandoning all forms of government in favor of a daughter-rapin’ free-for-all. This requires an Evel Knievel jump over what could only in the most charitable sense be called an “excluded middle.”
(I also found the OP’s use of “fascism” to be needlessly hyperbolic, but the cure for stupidity isn’t more stupidity.)
Did you miss the part where it was explained that the quote in the OP was from a 1994 speech? Nothing to do with 9/11/01.
From Andrew Sullivan:
Ah, but 9/11 changed everything. Even retroactively.
You must not have read the same post I did then, or else you stopped after the first few lines and completely missed their sarcasm. Did you read this paragraph (emphasis mine)?
:smack: Damn, I keep forgetting that!
Please re-read the fifth and sixth paragraphs of my post. (Or read them for the first time, on the chance that you simply missed them on the first run-through).
Okay, I apparently may have missed the satirical intent of your strawman, for which I apologize.
In my eyes, Giuliani’s statement is disturbing not because it was necessarily untrue, but because it’s telling–indicating the focus of his mindset. There are many other statements which, while true, I don’t particularly want to hear from an elected public official, such as “you’re ALL GOING TO DIE!” and “every day I make a stinky poopy.”
The fifth and sixth paragraphs of your post point out that different people have different opinions about the proper balance between individual liberty and government authority. Guiliani’s statement is a rejection of the concept that such a balance is even relevant, and an assertion that only the latter is needed. The two have nothing to do with each other.
I’m sorry for my mistake. I have to stop simply skimming sites that I pull up to “confirm” what I thought I already knew.
No,didn’t miss it.My comment applies to the perception many non-NYer’s have of Rudy following the towers attack-someone in charge,confident;a leader.I doubt he would have presidential candidate standing without the event.
Hadn’t been for 9/11, the rest of us would have thought his first name was Don, and that he was allied with Barzini all along.
<off topic and maybe worthy of its own thread>
Lib, I take it you’re a Ron Paul supporter – if it is to be a Repub, I would have taken him as well – so you must know the man a bit. In that sense, what do you make of this article?
Any truth to it or simply all smear?
<reply here or open thread?/>