Scary Giuliani

[alaskaguy]

Republican Rudy Giuliani chooses advisers who want to bomb Iran and doesn't think pretending to drown prisoners is torture. Giuliani also calls for a larger U.S. military. "This is one dangerous man: it's George Bush with brains," wrote Michael Tomasky, editor of the Guardian Online.

Link:
Giuliani style evokes concern among critics | Politics | Reuters

 

[Cyclonepride]

I would be surprised if Giuliani gets the Republican nomination. He's not conservative enough for conservatives, and he is too conservative for liberals. He reminds me of Bush in a way, because he talks like a Republican, but if you pay enough attention, he acts like a Democrat. If he wins the nomination, it will be because he's centrist enough to draw in some votes from the other side of the aisle in the general election.

 

[brianhos]

He is still a better choice than Obama or Hillary.

 

[Cyclonepride]

He is still a better choice than Obama or Hillary.

Amen brother:yes:

 

[Stormin]

He is still a better choice than Obama or Hillary.

That is the same thing my GOP friends said about GW Bush when he ran against Kerry.

You need to look past the 9/11 hype.

 

[brianhos]

I will look past the 9/11 hype. Hillary stands for absolutely nothing except more wasteful gov spending. Obama actually stands for something but all he stands for so far is raising taxes on the middle and upper class and giving it back to the poor. I would still vote for Rudi over Hillary or Obama. Heck unless Edwards wins, I will be voting for whoever the repubs throw out.

 

[alaskaguy]

If the "Real Rudy" could shine I would warm to him.

Excerpts from the "Real Rudy"

On Sept. 19, 1995, he delivered an immigration speech at the United Nations in which he noted, “Sometimes leadership means taking unpopular positions, rejecting harmful political fads.”

Just last year, I saw him passionately deliver remarks at the Manhattan Institute Hamilton Award Dinner in which he condemned the “punitive approach” to immigration, “which is reflected in the House legislation that was passed, which is to make it a crime to be an illegal or undocumented immigrant.”

To “deal with it in a punitive way,” he said then, “is actually going to make us considerably less secure than we already are.” The better approach, he continued, is to embrace the Senate’s comprehensive reform and to separate the criminal illegals from the hard-working ones.

These speeches are the real Rudy. These speeches represent the Rudy who once went overboard and declared, “If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city.”

This is why Fred Siegel, a Giuliani biographer, accurately called him an “immoderate centrist.” This is why Giuliani won 43 percent of the Hispanic vote in the mayoral race of 1997. This is why his candidacy once had the potential to renovate the G.O.P.

Of course it hasn’t turned out that way.

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/opinion/23brooks.html?bl&ex=1196053200&en=f414fe8e24f44847&ei=5087%0A

 

[Cyclonepride]

That's why Rudy doesn't have my vote at this point.

 

[alaskaguy]

Cyclonepride, could you elaborate....

Rudy doesn't have your vote because
a) he is an opportunist
b) he believes that the anti-immigrant movement is a serious problem
c) other

 

[Cyclonepride]

A and B. A, because he has changed his stance, and B, because illegal aliens are a serious problem. It's immigration, and they are immigrants, when they go through the legal processes.

 

[alaskaguy]

A and B. A, because he has changed his stance, and B, because illegal aliens are a serious problem. It's immigration, and they are immigrants, when they go through the legal processes.

Are you aware that San Francisco and New Haven Ct have approved issuing illegal immigrants ID cards that make them eligible for city services?

 

[Cyclonepride]

Are you aware that San Francisco and a number of other cities are issuing illegal immigrants ID cards that make them eligible for city services?

Yes, I am quite aware of that, and that is wrong. The governor of Iowa doesn't want laws enforced here either. Hell, why not? We're going broke anyway, let's just print some more money and give it away to illegals too.

 

[alaskaguy]

If I were a city council member I would favor issuing ID cards to illegal immigrants from an economic, practical, and moral perspective.

 

[Cyclonepride]

If I were a city council member I would favor issuing ID cards to illegal immigrants from an economic, practical, and moral perspective.

