that, combined with the fact that he's a DEMOCRAT, will really hinder his chances in a REPUBLICAN primary.

Is your couch on fire?

Right, because New York firefighters make up a huge segment of the Republican voting population -- at least .000000000000001%

Could you elaborate as to why they hate him? Kinda relevant, ya know.

Ken, Rudy's entire image is built around 9/11. It hurts to have firefighters, who are integral part of the image of 9/11 saying they hate the guy.

That said, who would they rather have, Hillary?

Are they playing Texas Hold'em?

Who is Ken, and does he know what the frequency is?

Karol,

This couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the union chief has been sparring with Rudy for years, could it? His 9/11 image wasn't really built around firemen liking him. It was more around his ability to take command at a moments notice.

Having an interview about Giuliani with NY Firefighters would make quite a good blog post.

I'll promote it if you do it.

I believe it has to do with the firefighters being arrested while protesting the order to leave the pile/recovery effort at ground zero, as they were searching for the remains of their brothers...something we take very seriously

How many of these firefighters can vote in the Republican primary?

"I believe it has to do with the firefighters being arrested while protesting the order to leave the pile/recovery effort at ground zero, as they were searching for the remains of their brothers...something we take very seriously"

Were they ordered away for safety reasons?

Is your couch on fire?

It's Peter's (my boyfriend) family who are over to see new baby of my boyfriend's brother (who is an Iraq war vet and going back to Iraq in a few months). They are all either firemen now or retired firemen.

List of reasons I've heard, so far, that they hate Rudy (and I do mean HATE):

1. Arrogant.
2. Surrounded by corrupt people.
3. Responsible for bad idea of putting control center in Twin Towers.
4. Faulty radios for Firemen.
5. Bernard Kerik.
6. Never cared about FDNY pre-photo ops.

These aren't liberals, either. They are all either conservative Democrats or Republicans.

Right, because New York firefighters make up a huge segment of the Republican voting population -- at least .000000000000001%

Um, what percentage of the voting public were Swift Boat Vets in '04?

Most of it has to do with their radios not working properly so they were not able to recieve orders to evacute the buildings- this problem was not a new one and the lives of many many many firefighters would have been saved if they had been provided with the proper equipment by him! Also, Giuliani putting his command post INSIDE the WTC after he was told not to after the 1993 WTC bombing, not being allowed to remain at the WTC site after the towers collapsed to recover their comrads, as well as 8 years of shitty pay by the Giuliani admintration. The FDNY HATE him!

Well, I'm very sorry. However, as a former New Yorker, who lived in the city for several prior administrations, I'm still sticking with him. Before him, you couldn't walk down my street. I couldn't leave my house without someone else staying there. Post-Giuliani, I was able to sit in my little flower garden, and relax on my stoop.

I'd like to know who they're supporting instead. Hillary? The woman who served on the board of directors for Wal-Mart, and helped make decisions that lowered pay and working conditions for workers? She served on the same board for the company that the AFL-CIO attacks on a daily basis.

I have two NYC firefighter friends, and they both hate Rudy, too. They say he did far from make the FDNY the best AFTER 9/11: he carved it down to bare bones.

Rather odd claims, if untrue.

And, yes, he is a democrat.

1. Arrogant.
I'm sure there are plenty of humble folks looking to become President of the US.

2. Surrounded by corrupt people.
Other than Kerik, who?

3. Responsible for bad idea of putting control center in Twin Towers.
Is this really a reason to hate him?

4. Faulty radios for Firemen.
Were there a series of audits that found that these radios were defective? Like #3, sounds like malice-induced Monday morning quarterbacking.

5. Bernard Kerik.
So a person he knew and trusted turned out to be rotten. It's sad. But how is that Rudy's fault?

6. Never cared about FDNY pre-photo ops.
He was the CEO of NYC, and any deal he made with one union was going to be sought by all other unions. His job was not to get the 1/6 workers in NYC who are in public employee unions to like him. In fact, it was his duty to restrict their usually outrageous demands. It's not unusual that union flacks wouldn't like him for managing the city as he was elected to do.

I know you heart Fred and stuff, but if this is the best the Fred "I'm too chicken to actually debate" Thompson team can come up with, God help you.

I'm from NY and was there throughout Rudy's reign. He was always bucking heads with the Firefighters Union. They didn't like him and didn't get along before 9/11. They didn't like him and did get along during 9/11 aftermath. Now, they don't like him and don't get along, even though it doesn't matter.

