Republicans call Giuliani "stupidest of their party"

[PredFan]

You see how they twist and lie about things so they can beat all of you who are Republicans over the head?

Giuliani isn't in government, hasn't been in government for some time yet, it's the Republican party's fault for what he says

you people in the country keep falling for shit and it will be at your peril

No one is falling for it, except them. In a week no one will be talking about this.

they'll be milking this as long as they can. and with the NewyakSlimes and WashingtonCompost leading them around like little sheep. it seems, they print it and tell their sheep who reads their nasty rag........to baaaAAA it around and they do

It's party over country for them. and this bs that Obama can't be "criticized" while he's faking it as a President. that didn't stop the left with protesting, marches, carrying signs calling him BushHilter, crashing Senate hearings with posters calling Rove a liar and charging SOS condi Rice with fake blood on their hands and all of this while we were at war with boots on the ground in IRAQ. and I could go on all day but why bother

I can't disagree with much of your post, I i guarantee you that this will disappear in a week.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh snap.

"Instead, Giuliani's comments left Scarborough wondering if the nation is "really going to go through another cycle where Republican candidates are too stupid to get out of the way of the stupidest people in their party, that keep them from winning presidential elections by spewing hatred, instead of telling people how they're going to get back to work," he said."
As Giuliani Stands by Obama Claim Others Warn of Stupid Slurs

Actually republicans know "stupidest" isn't a word, so we know you're lying.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Rudy spoke the truth. However, in the nicey-nice world of liberals, one can't speak the truth.

If this had been brought out in 2008, maybe we wouldn't be stuck with incompetent, unpatriotic a-hole.

 

[Stephanie]

watching all this phony outrage by a bunch of subjects/tools/sheep to someone in their PARTY who is just a frikken man just like the rest of us... only thing about him is he has a title added onto his name. they act as if his shit won't stink just like any other person. It Is cultish freaking creepy and disgusting all rolled into one

 

[guno]

I love how the slack jaws know all about rudy, they would last 15 minutes in NYC

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, they need to put the Radicals outside and let them protest all they want, they have no right to interrupt Government process!!! Code Pink is nothing more than Low Life SCUM, but that is the Democrat Party for you!

"GTP"

 

[Statistikhengst]

You see how they twist and lie about things so they can beat all of you who are Republicans over the head?

Giuliani isn't in government, hasn't been in government for some time yet, it's the Republican party's fault for what he says

you people in the country keep falling for shit and it will be at your peril

Your lack of comprehension is really fascinating to watch. Giuliani is a possible presidential contender. Duh!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Bfgrn]

You dont want to fundamentally transform something you love.
Something only a community organizing marxist would fail to grasp.
Socialism, Hope and Change Comrades !

You certainly DO want to change what America has been transformed into by a failed (Reagan) revolution...a plutocracy.

That's just stupid, you're making it up. Reagan did no such thing

Really?

Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy? Was it New Deal Democrats? No....they PAYED for what they spent. It all started with the 'welfare queen' mentality of Ronny Reagan who switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy.

The Reagan Revolution For Dummies: This Graph Shows Just When The Class War Started, And How Many Prisoners It’s Taken

I’ve heard from more than a few people who get all hot under the collar when I say that the whole class war against America started under Reagan. This graph pretty much says it all: it was Reagan who saw to it that America defeated China, Russia and all the other repressive regimes… to make us the world’s number one Gulag Nation. Why did he lock up so many Americans, and keep them there? Put it this way: how can you get away with looting the middle-class and working-class wealth without an uprising? How can you keep people down when you arrange it so that the CEOs’ pay goes from 30 times their workers’ salary when Reagan took over, to over 500 times their salaries? Here’s how you make sure they shut up or else:

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

 

[Bfgrn]

If not sending people to their untimely deaths means you are a progressive, what do you call someone who DOES?

What do you call someone who undercut the troops and bolstered the morale of their enemies? Progressives

What do you call someone who undercuts our troops, bolsters the morale of the enemy and recruits terrorists from all over the world to kill American soldiers?

BUSH

You are truly a moron. Yea, those terrorists were not "emboldened" by their religion being attacked, Muslims being tortured at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo by Islamophobes like Bush.

AN INTERROGATOR SPEAKS
I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

Washington Post

 

[Vigilante]

 

[kaz]

You dont want to fundamentally transform something you love.
Something only a community organizing marxist would fail to grasp.
Socialism, Hope and Change Comrades !

You certainly DO want to change what America has been transformed into by a failed (Reagan) revolution...a plutocracy.

