Anti-Giuliani-Bots on FR are poorly informed "Kool-Aid-Drinkers"

Recently, My GOP wrote a BRILLIANT post about the REAL Rudy Giuliani and his record. It is MUST READING for most of the anti-Giuliani Kool-Aid-Drinkers around here who are going off half-cocked without knowing the FACTS.

I just can’t understand why so many are making Rudy look more liberal than he really is on social issues and why they refuse to acknowledge he is a conservative on just about every non-social issue and I certainly can’t understand how social issues are more important than all the other issues when choosing a President since the President has very little influence on social issues. And I certainly can’t understand how being “perfect” on social issues is more important than electability.

To begin with, Rudy is AGAINST gay marriage. On Hannity and Colmes on February 5th he said, “Marriage should be between a man and a woman. [It's] exactly the position I've always had.” Now as far as homos go, personally, I disagree with their life style but as long as they do what they do in the privacy of their own home I really don't care and nobody else should either, especially not the federal government. The POTUS doesn't have the power to stop people from being gay. And he surely shouldn't be interferring in people's private lives. And to top things off, marriage is a state issue. So therefore voting on the basis of this issue doesn't make much sense.

Rudy is not the abortion on demand liberal people make him out to be. He is against partial birth abortions, contrary to the misinformation some on here are posting. On Hannity Rudy said “Partial-birth abortion, I think that's going to be upheld(by the USSC). I think that ban is going to be upheld. I think it should be.” And as soon as Rudy got finished saying this, Hannity acknowledged, “There's a misconception that you supported partial-birth abortion”. So there we have, Rudy is against partial birth abortions. Rudy is also for parental notification. He also acknowledged this on Hannity. So Rudy certainly isn’t for abortion on demand.

In general on abortion, we have a pro-life President now but we are still having abortions. No president has the power to stop abortion. Rudy has already said he supports strict constructionist judges like John Roberts. He constantly praised the President for appointing Roberts and Alito. On Hannity Rudy said “I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to, if not exactly the same as, the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire, Justice Alito someone I knew when he was U.S. attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any, you know, that I'd do anything different with that.” Assuming Rudy gets elected President and appoints Roberts-like justices then maybe Roe v. Wade will get overturned. But even if it does get overturned we know that this won’t stop all abortions. The abortion issue would then revert back to the states and does anyone really think California would outlaw abortions? Being pragmatic in our thinking we all know we can't completely stop abortions. Therefore voting solely on this issue very unpragmatic. I hate abortions like everyone else on here but I realize that regardless of how many pro-life presidents we elect, its just not going to stop.

I'll admit his past gun stances are bothersome but he has say that what's good for NYC isn't good for all of America. However, he isn’t the anti-Second Amendment Nazi he is made out to be. On Hannity Rudy said, “I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms.” Rudy isn’t going to try to ban guns or come take anyones guns. Are Democrats pushing for gun control now that they have control of Congress? No. And nobody has pushed for gun control since Gore lost the election in 2000. Everyone knows its a losing issue and I don't see any push for gun control by anybody in the near future.

Rudy is great on all the other issues, the ones where the President actually has the power to make a real difference, like the WOT. He's fiscally responible(he turned a NYC's deficit into a surplus), a tax cutter(he cut over 20 taxes as Mayor), conservative on domestic policies(he dropped 600,000 people off welfare, cleaned up the rampant crime as Mayor and supports school choice, ect), for smaller government and government deregulation, for social security reform, supports strict constructionist judges, and is 100% perfect when it comes to his stance on the WOT and all other foreign policy which by the way is 100 times more important than worrying about what some gays people are doing, gay people that doesn't affect our lives at all!!!

Finally, Rudy is, IMO, the only Republicans that can win in 2008. So take your pick, Hillary or Rudy. Sure, we can "choose" another Republican but he will lose to Hillary. Back to Rudy, if he's elected President and fights terrorist like he fought crime as Mayor can you imagine the results we will in the defining struggle of our generation, the fight against Islamic fascism. Everyone know for a fact Hillary will surrender the terrorist and hand our foreign policy over to the UN and EU and poor Israel would be left out to dry. Rudy is extremely competetent and a great leader and there is nobody I want more as Commander in Chief. So I think we need to stop worrying about gays, people that don't affect our lives life at all. We need to worry about Islamic fascism, the people that want to kill us all, and vote for someone that will go after them.

Many in the conservative community are open to Rudy. Sean Hannity is certainly open to Rudy and likes Rudy. George Will wrote this about Rudy, ““His eight years as mayor of New York were the most successful episode of conservative governance in this country in the last 50 years, on welfare and crime particularly." Giuliani, more than any other candidate (Romney comes the closest) has the record of taking on major institutions and reforming them. Think about tourist magnet that is New York now. When Rudy Giuliani took office, 59% of New Yorkers said they would leave the city the next day if they could. Under Rudy Giuliani’s leadership as Mayor of the nation’s largest city, murders were cut from 1,946 in 1993 to 649 in 2001, while overall crime – including rapes, assaults, burglary and auto-thefts – fell by an average of 57%. Not only did he fight crime in Gotham like Batman, despite being constantly vilified by the New York Times, he took head on the multiculturalism and victimization perpetuated by Al Sharpton and his cohort of race baiters. He ended New York’s set-aside program for minority contractors and rejected the idea of lowering standards for minorities. As far as the economy goes, Rudy reduced or eliminated 23 city taxes. He faced a $2.3 billion budget deficit but cut spending instead hiking taxes." Heck, even Rush is open to Rudy. Rush said, “"He's a smart cookie ... Here's the thing about Giuliani," he said on his radio show the other day. "Everybody's got problems with him ... But when you start polling him on judges, he's a strict constructionist ... That will count for quite a bit. He can fix the abortion thing ... So I think he's got potential--particularly, folks, since we're still going to be at war somewhere in 2008." If Rush is at least open to Rudy then he realizes Rudy isn’t that bad.