What's Rudy's reputation among the NYC public school teachers? and most every other union organization? Trust me, not so hot. He really did run as conservative an administration as possible in such a city.

Kevin M, lie much?

I have two NYC firefighter friends, and they both hate Rudy, too. They say he did far from make the FDNY the best AFTER 9/11: he carved it down to bare bones...

Rudy was term-limited, and after September 11th, he served only 4 more months, all of which were consumed with righting NYC after 9/11.

Nor is he responsible for all of the veteran NYC firefighters who got 500+ hours of overtime following 9/11 and used that boost their retirement pay (FDNY firefighters use the last 3 years of compensation, overtime included, to determine their average retirement wage, and get like 70-80% as a pension), who then went on to retire in early 2002 with a pension for life that was higher than their salary when they retired.

Lying tool.

would you take reasons from a Ron Paul supporter?:

"Giuliani was a supporter of public financing for sports stadiums... During his eight years as mayor, Giuliani was a constant advocate of publicly funded stadiums." - Small Govt?!?

"Giuliani objected to Pataki's plan to cut income taxes by 25%" - Small Govt?!?!

"Giuliani has not signed a pledge by Americans for Tax Reform (signed by every Republican presidential nominee since 1988) to not raise taxes while in office." - Small Govt?!?!?

"Giuliani has endorsed suspending the writ of habeas corpus." - f-ing awesome

"Giuliani has changed his views on guns over time. He used to be a vociferous advocate of gun control measures, but has changed his views while running for president."

"Giuliani accused gun companies of "deliberately manufacturing many more firearms than can be bought for the legitimate purposes of hunting and law enforcement." - WTF??!? FREE MARKET DEMAND is a legitmimate purpose and there's no burden on ME to prove to YOU that I am a hunter to buy a gun!!!!!

You may think Giuliani would make a good president - but he's no "Conservative"

...he's not "small govt" at ALL.

and the gun control thing is a HUGE issue with me too...

He's less of a "republican" than my guy...

Hold up, you have four firefighter friends? Tell me more...

I know you heart Fred and stuff, but if this is the best the Fred "I'm too chicken to actually debate" Thompson team can come up with, God help you.

Look, if anything I'm defending Rudy. I love Rudy, I love what he did for NY. I'm just telling you that these guys should be natural Rudy supporters and they just aren't.

I know you heart Fred and stuff, but if this is the best the Fred "I'm too chicken to actually debate" Thompson team can come up with, God help you.

I'm not an expert on this stuff, nor do I play one on TV, but I'm guessing that Fred! will not be much of a force by the time the elections roll around.

I recognize that Rudy did some things that the previous several mayors didn't, including make the streets a lot safer. That's to be lauded.

Yes is an arrogant sunuvab****, that I know.

However, what bothers me alot is something I heard but haven't been able to confirm (anyone help?). Recently, the governor of Texas did a power play to do a bunch of things to implement that NAU freeway through Texas, using tactics that have been considered illegal, at least up to now. There was a pretty big legal fight to keep the Texas governor from giving away the farm(s), but he won, reportedly with the help of the legal firm Giuliani is part of.

To me, the question of sovereignty and control of our borders trumps pretty much everything, including the war. If he says the amnesty bill was bad (and at first he wasn't too strong against it, until the groundswell in Republican ranks raged into a tsunami), but is squishy on our soveriegnty, it makes me think he's another Trojan (HORSE, not that!!). We can't afford to have another George Bush in power, who makes you think he is going one way, when behind the scenes he moves the other way, in backroom parlance, until its too late to do anything about it.

Can anyone help me with that? I give tons of credit to firefighters, knowing they ARE human.

I'm here on Staten Island, which should be the absolute core of "Loving Rudy." According to the conventional wisdom, I'm living smack dab in the middle of his "base."

It ain't even close. Given another chance, we'd rather vote for that idiot Angel Sliwa.

Um, what percentage of the voting public were Swift Boat Vets in '04?

I understand your concern Karol but the two points of issue are hardly comparable. Everything said about Rudy is common knowledge (tough on unions, occasionally abrasive and some of his inner circle being sleaze (I know that's uncommon in politics)). Whereas with Kerry, the Swifties exposed his entire military career as the transparent fraud which everyone familiar knew it was. They demolished the core of his phony image which turned off many who hadn't been following him closely.