That's just stupid, you're making it up. Reagan did no such thing

St Ronnie destroyed the American middle class. No one hated America more than Reagen, not even his protege OBL.

I see, that clears it up. Thanks for explaining...

 

[LeftofLeft]

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said he has no doubt that Obama loves America, "but I just think his policies are bad for our nation."

Props to Rubio for speaking out. I'm sure other potential presidential candidates will eventually. They understand how badly their silence will reflect on them in 2016.

There is a difference between loving America only if it becomes transformed the way you want it or loving the country where you have a vision for it yet you never apologize or be ashamed of America. Presidents should be free to pursue his/her vision of America but, above all, should love America unconditionally.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As usual, Rudy is right

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans are not raised like you or I

They are not taught to love their country, they are taught to hate Obama

 

[kaz]

Republicans are not raised like you or I

They are not taught to love their country, they are taught to hate Obama

Well, this is actually pretty honest of you in a twisted kind of way. You didn't know enough to hate W on your own, you had to be taught to do that

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Community Organizers for Amerikkka !

 

[Stephanie]

rudy hit a nerve with the left because many of the people believes that about Obama. so they went on the ATTACK
article sums things up

SNIP:
Giuliani’s criticism of Obama has sparked fury—because it rings true.
22 February 2015


Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani’s statement about President Obama’s lack of love for America has set off a firestorm of denunciation. Giuliani has been accused of racism, and he has even received death threats. Defenders of Obama have evoked everything from his grandfather’s (on his mother’s side) service in World War II to the two years Giuliani’s father served in Sing Sing to prove either that Obama does love America or that Giuliani has no standing to issue such criticism.

The ranting has obscured the reasons why so many Americans take Giuliani’s remarks to heart. Starting with his June 2009 speech in Cairo, when he apologized for American actions in the Middle East, Obama has consistently given credence to Islamic grievances against America while showing reluctance to confront Islamic terrorism.

In 2009, after Major Nidal Hasan killed 13 American soldiers and wounded 40 others at Fort Hood while shouting “Allahu Akhbar,” the administration labeled the killings workplace violence. In recent months, the pace of evasions has quickened. Obama was the only major Western leader absent from the massive Paris march held in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings. Worse yet, Obama referred to the killings in a Jewish supermarket in Paris as “random” acts of violence.

But this was only the beginning of a string of curious comments and loopy locutions made by the president or his spokespeople in the weeks that followed. While ISIS rampaged across the Middle East, the president told a Washington prayer breakfast that Christians shouldn’t get on their “high horse,” because they were guilty of the Crusades, among other crimes.

Not only were the Crusades many centuries past, but they were also a complicated matter in which both sides behaved barbarically. But more important, Obama’s comments reinforced the standard Muslim propaganda about how the jihad is merely defensive.

Shortly thereafter, ISIS murdered 21 Coptic Christians in Libya (a country in complete chaos, thanks to an Obama-led Western intervention). The White House’s response was to condemn the killing, not of Christians but rather of “Egyptian citizens,” another evasive locution. The casual listener need not have knowledge of the White House’s associations with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or the administration’s hostility toward the anti-jihadist regime in Cairo to find Obama’s words and behavior peculiar.

As one gaffe followed another and as the president and his spokespeople engaged in semantic somersaults to avoid mentioning Islam in regard to terror, public unease mounted. It was exacerbated by a three-day conference on combating “violent extremism,” the White House euphemism for Islamic terrorism. Here again, the public likely didn’t know that some of the invited guests had histories of supporting jihad. The president’s statements gave them enough to worry about.

Bizarrely, Obama presented himself as an expert on legitimate Islam. “This is not true Islam,” Obama said, referring to the ISIS creed, assuming again his role as Defender of the Islamic Faith. “Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it . . . try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam,” Obama said. “We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie.” Operatives of al-Qaida and ISIS “are not religious leaders,” Obama insisted. “They’re terrorists.”

Listening to speakers at the conference—to which the FBI had not been invited—you would think that, if only American Muslims were treated better, ISIS would wither on the vine.

“We in the administration and the government should give voice to the plight of Muslims living in this country and the discrimination that they face,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson.

“And so I personally have committed to speak out about the situation that very often people in the Muslim community in this country face.”The real issue, Johnson suggested, was not Islamic terrorism but Islamophobia. The casual listener might surmise that Johnson’s remarks had less to do with ISIS than with winning the 2016 Muslim vote in key states such as Michigan and Ohio.

