U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind Archive (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/)
-   -   Official Campaign 2008 Hot Stove Thread (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/official-campaign-2008-hot-stove-thread-168210.html)

BVS 02-06-2007 02:26 PM


Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

I don't know if you've ever called anyone stupid. I don't think you've ever called me stupid.

And I never would.


Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

I didn't throw all of you into any box. I specifically said "many".

I realize that, but you used it as part of your reasoning as to why conservatives don't stick around here.

Honestly I really think it comes down to numbers, some just can't stand to not be on the majority side. There are a few types of conservatives that come in here.

Those that come in to troll. Some that fancy themselves true conservatives but actually fall under a neo-con label. Some that actually have something enlightening to say(regardless how much I and others may disagree) but don't stick around long enough for whatever reason. And those that come in swinging but get scared off when they realize they are a minority voice.

The trolls and those that can't stand to be the minority I'll never miss. The neo-cons, well most that have come in here haven't figured out who they are, they say one thing but do another.

But I definately miss the ones that have something enlightening to say.

MrsSpringsteen 02-06-2007 02:54 PM

I was wondering about that photo, it's from Harper's Bazaar. Rudy is hot

NY Post

February 6, 2007 -- Sexy Judi Giuliani is keeping a tight lip-lock on her hubby as he moved even closer yesterday to officially announcing his presidential bid.

As his loyal missus bared some of the secrets of her marriage to "America's Mayor" in a candid new interview, Giuliani had his eyes on another prize.

"We still have to formally announce it and do a few more things, but this about as close as you're going to get," Giuliani said on Fox News Channel's "Hannity and Colmes" last night - hours after filing federal "statement of candidacy" papers.

"Today, we just took another step toward running for president," Giuliani added. "It's a big step, an important one.

Asked on the show if he's "in to win," Giuliani said, "Gosh, yeah. I mean, that's the only reason to do it."

Judi, 52, insisted that when her hubby takes the plunge, she won't mind playing second fiddle to his political ambitions - and she revealed the famously tough-as-nails former mayor's sensitive side.

"I've always liked strong, macho men, and Rudy - I'm not saying this because he's my husband - is one of the smartest people on the planet," gushed the former Judith Nathan to Harper's Bazaar in editions due out Feb. 20.

"What people don't know is that Rudy's a very, very romantic guy. We love watching 'Sleepless in Seattle.' Can you imagine my big testosterone-factor husband doing that?"

Describing Rudy, a former federal prosecutor, as "the Energizer Bunny with no rechargeable batteries," Judi said, "One of the most remarkable things about my husband, who sleeps three or four hours a night, is his energy level and stamina.

"I truly believe that one of the keys to a successful marriage is not trying to change your partner: This is the person I fell in love with. And I married a man who loves to work, never takes time off, because if you like what you do, you won't need to.

"If he decides to run for president, we'll follow that path together," she told Harper's.

Judi said she gets her hyper husband to slow down by pushing him onto the golf course: The pair spent their honeymoon in 2003 taking putting lessons in Colorado.

Irvine511 02-06-2007 03:10 PM

Rudy was generally impressive when i flipped past Hannity (shudder) and Combes last night.

i could stomach him, despite his utterly transparent, "Thank God George Bush is our president" nonsense from the Republican '04 convention.

and any straight man who moves in with a gay couple after his divorce is actually a genuinely secure big testosterone-factor person. Rudy stated, without any hedging, that he supports Civil Unions, but not marriage. for a Republican to state that, and not try to excuse it to the base, and to give a reasonable rationale for it -- "we have to acknolwedge a place for gays and lesbians in our society" -- then i think i can live with it, incomplete thought it might be.

financeguy 02-06-2007 05:05 PM


Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Those that come in to troll. Some that fancy themselves true conservatives but actually fall under a neo-con label. Some that actually have something enlightening to say(regardless how much I and others may disagree) but don't stick around long enough for whatever reason. And those that come in swinging but get scared off when they realize they are a minority voice.
I would argue that support for the Bush agenda and support for conservative principles are more or less mutually exclusive, as with the exception of abortion the Bush agenda has got nothing to do with conservative principles and is probably even opposed to them.

BVS 02-06-2007 05:12 PM


Originally posted by financeguy

I would argue that support for the Bush agenda and support conservative principles are more or less mutually exclusive, as with the possible exception of abortion the Bush agenda has got nothing to do with conservative principles and is probably even opposed to them.

In any case, Bush has failed to significantly curtail America's shocking abortion rate, so even on that he's a failure.

I agree, that's why so many neo-cons fail to make their point. They throw slogans like "small government" but then support all the big government moves of this administration.:huh:

financeguy 02-06-2007 05:18 PM


Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

I agree, that's why so many neo-cons fail to make their point. They throw slogans like "small government" but then support all the big government moves of this administration.:huh:

Indeed, Bush/Cheney take power away from ordinary citizens and put it into the hands of big government and large corporations.

BonosSaint 02-07-2007 05:54 AM


Originally posted by Irvine511

okay, i was joking, but on a serious note ...

one thing that strikes me about a genuine thought difference between liberals and conservatives is how they process information. bear with me here. for example, in my experience, a conservative is more likely to accept something as a source of truth and then see how information measures up to the pre-selected source. so, if you believe the Bible as a source of inerrant truth, most issues/information are processed through that filter. for a conservative, tradition and authority -- from whever you might find it -- matter. traditional values are what's known, so they must be adhered to.

for a liberal, not so much. opinions are derived through comparisons, how is one thing like another or how is one thing different from another. there isn't as much of a central organizing principle. and this is reflected in political discourse -- George Bush had "convictions" whereas Kerry was a "flip-flopper."

does that seem fair to say?

note that none of this is predicated upon intelligence, or saying that it's better to see ambiguity than it is to stick to convictions.

I thought a lot of that was an interesting distinction--between a social liberal and a social conservative. I might take it beyond traditional and emphasize the authority factor to it. I think that social liberals are more questioning/suspicious of authority than social conservatives are--leaders, police, bosses, heirarchy.

Although I will say that the garden variety/barstool variety of liberal changes when they are in a position of authority or their man/woman is in a position of authoritySuddenly, their authority shouldn't be suspect, questioned.:wink:

So basically I challenge someone's liberal credentials based on how they act when they are in authority. I don't really care what pretty words they use when it doesn't matter.

Nothing is more perplexing to me than an authoritarian liberal.

MrsSpringsteen 02-07-2007 10:52 AM

By Jonathan Alter

Feb. 6, 2007 - Over the last decade, I’ve seen both good Rudy and bad Rudy up close. The question for voters as he enters the presidential campaign is: which Rudy Giuliani will show up on the trail—and which Rudy would go to work in the White House? And if even a little of the bad Rudy is still around, does that make him temperamentally unsuited to the presidency?

The good Giuliani was a tough and highly effective mayor of New York from 1993 until 2001. He whipped the city into shape after some of the worst years in its history (though it should be noted that crime rates in other cities were plummeting at the same time). Like millions of New Yorkers in the 1980s, I often awoke to find the sidewalks in front of my apartment littered with crack vials. After Giuliani showed up, we began to feel safe almost anywhere. That means a lot.

The world got to know the good Rudy after 9/11. On the day after the terrorist attack, I attached myself to the Giuliani high command and covered him nearly every day for the next two weeks. He was every bit as strong as legend has it: calm, commanding and compassionate. I traveled with him to Ground Zero on Sept. 14—when President Bush famously wielded the bullhorn on the pile of rubble—and on four subsequent visits with dignitaries. I interviewed him several times, and the results cast him in such a glowing light in NEWSWEEK that the Reader’s Digest reprinted one of the stories in a collection about heroes. In my own small way, I helped make the myth.

So why am I so worried about him as president? Why do I think it’s Giuliani, not John McCain, who may have a problem with the Big T—temperament?

The story of the bad Rudy has, in retrospect, been oversimplified. There’s reference to his poor relations with the black community and his mishandling of the 1999 Amadou Diallo case, in which police fired 41 shots at an unarmed African immigrant. The truth is, Al Sharpton was hardly alone in his contempt for Giuliani. Most New Yorkers were horrified, not by his defense of the police, but by the arrogant and astonishingly tone-deaf way in which he handled himself. His ridiculously thin skin and mile-wide mean streak were not allegations made by whiners and political opponents. They were traits widely known to his supporters. Which is why, if you ask Giuliani backers in New York City who was the better mayor—Giuliani or Mike Bloomberg—I’d wager that a strong majority would say Bloomberg.

I recall going over to Gracie Mansion in this period to interview the mayor. I asked him why he had not even spoken to C. Virginia Fields, the Manhattan borough president, for more than two years. (Fields’s experience was hardly unique among elected officials in New York.). “What’s there to talk about?” Giuliani said petulantly.

This is not a minor thing. It’s not like stiffing Sharpton. It’s like the president of the United States saying, “What’s there to talk about?” with the minority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives. Any good politician knows how to reach out. Giuliani was acting like a prosecutor, which is no big surprise. The question is whether a prosecutorial and authoritarian approach is right for the highest office.

It’s a good bet that Giuliani would be a strong commander in chief. If terrorists attacked again, he would know what to do. But how about the next month? And the month after that? The president is more than a crisis manager. He’s also the defender of the Constitution and the leader of his party. He holds a moral and intensely political position that calls for great skills of conciliation. If FDR had a famously “first-class temperament,” how should we describe Rudy’s? Third-class?

Of course it’s always possible there’s a “New Rudy.” He once told me that his experience with prostate cancer had changed him. But we saw a “New Nixon” in 1968 and a “New Gore” in 2000 and we all know what they looked like. It’s hard to change who you really are, except around the margins.

Based on the polls, Rudy Giuliani is now the front runner for the GOP nomination. He could very well be president. Instead of obsessing endlessly over whether social conservatives will scrutinize his record closely enough to see that he is not one of them, we should be debating what kind of president Giuliani—or any of the rest of them—would actually make. Let’s begin by talking about temperament.

MrsSpringsteen 02-08-2007 01:40 PM

Here we go..yes Hillary is just way too "mannish" with all those pantsuits, and wearing pants means you are trying to emulate masculinity. THEY ARE JUST WAY MORE COMFORTABLE and practical in the winter!. Not to mention how uncomfortable hose and tights are. Not that Donatella is a credible political analyst :wink: I keep thinking about that SNL sketch with the Bono lookalike

Donatella Versace thinks stylistically challenged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should sex up her image! Sashay, shante!

The Italian tanorexic designer says Hills should feminize her look with skirts and dresses instead of those blobby pantsuits. Show some leg, girl! Versace told German newspaper Die Zeit, "I can understand (trousers) are comfortable but she's a woman and she is allowed to show that. She should treat femininity as an opportunity and not try to emulate masculinity in politics." You hear that, Condi?!

Versace believes Clinton's signature look should consist of knee-length skirts with a short jacket in chic black, instead of her usual granny blue. Once you go black, you never go back.

Donatella did mometarily retract her claws, adding, "I admire her for her determination, which will hopefully take her to the White House. "

MrsSpringsteen 02-08-2007 02:14 PM

John Edwards lives in a 28,000 square foot house :shocked:


"Sitting on 102 secluded acres — surrounded by trees and defended by no-trespassing signs — the 28,000-square-foot estate that Edwards and his family call home has presidential privacy.

A main home has five bedrooms and six-and-a-half baths. It's connected by a covered walkway to a bright red addition known as "The Barn," that includes its own living facilities along with a handball court, an indoor pool and an indoor basketball court with a stage at one end. Nearby, the family has cleared space for a soccer field.

With a current building value of $4.3 million, the unfinished Edwards estate is already about $1 million more expensive than any other house in the county, according to tax records. It sits on land worth about $1.1 million.

Edwards first purchased the land in 2004, during his failed run as vice president. He recently sold his mansion in Washington's tony Georgetown neighborhood for $5.2 million.

Edwards, a former trial lawyer who made millions before winning a seat in the Senate representing North Carolina, has faced criticism regarding the estate. It also has become the subject of late-night jokes.

"Well, I think we know which America he's living in," Jay Leno quipped on NBC's "Tonight Show," a riff of Edwards' frequent mention of the "two Americas" — one for the wealthy and one for the poor.

Monty Johnson, a neighbor whose property sits directly across from the Edwards tract, recently posted a "Go Rudy Giuliani 2008" sign just 100 feet from Edwards' driveway.

"The home is a monster. It's way over the top," Johnson said. "There's no way that a normal family could ever need a house like that. It's only going to hurt him. I don't think he's going to be able to sell his story that he's for the poor people."

Laurin Easthom, a Democrat and town council member in nearby Chapel Hill, said Edwards has earned the right to build a large home.

"I see somebody who has come from a very humble background and with really hard work has gotten to the point where he is," Easthom said. "He's out there trying to do some good, and he's giving back both financially and by what he plans to do through his campaign."

Jennifer Palmieri, an Edwards adviser, dismissed the brouhaha as of little interest to voters.

But political consultant Bill Miller said the lavish estate could become a sore point for the candidate.

"Anything that appears to be extravagant or over the top is not the best card to play when you're running for president — especially when you're trying to differentiate yourself the way John Edwards is," said Miller, who has worked closely with the Republican Party.

After introducing their new home on her husband's campaign Web site, Elizabeth Edwards explained the couple had taken special precautions to make the house energy efficient — keeping in line with Edwards' environmental platform. But she spent the next week battling blog-based critics who wanted to discuss the building's size — and she suggested that one posting on the campaign's Web site may have come from a Republican or a rival Democrat. "

INDY500 02-08-2007 07:34 PM


The heavily wooded site and winding driveway ensure that the home is not visible from the road. “No Trespassing” signs discourage passersby from venturing past the gate.
"Heavily wooded?" Not anymore. I wonder how many trees lost their lives during"operation palatial mansion?"

Where's Daryl Hannah when you need her?

anitram 02-08-2007 07:49 PM

I'm always disappointed when I see a house of that size and then read it has like 5 bedrooms. I mean, WTF. If you're gonna build something 30,000 square feet, it better have at least 15.

I don't know why anyone needs a house that size, and frankly I wouldn't want to live in one either. As for whether it matters - I don't see why it should given that almost all American presidents are rich, white farts anyway.

Irvine511 02-08-2007 10:23 PM


it looks like a Republican's house!

yolland 02-09-2007 01:20 AM


by Lalee Sadighi
RedHerring.com, February 8, 2007

Bloggers with political ambitions may have to consider retouching their more outrageous comments after a Catholic group promised Thursday it would not forget presidential candidate John Edwards’ decision not to fire a pair of controversial staffers. The John Edwards Presidential campaign web site said Thursday it will not fire bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan after they made comments on their personal blogs that drew the ire of the Catholic League...The two girls, who are well-known in the political blogosphere, were hired last week in an attempt to reach liberal voters on the Internet.

In a statement, Mr. Edwards said he was offended by Ms. Marcottes’ and Ms. McEwan’s posts, however he declined to fire them for their remarks. “That kind of language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign,” Mr. Edwards said “But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake.”...

At issue are posts made on Ms. Marcott’s and Ms. McEwan’s personal blogs, before they were hired by the Democratic candidate. One post on Ms. McEwan’s blog, titled “pope and Fascist,” describes President Bush’s “Wingnut, Christofascist base.” Another, written by Ms. Marcott, describes the Catholic church’s opposition to birth control as forcing “women to bear more tithing Catholics."