Hi MaryKatherine! *waves* Because of you I'll never look at Dr. Suess the same! ;-)

Just wanted to pop in and say "hi" to Mary Katherine "Superstar". I'm with Radical Redneck, Dr.Seuss will never be the same for me.

"would you take reasons from a Ron Paul supporter?"

I can't speak for anyone else, and of course this is Karol's blog, but I'm 100% Conservative and my district is next to Ron Paul's, and I wouldn't take the time of day from a Ron Paul supporter.

I tend to agree.

I don't think the opposition of the IAFF is going to make much of a difference-since they're going to line up behind the Dems like most national labor unions-but the Uniformed Firefighters' Association, especially the ladder companies that took part in the WTC cleanup, could hurt his credibility.

Cassidy was on the Malzberg show tearing into him recently.

I don't think he's exaggerating when he says that no one else in that union even tepidly supports Giuliani's campaign.

I'm with MKH.

As for corrupt members of the Giuliani administration-aside from Bernard Kerik:

1. Russell Harding

2. Christopher Lynn

Two big ones just off the top of my head.

To say nothing of all the cronies, friends and Dem. hacks that staffed important posts in his administration, e.g. Fran Reiter, Irish Weinshall, Christine Lategano, etc., etc....

People need to be realistic here.

He was a phenomenal mayor-and would have made a very capable U.S. Senator, especially when contrasted with the person who currently fills that slot-but he has many flaws as a presidential candidate.

Plus, does anyone remember DC 37?

Tough on unions?

Yes, until he was up for re-election and in his last year in office where he gave away the store.

"There are four NY firefighters and ex-firefighers in my living room right now"

Me too! In my dreams...

Whereas with Kerry, the Swifties exposed his entire military career as the transparent fraud which everyone familiar knew it was.

Volunteered for service in Vietnam? Check.

Volunteered for dangerous riverine boat duty? Check.

Served his country? Check.

Decorated for his service? Check.

DAMN HIM. How dare he not have "other priorities?"

Michael, you left out:

LIED about his service record and refuses to release all of it, especially the gundecked reports on his purple hearts.

LIED about the nature of his service - remember how his trip to Cambodia, that was "seared" into his memory was proven to NEVER HAVE HAPPENED?

LIED in front of Congress about atrocities that never happened all in order ot make a good political splash?

LIED even whn protesting - he threw SOMEONE ELSE'S medals away, not his own.

So those "decorations" are an insult to those who actually earned them, and his record is a sham - and he flat out lied in multiple instances in order to inflate his service.

Sorry Michael, that boat got torpedoed a long time ago, shame you're too ignorant to realize it - and too stupid to makethe effort to learn the truth.

Why do you hate our military, Ordinary Coloradan? Are you a traitor? Only traitors criticize the military.

Why are you upset that Kerry didn't throw his medals away, Ordinary Coloradan? So you're saying that our soldiers should throw away their medals? Why do you hate America, Ordinary Coloradan?

Oh, cripes. I thought I was a Right-winger there for a minute.

Michael,

I don't think it is accurate of you to characterize Ordinary Coloradan as having criticized "the military."

He wasn't criticizing "the military."
Rather, he was criticizing ONE MAN who lied about his military service which took place 35 years ago.

Michael isn't only naturally stoopid™, he puts some mighty Herculean effort into it.

Well, BadBoy, in much the same way, when Lefties decry events such as those that transpired in Haditha, they're decrying those events, but they inevitably get painted with the "hate the troops" brush.

Oh, no. RadicalRedneck thinks I'm stupid. Whatever shall I do?

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

I'm impressed: you found a slighly less stupid way to say "I know you are but what am I?"

Now go inflate your Janet Reno fuck doll. Mommy's sick of you buggering the cat.

Ouch. Speared by RadicalRedneck's wit.

Dude, I have never seen you contribute any ideas to any thread ever. All you ever do is one of two things:

1. Some version of, "Yeah, what he said," when a conservative writes somethng.

2. Some version of, "Yeah, well, you suck, you sucky suck sucker. DemoCRAP," when a progressive writes something.

It's lame.

"It's lame"

Whatever you say troll. If it's not up to your stratospheric "I know you are but what am I" standards you are free to go. Hillary is not, nor ever will be, president so you have the right to go toss salad with your Atrios peers.

