You can definately tell that NYC is getting worse and worse. When I was there last month as opposed to January 2002 it is such a night and day difference. Guiliani really cleaned up New York and it is going back downhill with the street gangs and thugs that you would never see in touristy areas now.

All that aside I would still vote for McCain or Obama before Guiliani.

 

Very different stage we are talking about here.

 

I am not arguing that he didn't do a good job in NYC. But he will never be president with his past and some of his own positions. Being a major, of even a huge city like NYC, is a completely different playing field to that of running for president. His past will bring him down alone not to mention what he stands for.

 

I don't think Giuliani is presidential material.

If the Wtc rubble had been forensically exmanined prior to removal and shipment out of the country; I would have considered his actions viable.

 

Point taken. GW was a great governor in TX regarding immigration and a few other issues.

 

GW didn't accomplish much in TX. I'm still suprised to this day that he actually won with his basically tiny record that he had. (Time wise that is.) Shrug.

 

Out of the 20 people listed in that poll, how many of those 62,000,000 would have listed W #1? I'm thinking not many at this point in time. Not to mention the, what, 58(?) million that voted for Kerry, but dropped him to #20 on the list? Just goes to show you that America loves a winner, no matter what his merits or lack thereof may be. Hell, he finished lower than Hillary... and Gore. :rotfl: The population of this country isn't as conservative as the previous 3 or 4 elections would indicate. There will never be a significant majority of liberals or conservatives in this country again, there are too many swing voters, who will never be wholly satisfied with how thing move along, because there will never be a strong majority to the left or right in this country, because there are too many swing voters who... well, you get the idea.

You're definitely right that the new Congress didn't get elected on political agenda, but by lack of effectiveness of the old one, with maybe a slight shift left by America as a whole.

I too am anti-2nd amendment... but I am not pro-gun control. I just think the 2nd amendment is not what grants the right for private citizens to own firearms, the government just lacks the authority to take them away en masse.

Agreed, but this:

Has nothing to do with it. Without arguing the validity of conspiracy theories, Giuliani had ZERO authority over the FBI, NTSB, Customs, ATF, non-NY National Guard, etc. etc. etc.

 

...
+1

 

Correct; although

A state statute provides that ``[s]ubject to the state constitution, the federal constitution and federal statutes and regulations .... the governor may by executive order temporarily suspend specific provisions of any statute, local law, ordinance, or orders, rules or regulations, or parts thereof, of any agency during a state disaster emergency, if compliance with such provisions would prevent, hinder, or delay action necessary to cope with the disaster.''(25) Governor Pataki used this law on September 12 to suspend many statutes of limitations, and on October 9 he used it to suspend certain regulations regarding transportation and handling of solid wastes, so as to facilitate the WTC removal operation.(26)

 

That only applies to New York state laws as I read it. And even if there was a law on the New York books giving New York legislators and executive offices power to command federal agencies, they would be unconstitutional. Teh feds pwn j00 states!!

 

Not trying to be critical because I really don't have a 'side' on this issue, but "subject to" means within the constraints of. Like, a governor can, under extreme circumstance (like 2 skyscrapers disintegrating...or a devastating hurricane) temporarily suspend laws/rules/regs/statutes... This doesn't assume that a governor can declare martial law or commission any such action that is commonly held to be a crime (meaning anything that's generally intended to unjustly benefit one party over another under the excuse of disaster.)

Further, I don't see how illustrating what Pataki may or may not have been able to do is germaine to what Guilliani did or didn't do.

You're probably making a very valid point...I just don't get it.

 

Of course not.


Were these men not able to collaborate? As two of the states higher officials; it is their responsibility, no?

It was most likely in New York's best interest to remove the debris asap; regardless of outside agencies. Especially considering the amount of hazardous materials within the rubble of Wtc.

My point is; I think Giuliani and Pataki should have been more persistent towards a proper investigation. Or is it that there was no need a proper investgation? After all, we know without the shadow of a doubt who was/were the purpetrator(s)... Right?