RoR: Forum

Post 0

Friday, October 19, 2007 - 8:03am

Link

Edit

My husband says he thinks Giuliani is scary. I want a scary President. I want Osama - and Ahmadinejad - and Kim Jong Il - shivering in their boots.
(Edited by Laure Chipman on 10/19, 8:16am)

Post 1

Friday, October 19, 2007 - 9:23am

Link

Edit

I'm sure German, Italian and Russia citizen have echoed this very belief.

Post 2

Friday, October 19, 2007 - 10:28am

Link

Edit

Any candidate, i.e. Ron Paul, who has the support and blessing of anarchists and 'truthers' is scary indeed.
(Edited by Erik Christensen on 10/19, 10:29am)

Post 3

Friday, October 19, 2007 - 11:08am

Link

Edit

The anarchists and truther do not have Paul's blessing or attention.

Post 4

Friday, October 19, 2007 - 6:14pm

Link

Edit

What Laure said.

Post 5

Friday, October 19, 2007 - 7:02pm

Link

Edit

Gigi, then why doesn't Paul distance himself from those kooks?

Post 6

Friday, October 19, 2007 - 7:43pm

Link

Edit

It's funny, but I could see an argument for calling Ron Paul a fear monger. Not when it comes to real threats outside the country, of course. But how about when it comes to "blowback", neo-conservatives, the state of our country, etc.?

Post 7

Saturday, October 20, 2007 - 5:04am

Link

Edit

Joe, I'd agree to that. He makes statements about the certain future gloom of the economic state of the US if we do not change a few things. I think he makes the expected future sound much worse than it will be.

Post 8

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 2:10am

Link

Edit

I'd like data on gender v. fear here.

It's been my impression that women -- moreso than men -- seek strong, protective presidents. It's also been my impression that women weigh benefits more heavily in a job, and men weigh their salary more heavily (than the benefits).

I'm actually personally-appalled with just about any lasting "motivation-by-fear." Motivation-by-fear is appropriate for emergencies; but emergencies -- by definition -- do not ever last for years on end; like the kind of fear which Jeff (and possibly, Ted) thinks is appropriate right now.

Ed

Post 9

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 7:46am

Link

Edit

A Big Strong Man to Cuddle With?

Of course, the statement is made for rhetorical impact. We don't want a fear monger, but rather someone who doesn't think that negotiation for the sake of negotiation's sake is the end-all and be-all of diplomacy or who thinks that by not using certain words (islamic terrorist) that certain facts will go away.

Giuliani does not mince words or shrink like a violet. His record speaks to this.

As for comparisons with fascists, I think they do violence to historical reality and mental clarity. What internal minority does Giuliani want rounded up and shot? For what special powers is he clamouring? Hitler and Mussolini's ideals were well known as are Giuliani's, and they don't compare. If we were about to annex the Sudetenland (British North Columbia?) I'd be concerned. But we are not, so I am not.

I like a big strong man to cuddle with, if that helps answer Ed's question.

Ted Keer

Post 10

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 10:08am

Link

Edit

That's right, Ted. Though I don't have any desire to "cuddle with" Giuliani, I do want a big strong man as President. There may be something to Ed's comment, but on the other hand, who would want a weakling as President? (Heck, I think Hillary would be perceived as stronger than Ron Paul as a President!) I totally agree with Ted on the comparisons with fascists. The problem with Hitler and Mussolini was not that they were strong leaders, but that they had the wrong ideas, policies, and actions.

Post 11

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 10:33am

Link

Edit

The problem with Hitler and Mussolini was not that they were strong leaders, but that they had the wrong ideas, policies, and actions.

Do not forget - the word for 'leader' in German is FUHRER.... is that what you want in this country - der Fuhrer?

Post 12

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 11:54am

Link

Edit

What do people have against a strong leader for President? I'm sorry, I don't get it. If you all agreed with Barney Fife's positions on all the issues, would you vote for him? Or would you vote Andy Taylor, even though you only agree 80%?

Post 13

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 12:37pm

Link

Edit

Give me a president who can lead people to the novel notion that they don't really need to be led afterall.

Post 14

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 1:04pm

Link

Edit

Laure,
Wow, I was just daydreaming to myself about Barney and Andy. I was thinking what if a Andy was the Barney character and vice versa. You pose and excellent question.
What if Ron Paul was a 6ft 3 baritone and Giuliani was a 120 pd. high pitched fellow.....? I hadn't thought of that before. So, are you saying Hitler and Mussolini were Barney Fifes in Andy's body and with Andy's beautiful and persuasive voice....?

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 10/22, 1:07pm)

Post 15

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 1:42pm

Link

Edit

LOL, Gigi, I think we can take the analogy too far, but here goes. If Ron Paul and Giuliani were to switch personalities... well, it'd be a tougher choice for me. I still perceive Paul as blaming America for the actions of our enemies, and I disagree with that. Also, his policy answer to the mess we're in seems to be "we shouldn't've gotten into the mess in the first place." Fine, but where do we go from here?

That said, I do agree with many of Ron Paul's positions, but I don't think he is electable, and even if he were elected, he would be ineffective. With a stronger personality, he would be more effective.

As for Hitler and Mussolini, no, they were not Barney Fifes. For the record, I'd vote for Barney Fife over Hitler. ;-)

Perhaps a graph will clarify: