Posted on 02/09/2007 4:46:09 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
NYCity is about 70% registered Democrats. Registered Republicans are down at about 20%. No Republican running for Prez has won NYCity since 1924! Elected conservatives don't exist in NYCity. The best choices available, in fact the only choices available for appointment of judgeships, are limited to liberal jurists. Period. If you believe anything else, you're believing in falsehoods. How do you think Rudy was elected twice? With the votes of Republicans and conservatives? Get real! Liberal Democrats elected Rudy. Rudy is a liberal. Give it some time, it'll sink in. Then again, maybe not.
Sure has. See #261.
Ouch. Reality seems to mock the rudybots.
And while well established FR rules appear to now only be applicable to some, I have yet to see any written and posted rules prohibiting members from choosing what they reply to.
Actually, some of us are off supporting our candidate instead of replying to spam on FR.
Get used to it.
Actually, some of us are off supporting our candidate the most liberal major Republican presidential candidate in the history of the universe instead of replying to spam listening to reason on FR.
You really are an extremist, are you. Extreme rhetoric -- I wonder if it stirs anyone up other than you.
Exactly! Just waiting for the day when we are told we HAVE to reply to everyone that pings us. I get a ton of pings I never reply to as it is. Sometimes I go read and sometimes I don't even bother depending on the topic. I stay on a lot of the ping lists because sometimes an interesting article will come up I might miss.
I will never reply to people that take words and twist them around or bait a thread to get you to reply! Not going to happen no matter how many times I get pinged. This is beyond ridiculous! :)
My, my................how times have changed.
That is an understatement! Never thought I would see the day that spam on a thread after thread is allowed to stand and long time Freepers called names because of the Republican they support. Never will answer anyone that is trying to bait or that has proven to me they spam all the time and are trying to pick a fight. I also don't reply to someone who thinks they are superior in every way -- not worth the bother.
Until and unless new POSTED rules go up...I will abide by the original ones.
LOL, I was just saying something similar to onyx. GMTA!
That's too funny! You guys have nailed it!
You and me both!
Oh yes, GMTA! :-)
Thank you for the link. But Spiff's chart is quite specific and so was my question - where does Giuliani say he supports the Roe v Wade decision? Your link does not say that.
There are in fact even notable liberals (not that I am calling Giuliani a liberal) who support "choice" but hate the Roe v Wade decision because of the issue of strict constructionism.
I find interesting how proponents of liberal Republicans attack conservative criticm of their liberal candidates as being grounded in a single issue when the candidates are actually liberal on multiple issues.
This appears to be the case with Giuliani.
Colmes asked him a similar question in 2005, and not only did Giuliani dodge the question on his support for Roe v. Wade but in his answer he praised Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In 2000, before he was running for the GOP nomination, on ABC's "This Week" with Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson he stated specifically that he thought Roe v. Wade was "good law."
In his speech to NARAL, he even expressed his desire to have the plank calling for passage of a human life amendment that would overturn Roe v. Wade removed from the GOP platform.
Giuliani has been pro-abortion his entire career. He's evidenced this in his statements and his policies. He was named a "Champion of Choice" by NARAL because of his support for women's "choice" to abort their children. NARAL loves Giuliani. They used his image with a big heart with the words "pro choice" in it in their literature opposing Bush's re-election because Bush was pro-life. In a press release announcing NARAL NY's ad campaign opposing Bush's re-election in 2004, they stated that they opposed him because his administration had "sought to erode Roe v. Wade. In the same press release they praised Giuliani because his view on abortion was directly opposite of George Bush's.
Giuliani was also endorsed by the Liberal Party of New York specifically because he would uphold the "constitutional and legal rights to abortion".
It is clear that throughout Giuliani's political career he has supported the intent of Roe v. Wade. His newfound, and frankly disingenuous, desire for "strict constructionists" on the court do not negate his history on the matter. It is a slogan that he'll SAY to get elected because he knows and has been told by his paid political consultants to say it often because it sells with Republicans.
There's no question that he is on the Democrats' side when it comes to abortion. That's one of his major obstacles to becoming the GOP nominee. Everyone has admitted that, even Giuliani himself. Yes, he supports the intent of Roe v. Wade, does not want to overturn it, and has stated that it is "good law".
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.