No matter how much your fellow travelers want it not to be the case, we all have rights in this country. I have the right to associate with the superior wisdom, morality and intellect of the right, while you have an equal right to collect your feces as keepsakes.

Now, that said, it's time for you to resume playing with your tapeworm collection.

"when a progressive writes something"

You are certainly not in that camp. What a misnomer - your statist, infantile, nanny-state wet dream is the epitome of regressive.

Volunteered for dangerous riverine boat duty? Check.

Yup Michael, he volunteered for the Swifties when they were pulling harbor Patrol duty. As soon as they were sent inland into the shit he wanted out faster than Slick Willie could unzip his fly.

when Lefties decry events such as those that transpired in Haditha,

So you were there and know what happened Mikey Poo? From everything I've read those charges are all about to be dropped because it was a trumped up case from the git go. Nice to know however that you have already convicted those Marines.

Go back to your mommies closet Mikey, the adults were talking.

Michael's "better half" just made herself $10!

Congratulations!

Hillary is not, nor ever will be, president so you have the right to go toss salad with your Atrios peers.

This is apropos of what, now? Did you miss the memo that explains that you're supposed to respond to what people write, not what you wish they'd written?

Dude, write something worth the energy needed to display it on the screen.

I'm guessing that your last post is supposed to--what?--angry up my blood or something?

Try addressing one of the issues raised in the thread.

"2. Some version of, "Yeah, well, you suck, you sucky suck sucker. DemoCRAP," when a progressive writes something."

Michael, give me an honest answer, please?

Why are you guys ashamed to call yourself "liberal" anymore, and now refer to yourselves as something (hilarious) like "progressive"?

"Progressive", in what way?

"Volunteered for service in Vietnam? Check.

Volunteered for dangerous riverine boat duty? Check.

Served his country? Check.

Decorated for his service? Check.

DAMN HIM. How dare he not have "other priorities?""

Having a deja vu moment here, but couldn't the same thing (in historical context, of course) be said about someone named, "Benedict Arnold"?

But having "served" his country, he couldn't possibly betray his country, could he?

Lady Heather, I'd say that you're projecting a little there. Though I can't speak for anyone else, I use "progressive" for a couple of reasons:

1. There's a Progressive tradition from the early twentieth century that includes concern for labor laws, clean food and drug laws, minimum wage laws and so on that are reflected in the ideas that I have.

2. "Progressive" is, to my mind, more assertive of political identity than "liberal," rather than less. What I'm doing by using "progressive" is, in fact, the opposite of what your suggesting.

"Progressive" in looking, for example, for more protections for workers, rather than fewer; progressing toward greater control of corporations, rather than less control.

"Progress," of course, is in the eye of the beholder.

couldn't the same thing (in historical context, of course) be said about someone named, "Benedict Arnold"

I guess so, except for the fact that Kerry didn't commit treason and didn't get executed for commiting treason. And Arnold didn't volunteer for riverine boat duty.

If I had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs, if you had some eggs.

And everything "traditional" be damned, Michael?

Gee, that's worked out so well, hasn't it?

High divorce rates, out of wedlock births on the rise, single parenthood?

Can you really say those are "positive", or in what I define your way of thinking, as "progressive" way of things?

Seems "regressive" wasn't so bad either...I could at least not worry about the doors being unlocked (night OR DAY) or worry about my son being snatched by the local pedophile, allowed to live amongst us because that was "rehabilitation" and would "violate his human rights" if he was incarcerated or institutionalized for the rest of his life...

But thanks to your way of thinking, I've had to become paranoid and watch my son every minute of the day...something my parents didn't have to do when I was a kid.

And for that, I blame on you "progressives".

Thanks for robbing of us of our innocence and security.

F*ck you very much. Damn well be assured that if anything happened to someone you loved, you'd "regress" in a NYC minute.

"I guess so, except for the fact that Kerry didn't commit treason..."

Seems I remember "treason" meaning giving "aid and comfort to the enemy"?

He called his fellow soldiers "murderers" in so many words.

And the rest of your comment makes me think that you're satiring here...technicalities such as B.Arnold not "volunteering for riverine boat duty"?

How brave.

Damn well be assured that if anything happened to someone you loved, you'd "regress" in a NYC minute.

Your thesis, then, is that if my child were to be kidnapped, I'd want to do these things:

Eliminate the minimum wage
Get rid of safe-workplace labor laws
Give the boot to civil rights legislation
Repeal safe food and drug regulations
Ensure that poor children have no access to medical care?

I'm sorry, but I've got to disagree with you there. These Progressive policies have nothing to do with the free-floating hysteria you're exhibiting here.

Well, Lady Heather, why don't you just get that old treason trial going against Kerry? Go ahead; nobody's stopping you. It has been over thirty-five years, though. You'd think that, if there were some kind of case to be made, somebody would have done it in thirty-five years, especially since the Right has controlled all three branches of government for a number of those years, and it would have been a fantastically valuable coup for some up-and-coming conservative lawyer to pin a treason rap on a major Democrat.

But you go, grrl!

Eliminate the minimum wage
Get rid of safe-workplace labor laws
Give the boot to civil rights legislation
Repeal safe food and drug regulations

Common thread - ALL trademarks of his wet dream, uber-controlling, nanny state gubmint.

Try doing something for yourself dumbass. ACCOMPLISH something! Don't just whine for government jackboots to take it from someone else. You are NOT entitled to ANYTHING.

Ensure that poor children have no access to medical care?

Waek, weak, weak, weak, weakedy weak! You cannot even get your pathetic talking points right. Let's see the proof of your teeming masses of The Children™ locked out of hospitals and doctor's offices. Let's see all the child Auschwitz's created by our non-Soviet tax system. It's so rampant and prevalent you should have no trouble at all.

progressing toward greater control of corporations

Got all the buzzwords down eh? Not an original thought anywhere. PERFECT Mikey Moore acolyte. Perhaps that's the handle - ultimate projection/wishful thinking?

Try addressing one of the issues raised in the thread.

Try defending one of your indefensible statist dreams instead of the uniform lame, empty smarminess trademarked by your left.

Redneck:

I don't need to prove that children are being locked out of medical care. My point is that poor children are generally getting medical care through such programs as Medi-Cal. Such social programs are the result of the work of Progressive legislation over the decades.

Lady Heather, on the other hand, likes things "regressive" (her word, my emphasis), and apparently wants to do away with these things.

Again, you need to actually read the posts to understand them. You can't just start spouting blather about wet dreams and Auschwitz (interesting, isn't it, how you brought those two things up together in the same post?).

Defending my "indefensible statist dreams?" Easy. I've done it already. Poor children in my state have access to medical care through government intervention. I want kids to get medical care. You don't care whether they get medical care--I can tell because you're arguing so passionately against it. More defense? Simple. Black people don't have to sit in the back of the bus. The work of Progressives, my friend, and definitely not of rednecks.

Really, buddy, you make it too easy.

"Black people don't have to sit in the back of the bus. The work of Progressives, my friend, and definitely not of rednecks."

Oh, how I love how liberals always bring THAT up as if that gives them carte blanche to shove their policies down our throats. Sweetie, you know the saying...a broken clock is right twice a day. Besides that is OLD news. Let's take a jump to 2007, okay, because I don't give a damn what happened before 1973, okay? (Coincidentally, the year a "progressive", not "conservative" court made murdering unborn children legal.)

And in the name of "progression", discriminating against white kids, who happen to score higher in college admissions tests, but fail to get admitted based on the COLOR of their skin.

Yeah, reverse discrimination is real "progression", alright. How about not considering the color anyone's skin, and base something like this on, I dunno... MERIT? Why are you guys so afraid of that?

Let's see...there's also "rehabilitation" , instead of punishment. A lot of good that's done. Sure someone can cite many statistics where most of the crime in this country is committed by repeat offenders. Which leads me to another point...

You can NOT be serious saying the conservatives have controlled the judicial branch? In what other way have you people thwarted the will of the majority (in many cases, votes on ballot initiatives) to get YOUR way, and shoved what you think is best for us ignorant peasants, down our throats?

And cite one hospital emergency room in this country that will turn away ANYONE needing medical care. If you care so much about this issue, please volunteer to give the GOVERNMENT more of your money...but don't speak for the rest of us. I'd much rather have the CHOICE to give (which I do) to private charities who don't usually have all the bloated government bureaucracy to wade through)

But socialists/STALINISTS, like you? You have evidence throughout history, in other countries (remember the USSR) that your policies DON'T work.
In fact, it's to make everyone poor and enslave everyone to the almighty, all knowing STATE. And not in my lifetime will you succeed if I can help it.

