Skip to comments.
The Candidate (Rudy Giuliani in NH)
The American Spectator ^
| 1/29/2007
| Philip Klein
Posted on 01/29/2007 1:36:27 PM PST by Dark Skies
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660, 661-680, 681-700 ... 1,341-1,344 next last
To: PhiKapMom
Well! Just as the smoke settles, here YOU are....LOL!
661
posted on
01/29/2007 8:59:47 PM PST
by
PSYCHO-FREEP
(Never argue with an idiot, because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience)
To: Sunsong
You Rudyophiles keep telling me how important it was that Rudy was the number three man at the Reagan justice department.
That was 1981.
The address to NARAL was in 2001, the same year Rudy demonstrated his great leadership according to you.
So which is it? Is there a time limit on statements that he's never modified or recanted?
Please don't talk about "honor" while you spam the thread with inanities and distort Guiliani's positions. I may wretch up dinner.
662
posted on
01/29/2007 9:00:19 PM PST
by
garv
To: Torie
Are you having fun? :) I was at a meeting and came home to get Sen Inhofe's email about Iraq and then I find this thread. Don't think some of these folks have a clue what you are saying. I would bet you have this sly grin on your face when you post on these threads.
663
posted on
01/29/2007 9:01:53 PM PST
by
PhiKapMom
(Broken Glass Republican -- Rudy/Steele -- Take back the House and Senate in 2008)
To: Torie
Yeaahh thanks for reminding me what it was we were discussing. I was about ready to start posting corn bread recipes again.....
664
posted on
01/29/2007 9:02:22 PM PST
by
PSYCHO-FREEP
(Never argue with an idiot, because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience)
To: Torie
My post to you hit the wall, when the admin moderator freaked out, and now I forgot what is was about, except that it was about a gay couple, both highly successful professionals, church going, "married" in a ceremony by a rogue Episcopalean priest with family and friends in attendance (they did the wedding dance ;)), with two adopted kids, whom, so far as I know, don't engage in any risky behaviors when it comes to their health. One size does not fit all.My point is, gays engage in enough risky behavior to lower their life expectancy 20 years.
We've heard the anecdotes about the smoker who lived to be 98.
And we also know that such is the exception, rather than the rule.
Now, look at the gays who cause public health hazards - and IMO those are a large percentage of gays. They ignore years of AIDS education. They engage in drug abuse and high-risk sex.
But we cannot criticize the gay lifestyle, can we, without risk of being labelled a bigot?
665
posted on
01/29/2007 9:03:10 PM PST
by
dirtboy
(Duncan Hunter 08 - rationalization not required, he IS a conservative already)
To: PSYCHO-FREEP
What in the world happened - it said *unspeakable pain in the @ss*
Do you have any info?
666
posted on
01/29/2007 9:04:17 PM PST
by
Sunsong
To: dirtboy
You can point out that certain behaviors which many gays indulge in, are very dangerous from a medical standpoint. At that point, the issue becomes, what should the public policy be, given that?
667
posted on
01/29/2007 9:05:43 PM PST
by
Torie
(The real facts can sometimes be inconvenient things)
To: dirtboy
Bigotry is recognizable. The posts on this thread have not criticized the gay lifestyle, have they? Or is intellectual honesty just a phrase to you.
668
posted on
01/29/2007 9:06:07 PM PST
by
Sunsong
To: PhiKapMom
True confession: I enjoy my little role in the passion play. :)
669
posted on
01/29/2007 9:07:31 PM PST
by
Torie
(The real facts can sometimes be inconvenient things)
To: Torie
You can point out that certain behaviors which many gays indulge in, are very dangerous from a medical standpoint. At that point, the issue becomes, what should the public policy be, given that?Well, here is the irony.
Smokers are curtailed and reviled.
Fat people are headed in the same direction.
But gays get a pass, even though I would venture they cost a lot of money for AIDS treatment and their lifestyle, on average, drops 20 years off life expectancy.
I am not asking for a public policy proclaimation to deal with this.
