The Candidate (Rudy Giuliani in NH)

The American Spectator ^ | 1/29/2007 | Philip Klein

[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.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Well! Just as the smoke settles, here YOU are....LOL!

[garv]

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.

[PhiKapMom]

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.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Yeaahh thanks for reminding me what it was we were discussing. I was about ready to start posting corn bread recipes again.....

[dirtboy]

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?

[Sunsong]

What in the world happened - it said *unspeakable pain in the @ss*

Do you have any info?

[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?

[Sunsong]

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.

[Torie]

True confession: I enjoy my little role in the passion play. :)

[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?

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.

[Sunsong]

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?

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

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?

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

700! Go RUDY!

[Torie]

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.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Ya I do, you've got mail.

[Sir_Ed]

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

[PhiKapMom]

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.

[PhiKapMom]

I can tell! That's one of the things that has me laughing so hard.

[dirtboy]

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?

[Sunsong]

If you don't expect to succeed for hundreds of years - then what is the objection to Rudy?