rudy on taxes

[caspian_x]

I have no idea why this is broken into two vids, but here is another reason why I want this guy to be President so badly. He understand fiscal conservatism and he can back it up with real results.

Sing it, Rudy.

Rudy on Lowering Taxes, 1 of 2

Click to view

Rudy on Lowering Taxes, 2 of 2

Click to view

PS: There are a lot of other good vids on youtube from that same

Comments

[clayfoot]

So far, Guiliani's campaign is the only one I've heard use the term "the terrorists' war on us." I find this an intriguing word play, because I think of the war on terror much like the war on drugs. It makes me wonder if anyone has tried to use the term, "the drug pushers' war on us."

[caspian_x]

First of all, I agree, it is interesting word play. But by interesting, I also mean brilliant. Dems dislike the phrase "war on terror". They call it nothing more than a bumper sticker. Fine. It would be insane to deny that we have a terrorist problem, particularly when they have attacked us on our own soil and plan to do so again. You hear lots of criticism for "war on terror". Perhaps it's because it's not widespread in use, but I haven't seen much criticism against "terrorists' war on us" because to do so would be akin to denying that they have and plan to attack us. It's brilliant.

Second, I dislike the idea of a "war on drugs" or "war on poverty", especially in comparison to an actual war. You can't really compare a "war on drugs" to real military action. So while I find Rudy's verbiage of "the terrorists' war on us" to be inspired, I would find "drug pusher's war on us" to be inane.

[ikkarus01]

I don't see any real difference between the "War on Terror" and the "War on Drugs". They are both just phrases meant for media consumption with little relation to the Real World. "The terrorsists' war on us" has arguably a little more realistic value, but not much. And it's still just political theater in the end.

[caspian_x]

I don't see any real difference between the "War on Terror" and the "War on Drugs".

Except that the former is an actual military war and the latter is not. Just because we're attacking groups of people spread across many countries instead of a single country doesn't mean it's any less of a war than WWII.

"The terrorsists' war on us" has arguably a little more realistic value, but not much.

I'd say it has a lot more realistic value and that seems to be a big deal when you have people calling it nothing more than a bumper sticker.

[ikkarus01]

I don't consider the "War on Terror" bumper sticker used by politicians to have any relation to the actual military actions being prosecuted in the Middle East. It could potentially apply to Afganistan, but that's more of a "War on Al Qaeda / Taliban". It doesn't apply at all to Iraq, since that's a "War for Oil" or "War Against Islam" and the only real terrorism that exists there was generated as a response to us.

"War on Terror" is just as meaningless a phrase as "War on Drugs." Probably moreso. What is "Terror" and how to do you go to war against it? At least "drugs" are a tangible physicality that you can point to. "Terror" is a political boogeyman. Anything and everything can be called "Terror" or "Terrorism" or "Terrorists" if you look at it from the right angle of bullshit.

[caspian_x]

*Sigh*

I don't consider the "War on Terror" bumper sticker used by politicians to have any relation to the actual military actions being prosecuted in the Middle East.
That's your prerogative. I do relate the two. They are one in the same.

It doesn't apply at all to Iraq, since that's a "War for Oil" or "War Against Islam" and the only real terrorism that exists there was generated as a response to us.Yes, it's a war for oil! Look at how much oil we've stolen! That's why gas is so cheap lately! Hmmm