Instead, I am asking for an acknowledgement that, given the other public health debates about smoking and obsesity, that making similar observations about gay lifestyles is hardly bigoted - unless you consider criticism of smoking to be bigoted.
670
posted on
01/29/2007 9:08:48 PM PST
by
dirtboy
(Duncan Hunter 08 - rationalization not required, he IS a conservative already)
To: garv
I have never talked about that. Show me one post of mine discussing Reagan even.
Wretch up dinner then - because I will talk about honor. Look at your dishonorable nastiness on this post - and I suppose you call yourself a Christian?
671
posted on
01/29/2007 9:11:55 PM PST
by
Sunsong
To: dirtboy
The gay issue is pretty much a non issue these days. Our Vice Presidents Daughter happens to be one. So, what's the big deal.
I don't condone the life style, but I also see it as futile to regulate or legislate Morality. It has repeatedly been tried and failed. From the days of the WCTU to the current issue of Civil Unions. You can't stop them they are going to do it, like it or not.
The Illegal immigrant issue is very much in the same realm. It is pretty much impossible to round up 20 million and bus them back across the border. To think it can be done is pure folly. I don't approve, but figure out a way to deal with it that is logical and feasible.
My past life is no longer an issue, I have made mistakes, and I don't judge other people who have made mistakes themselves. What is important is what we do here today and into the future that counts. The past is gone forever. We are all new every day when we wake up to a fresh start. Is that so hard to accept?
672
posted on
01/29/2007 9:14:20 PM PST
by
PSYCHO-FREEP
(Never argue with an idiot, because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience)
To: Sunsong
673
posted on
01/29/2007 9:15:15 PM PST
by
PSYCHO-FREEP
(Never argue with an idiot, because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience)
To: dirtboy
Fat people and the tobacco addicted, are not demonized except to the extent that their behavior is a health hazard. It is fair and right to point out that certain gay behaviors are also a health hazard. The policy should be to encourage healthier habits, but I suspect few thing consuming too many calories should be made a crime, or that smokers should become felons. At some point, there must be a right to choose. I also think that being addicted to cigs or Big Macs, is a different category from the issue of sexual attraction, and the matter of choosing just whom will be one's most significant other. But that is just my opinion. And on this matter, EVERYBODY has an "informed" opinion.
And so it goes.
674
posted on
01/29/2007 9:15:47 PM PST
by
Torie
(The real facts can sometimes be inconvenient things)
To: Sunsong
Ya I do, you've got mail.
675
posted on
01/29/2007 9:16:45 PM PST
by
PSYCHO-FREEP
(Never argue with an idiot, because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience)
To: Sunsong
We're not doing that good on abortion, but it took hundreds of years for England and the US to abolish slavery, and a shorter time to revoke the unjust Dred decision, so...we just keep hammering away, hoping that someday the murder of unborn babies will be seen for the barbaric practice that it is.
Ed
676
posted on
01/29/2007 9:16:48 PM PST
by
Sir_Ed
To: PSYCHO-FREEP
ROFLOL! I was at a meeting and then posted an email from Sen Inhofe that arrived while I was gone on his support for Iraq! I am sitting here laughing like crazy at some of these posts.
677
posted on
01/29/2007 9:19:15 PM PST
by
PhiKapMom
(Broken Glass Republican -- Rudy/Steele -- Take back the House and Senate in 2008)
To: Torie
I can tell! That's one of the things that has me laughing so hard.
678
posted on
01/29/2007 9:20:25 PM PST
by
PhiKapMom
(Broken Glass Republican -- Rudy/Steele -- Take back the House and Senate in 2008)
To: PSYCHO-FREEP
I don't condone the life style, but I also see it as futile to regulate or legislate Morality.Does that mean that you in turn legally provide sanction for lack therof?
679
posted on
01/29/2007 9:21:22 PM PST
by
dirtboy
(Duncan Hunter 08 - rationalization not required, he IS a conservative already)
To: Sir_Ed
If you don't expect to succeed for hundreds of years - then what is the objection to Rudy?
680
posted on
01/29/2007 9:22:09 PM PST
by
Sunsong
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660, 661-680, 681-700 ... 1,341-1,344 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson