Nancy Boy?
Posted on 02/01/2007 5:41:39 AM PST by areafiftyone
According to a source close to The Giuliani campaign, Rudy Giuliani is throwing his hat into the ring. The Hinzsight Report confirms, through a source close to the Giuliani campaign, that he is presently sending people out into all 50 states to secure his name on the primary ballots. "Despite Mayor Giuliani's public cautiousness, this is evidence that he is seriously pursuing the Presidency in 2008, and he should be taken very seriously. Critical state polls have shown Mayor Giuliani leading the pack, and it's about time that he start being considered what he is--the front-runner" a source tells The Hinzsight Report. Giuliani has lined up nearly 300 key Republican supporters in New Jersey for his bid for the 2008 presidential nomination, his campaign announced this week. In a recent Quinnipiac University poll of New Jersey voters, it showed Giuliani leading all Republican presidential candidates and ahead of Sen. Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic contender, in a head-to-head matchup. The New Jersey primary, which is currently set for Feb. 26, is likely to move up to Feb. 5, placing it early in the campaign season and increasing its significance. As many as 15 states could hold their Republican presidential primaries Feb. 5, reports Gannett. |
honestly i think they are the ones that want to split the party. they are here to take the gop to the left under the guise of "moderate".
The left and right has been in a tug of war-if we as conservatives pull more right, it forces the left to become more center.
some here want to pull the gop more to the left instead. if we concede and vote a liberal R we will never again have a solid conservative run in an election.
the thought of that scares the crap out of me!
this is a huge battle that i dont think most ppl clearly see.
I like that!
I think it's scary what they define as 'conservative' on that site.
"Liberals and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while conservatives and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictions answers".
If that's what 'conservative' means, then there's a big problem. I believe the *vast* majority of this country, on personal issues, does not want the govt to restrict us. "Personal Freedom" and all that.
If that's what that site means by 'conservative', then i wouldn't agree. That's not how I define it.
I'd argue that 'Liberals' want a 'liberal' use of govt. And conservatives want a 'conservative' use of govt. Like spending 'liberally' v. spending 'conservatively'.
Ls want 'more govt'. Cs want 'less govt'.
So the 'Socials' are very liberal, by that definition. They want govt intrusion into personal areas.
Nancy Boy?
Its scary. Don't let your heart be troubled, my FRiend, and don't EVER let down your guard.
I'm sure passengers had sufficient force to overwhelm then but were caught off guard by groups with practiced plans. Had both groups been armed the same thing would have happened since one knew what was coming and the other was just going about its ordinary business.
Apparently YOU forget that the pretense that this was an ordinary hijacking not a suicide mission and that stopped them from acting. After the 4th plane had word from the outside that these were suicide missions the passengers prevented that one from being used.
I can't imagine any coach taking the job with that clown on the team. Did Parcells quit because he had to keep TO?
Singletary is great and if he winds up there I think you will be pleased.
Im tryin' not to be troubled! tis not easy when even a site such as FR at times resembles DU.
Nope not letting my guard down. and i got flmae proof armour;)
thats flame proof. cant type!
Oh, there are those here who will tell you that the BoR was always intended to cover the states and that Marshall just pulled Barron v Baltimore out of his @$$.
I would respect the rights of private airlines to ban firearms from their planes. Would you support the right of a private airline to allow them? [Nope. But it would never happen in any case since the insurance companies would prevent them from doing so.]
I think they're fighting for "someone that thinks like them".
But I'm pretty sure, based on what's happening here, that they're gonna lose this argument. And they'll support Rudy when the time comes. At least, most of them will. Because they'll realize he will do a decent job.
The CwA hammer alone will be hard for them to get past. But the real kicker is that over and over again people will point out that's what happened in 06 -- they ignored the CwA conservatives and tried to pander to the socials ("Defense of Marriage" instead of any real border/ethics/etc???).
That's why 06 happened. They abandoned their real base, the CwA conservatives. Dance with the ones who brung ya.
Nope.
Why not?
I wouldn't say 'problems', just that it does make many Christians 'liberals' -- in that they want govt solutions to what others consider personal issues.
Gays, I don't get ya'lls problem with.
The one sticky issue is, I do understand the idea that ya'll want to defend the unborn child. I fully understand that abortion *is* the killing of a human being. In fact, premeditated killing, hence by definition it's murder.
But I personally don't think that killing a human is always a bad thing. I think really bad people should be killed. I have no problem with assisted suicide. And I feel that an unborn child is at such an incomplete state of development that aborting it in the first few months is no big deal.
The issue becomes 'personal' because of the woman carrying the baby. She has a right to decide what she wants to do with her body, and in one sense that baby is infringing on her rights, so to speak (in my, and many others', opinion, of course).
So by my thinking, some Christians who would ban abortion for others are 'liberals', in that they want a liberal use of govt power to control what that woman can do with her body.
I think it all comes down to the 2nd Amendment. It is the only right that we have that actually protects us from the left.
Once the left gets our guns, next comes anarchy and then a police state is created to protect us from ourselves. The left already controls the infrastructure of our government and are unionized. With that they have the courts up to SCOTUS level. They will continue to diminish our individual rights until there is nothing left.
It is human nature to rule. Our founding fathers knew this and created a document to protect us from this ever happening. And look who is treading on that document? The same people that want to tell us what to eat, what to smoke, what to learn..... nanny.
If it is between a Democrat that is willing to protect the Constitution vs a Republican who won't, the Democrat will get my vote. On the other hand, if it between a Republican that may not protect us and a RAT who definitely won't protect us, I'll take my chance on the Republican.
Rudy might be my last choice, but he will always come before Hillary.
Same reason I would leave one in an infant's crib. Too dangerous.
...NOT leave one... LoL
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.