Rudy Giuliani in Drag Smooching Donald Trump

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

Run time: 00:46 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8   Posted on YouTube: April 14, 2006 By YouTube Member: itsgiulianitime Views on YouTube: 859341   Posted on DU: November 13, 2006 By DU Member: SheWhoMustBeObeyed Views on DU: 3917

 
Let Rudia's 2008 "exploratory" commence!

[bahrbearian]

1. Its good to see they both have come out of the closet.

[eleny]

2. President Trudy

:pals:

[City Lights]

45. LOL!

President Trudy. :rofl:

[cobaindrain]

3. This will play well in Utah and Kansas

I still don't see why his name is even mentioned as a GOP frontrunner in 2008

[David Dunham]

4. That is all for Guiliani.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

5. Rude Looks Like a Lady: more pix here --->

He seems awfully comfortable in women's clothing. But then, he's had a lot of practice:



Or maybe he just studied hard.

Miss Vera's Finishing School For Boys Who Want to Be Girls

(link is SFW)

[bigdarryl]

6. he's TOASTED!!! before he gets started.....

if that video plays in some states like Georgia ,Tennessee,Louisiana that are REDSTATE country he's DONE!!!!

[Montauk6]

7. Bullyani looks a bit like Barbara Bush, no?

[Eurobabe]

15. I was thinking TOOTSIE!

[Auggie]

8. Don't even bother running... you're toast already.

[patrice]

9. Owwwww, my eyes!!

You ought to put a warning on that.

[durrrty libby]

10. Now..now.....the gams ain't bad n/t

[Maven]

11. Great, let's use homophobia against the GOP!

What was that about "hypocrisy," again?

:eyes:

[NMMNG]

13. Same sh*t, different day

:banghead:

[foreigncorrespondent]

18. Exactly what I was thinking!!!

Can the world stop spinning now, I would like to get off!

[NMMNG]

22. I've been wanting to just crawl into bed and sleep for several weeks,

in hopes that this fad will blow over. :-(

[foreigncorrespondent]

24. So do I BTFS...

...but I fear that even if I was to remain in bed for a month of Sundays, and come back, I would still find this happening.

[NMMNG]

25. No doubt

Or if not, something very similar. :-(

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

14. What hypocrisy?

You may be unaware of, or choose to overlook, the fact that crossdressing is peculiar to heterosexuals. This is not a distinction that I have invented but one recognized by psychological and GLBT communities alike.

That a gay male should read mockery of Giuliani's fetish as an assault on gays speaks to the extent of the public's lack of understanding about crossdressers. The reasons straight men choose to wear women's clothing are as varied as the manner in which they wear them. I invite you to google 'heterosexual crossdresser' to learn more.

Nonetheless, I am not responsible for this lack of understanding nor for those who misinterpret Giuliani's fetish as an expression of homosexuality. What I am responsible for is helping discredit any potential Republican candidate who threatens Democrats' chances for retaking the White House in 2008.

I was pleased when Sam Walls lost his bid for the Texas state senate after revealing himself as a crossdresser. I was thrilled when Jack Ryan resigned as a candidate for the Senate after his ex-wife, actress Geri Ryan, revealed his proclivity for BDSM and public sex. This despite my personal view that condones any activity between consenting adults.

So whether people reject Rudy over his perceived homosexuality, his unconventional sexual practices, or his blurring of gender identifiction is something I cannot control and don't care much about. My interests lie in stopping the American Taliban from establishing a theocracy in the United States. The surest way to do that is to keep Republicans from controlling Congress and the White House.

[Maven]

16. ...

A) This isn't a fetish, it was clearly a joke (as far as I know anyway)

B) Using his "perceived homosexuality" as a weapon against him is homophobic, pure and simple, and hypocritical if in fact your intentions are as you state. Why not use the fact that he stayed with a gay couple while he was estranged from his wife? How far will you go to win?

So whether people reject Rudy over his perceived homosexuality, his unconventional sexual practices, or his blurring of gender identifiction is something I cannot control and don't care much about. My interests lie in stopping the American Taliban from establishing a theocracy in the United States. The surest way to do that is to keep Republicans from controlling Congress and the White House.

Right, so you'll fling dirt at someone to win the fight, and if 90% of it lands on innocent people, well, that's politics, right?

BTW, I am aware that crossdressing is a common hetero fetish. That is an entirely different issue.

