Posted on 04/03/2007 6:29:03 PM PDT by LdSentinal
The addition of former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) to the list of candidates shakes up the race for the GOP Presidential nomination.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) remains on top, but his support dips below the 30% mark for the first time in seven weeks. With Thompson in the mix, Giuliani’s support tumbles to 26%, down nine points from a week ago. That’s the lowest level of support measured for Giuliani in any Rasmussen Reports poll this year.
Support for Arizona Senator John McCain remains steady at 16%, but McCain’s hold on second place is threatened by Thompson. The movie star turned Senator turned TV star weighs in with 14% support among those likely to vote in a GOP primary. Among Very Conservative voters, Giuliani attracts 20% support followed closely by Thompson at 19%, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 18% and McCain at 14%.
You missed my point. McCain’s numbers have not increased- they’ve dropped. Thompson is in this for himself, not his ‘friend’, McCain.
“Gosh, who to believe about whether Rudy is a fiscal conservative? GovernmentIsTheProblem or FrontPage magazine, Newt Gingrich, George Will or a host of others?”
That’s a logical fallacy - appeal to authority.
I cited specific facts which aren’t in the article you listed.
Use your mushy peach and respond to what I wrote, not with a red herring.
Maybe Will and FPM didn’t know about what I posted?
Anyway, calling someone conservative who opposes the right to keep and bear arms and supports abortion and bill clinton is just paradoxical.
What kind of a fool would directly tell the US that he intends to strip them of a fundamental constitutional right? No politician will ever say this, but we can still guage his intentions based on past actions and statements of belief.
"We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions – and really stronger ones – that exist for driving an automobile," he said in 1997.
He said what he did as mayor would have no effect on hunting. - What about self defense, sport shooting, our last resort against a tyrannical government?
“The more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less you take out of society, the more it is going to go up.” - This belief clearly indicates that he does not trust law abiding citizens to defend themselves, families and property.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emeu2KRt2Vg - discusses his support of national gun registration and written tests prior to exercising 2A right. What if we said the same about voting?
"You got to regulate consistent with the second amendment.” - How is this congruent with "shall not be infringed"?
NYC boy interviewing NYC boy...
Maybe it’s your “facts” that are mushy. Nothing you wrote is sourced, ace.
This is a disingenuous mischaracterization of what happened. You need to talk to some of your fellow law-abiding New York Freepers who were arbitrarily and retroactively criminalized and then deprived of their property by Giuliani's "revised review process".
You must remember, at the time, murders were out of control in New York City, topping out at a Dinkins administration high of around 2000/yr. Following these law and order measures, the number of murders were brought down to around 650/yr.
I guess one could conclude that in this case more guns did not equal less crime — and the opposite was true that less guns equaled less crime.
"One" can conclude no such thing, unless "one" completely ignores the basic requirements for logical proof and the fundamental difference between the terms "causation" and "correlation".
“Maybe it’s your “facts” that are mushy. Nothing you wrote is sourced, ace.”
Wanna bet?
You now must respond to each of these, and explain why you still support Rudy.
My first post: “ Posted by GovernmentIsTheProblem to Peach
On News/Activism 04/03/2007 7:56:51 PM PDT · 42 of 85
“And Hillary would never decrease taxes 23 times like Rudy did.”
Fiscal Conservatism: Rudy is barely a fiscal conservative. He’s a big government Republican. Rudy got taxes cut $2.0 billion. But that only offset the $1.8 billion tax increase Mayor Dinkins signed off on a few years earlier. A modest $200 million tax cut. Rudy also froze the 12.5% surcharge on high income earners, but he didn’t eliminate the surcharge. Nor did Rudy abolish the city income tax structure. Rudy also left NYCity saddled with a projected, pre-9/11 deficit of $2.0 billion and a $42 billion debt. Second largest behind the federal government. Rudy also added 15,000 new teachers to the city employment rolls, helping to increase the membership of two of America’s largest liberal oraganizations. The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. Rudy also took all those savings from the cuts in welfare costs and applied them to other city welfare progarms. Really no savings whatsoever. The scope of city services wasn’t reduced. In addition, Rudy almost doubled the costs of contractual outsourcing from $3.0 billion to $5.8 billion. He has also refused to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge that has become a mainstay of Republican presidential politics for decades. These are just a few of the things that demonstrate that the myth of Rudy’s fiscal conservatism is just that - a myth.”