Feel free to emigrate to one of the socialist utopias (South Korea, maybe?) of your choice, comrade, and let's see if you're better off than us "rednecks".

I don't need to prove that children are being locked out of medical care

Of course. You can't. They are indefensible and you are incapable.

poor children are generally getting medical care through such programs as Medi-Cal

Instead of making them wards of your beloved Stalin state, how about getting out of their way and encourage them to not be poor. You know like ACCOMPLISH something.

I want kids to get medical care. You don't care whether they get medical care--I can tell because you're arguing so passionately against it. More defense? Simple. Black people don't have to sit in the back of the bus

Godwining already? Poor. You are cartoonishly predictable. Your sad, knee-jerk responses are beyond cliche'. If I were to create a parody troll I could just copy/paste you.

Get a pair.

The argument is indefensible...

There's more to medical care than emergency room service, Lady Heather, and you know it. You conservatives always bring that one up, and it rings as false now as it ever did.

Why confine myself to post-1973? Because it makes you happy? The progress I've describe has come over the course of decades and voer the vile protestations of people like you. I see now one of the reasons you are so foolish: you confine yourself only to what you can see in front of you right now. If it happened in the past, then it didn't happen, right? If it affects people in another part of the country, then it isn't affecting anyone.

Let's look at the other manifestations of the so-called "Nanny State." Will you have your roads built and repaired by voluntary private donation? How about your army? Your police force or fire department? You rail against them now, but wait until you need them--then you're singing a different tune.

In your vision, of course, schools, too, should be private, funded only by paid subscription. And if the student's family can't afford that? "Too damn bad," declares Lady Heather, Mistress of Time, Space and Dimension. "They should have thought of that before they decided to be born to poor parents."

Instead of making them wards of your beloved Stalin state, how about getting out of their way and encourage them to not be poor.You know like ACCOMPLISH something.

Boy, this is classic conservatism. "You kids? Yeah, now get this: if you want medical care, get a goddam job. What the heck are you doing, lounging around the house? You're four years old already, you lazy bums!"

Do you even pay attention to what you're writing? You're like a character out of a Dickens novel.

When I say that I don't need to prove that children aren't getting medical care, Lady Heather, it's not some kind of triumph for you. You scored no points in that exchange. I don't need to prove it because that's not what I'm saying.

Again, I understand that it's the point you want me to make, but I'll have to disappoint you. Poor kids do get medical care, and it is because of your hated Nanny State.

And what the heck is "Godwining?" That's not even a word. Would you please, please, please try to act as if you're only semiliterate.

The argument is indefensible...

Wow! Another rapier-sharp argument from RadicalRedneck!

Oh, I just noticed: I addressed a comment to Lady Heather when it was actually meant for RadicalRedneck. The asinine quality of his post should have tipped me off. Mea culpa.

Boy, this is classic conservatism. "You kids? Yeah, now get this: if you want medical care, get a goddam job. What the heck are you doing, lounging around the house? You're four years old already, you lazy bums!"

Nice try Boy Wonder! I know you're not too swift but I know even you know that parent or parents make decisions for 4 year olds. Gene pool ain't too deep round your parts eh?

And 6 straight posts talking to yourself? Not much going on in your existence. Don't you have a die-in or an Anti-American rally to spectacle yourself at?

And here is Godwining. It's usually used for hyperemotive imbeciles who scream Nazi at everyone who doesn't coddle them, but extrapolating "negroes to the back of the bus" motives to any non-communist is close enough.

Me: poor children are generally getting medical care through such programs as Medi-Cal

You: Instead of making them wards of your beloved Stalin state, how about getting out of their way and encourage them to not be poor. You know like ACCOMPLISH something.

Me: Boy, this is classic conservatism. "You kids? Yeah, now get this: if you want medical care, get a goddam job. What the heck are you doing, lounging around the house? You're four years old already, you lazy bums!"

You: Nice try Boy Wonder! I know you're not too swift but I know even you know that parent or parents make decisions for 4 year olds.

Well, sure, I know that, Redneck, but you apparently don't. As you can tell from what you wrote up above, you your own ridiculous self were the one who specifically said that the kids I mentioned need to ACCOMPLISH something. There is simply no other way to read what was written. Go ahead and wiggle, but you're on the hook for it. Be a man and live up to your own idiocy.

