Even though Bush sees fit to sell out our country and provide atomic weapons to a country that is a non-signatory to the Non-proliferation treaty; and as such can do whatever they want with those weapons while we are bound by the treaty. The Australian PM has refused; as he should; to provide uranium to the Indian nuclear bomb makers. Three more years and hopefully guys like Howard who are strong enough to buck the bush will help us survive.
Not that I disagree with your points. In fact for a guy who has been fighting a war to protect America. His last two moves seem contradictory at the least. But, I'm just raising a question here. Who are we, as Americans to decide who can and cant have nuclear facilities or weapons? We have plenty of them. I would think there are countries that see us as a threat to them. I don’t see the :do as I say, not as I do: approach to policing the world.
It's not whether they have the right to have nuclear weapons; we can't stop them if they want the stuff; witness North Korea and Iran. But we don't need to be supplying the means to produce them to a country that will not join us in signing the non-proliferation treaty. Why won't they sign? The only thing I can come up with is that since we are bound by the treaty and they are not; we figure we'll do an end-run around it by supplying a country we are allied with that is not part of the treaty.
Rudy Guilliani for president. I am signing off all my posts with that from now on. These poor mis-giuded people down south and out west have never seen what a real leader looks like in action. Someone who can get a job done and do it right. Someone who is on our side; not the OILSIDE. I'd like to see those protestors in Pakistan mess with "Rudy G." Dude will go up to Washington and kick some ass and take some names. We need to see a man in office instead of these spoiled little frat-boys.
People remmember him for 9/11 and everyone read the book. But you have to look back at what he accomplished here in New York. He took the largest city in the U.S. Never mind LA or Houston; they are a collection of suburbs not really a city. When he took office the crime was unbearable; you really could not walk the streets any time of day with safety. He hired Bratton right away and instituted street policing. Three years later families were seen walking through the streets again with their children. He cleaned all the garbage out of Times Square and now it's a playground for families. He brought spending under control; one of the largest budgets outside of the National Budget. He united all the disparete factions in city government to accomplish that. If you know anything about NYC government you would know what an amazing feat that was. There was never a time he mouthed political nonsense; always down to earth real solutions and real answers to problems. And no one owned him. He would be a breath of fresh air here after all the BS we have had to swallow for 6 yrs. And Elliot Spitzer for VP. I garruantee the country is back to business and straightened out with that ticket. Rudy for Prez.
Not to disparage Mr Guiliani's accomplishments in New York but the crime drop is attributable to far more factors than policing. You need to read this book.
It is one of the most brilliant things I've seen in a while. If you've studied any of the old economists, you'll recognize this guy has the same kind of brilliant insights into cause and effect.
I think Rudy would be a good president. I think he drew some hard lines and made progress in NYC. I'm not sure he has the political backing to get through it all. I'm getting a feeling that both sides of the isle are ready for a change from business as usual these days.
Actually; it is not the crime drop attributable to Rudy; he's not a policeman. It's his ability to assemble the best men for the job rather than engage in cronyism and old-boy network favors. He said in his inaugural address he would appoint the best policing talent; he would enforce quality of life policing issues and thats what he did. The economics of crime has a very long cause and effect period. This was done in three years. Why? He said I will get the petty criminals off the streets. It worked. Put the cops on the ground in the neighborhoods. Thats how to stop crime in the streets. Zero tolerance was another policy of his. No letting the little crimes slide. He got the three card monte guys; the squeegee guys; the little hustlers off the streets so people could walk in safety. Thats what did it. A simple solution sometimes works best. You just have to have the cojone's to implement it.
Hey Bill; we posted at the same time! Rudy probably won't have a chance. He is divorced twice; there goes the religioso's vote. He is a prickly guy; tolerates no nonsense from people. I don't see him mouthing the silly platitudes and cliche's the people seem to like so well. And the hot button topics in the red states like Gay Marriage or Abortion or school prayer they are so wound up about; he doesn't really get involved. He's more about doing his job and not bothering with all that silliness. But what do I know except I would vote for him in a heartbeat. His past is spotted; dad had a criminal past and some family consorted with less than ideal individuals. You know how the yahoos find silly shit to hold against people. How many people still say Bush is doing a great job? Rudy is not a patient man and he has little tolerance for incompetence. How about he as Prez and McCain as VP? Dream ticket; so you can bet it's a no-go. We'll get stuck with two yo-yo's again like the last election. Endless empty speeches on family values. Man is it draining or what trying to pretend you have a vote that matters anymore.
Posting Rules
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Get a T-Shirt!