I guess I wouldn't vote for you either:twitcy:

 

[iceclone]

Yes, I am quite aware of that, and that is wrong. The governor of Iowa doesn't want laws enforced here either. Hell, why not? We're going broke anyway, let's just print some more money and give it away to illegals too.

Are you suggesting there is a negative economic impact of illegal immigrants? If so, the vast majority of economist would disagree with you, as indicated in the following survey by the libertarian Cato Institute:

Immigration: The Demographic and Economic Facts

It is a little old, as the latest data in the survey is since 1990. On the other hand, it is also interesting to point out that nothing has changed with regard to either the public opinion of immigrants, or their economic impact, for a very long time. Unless your ancestors came over on the Mayflower, or relatively soon thereafter, they were viewed in the same critical manner that illegal immigrants are today. From the linked article:

When interviewed by public opinion polls, Americans have always been against more immigration. This is the finding of R. Simon's review of the national U.S. surveys that included questions about immigration, from the earliest polls in the 1930s through1993--mainly Gallup, NORC, and Harris surveys. Though the strength of the sentiment has varied, at all times the responses seem to indicate that Americans have not favored increased immigration as a general matter (see Figure 9.1). Fairly typical was a 1977 Gallup poll which asked, "Should immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?" Seven percent said "Increased," 37 percent said "Present level," and 42 percent said "Decreased," with 14 percent "No opinion" (R. Simon 1985, 41).

Content analysis of writings about immigrants in magazines over the past century well before the first polls--in the 19th century and even earlier--and continuing into the 20th century shows that the same viewpoint has been popularly expressed in all periods. R. Simon characterizes American public opinion throughout the century as, "The people who came here in earlier times were good folks, but the people who are coming now are purely scum" (see also Douglas 1919).​

 

[Cyclonepride]

There is a difference between legal immigration and what we have now. I am all for legal immigration. Legal immigration has a definite economic benefit, and I suppose illegal immigration does as well, if you only look at the benefits without the associated costs to taxpayers. Taxpayers are subsidizing cheap labor for businesses who hire them.

 

[iceclone]

There is a difference between legal immigration and what we have now. I am all for legal immigration. Legal immigration has a definite economic benefit, and I suppose illegal immigration does as well, if you only look at the benefits without the associated costs to taxpayers. Taxpayers are subsidizing cheap labor for businesses who hire them.

OK, I very much agree with your clarification.

 

[alaskaguy]

The specific issue I raised was whether cities should issue identification cards. The broader issue is the federal government's immigration policy.

I'll attempt to tackle the identification card issue......

San Francisco is merely dealing with reality. The reality is that there are lots of illegal immigrants in this country. I applaud San Francisco's approach to reality, and hope their example is followed by other jurisdictions.

The San Francisco police were among the biggest advocates of issuing the ID cards. The ID cards should make the population less apprehensive to deal with the police. How do you police a community if the people are afraid to talk to the cops?

The San Francisco city council recognizes that illegal immigrants are not a threat to their city. The vast majority of illegal immigrants aren't people seeking to exploit us and destroy our values. They're people put in complicated situations who see America as the solution to their problems. We need to remember that we're dealing with this issue.

 

[alaskaguy]

Originally posted by Cyclonepride
Taxpayers are subsidizing cheap labor for businesses who hire them.

Your assertion is difficult to prove. Some claim as you do that illegal immigrants are a drain on the public coffers. However, others claim that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in government services.

At the state and local level, Texas appears to be the only state that has reported its findings on this issue. The Texas Controllers Office estimated that the 1.4 million illegal immigrants in Texas contributed $1.581 billion in state revenues and that the fiscal cost totaled $1.156 billion. Thus the net fiscal benefit was estimated at $424 million.

The study also analyzed local revenues and costs. At the local level state expenditures were estimated to exceed the revenues by $928.9 million.

The study estimated that illegal immigrants increased the size of the Texas gross domestic product by $17.7 billion.

See page 20 of the linked website:
http://www.ailf.org/ipc/spotlight/spotlight_122206.pdf

At the federal level, there are a number of studies that both support and discredit the assertion that illegal immigrants are a net drain on the federal budget. Competing conclusions tend to indicate that nobody knows for sure whether illegal immigrants take more than they contribute. Many of the underlying assumptions of these studies are debatable and subject to challenge.