Glenn Reynold, a blogger for the political blog site Instapudit, said he suspects that “a lot of bloggers would like to join in the establishment, and now fear that their prior anti-establishment rantings will get in the way.”
I find this story interesting, not just because of any effects it may (or may not at all) have on Edwards' campaign, but also because--as the article mentions--it seems likely that as Internet campaigning becomes more and more commonplace, and more and more people dragging readily traceable electronic "paper trails" behind them join campaign payrolls, these kinds of 'Gotcha!' moments are likely to happen more often. Are undecided voters overwhelmingly going to look at this and say, "Big deal, they're just campaign workers and these were their personal blogs; so what" or might it have significant potential to alienate certain voter blocs--in this case religious progressives, say, or Catholic Democrats? Can politicians in general--not just Edwards--afford to get into dropping anyone like a hot potato who's found to have used vulgar invective towards certain potential support blocs at some (conveniently archived) moment in time? Can they afford not to?

U2democrat 02-09-2007 09:36 AM

My parents were hoping to retire in Chapel Hill, but decided not to because the real estate there was SO expensive.

I don't know what to make of his huge house, I just assumed he would have bought a nice one already there, anything that's already built there would suit me just fine :shrug:

verte76 02-09-2007 05:29 PM

For goodness sakes, I don't care where a candidate lives. It's his or her business where they want to live. If he can afford this, what's wrong with it?

80sU2isBest 02-09-2007 07:31 PM


Originally posted by verte76
For goodness sakes, I don't care where a candidate lives. It's his or her business where they want to live. If he can afford this, what's wrong with it?
I'm no John Edwards fan, but I have to say I agree with you.

financeguy 02-09-2007 07:45 PM

Edwards is one of the good guys.

Varitek 02-09-2007 11:26 PM

So given that Al Gore is sponsoring this huge climate change 7 city bonanza in July that U2 may play in - is that an indication that he's not running? If he's focusing his efforts on organizing that? Or could it just be worked into a campaign? I'm more and more thinking he isn't going to run. Which I always kind of knew, but a girl can hope.

DaveC 02-10-2007 05:41 AM

Not sure if this has been posted yet.

Obama is in. :up:



SPRINGFIELD, Illinois (AP) -- Senator Barack Obama plans to formally announce his candidacy for president Saturday.

Obama is a newcomer to the national scene, having served just two years in the Senate, but he already is considered Sen. Hillary Clinton's chief rival among many vying for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election.

He brings a wealth of political skills but a thin elective resume -- the very reason he chose to stage his official campaign launch from the steps of the Old State Capital.

Obama, the son of a black man from Kenya and a white American woman, would be the first black U.S. president if elected. He was tying his bid to the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, the president who ordered an end to slavery in the 1860s, and who served eight years in the Illinois Legislature. Obama also served eight years in the state legislature.

In a video message on his Web site Friday, Obama said he was launching "a journey to take our country back and change the fundamental nature of our politics."

"I know a lot of you are cynical about the possibilities of that change," Obama said. "Sometimes it seems as if the game is fixed and it only works for the few and the powerful, but I fundamentally believe there is another brand of politics.

"Let's go get to work," he said.

Obama planned to travel throughout Iowa on Saturday and Sunday before returning to Chicago, Illinois, for a rally Sunday night.

He planned to visit New Hampshire on Monday on the heels of Clinton, whose first visit to the state as a presidential candidate over the weekend provided some early competition for attention from Obama's announcement. Both states vote early in the party primaries.

Obama, 45, gained national recognition with the publication of two best-selling books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," and by delivering the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

His optimistic message and his compelling biography immediately sparked talk of his White House potential. Obama was born in Hawaii and lived part of his childhood in Indonesia.

Initially he said he would not run for president, but he revealed last fall that he was considering it after receiving so much encouragement. He formed a presidential exploratory committee last month.

Since then, Obama has hired some of the Democratic Party's top talent to work on a campaign headquartered in his adopted hometown of Chicago, and he has offered some proposals.

He introduced a bill to prevent President Bush from increasing troop levels in Iraq and to remove U.S. combat forces from the country by March 31, 2008 -- legislation that has virtually no chance of becoming law while Bush is president.

Obama was not yet elected to the U.S. Senate when Congress voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, but he gave a speech in 2002 opposing the war. He said Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States and predicted the invasion would lead to an occupation with undetermined costs and consequences.

His vision of what was to come in Iraq and his opposition to the invasion have helped build his support among the anti-war crowd.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com