From my post - “Rudy got taxes cut $2.0 billion. But that only offset the $1.8 billion tax increase Mayor Dinkins signed off on a few years earlier.”
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nyp-rudys_tax_cuts.htm
(there are citations at the bottom of this article)
“On the surface, the city’s recent tax-reduction record looks impressive. New York residents and businesses have saved $2 billion from city tax cuts over the past five years. But those numbers need to be kept in context: After all, just a few years before the tax-cutting started, Mayor David Dinkins had raised taxes by $1.8 billion, in current terms.”
“The net change in city taxes since 1990 has been a decidedly more modest cut of $200 million ($700 million, if you include the commuter-tax repeal, which mainly helped suburbanites).”
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_23.htm
“Even with the tax cuts of the last several years, New York remains by far the most heavily taxed big city in the country.”
From my post - “Rudy also left NYCity saddled with a projected, pre-9/11 deficit of $2.0 billion and a $42 billion debt. Second largest behind the federal government.”
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_23.htm
“Recurring expenditures were on track to exceed recurring revenues by at least $2 billion in Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s last budget—an operating deficit he temporarily covered with prior year surpluses.”
“Rudy also added 15,000 new teachers to the city employment rolls, helping to increase the membership of two of America’s largest liberal oraganizations. The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.
All the teachers in NYC must belong to the NEA. No cite needed. I didn’t find any cite about how many teachers were hired.
BTW if you pick on this one and ignore the rest, you lose.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_23.htm
“But as the number of outsourced contracts doubled under Giuliani, contractual expenses also nearly doubled—from $3 billion to $5.8 billion.”
From my post - “He has also refused to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge that has become a mainstay of Republican presidential politics for decades.”
http://friendsofatr.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html
“Yesterday, Rep. Tom Tancredo signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge in his bid for the Republican nomination. He joins the growing lists of candidates willing to stand up for the American taxpayer. This list includes: Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. Sam Brownback, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Gov. Jim Gilmore, and now Rep. Tancredo. *** The only other candidates not to sign the pledge are Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain. ***”
There you go - cited every sentence in the paragraph.
Since you accused my “facts” of being mushy, you must either apologize, or come up with citations of your own that refute the metrics I posted. SHow that Rudy did more than repeal the previous Dinkins tax increase, as opposed to actually cutting taxes beyond that, for example.
Peach, you’re the one who is mushy!
This was your post to me:
Fiscal Conservatism: Rudy is barely a fiscal conservative. He’s a big government Republican. Rudy got taxes cut $2.0 billion. But that only offset the $1.8 billion tax increase Mayor Dinkins signed off on a few years earlier. A modest $200 million tax cut. Rudy also froze the 12.5% surcharge on high income earners, but he didn’t eliminate the surcharge. Nor did Rudy abolish the city income tax structure. Rudy also left NYCity saddled with a projected, pre-9/11 deficit of $2.0 billion and a $42 billion debt. Second largest behind the federal government. Rudy also added 15,000 new teachers to the city employment rolls, helping to increase the membership of two of America’s largest liberal oraganizations. The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. Rudy also took all those savings from the cuts in welfare costs and applied them to other city welfare progarms. Really no savings whatsoever. The scope of city services wasn’t reduced. In addition, Rudy almost doubled the costs of contractual outsourcing from $3.0 billion to $5.8 billion. He has also refused to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge that has become a mainstay of Republican presidential politics for decades. These are just a few of the things that demonstrate that the myth of Rudy’s fiscal conservatism is just that - a myth.
42 posted on 04/03/2007 10:56:51 PM EDT by GovernmentIsTheProblem (Capitalism is the economic expression of individual liberty. Pass it on.)
Do you see links in that post? Why no, no you don’t. But nice way to backtrack and pretend you gave all those links. ROFL
My reply to this post made my FR homepage. I am starting a collection of Rutarded posts and rebuttals. You are the first winner.
You pretend you sourced your own post to me and then when called on it you call ME a Rutard? Feel free to put whatever you wish on your homepage; if you don’t mind that you look like a fool, I certainly don’t mind.
“Do you see links in that post? Why no, no you don’t. But nice way to backtrack and pretend you gave all those links. ROFL”
YOU HAVE THE LINKS NOW.
DO something about it.
You accused me of making it up - I took the time to find citations.
Your reply was the single most childish I have seen on this forum, yet.
EVERY one of those facts are cited. (thanks for re-posting it btw!) You now have no recourse.
Now you can either cry like a baby and make my FR homepage again, or you can respond to the points. My guess is you’ll stick your fingers in your ears (again) and cry ‘nyah nyah.’
So what? My first post didn’t have the cites. Does every one of your posts have a cite? No. I looked. You asked for them, I provided them, and you pretended like somehow there was an expiry date on providing citations. There is none. Now get responding.
“You pretend you sourced your own post to me and then when called on it you call ME a Rutard? Feel free to put whatever you wish on your homepage; if you don’t mind that you look like a fool, I certainly don’t mind.”
What is wrong with you?
I made a post, you asked for citations, and then you acted like I did something wrong by doing it.
You act that way because you are incapable of responding to the substance of what I wrote.
Deal with the SUBSTANCE peach not the process.
Well now you're just outright lying. I didn't accuse you of making it up; I just noted you didn't source your facts.
My reply to this post made my FR homepage. I am starting a collection of Rutarded posts and rebuttals. You are the first winner.
Oh yeah. I really want to talk with someone who responded to a note that you didn't source your post with that little response. You're on ignore. And feel free to put that on your homepage.
“Well now you’re just outright lying. I didn’t accuse you of making it up; I just noted you didn’t source your facts.”
Yes you did. Look at post 85 - “Maybe it’s your “facts” that are mushy.” That’s your quote. You said I was posting factually incorrect things intentionally - also known as lying.
I sourced them, and you ignored them. The facts can be inconvenient things.
“Oh yeah. I really want to talk with someone who responded to a note that you didn’t source your post with that little response. You’re on ignore. And feel free to put that on your homepage.”
Well, instead of responding to the citations, you said
“Do you see links in that post? Why no, no you don’t. But nice way to backtrack and pretend you gave all those links. ROFL”
I provided the links, and you didn’t respond. I called you on it, now you’re running away with your tail between your legs.
For some reason you want to discredit others, but then run away when called on it and play the victim.
Let’s both take a step back, take a deep breath, and then you can respond to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1811569/posts?page=87#87
My absolute last response to you:
There is a difference between calling your posts mushy (because you didn’t initially source them) and your saying that I accused you of making up information. Big difference.
And that you clearly don’t understand that difference and have applied the Rutard name to me, I have aboslutely nothing further to say to you. You have a good day.
“And that you clearly don’t understand that difference and have applied the Rutard name to me, I have aboslutely nothing further to say to you. You have a good day.”
You had nothing to say to me immediately after I posted the cites, either. You just made some weird dismissive response about how my initial post didn’t contain them.
In other words, you didn’t have anything of substance to say then, and you don’t now. You’re averse to facts and citations. Averse to facts and citations. Averse! They are like garlic to a werewolf, to you. Like sunlight to a vampire.
Someone cites the facts about Rudy to you, and you put your fingers in your ears, say “nyah nyah,” and run away.
He is NOT a fiscal conservative, and I proved it.
Again - take a step back, and if you’re serious, counter what I said. I suspect you won’t - you don’t have it in you to deal with facts, only logical fallacies (frontpage mag said blah blah so it must be true - appeal to authority) - while actual metrics like I posted have you manufacture some victimhood as an excuse not to respond. Now THAT is a DU tactic on FR.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1811600/posts?page=314
Hillary Clinton on Gun Control
Pinging Pharmboy for truth.
Thank you in return for your respectful response. I think we all want what’s best for the party and the country — we just disagree on what that is. :) Please let me know if you would like the links I have found on those issues.
Socially, they are very much alike.
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.