There are a million reasons to hate Rudy Giuliani. I'm a New Yorker, and that motherfucker sold out my city like a cheap whore to some carpetbagging, fearmongering conspiracy-covering criminals. It's unnecessary to go down this path just to win. Let's not and say we did.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

17. Well

There is no telling whether Giuliani's dress-up is a joke. I posted the other images to show it's something he's done a number of times, which suggests that it's a secret he is hiding in plain sight.

Nor can noting his public appearances in women's clothing be characterized as flinging dirt. George Allen was labeled a racist for his public words and deeds, yet his narrow loss shows that many either didn't believe him to be a racist, approved of his racism, or didn't care about racism as an issue.

So it will be for Giuliani, who has his own issues to deal with. He will have to hope that Republicans in the South and the religious right - groups he is working hard to impress - don't believe he supports gay marriage, approve of his pro-choice stance, and don't care about his messy personal life.

Seeing him in a skirt will hardly be the meat of the matter. It's just croutons on a salad that will wilt before the primaries are through.

[The Magistrate]

20. Absolutely, Mr. Korman: Without A Doubt, And Without The Least Compunction

Whatever is most readily useful to win a fight will not trouble me in the least to employ. No one on the left created a condition in which a large number of Republican voters can be relied on to react harshly against the percetion of homosexuality. Giuliani might be a formidable candidate in a general election, but he can probably be stopped in the Republican primary over his views on "lifestyle" issue, which his penchant for public drag displays will serve as an excellent emblem of. The political ground is what it is, and the art of strategy is to turn the ground to one's own advantage where this is possible.

[Maven]

21. So then let's start running racist ads in the south against black GOP candidates.

After all, no one on the left created a condition in which a large number of Republican voters can be relied upon to react harshly against racial minorities seeking political power. Right?

Of course, you would never suggest such a thing. Using racism to your political advantage is disgusting. And yet you pretend you may leverage hatred against a different minority, without consideration for whom you hurt or offend, and justify your actions with "strategy?" Shame.

The right may have made homophobia into a cottage industry, but the left is not immune to it either, as this thread (and many, many others on DU) amply demonstrate. And to use bigotry as a weapon is immoral no matter your target. Perhaps you might remember why it is we prize liberalism in the first place.

[The Magistrate]

23. That, Mr. Korman, Is Not A Proposition You Would Be Well Advised To Bet On

The hypothetical trick you are essaying here does, as is often the case with employments of this wheeze of a technique, fall much too far short of any engagement with the reality of circumstances likely to be encountered to carry any weight or deserve serious engagement. Republicans have already done all the race-baiting needed to defeat their own Black candidates when they are foolish enough to put some forth. The difference between the vote totals for DeWine and Blackwell in Ohio provides an excellent gauge of the proportion of Republican voters who simply will not vote for a Black man in a race against a White candidate. Republican Black candidates are routinely and effectively race baited among the Black community along the "oreo" line, and this has appeal among a broader section of Democrats as well. In a southern race, where in many states as much as half of the Democratic vote total would come from Blacks, anything beyond this would be clearly counter-productive, and no competent strategist would urge it. But the calculation is a wholly amoral one: strategic calculations always are.

The fact remains that this is going to be used against Giuliani by Republicans in Republican primaries, should he actually attempt a run for the Presidency. He will not survive the attacks in the primaries on this line, and so it will not be necessary for Democrats to make any use of this. Even something like this thread does nothing to effect this: it discloses no deep secret, but merely points to things widely known, that no opponent of Giuliani's will fail to find on his or her own. My own temperament inclines me to a bit of glee at such a spectacle as the enemy depriving itself of someone who might well prove a good candidate in a general election because of the bigotries it has deliberately stoked among its most committed rank and file elements.

The charge that persons pointing out the existence of homophobia, and its political consequences in a particular instance, brand themselves as homophobic by doing so, is pushing matters several steps too far. To do that is to insist that real factors be ignored, and that we all pretend things are other than they are. One of the problems with discourse on the left is the high value assigned to victim status, and the idea that an arguement can be won by establishing oneself as the victim, since whoever is the greater victim is necesarily in the right, and always correct. The tactic of labelling anyone who disagrees as a bigot is ultimately sterile and quite unproductive, as it is seldom accurate, and amounts to nothing more than arguement by insult. This only angers people, and never persuades them.

[Maven]

26. The idea that all strategic calculations are amoral is outrageous.

In the 1970's, Ford Corporation let people burn to death in poorly made cars because its managers calculated that it would be cheaper to settle lawsuits than to upgrade inexpensive parts. That was a strategic calculation, but few would argue it was ultimately amoral. We must define our actions not merely by intent but also by effect, otherwise we may justify almost anything.

You refuse to concede that employing bigotry against someone hurts not merely one's immediate target but also the entire class of persons subject to such bigotry; yet this is one of the basic premises behind hate crimes legislation. This is how bigotry self-perpetuates.

Our disagreement has nothing to do with "pointing out the existence of homophobia," as you coyly suggest, but with the use of homophobia to one's advantage. There's a big difference. The GLBT community gets little official help from the Democratic Party, and certainly not from self-professed "strategists" like you, sir; I do not think it improper, therefore, to ask that our supposed allies not work against us at a time when it is still acceptable to publicly slander and persecute GLBT people. But, tell me: Have I imagined all of that hatred? Am I just playing the victim?

I should also note that your strategy is unlikely to work, as those on the right are prone to justify the perceived "shortcomings" of their latest messiah, charges of hypocrisy be damned. If Mr. Giuliani is indeed anointed as such, and if you try to impeach his character with ridiculous material such as this, you will activate a chorus of partisans charging pettiness and even hatred. Yes--you will, ironically, be called to defend your actions against the true bigots, who will spin Mr. Giuliani's publicity stunt as a testament to his "sense of humor." Beware that double-standard, and proceed carefully.

[The Magistrate]

27. If You Say So, Sir

It will not alter the fact that strategy is a wholly amoral enterprise, but you are free to say it is not, and in high dudgeon too, all you please. It may on occassion be the best strategy to adopt a course that can be presented as a moral one, but that is hardly the same thing as a moral calculation.

When involved in a fight, Sir, anything that can be turned to advantage will be. To do so is the nearest thing to a moral principle that can be deduced from engagement in conflict. One ought not engage in a fight if it is not important that it be won, and if it is important to win it, everything that can be done to secure victory must be done. To do less is to confess the thing is not worth winning, which is the same as acknowledging it was not worth fighting over in the first place, which makes even the harm done to the open enemy in its course a self-evident wrong.

[ThomCat]

28. Strategy is never amoral.

Attempts to define strategy as amoral are simply efforts to deny responsibility for ones own actions and the actions you support.

Yes, in a fight you might use any weapon at hand. But you need to take responsibility for the weapon you pick up and use. You're the one who picked it up and used it.

[The Magistrate]

30. From Which Of My Statements, Mr. Cat

Do you derive the notion of my not accepting responsibility for any harm my actions may do another? When one does harm to another, the calculation behind the action is that it may result in something that advances one's own interests in some way sufficient to be of greater desireability than the other not being harmed. The actions, including the quite predictable actions, of other persons are of course no responsibility of mine.

"Life is an exercise in doing in evil in the hope good may come of it."

[ThomCat]

32. Utilitarian ethics are easy when it's not you paying the cost.

That makes the math very simple indeed. :eyes:

The whole idea that strategy is amoral is a denial of responsibility. It's a denial that what you do is, or could be, wrong simply because you have a strategic reason for doing it.

I'm amazed that you could even post the idea that strategy is amoral. That's one of the most disgusting immoral statements I've seen.

[The Magistrate]

34. It Is Not A Denial, Mr. Cat

It is an acceptance. We are clearly different people, with different attitudes and doubtless different experiences and temperaments. Whether an action is moral or not is not one my earlier questions in assessing a course of action, nor is it of much concern to me whether others regard me as good or evil.

[ThomCat]

37. I don't care whether people think

I'm good or evil either, but I'm very concerned with whether or not I'm doing good or evil.

Again, your focus is disturbing and very telling. First you focus on the end as a justification for any means, and then you focus on the perception of good and evil rather than the fact of it.

I think you've revealed more about yourself today than you usually do, and definitely more than you intended.

[Maven]

29. You are conflating two separate concepts.

A strategy is not the same as a calculation. While an assessment or "calculation" of the circumstances may be ipso facto devoid of moral content, a strategy is a prescribed course of action, and actions undoubtedly have moral content. To suggest otherwise is either absurd or nihilistic, and probably both.

A strategy may be the product of a calculation, but they are not the same thing.

One ought not engage in a fight if it is not important that it be won, and if it is important to win it, everything that can be done to secure victory must be done. To do less is to confess the thing is not worth winning, which is the same as acknowledging it was not worth fighting over in the first place, which makes even the harm done to the open enemy in its course a self-evident wrong.

