Posted on 01/29/2007 1:36:27 PM PST by Dark Skies
Many skeptics continue to question whether Rudy Giuliani is serious about making a run for the White House, but it was abundantly clear on Saturday that he had come to Manchester for more than the sub-freezing temperatures.
Addressing over 500 activists at the New Hampshire Republican Party's annual meeting as part of a two-day swing through the state, Giuliani sketched the broad outlines of what looks like a presidential run. Sounding at times like a motivational speaker, Giuliani cautioned against cynicism and pessimism in the wake of November's election results and challenges in the ongoing War on Terror. The message especially resonated with the audience in this critical primary state, where the Republican Party just lost control of both chambers of the legislature for the first time since the 1870s.
"The best way we remain safe and we retain our freedom...is remaining on offense, remaining strong and not becoming weak in a time of pressure," Giuliani said in a line that drew the biggest applause from the crowd at the Palace Theater.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Did you now that Rudy is NOT a social conservative? Did you know that he has gay friends?
You can call them "civil unions" and play word games, but it's just gay marriage by another name.
A rose is a rose is a rose...
(and yes, I fully understand the irony of using that phrase...)
Their attacks remind me of an anecdote from the Clinton era. Dolly Kyle Browning had the classic description of Clintonista nitpicking. She said that, if the Clintonistas were asked if Slick had an affair with Dolly Kyle Browning, they would deny it - because she was named Dolly Kyle at the time.
The quibbles over Rudy's pro-gay activism are in a similar vein.
And meanwhile, they can't address the pro-abort, pro-gun-control and pro-amnesty positions at all. So they attack a minor detail to try and discredit the entire chart - a ploy right out of the Clintonista playbook.
I will. Three or four showers a day and I might get the stink of this thread off of me...
It depends on the cause. Gays are citizens too. Rudy certainly supports gay civil unions, as do almost half of Republicans these days. Gay bashing and marginalization is not the path to electoral success, even in the GOP, in most places. But yes, it still has traction among many on this forum - - clearly.
And FAILED!
I was on this thread before you arrived, just as I was on the thread last night when you posted the unsubstantiated claim. I have never seen attribution and it has never been posted because there is none.
Rudy is not a homophobe or a bigot. That can't be said about everyone can it?
nopardons discuss something rationally? More chance of Giuliani picking a constitutionalist judge.
I may never get those images out of my head.
What's your DU handle?
Rudy is not a homophobe or a bigot.
No, he's not. He's their very close buddy. Very close.
ROTFLOL....so now, it counts when one is on a thread? What about threads that began late at night and YOU don't get on until late the next day?
You haven't seen the attribution, because YOU DON'T READ THESE THREADS;. you just post anti replies.
Do you hate gays, EV?
SSHHH! They still have their white robes at the cleaners. It's not safe to wear them in public anymore or admit they are the owners!
I find this a rather odd concept.
In this day and age, busybodies get after every bad habit that might affect health.
Smoking. Trans fats. Seat belts.
Yet, there is an activity that statistically has been proven to lop 20 years off your life expectency.
Namely, being gay.
But somehow, that is a protected lifestyle choice, whereas the others are being legislated away in the name of public health.
But if you even take modest steps to contain the public health issues of being gay (such as blocking gay blood donations), there is a public outroar.
So pardon ignorant conservatives for pointing out the insane double standard here.
OK, that is your opinion, but inaccurate, because, beyond the symbolism (and symbolism matters) inter alia civil unions do not have certain monetary federal benefits that marriages do. I suspect there are differences at the state level too, in most places, as to the range of rights and responsibilities. In any event, it would be helpful to use the correct term, not the tendentious and inaccurate one. THEN one can argue, for or against, that they are fungible terms.
Sadly - you may be more correct than either of us know.
You know that song?......HOLY, HOLY, HOOLLLYYY......
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.