If You Supported the Impeachment of Bill Clinton, Then Exactly How Do You Justify Supporting Rudy Giuliani
Attention Hoochie Mamas: Rudy Will Soon Be Looking for a Fourth Wife
Yeah, that's right. His hoochie mama. Rudy Giuliani wasted taxpayer money on bodyguards for his mistress while he was married! Try to justify that to your miniscule mind that castigates a President for an affair that was none of your business. Let's be fair: If Rudy Giuliani wanted to run around on his wife and chase some tail on the side, that's not our business, either. (There is one similarity between Rudy and Clinton: both have distinctly bad taste in their choice of booty call object. I'm just saying.) But what can we expect if the unthinkable and tragic actually occurred and Rudy Giuliani found himself as the leader of the free world (the second straight occurrence in which a man moves into the White House with no idea what to do when he gets there) and his roving eye finds another sweet youngish thang and he cheats on his current wife-the former hoochie mama. How can long we expect Rudy's third-third, third, third-marriage to last once he obtains the apex of power as an aphrodisiac? Will it be an intern? That would be such sweet justice if sex-crazed Rudy Giuliani was impeached for getting his freak on with an intern. Not that it would happen, of course. I mean, criminy, if the spineless Democrats won't impeach Bush for actual criminal behavior, I find it highly unlikely that they would have the guts to risk being accused of impeaching Giuliani just for the sake of revenge.
The question at hand is how much of your money could we expect Rudy to waste on his next hoochie mama? And you know there will be one. A guy who marries three times while in the political arena simply can't be expected to stop his wild urges overnight. As I said, I don't particularly care if Rudy Giuliani had orgies with the entire cast of Sex in the City every night in the Manhattan (a perfect melding of ugly man and ugly women), but the prime difference between Clinton and Giuliani is that Clinton didn't routinely subsidize his hoochie mama on the taxpayer's dime.
Another urge that we can't take a chance on Giuliani changing overnight.
Published by Timothy Sexton - Featured Contributor in Arts & Entertainment
Timothy Sexton was named this site's very first Writer of the Year. Today he has two daily columns and one weekly column on Yahoo! Movies as well as frequent irregular contributions. Mr. Sexton was twice nam... View profile
Rudy Giuliani: Reinvention, Reinvigoration, and Greater FreedomGiuliani believes that he has the experience, knowledge, and success in public service to become the next President of the United States. 
Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday MorningClinton points out the hypocrisy of the right wing attack on his performance in fighting terrorism and Bin Laden. Clinton points out that Fox News only asks questions in this l...- The Many Opinions of Rudy GiulianiAs you prepare to make your decision for your presidential vote, consider Rudy Giuliani's opinions on some important issues.
- Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani Lead Poll of Conservative Political Action ConferenceMitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, and Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, finished first and second in a straw poll of conservatives who attended CPAC. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback was third, f...
- Little Known Facts About Rudy GiulianiRudy Giuliani is a potential president of the United States. Despite his high profile career stop at the mayor's office in New York City, there are still plenty of little known facts about Rudy Giuliani.
- Rudy Giuliani: Views & Platform for the 2008 Election
- Bill Clinton at Democratic Rally in Tempe, Arizona
- Why Rudy Giuliani Should Become a Democrat and Run in the 2008 Presidential Race
- Rudy Giuliani: The Issues
- George Pataki and Rudy Giuliani's Potential Candidacy for the 2008 Presidential El...
- Election 2008: Rudy Giuliani Calls Bernard Kerik, "Basically, a Good Criminal."
- Hillary Clinton: Platform for the 2008 Election
31 Comments
Post a CommentJim I've been thinking the same thing. I mean the man broke up with his wife on NATIONAL TV without bothering to tell her first he was going to do it. He's a scumbag. Can't understand why anyone would vote for Rudy?
Well spoken, Jim. I have no problems with your stand. It seems to me civil unions cover the legal aspects, and the concept of "marriage" is I guess spiritual in nature. Under those circumstances, I would imagine it falls within the realm of whatever religion one subscribes to. Personally, I have no horse in this race, either way it has no effect on me. The people whom I object to are merely the ones who try to foist their morality on others, beyond the legal parameters already set.
Mark, by think I also meant act, in that to hold a thought private is clearly not the same as espousing or acting upon same. Gay marriage - my objection is 2 fold. It really became a political football just before the '04 elections, and that was not by chance. Secondly, I am 100% in favor of civil unions and the power of full faith & credit. I DO OBJECT when issues which are as politically driven as they are philosophically so are foisted into the public debate under the guise of being completely NON-POLITICAL, when the facts clearly demonstrate otherwise. And as I am 100% in favor of civil unions, I believe I have more than come half-way to meet my opponents in the middle. Rhetorically, must my opposition get EVERYTHING in the negotiation? Can your side come to me a little, at least as far as I extend myself to you?
Aw...blush.
Brant, the only way in which true Liberals interfere in how people live is when one group is oppressing another. Other than that, feel free to believe what you want, and live the life you choose. It's a golden rule kind of thing. You can live your life by your standards as long as it doesn't include forcing others to live by your standards.
You see, this is why I'm proud to call Mark my oldest friend.
Now, theoretically, you may think homosexual marriage is a sin, and you are free to live your life as you choose. The liberal standpoint would be that you do not have the right to stop someone who feels otherwise to live the life that they choose.
The difference being between thought and action.
Sure, Jim. An example:
"Whereas the Left is telling me what is and is not appropriate to think."
You can think whatever you like. It's your actions that count. The problem seems to be in a basic misunderstanding. Taking gay marriage as an example, allowing gays to marry in no way infringes on you right to a straight relationship, or any of your traditions. Not allowing religious displays on public funded property in no way infringes on your ability to practice your religion. However, forbidding gays to marry infringes on their freedoms, and posting Judeo-Christian law in courtrooms certainly implies judgement on those who do not follow such beliefs, while fully supporting the US Constitution.
Surely, it is at least below "We know where the WMDs are" by Donald Rumsfeld. Yet my statement has caused no needless deaths, while that one is responsible for tens of thousands. Good to see you have a sense of perspective there, Brant.
"The Left tells other people to quit interfering in how they choose to live."___CP of the Year? Surely they were joking. Your statement has got to be one of the Top 10 Most Idiotic comments ever made.