Again absurdity and twisted logic not worth untangling. Is there no limit to legitimate political strategy in your eyes? No aspect of integrity we shouldn't forfeit to avoid "doing less?" Shall we engage in lies? Surveillance? Murder?

[The Magistrate]

31. You Are Going From Pillar To Post Here, Mr. Korman, Whether You Realize It Or Not

My initial statement was that strategic calculation was an amoral enterprise, and my further statement that strategy was an amoral enterprise. You commenced by claiming that to state strategic calculation was amoral was absurd, and are now, at least so far as can be determined, accepting that strategic calculation is, or may be, devoid of moral content, though insisting strategy is subject to morality, and claiming further that strategy is somehow something different from the calculations that shape it. Perhaps you are of the view that a thought is not an action? Though it is hard to see how it is not an act to think, particularly as there is necessarily a physicality to the action of any organ of the body.

Strategy is not judged by whether it is right or wrong in some moral sense, but by whether it succeeds or fails in practical employment: what succeeds is good strategy, what fails is bad strategy. Whether the means by which a strategy succeeds or fails do or do not meet some person's moral tests of right and wrong is immaterial, save insofar as an appearance of being morally right or wrong may advance or retard the successful execution of a strategy. The end which a strategist seeks to achieve may well have some moral quality, but it is quite possible to pursue a bad end by pure means, and vice versa.

[ThomCat]

33. "Strategy is not judged by whether it is right or wrong

in some moral sense, but by whether it succeeds or fails in practical employment: what succeeds is good strategy, what fails is bad strategy."

That is the reasoning of war criminals and monsters. Did you read what you wrote? Do you have any clue what you're talking about?
x(

[The Magistrate]

35. It Is The Reasoning Of Persons Concerned With Gaining An End, Mr. Cat

You may safely assume my having read my words, and that they are the product of a good deal of thought and meditation over the years....

"This is the best world possible: everything in it is a necessary evil."

[ThomCat]

36. "The end justifies the means"

is almost the definition of moral apathy. Or put a different way, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If means are not just as important as the end, if the tactics aren't just as important as the goal, then any evil is possible. All you need is a cause you believe in and you're on your way towards attrocities.

You and I will have to disagree on this issue. I truly hope you're not as certain and confident in your position as you present yourself to be, because if you are, that would be a shame. It's that kind of thinking that got us into many of the problems we're facing right now.

As Albert Einstein famously said, "You can't solve a problem with the same reasoning you used to create it."

[Maven]

38. You've misinterpreted my words again.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I assumed that you were splitting hairs, differentiating between the moral content of assessment versus action. I now see from your reply (and your replies elsewhere in this thread) that you apparently feel no compuction to act morally or even ethically. You defer neither to justice nor honesty. For you, virtue equals victory.

This is a viewpoint I find contemptible as an officer of the court. This is a viewpoint I shun as a Democrat.

Let's end our conversation here.

[Jamastiene]

39. Well, if the Dems are going to use homosexuality against

the Repubs, then you should at least have the common courtesy to let US (GLBT people) be the ones to do it. Otherwise, you are treating us as a stepping stone. It'll be lonely at the top when you realize you've stopped at nothing to get there. The fall will be harder too when you realize you have lost the people who supported you in the beginning as well. We'll remember this.

[ThomCat]

41. Yes, we will definitely remember this.

[hedgehog]

47. I don't consider his cross dressing to be anything but contempt for women.

There are different styles of cross dressing and to me his is an expression of how he views women. It's like the N word - in some mouths it's a racist slur, in others it's a affectionate greeting!

[Jamastiene]

40. Looks like they would ask us GLBT people how we would

prefer to do things instead of using us and telling us to shut the fuck up when we ask them for just a few measly rights...

I'm with you.
:eyes:

[JI7]

12. the Republican Primary sure is going to be fun to watch

would it be wrong to provide dirt on certain Republicans to other Republicans ?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cjmastaw]

42. ?

What....The....F?

[Infinite Hope]

43. Kick. Some of the new comments on YouTube for that video are good.

Check it out.

[MalloyLiberal]

44. lol

[WorldResident]

46. Now I know why moderates like Rudy, and this scares me

Unfortunately, the Democratic victory in 2006 has scared the shit into Republicans to elect a moderate candidate.