Posted on 02/07/2007 9:57:50 AM PST by SirLinksalot
I know people who think the right to bear arms entitles them to own tanks and cannons and other major ordinance! Maybe even some of the Freepers who condemn Giuliani.
CobaltBlueStater - Who said anything about TANKS and CANNONS Buffy? Gun control means no itsey-bitsy little 38's or 22's. Either it is a Constitutional Right to be able to Bear an Arm, or it is not. Major Cities that restricting Guns also have the highest crime rates. Check for yourself before you deprive me of my Rights!
Comparing Rudy to wishy washy liberals like Specter, Snowe and Whitman is dishonest. He's about as far from that is we have ever seen in a public servant. He's not afraid to piss off the left at every turn. There are countless examples of this pre and post 9/11.
When the Brady Bill was introduced Reagan was senile.
He is running for President, not dictator. President Bush is pro-life but that hasn't exactly stopped abortions, has it?
Actually, individual states do have limits on free speech, like laws against libel and slander.
Individual states do have rules on unreasonable search and seizure, which cannot be less favorable than federal rules, but can be more favorable. In cases like that, the federal rules form a floor through which rights cannot be limited, not a ceiling disallowing greater rights.
Individual states limit the rights of property owners via zoning laws, laws restricting building on soil that won't percolate, etc.
I cannot think of any constitutional right that is absolute.
Can you?
It does strike me as very odd that most of the people who are the most vociferous to the tune that licensing handgun owners is an attempt to confiscate their weapons are also hotheads.
Could you be flying off the handle for no good reason?
Just a thought . . . .
Obviously not. And that's the way the politicians like it, Rudy would be no different.
Rudy Giuliani is no different then Joe Lieberman.
And I wouldn't support Joe to be POTUS, anymore then I'd support Rudy for the job. Both are liberals who happen to be pro-Bush WOT advocates. This is about more then just one issue. Social and fiscal issues are critical to most conservatives. They will not back Rudy in the primaries. You'll see. There are many Republicans who back the WOT and also side with social conservatives. Those candidates will get the support and the votes of the social conservatives.
Here is the way I look at this. Abortion, Gay Marriage and Gun Control are serious buzzwords, but in reality the President as very very little power in this regard...only if a bill makes it through congress that would get an up/down vote. There really is nothing for a President or Congress to do on Abortion that changes the dynamic much. You aren't guaranteed a Supreme Court appointment, and even then you aren't guaranteed you are getting what you THINK you are getting.
The lesser judges ARE more important...BUT
AFAIK Giulliani is a FISCAL conservative (but I haven not looked DEEPLY into his record in this regard), and strong on the military and crime. It seems to me that, overall, a Strict Constructionist judge is more likely to fit his agenda than a liberal one, because of the above. Govt corruption, spending, redtape, military, War on Terror etc etc are FAR more affected by the lower judge appointments than Gay marriage and Abortion.
A lot IMO depends on where we are with Iran, Iraq, Syria, Al Q, N.Korea come 2008 time. If we truly get into a full blown world war situation as it is traditionally thought of. Giuliani IS the kind of guy that will get in there and kick ass, regardless of the stupid assed media. He probably would have handled the Iraq invasion aftermath better than GWB...but that is speculation.
If we are NOT in that situation, but only in the current odd War on Terror as Mafia Sting...Giulliani is good at that as well. He might be the only guy that could actually clean up State and the CIA and mold it in Reagan's image. Gingrich has the best ideas but is unelectable. Maybe Giulliani/Gingrich?
If we were in pre 2001 social issue climate, I wouldn't even give Giulliani consideration. So I guess its all about how you view the gameboard.
If its butt against the wall fight or die time. I'll take Rudy. If its not, maybe the other issues become higher up the food chain.
Watch the videos. Rudy addresses the 2nd, although not satisfactorily for me.
Whoops - I see you have no speakers.
To win the general election the candidate will need more than just votes from social conservatives, and that includes independents, moderates and cross-over democrats. Giuliani and Romney can do that. Hunter can't.
You have every right to support and defend Giuliani.
But, people might actually read your posts if you didn't post the EXACT SAME SPAM POST on every Rudy thread.
I agree with your assessment, but I think his abortion position is acceptable - IF:
-He agrees to sign a partial birth abortion ban as long as there is a LOM provision
-Really WILL appoint Scalias, Thomases, Robertses, and Alitos to the SCOTUS
Really, at this point, my entire reason for posting spam (once per thread vs. other anti-Rudy people posting 2-3 times per PAGE) is that I hope people complain and the mods are forced to tell everyone to knock off the spam. All of it.
So, in other words, you're pouting.
Do I sound like I'm pouting? LOL
I'm having a blast being able to post spam. But if the mods want to step in and enforce the rules on all sides, I won't mind that either.
But carry on pretending that you think I'm upset.
There are actually three different possible scenarios that would unfold with regard to this issues, not two. They are as follows:
1. Women have the legal right under the U.S. Constitution to kill their children up until the time they are born. This was the essence of Roe v. Wade, and this is the law of the land right now despite a number of half-@ssed attempts on the part of the U.S. Supreme Court to accept some "restrictions" on this Constitutional right.
2. Roe v. Wade is overturned, and the power to permit or restrict abortion goes back to the states. This was the status quo in the United States before 1973, and this scenario has been presented as the logical result of "strict constructionist" applications of Constitutional law to this issue.
3. The U.S. Supreme Court -- probably (but not necessarily) in the form of a ruling passed down by "strict constructionist" judges -- recognizes that an unborn child must be given full legal protection as "persons" under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
There was a time when Scenario #2 was considered acceptable to the pro-life movement because it represented a dramatic improvement over the status quo under Roe, but I do not believe that to be the case anymore. Advances in modern science have made it eminently clear just how unacceptable it is for a civilized nation to permit this crap to go on, and it would be completely irrational (and destructive, from the standpoint of national unity) for an unborn child to be considered a human being in one state and the equivalent of a tumor in another.
Scenario #3 -- or something like it -- is eventually what is going to unfold. The only question for this country is whether it happens now, or if it happens 100 years from now when we are a nation of Mexican Muslims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.