Listen, here's why you're never going to win one of these things:

First, you don't have the facts at your disposal necessary to make a good argument. You simply don't know enough about history, politics and current events to make a good case.

Second, you don't have the self-control necessary to make a good argument. I can feel the spittle flying out of your mouth from here. The exclamation marks !!!11!!!eleventy!! and THE CAPITALS give you away. You get so angry that you can't make any sense, and it's embarrassing to watch.

Third, you're simply not mature enough to make it work. I just know that you sat around last night saying, "Hyuk hyuk, I'm a-gonna burn Michael real bad with this 'un!" And then you posted that cartoon. That was your absolute best shot, and it was ludicrous. I know many, many twelve-year-olds who would have been humiliated at having done something that lame.

Fourth, you're not nearly smart enough. Many was the time in the exchanges up above that you reacted with your typical venom and slobbering and yatta yatta, only to be reacting to something I didn't even write. You have these things in your head that you wished I'd written, but, my friend, it's not the same as my actually having made whatever idiotic point you want me to make. You can't even read well enough to follow what I'm saying.

In short, give it up, dude.

Re: Godwining. Again, you need to read the stuff. I didn't mention Auschwitz or Nazis; you did. Would you please get something right?

Here's what I find when I read the exchange up above, Redneck:

Me: poor children are generally getting medical care through such programs as Medi-Cal

You: Instead of making them wards of your beloved Stalin state, how about getting out of their way and encourage them to not be poor. You know like ACCOMPLISH something.

Me: Boy, this is classic conservatism. "You kids? Yeah, now get this: if you want medical care, get a goddam job. What the heck are you doing, lounging around the house? You're four years old already, you lazy bums!"

You: Nice try Boy Wonder! I know you're not too swift but I know even you know that parent or parents make decisions for 4 year olds.

Well, sure, I know that, Redneck, but you apparently don't. As you can tell from what you wrote up above, you your own ridiculous self were the one who specifically said that the kids I mentioned need to ACCOMPLISH something. There is simply no other way to read what was written. Go ahead and wiggle, but you're on the hook for it. Be a man and live up to your own idiocy.

Listen, here's why you're never going to win one of these things:

First, you don't have the facts at your disposal necessary to make a good argument. You simply don't know enough about history, politics and current events to make a good case.

Second, you don't have the self-control necessary to make a good argument. I can feel the spittle flying out of your mouth from here. The exclamation marks !!!11!!!eleventy!! and THE CAPITALS give you away. You get so angry that you can't make any sense, and it's embarrassing to watch.

Third, you're simply not mature enough to make it work. I just know that you sat around last night saying, "Hyuk hyuk, I'm a-gonna burn Michael real bad with this 'un!" And then you posted that cartoon. That was your absolute best shot, and it was ludicrous. I know many, many twelve-year-olds who would have been humiliated at having done something that lame.

Fourth, you're not nearly smart enough. Many was the time in the exchanges up above that you reacted with your typical venom and slobbering and yatta yatta, only to be reacting to something I didn't even write. You have these things in your head that you wished I'd written, but, my friend, it's not the same as my actually having made whatever idiotic point you want me to make. You can't even read well enough to follow what I'm saying.

In short, give it up, dude.

Yawn. Four more posts talking to yourself. Quite the Saturday night life you lead there Sluggo.

I guess mommy earned that $10 (above) so you'd get dial-up and have something to do while your Che' shirts get their monthly washing.

You are vastly beneath me socialist scum. You don't even have the juice to demand a reacharound from Mikey Moore when he buggers you with his tuna can shaped joystick.

I buy and sell insignificant, shallow small-minded clowns like you every day. You are not fit to lick the mud of the bottom of my Bruno Maglis

Here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/firefighters-bu.html you go with your firefighters

Von Essen and 0% raises.

Firemen will hate you when you don't pay them more money. Making the union chief commissioner after negoitiating such a deal will do the same.

Quite the response to this one, you should charge 25 cents a post!

More on the Firefighters and their anti-Rudy Swiftboat-esque campaign:
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjQyZTJmNmU0ODY1ZjUwYTIzZTM0NGJjZmM2NWE4ZDA=

Man, this guy takes the firefighters down, like a rock in a pond!!

You know, these guys want to be heroes to all of us, maybe they should reconsider trying to besmirch Rudy, one of America's true hero leaders.

Right now, in my mind it's Rudy 1, firefighters 0.