Oh my god, you weren’t kidding. It is a real ad. It’s even up on Rudy’s official campaign web site.
The whole concept of another pointless war with a Muslim nation in the Middle East makes me sick to my stomach. I lost two friends in Iraq and my brother came back with a broken back, and this SOB wants to declare war on an even larger more militant country.
The thing that scares me most is that people will actually buy in to this unbelievable crap. What is wrong with this country that a PRESIDENTIAL ad like that is acceptable? When will they be issuing our brown shirts? Or do we just keep our duct tape and plastic?
Why isn’t the abhorrent nature of this ad mainstream media news? Where is the outrage beyond this web page?
Damn.
Klaus
Wow.
Initially, I thought they were talking about the USA. The entire text fits perfectly.
It’s an ad for a (possibly) future USA-president. Thank heavens the collapse of that country is not far off…
rw
Another nail in Rudy’s coffin. The fear-mongering doesn’t seem to be working this time.
The country is in a ton of trouble economically and voters are waking up to that fact.
Joshua Chamberlain
Giulliani is certainty a scary character. But so are the Clintons. Trendy Liberals looked the other way when Bill imposed an imbargo on Iran the resulted in the death of one million Iraqi civilians. Hilarly egged Bill on to bomb the Serbian civilian population resulting in the death of several thousand Serbian Civilians.
The trendy liberal’s favorite presidential candidate will very likely be given a blank check by the trendy liberal crowd to comit war crimes on a scale that a clown like Giulliani would never be able to get away with.
G
Since when this is news?
C’mon we know this already… It is unfortunate the average US citizen has no idea what their country is up to since many decades time… this is an arrowstick up in our ass, one way…
I’ve really come to appreciate the deep analysis and insightful comments found on leftist blogs. No need to waste time with argumentation, as it’s completely obvious that the threat from state-sponsored Islamic terror is utterly negligible in comparison to that from global warming. It’s almost as obvious as the fact that Islamic terror will vanish as soon as the U.S. becomes a polite isolationist country, rather like Luxembourg.
Mike
I think at the commercial succeeds at a sort of logical fallacy. It gets folks arguing about how severe is any threat from an Islamic or militant nation or group, but succeeds in planting the notion that *if* the threat is severe, Giuliani would be the best to handle it. This can encourage a sort of hedging attitude of ‘well, I don’t know if the threat is severe or not, but at least Giuliani can take care of business if it is.’
Of course, the commercial itself provides no evidence that Giuliani is better equipped to handle such a threat, even if it is very severe, than any other presidential candidate.
Joshua Chamberlain
Belizean
An overwhelming majority of members of the Human Species-including the American variety-are opposed to continuation of the Iraq war. Do you think the Human species has got it wrong on this one? Yes, I would say the argument is over. The war criminals have been defeated in debate quite a few times.
We are now moving into the stage where there will very likely be mutines by ordinary America GIs(American teeenagers a lot of them)
Let us face it, you and your war criminal friends haven’t a leg to stand on. The human species has passed judgement on you folks.Go back to Gravitational Lensing research if thats what you do for a living.
RayCeeYa
as it’s completely obvious that the threat from state-sponsored Islamic terror is utterly negligible in comparison to that from global warming.
You know what Belizean even through your sarcasm you managed to hit the nail on the head. Yes, I am more afraid of global warming than Islamic Terrorists. Yes, global warming has the potential to kill many millions more than Islamic terrorists ever could.
Just because someone dies in a flood, drought, or famine triggered by global warming doesn’t mean the death is any more or less tragic than someone blown up by a car bomb. The car bomb just gets better press coverage.
The terrorists have become a boogyman and hopefully the American public is finally grown up enough that it no longer needs big brother (Rudy, Bush, etc) to check under the bed any more.
Farhat
Joshua, you are making Belizean’s point by using argumentum ad populum. Not that I agree with him, but his point still stands.
The Almighty Bob
Islamic terror will vanish as soon as the U.S. becomes a polite isolationist country
I doubt it, Belizean; the old problem of “you pay ’em to fight a war, then you have to pay ’em twice as much to stop”…
You do know who the biggest state sponsor of terrorism is, don’t you?
(Historically, definitely; currently – no there’s no evidence, but also no evidence of a change in tactics).
Also Luxembourg is a founding member of the European Union, NATO, the United Nations, Benelux, and the Western European Union, and is also the the location of the administrative body of the European Parliament. Some isolation.
Were you perhaps thinking of Switzerland?
Kevin Schnitzius
Re: Belizean
When monkeys fling their poo, do you respond with insightful commentary? “Yeah, I was down at the zoo, in the primate house, when the shit literally hit the fan. A few choice Chomsky quotes with a Sartre frosting and *phew*, order was restored.”
Sometimes the baser tripe needs to be dismissed — not discussed. Or maybe you’d like to discuss why you still beat your wife?
Joshua Chamberlain
Farhat
While the nerdy-not to be confused with high level of intelligence-debating society neocons distracted the Ameicasn people with their sophistries, Iraqi civilians and American teenagers(GIs) were blown to pieces of chuck ground for the stray dogs of Bagdad. The maggots had their stomachs filled also,compliments of sissy neocons on FOX.
Count Iblis
…as it’s completely obvious that the threat from state-sponsored Islamic terror is utterly negligible in comparison to that from global warming.
Let’s consider a very unlikely worst case scenario involving terrorism: A 25 kiloton nuclear device explodes in downtown New York. Despite the terrible damage and loss of life, the US will easily survive this attack, even New York will eventually be rebuild as was were Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Now consider a far more likely worst case scenario involving Global Warming: Temperatures rise by 6 degrees centigrade in the next century because we fail to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions. This causes problems on a global scale. In the US, Florida disappears into the Sea. And when that happens the people will blame their great grandparents for being preoccupied with Islamic Terrorists.
RayCeeYa
Thank you Count I’m glad someone else picked up on that.
I just found this on Rudy’s Wikipedia article,
In a December 2007 interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric, he suggested that part of the solution to global warming is an increased reliance on coal-burning power plants, and also on nuclear power:
Umm, how does increasing reliance on coal help global warming? Maybe if we spew enough soot into the atmosphere it will block enough sunlight to counteract the greenhouse effect. Then again maybe flying monkeys will swarm out of my butt and bring me all the gold in Namibia.
To all the Rudy fans out there, WAKE UP. The man couldn’t protect Manhattan from Islamic Terrorists or global warming. What makes you think he’ll do any better with the rest of teh country?
RayCeeYa
Sorry, it was only the second paragraph that was supposed to be italicized. I must have mixed up my slashes.
ha! that is a hilarious ad! “i approve this message” what a punch line. i can’t believe that it is not some anti-juliani spoof ad!
:^o
Evan
Farhat
People seem to have a strange obsession with global warming in this thread. Firstly, per capita Canada is a worse offender than the US. For some reason, people dont like to call out Canada on that. In terms of GHG release per unit economic activity, US is far more efficient than a lot of countries. Since most economic treaties aimed at tackling this do not want to put any kind of control on GHG release from countries like China or India, what you’ll end up having is a case where manufacturing activity shifts from US to less efficient countries worsening the problem, not improving it.
drunk
So who is Rudy going to nuke?
Iran – he will do it just to have some fun
Afghanistan – he like to decrease opium export a bit
Pakistan – he push the button out of frustration not finding the body of OBL
Chad – that’s his way to solve the hunger problem there
Russia – he is pissed that Putin becomes prime minister and give him the finger during inauguration
Cuba – recession in US calls for expansion of business opportunities and Castro is still around
Mexico – he has enough of not enough Mexican jumping over the border
Canada – the Canadian dollar = 1.2 US dollar and Blue Jays won World Series over NY Yankees. He is really really mad about loosing that game.
Haelfix
Umm, Coal power and nuclear power are the obvious scientific short term solutions to the energy problems as well as being the most eco friendly major grid generators.
Better filtering technology can and will make coal plant emmissions extremely low in the next twenty years, and well theres maybe a dozen physicists alive who don’t endorse nuclear fission plants. So I’d say Rudy is right on the money in that regard.
RayCeeYa
Better filtering technology can and will make coal plant emmissions extremely low in the next twenty years, and well theres maybe a dozen physicists alive who don’t endorse nuclear fission plants. So I’d say Rudy is right on the money in that regard.
You have got to be kidding me. Clean coal a myth almost as ludicrous as abiogenic oil.
You haven’t read the numbers. The key isn’t more generating capacity but more conservation. For the cost of a single coal power plant we could install double pane windows on thousands of homes thus saving energy and preventing the need to build that nasty dirty power plant in the first place.
I used to work for PG&E and if theres one thing I learned it’s that it’s easier, cheaper and far more effective to save a kilowatt than it is to create a kilowatt of new capacity.
Haelfix
Conservation is fine. Its also irrelevant, b/c it doesn’t solve anything.. It just pushes the problem further into the future. Ultimately the issue is simply that population and demand for watts are on nonlinear curves that fit well with exponentials, ergo you eventually have to grow your energy supply with the same sort of analytic shape.
Fossil fuels, fission and fusion are more or less the only things we can conceive off that can possibly output that sort of growth. Wind and solar are nice, but they eventually have land issues.
Of those options, nuclear fission is the best bet (albeit expensive). Then clean coal, which is far less a pipedream than some of the other pie in the sky ideas floating out there. Already its pretty good.
Haelfix, do we really have to accommodate a growing demand for watts/capita? (We certainly don’t have to let population keep growing, and rational governments will suppress, not encourage, any such growth. I think it is capitulation to a destructive growthism to give in to that process. I think better quality machines, like faster computers and more fuel-efficient cars, is great. That does not have to translate into having more total stuff and using more power to run it (indeed, more advanced technology should in part definition mean using less power, so the per capita really should go down!)
Oh my god, you weren’t kidding. It is a real ad. It’s even up on Rudy’s official campaign web site.
The whole concept of another pointless war with a Muslim nation in the Middle East makes me sick to my stomach. I lost two friends in Iraq and my brother came back with a broken back, and this SOB wants to declare war on an even larger more militant country.
Two Words,
FUCK YOU
The thing that scares me most is that people will actually buy in to this unbelievable crap. What is wrong with this country that a PRESIDENTIAL ad like that is acceptable? When will they be issuing our brown shirts? Or do we just keep our duct tape and plastic?
Why isn’t the abhorrent nature of this ad mainstream media news? Where is the outrage beyond this web page?
Damn.
Wow.
Initially, I thought they were talking about the USA. The entire text fits perfectly.
It’s an ad for a (possibly) future USA-president. Thank heavens the collapse of that country is not far off…
Another nail in Rudy’s coffin. The fear-mongering doesn’t seem to be working this time.
The country is in a ton of trouble economically and voters are waking up to that fact.
Giulliani is certainty a scary character. But so are the Clintons. Trendy Liberals looked the other way when Bill imposed an imbargo on Iran the resulted in the death of one million Iraqi civilians. Hilarly egged Bill on to bomb the Serbian civilian population resulting in the death of several thousand Serbian Civilians.
The trendy liberal’s favorite presidential candidate will very likely be given a blank check by the trendy liberal crowd to comit war crimes on a scale that a clown like Giulliani would never be able to get away with.
Since when this is news?
C’mon we know this already… It is unfortunate the average US citizen has no idea what their country is up to since many decades time… this is an arrowstick up in our ass, one way…
G
I thought you meant this:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0382
I’ve really come to appreciate the deep analysis and insightful comments found on leftist blogs. No need to waste time with argumentation, as it’s completely obvious that the threat from state-sponsored Islamic terror is utterly negligible in comparison to that from global warming. It’s almost as obvious as the fact that Islamic terror will vanish as soon as the U.S. becomes a polite isolationist country, rather like Luxembourg.
I think at the commercial succeeds at a sort of logical fallacy. It gets folks arguing about how severe is any threat from an Islamic or militant nation or group, but succeeds in planting the notion that *if* the threat is severe, Giuliani would be the best to handle it. This can encourage a sort of hedging attitude of ‘well, I don’t know if the threat is severe or not, but at least Giuliani can take care of business if it is.’
Of course, the commercial itself provides no evidence that Giuliani is better equipped to handle such a threat, even if it is very severe, than any other presidential candidate.
Belizean
An overwhelming majority of members of the Human Species-including the American variety-are opposed to continuation of the Iraq war. Do you think the Human species has got it wrong on this one? Yes, I would say the argument is over. The war criminals have been defeated in debate quite a few times.
We are now moving into the stage where there will very likely be mutines by ordinary America GIs(American teeenagers a lot of them)
Let us face it, you and your war criminal friends haven’t a leg to stand on. The human species has passed judgement on you folks.Go back to Gravitational Lensing research if thats what you do for a living.
as it’s completely obvious that the threat from state-sponsored Islamic terror is utterly negligible in comparison to that from global warming.
You know what Belizean even through your sarcasm you managed to hit the nail on the head. Yes, I am more afraid of global warming than Islamic Terrorists. Yes, global warming has the potential to kill many millions more than Islamic terrorists ever could.
Just because someone dies in a flood, drought, or famine triggered by global warming doesn’t mean the death is any more or less tragic than someone blown up by a car bomb. The car bomb just gets better press coverage.
The terrorists have become a boogyman and hopefully the American public is finally grown up enough that it no longer needs big brother (Rudy, Bush, etc) to check under the bed any more.
Joshua, you are making Belizean’s point by using argumentum ad populum. Not that I agree with him, but his point still stands.
I doubt it, Belizean; the old problem of “you pay ’em to fight a war, then you have to pay ’em twice as much to stop”…
You do know who the biggest state sponsor of terrorism is, don’t you?
(Historically, definitely; currently – no there’s no evidence, but also no evidence of a change in tactics).
Also Luxembourg is a founding member of the European Union, NATO, the United Nations, Benelux, and the Western European Union, and is also the the location of the administrative body of the European Parliament. Some isolation.
Were you perhaps thinking of Switzerland?
Re: Belizean
When monkeys fling their poo, do you respond with insightful commentary? “Yeah, I was down at the zoo, in the primate house, when the shit literally hit the fan. A few choice Chomsky quotes with a Sartre frosting and *phew*, order was restored.”
Sometimes the baser tripe needs to be dismissed — not discussed. Or maybe you’d like to discuss why you still beat your wife?
Farhat
While the nerdy-not to be confused with high level of intelligence-debating society neocons distracted the Ameicasn people with their sophistries, Iraqi civilians and American teenagers(GIs) were blown to pieces of chuck ground for the stray dogs of Bagdad. The maggots had their stomachs filled also,compliments of sissy neocons on FOX.
Let’s consider a very unlikely worst case scenario involving terrorism: A 25 kiloton nuclear device explodes in downtown New York. Despite the terrible damage and loss of life, the US will easily survive this attack, even New York will eventually be rebuild as was were Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Now consider a far more likely worst case scenario involving Global Warming: Temperatures rise by 6 degrees centigrade in the next century because we fail to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions. This causes problems on a global scale. In the US, Florida disappears into the Sea. And when that happens the people will blame their great grandparents for being preoccupied with Islamic Terrorists.
Thank you Count I’m glad someone else picked up on that.
I just found this on Rudy’s Wikipedia article,
In a December 2007 interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric, he suggested that part of the solution to global warming is an increased reliance on coal-burning power plants, and also on nuclear power:
Umm, how does increasing reliance on coal help global warming? Maybe if we spew enough soot into the atmosphere it will block enough sunlight to counteract the greenhouse effect. Then again maybe flying monkeys will swarm out of my butt and bring me all the gold in Namibia.
To all the Rudy fans out there, WAKE UP. The man couldn’t protect Manhattan from Islamic Terrorists or global warming. What makes you think he’ll do any better with the rest of teh country?
Sorry, it was only the second paragraph that was supposed to be italicized. I must have mixed up my slashes.
ha! that is a hilarious ad! “i approve this message” what a punch line. i can’t believe that it is not some anti-juliani spoof ad!
:^o
Evan
People seem to have a strange obsession with global warming in this thread. Firstly, per capita Canada is a worse offender than the US. For some reason, people dont like to call out Canada on that. In terms of GHG release per unit economic activity, US is far more efficient than a lot of countries. Since most economic treaties aimed at tackling this do not want to put any kind of control on GHG release from countries like China or India, what you’ll end up having is a case where manufacturing activity shifts from US to less efficient countries worsening the problem, not improving it.
So who is Rudy going to nuke?
Iran – he will do it just to have some fun
Afghanistan – he like to decrease opium export a bit
Pakistan – he push the button out of frustration not finding the body of OBL
Chad – that’s his way to solve the hunger problem there
Russia – he is pissed that Putin becomes prime minister and give him the finger during inauguration
Cuba – recession in US calls for expansion of business opportunities and Castro is still around
Mexico – he has enough of not enough Mexican jumping over the border
Canada – the Canadian dollar = 1.2 US dollar and Blue Jays won World Series over NY Yankees. He is really really mad about loosing that game.
Umm, Coal power and nuclear power are the obvious scientific short term solutions to the energy problems as well as being the most eco friendly major grid generators.
Better filtering technology can and will make coal plant emmissions extremely low in the next twenty years, and well theres maybe a dozen physicists alive who don’t endorse nuclear fission plants. So I’d say Rudy is right on the money in that regard.
Better filtering technology can and will make coal plant emmissions extremely low in the next twenty years, and well theres maybe a dozen physicists alive who don’t endorse nuclear fission plants. So I’d say Rudy is right on the money in that regard.
You have got to be kidding me. Clean coal a myth almost as ludicrous as abiogenic oil.
You haven’t read the numbers. The key isn’t more generating capacity but more conservation. For the cost of a single coal power plant we could install double pane windows on thousands of homes thus saving energy and preventing the need to build that nasty dirty power plant in the first place.
I used to work for PG&E and if theres one thing I learned it’s that it’s easier, cheaper and far more effective to save a kilowatt than it is to create a kilowatt of new capacity.
Conservation is fine. Its also irrelevant, b/c it doesn’t solve anything.. It just pushes the problem further into the future. Ultimately the issue is simply that population and demand for watts are on nonlinear curves that fit well with exponentials, ergo you eventually have to grow your energy supply with the same sort of analytic shape.
Fossil fuels, fission and fusion are more or less the only things we can conceive off that can possibly output that sort of growth. Wind and solar are nice, but they eventually have land issues.
Of those options, nuclear fission is the best bet (albeit expensive). Then clean coal, which is far less a pipedream than some of the other pie in the sky ideas floating out there. Already its pretty good.
Haelfix, do we really have to accommodate a growing demand for watts/capita? (We certainly don’t have to let population keep growing, and rational governments will suppress, not encourage, any such growth. I think it is capitulation to a destructive growthism to give in to that process. I think better quality machines, like faster computers and more fuel-efficient cars, is great. That does not have to translate into having more total stuff and using more power to run it (indeed, more advanced technology should in part definition mean using less power, so the per capita really should go down!)