At the same conference, Obama announced, or more accurately pronounced, that Islam “has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.” As one friend asked me: “What is he talking about?” America’s earliest encounter with Islam came in the form of seventeenth-century colonists purchasing slaves from Muslim slave traders in Africa. The next came when President Thomas Jefferson was forced to fight the Barbary Pirates. Surely, these weren’t the examples Obama had in mind.

In the midst of these attempts to achieve what a magician would call misdirection, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf explained that, if there were only more jobs in the Middle East, ISIS would have a harder time recruiting. But then again, if there was less Islamic extremism, more jobs might be created. Harf referred to the “root causes” of terrorism much as liberal Democrats have long referred to the “root causes” of poverty, with about the same degree of insight.

With all the atrocities that the ISIS fanatics have committed, Obama’s anger has been more often directed not at them, but at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The animosity between the two men has never been a secret, but now, with Obama’s term in office waning, he is determined to cut a deal on the Iranian nuclear program on terms much to Tehran’s liking. Netanyahu is an obstacle to that goal.

All of this, then, was a backdrop to Giuliani’s remarks, in which he called out Obama for the president’s many rhetorical bluffs. If the former mayor’s words have created a firestorm, it’s because for many, they have helped make sense of Barack Obama’s words and actions. Attacking Giuliani, and trying to delegitimize him with the racist label, will do little to allay public anxieties about an administration short on competence but long on ideological evasion—and blessed with media allies.

all of it here:
Fred Siegel is the author of Prince of the City: Rudy Giuliani and the Genius of American Life (2005) An expanded paperback edition of his new book, The Revolt Against the Masses (Encounter Press), will be out in April.

 

[Bfgrn]

rudy hit a nerve with the left because many of the people believes that about Obama. so they went on the ATTACK
article sums things up

SNIP:
Giuliani’s criticism of Obama has sparked fury—because it rings true.
22 February 2015


Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani’s statement about President Obama’s lack of love for America has set off a firestorm of denunciation. Giuliani has been accused of racism, and he has even received death threats. Defenders of Obama have evoked everything from his grandfather’s (on his mother’s side) service in World War II to the two years Giuliani’s father served in Sing Sing to prove either that Obama does love America or that Giuliani has no standing to issue such criticism.

The ranting has obscured the reasons why so many Americans take Giuliani’s remarks to heart. Starting with his June 2009 speech in Cairo, when he apologized for American actions in the Middle East, Obama has consistently given credence to Islamic grievances against America while showing reluctance to confront Islamic terrorism.

In 2009, after Major Nidal Hasan killed 13 American soldiers and wounded 40 others at Fort Hood while shouting “Allahu Akhbar,” the administration labeled the killings workplace violence. In recent months, the pace of evasions has quickened. Obama was the only major Western leader absent from the massive Paris march held in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings. Worse yet, Obama referred to the killings in a Jewish supermarket in Paris as “random” acts of violence.

But this was only the beginning of a string of curious comments and loopy locutions made by the president or his spokespeople in the weeks that followed. While ISIS rampaged across the Middle East, the president told a Washington prayer breakfast that Christians shouldn’t get on their “high horse,” because they were guilty of the Crusades, among other crimes.

Not only were the Crusades many centuries past, but they were also a complicated matter in which both sides behaved barbarically. But more important, Obama’s comments reinforced the standard Muslim propaganda about how the jihad is merely defensive.

Shortly thereafter, ISIS murdered 21 Coptic Christians in Libya (a country in complete chaos, thanks to an Obama-led Western intervention). The White House’s response was to condemn the killing, not of Christians but rather of “Egyptian citizens,” another evasive locution. The casual listener need not have knowledge of the White House’s associations with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or the administration’s hostility toward the anti-jihadist regime in Cairo to find Obama’s words and behavior peculiar.

As one gaffe followed another and as the president and his spokespeople engaged in semantic somersaults to avoid mentioning Islam in regard to terror, public unease mounted. It was exacerbated by a three-day conference on combating “violent extremism,” the White House euphemism for Islamic terrorism. Here again, the public likely didn’t know that some of the invited guests had histories of supporting jihad. The president’s statements gave them enough to worry about.

Bizarrely, Obama presented himself as an expert on legitimate Islam. “This is not true Islam,” Obama said, referring to the ISIS creed, assuming again his role as Defender of the Islamic Faith. “Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it . . . try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam,” Obama said. “We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie.” Operatives of al-Qaida and ISIS “are not religious leaders,” Obama insisted. “They’re terrorists.”

Listening to speakers at the conference—to which the FBI had not been invited—you would think that, if only American Muslims were treated better, ISIS would wither on the vine.

“We in the administration and the government should give voice to the plight of Muslims living in this country and the discrimination that they face,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson.

“And so I personally have committed to speak out about the situation that very often people in the Muslim community in this country face.”The real issue, Johnson suggested, was not Islamic terrorism but Islamophobia. The casual listener might surmise that Johnson’s remarks had less to do with ISIS than with winning the 2016 Muslim vote in key states such as Michigan and Ohio.

At the same conference, Obama announced, or more accurately pronounced, that Islam “has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.” As one friend asked me: “What is he talking about?” America’s earliest encounter with Islam came in the form of seventeenth-century colonists purchasing slaves from Muslim slave traders in Africa. The next came when President Thomas Jefferson was forced to fight the Barbary Pirates. Surely, these weren’t the examples Obama had in mind.

In the midst of these attempts to achieve what a magician would call misdirection, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf explained that, if there were only more jobs in the Middle East, ISIS would have a harder time recruiting. But then again, if there was less Islamic extremism, more jobs might be created. Harf referred to the “root causes” of terrorism much as liberal Democrats have long referred to the “root causes” of poverty, with about the same degree of insight.

With all the atrocities that the ISIS fanatics have committed, Obama’s anger has been more often directed not at them, but at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The animosity between the two men has never been a secret, but now, with Obama’s term in office waning, he is determined to cut a deal on the Iranian nuclear program on terms much to Tehran’s liking. Netanyahu is an obstacle to that goal.

All of this, then, was a backdrop to Giuliani’s remarks, in which he called out Obama for the president’s many rhetorical bluffs. If the former mayor’s words have created a firestorm, it’s because for many, they have helped make sense of Barack Obama’s words and actions. Attacking Giuliani, and trying to delegitimize him with the racist label, will do little to allay public anxieties about an administration short on competence but long on ideological evasion—and blessed with media allies.

all of it here:
Fred Siegel is the author of Prince of the City: Rudy Giuliani and the Genius of American Life (2005) An expanded paperback edition of his new book, The Revolt Against the Masses (Encounter Press), will be out in April.

Fred Siegal, political advisor to former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and senior fellow at a far right wing think tank.

Ironic this moron uses the word "delegitimize" because that is EXACTLY what the right has tried to do to the President of the United States from the moment he was first elected.

Our President is trying to dial back the bellicose Islamophobic rhetoric former president Bush used to justify HIS war on Islam. I applaud President Obama for talking like an intelligent man, instead of a terrorist recruiter like Bush.

Ultimate irony...Rudy's perfect 'president' is his man crush...Russian President Vladimir Putin

Here’s the former mayor talking to Fox’s Neil Cavuto

Rallying around the wrong president

GIULIANI: Putin decides what he wants to do and he does it in half a day, right? He decided he had to go to their parliament. He went to their parliament. He got permission in 15 minutes.

CAVUTO: Well, that was kind of like perfunctory.

GIULIANI: But he makes a decision and he executes it, quickly. Then everybody reacts. That’s what you call a leader. President Obama, he’s got to think about it. He’s got to go over it again. He’s got to talk to more people about it.

It’s not unusual, during a time of crisis, for Americans to rally behind a president. In Giuliani’s case, the trouble is the New York Republican appears to be rallying behind the wrong president.

That said, it’s nevertheless important to appreciate the fact that, in Giuliani’s mind, the mark of an effective leader is seen in someone who acts unilaterally, invades a country, and doesn’t stop to think too much about it. Real leaders, the argument goes, simply act – then watch as “everybody reacts.”

But here’s the follow-up question for Giuliani and other conservatives swooning over Putin: if President Obama did act that way, wouldn’t you be calling him a lawless, out-of-control tyrant?

Once again, the right is going to have to pick a caricature and go with it. Obama can be a power-hungry dictator, ruthlessly wielding power, or he can be a weak pushover, afraid to act. He can’t be both.

For that matter, Republicans can long for an authoritarian leader, who acts without thinking or regard for consensus, or they can embrace a more deliberative style of leadership that cares about partnerships and checks and balances.


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[tinydancer]

Where were all the Democrats denouncing Obama when he called President Bush unpatriotic?

Where were all the Democrats saying Obama was the family turnip?

 

[Bfgrn]

Where were all the Democrats denouncing Obama when he called President Bush unpatriotic?

Where were all the Democrats saying Obama was the family turnip?

Obama was referring to a specific issue, not to a person like Giuliani was.