And apparently even Reagan liked Rudy. Rudy was Reagan's Associate Attorney General and was awarded the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award, putting him along side Margaret Thachter, Billy Graham, and Bob Hope as receiptants of the award. Speaking of Ronald Reagan, Reagan said this about compromise in his autobiography An American Life: "When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.' If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."

Yes, Rudy may be alittle bit of a compromise but in reality, everytime you vote it’s a compromise. Nobody is ever going to find a candidate or a President they agree with 100% of the time, even Ronald Reagan. Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants in 1986 and I’m sure the vast majority of Freepers disagree with that. Reagan even appointed O’Connor to the Supreme Court. Nobody is perfect. The only thing we can do is find the Presidential candidate we agree with the most on the most important issues and issues the President has the most influence over, the one that is the most electable, and the one that would make the best and strongest leader. That’s Rudy.

Back to Ronald Reagan for a second. In the above excerpt he used the term “radical conservatives”. So apparently Reagan thought that conservatives that were all or nothing, unappeasable, unpragmatic, and unrealistic are “radical”. I do too. Lets review history. World War II ended in 1945. SEVEN years later in 1952 the most popular general of the war, Dwight Eisenhower, won in a landslide despite far right extremist unpragmatic Republicans not supporting him in the primaries. History always repeats itself. I must now end the overly long post by quoting Dennis Miller, who also supports Rudy, “Rudy would have the best bumpersticker, ‘I’m the man the men in caves don’t want to win’”. Enough said.

Equivocate much? Your risible attempts to save face by attacking the messenger fool no one.

So tell us, then - given that the bill Reagan signed was only to legalizse abortion for rape, incest and the life of the mother, and those exceptions are acceptable to millions of pro-lifers who oppose abortion on demand or for birth control, tell us how that translates into claims that Reagan was pro-choice and the bill he signed was "liberal."

All you've done is hurl insults and you have not made a single factual case to back up your attacks.

Looking at the timestamps of your posts, you spent SIXTEEN MINUTES coming up with three lame-assed flame-bait posts. SIXTEEN MINUTES you spent obsessed with trying to counter the fact that I proved my case.

Witness, everyone, the mental horsepower of the flame-bait Rudy poster. He even resorted to the normal dumbass troll trick of trying to make an issue of my screen name. Pretty lame.

SIXTEEN MINUTES you spent obsessed with trying to counter the fact that I proved my case.

Actually, I've spent the last two hours having dinner with a couple of apolitical buddies, laughing about "dirtboy the master debater". The 16 minutes was merely the time it took to transpose our conversation into a suitably witty retort to your obloquy.

As noted above, you've hardly proved your case; as far as I can tell you haven't even proffered one. But do go on claiming victory; the bs is so thick your head will no doubt explode soon.

NL, Methinks your silly attempt to claim victory here is only a dilatory move to change the subject. You nasty posters can dish it out, but can't take it. Perhaps you could explain?

What's to explain? The poster to whom dirtboy responded has made the same faulty claim on a number of threads. It's been pointed out, yet she continues to spread the same falsehoods. She was once again proven wrong. End of story.

Here's more kindling for the flames...

In 1967, the California Legislature enacted The Therapeutic Abortion Act, Health and Safety Code (sections 25950-25958). This statute allowed the termination of pregnancy by a physician, in an accredited hospital, when there was a specific finding that there was a substantial risk that its continuation would "gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother," or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Since then, "therapeutic" has become a "loaded" term and in California law connotes "family planning" reasons. However, the law did provide that no termination of pregnancy could be approved after the 20th week of pregnancy.

The Catholic take for your consideration...

http://www.cacatholic.org/respect4life/abortionlaw.html

The poster to whom dirtboy responded has made the same faulty claim on a number of threads.

LOL.

The "California Therapeutic Abortion Act" isn't abortion legislation? or, Gov. Reagan didn't sign this act?

Actually, I've spent the last two hours having dinner with a couple of apolitical buddies, laughing about "dirtboy the master debater".

You're like Peach - you're a crappy liar. And have an allergy to facts as well.

The "California Therapeutic Abortion Act" isn't abortion legislation? or, Gov. Reagan didn't sign this act?

The exchange is right there for all to read. No need to be obtuse - go back and reread it. Or don't, for that matter. I honestly couldn't care less.

The "California Therapeutic Abortion Act" isn't abortion legislation? or, Gov. Reagan didn't sign this act?

Read the details of the act. The law was only intended to allow for abortions for rape, incest and the life of the mother - in other words, exceptions consistent with millions of pro-lifers. It was NOT pro-choice legislation, nor was it liberal.

But beyond that, Peach, upon being confronted with the reality of the 1967 law, tried to spin that away by claiming there was a 1970 law, due to citing Wikipedia-based materials. She was so eager to prove Reagan a liberal on abortion that she spread a falsehood. Just as you are doing here in your own way.

The Rudy boosters sure are an amoral bunch. They should hire Dan Rather as a consultant for fake but accurate posts.

Or don't, for that matter. I honestly couldn't care less.

It won't do any good for him to read it. Accidental ignorance can be cured. Deliberate ignorance is chronic, as Peach and youngjim are aptly demonstrating here.

And the irony is, they claim their deliberate ignorance as some kind of wisdom. Kinda like the smug, smirking Clintonistas after one dishes up a rank talking point on TV. For the exact same reasons. Politics trumps reality for them.

They should hire Dan Rather as a consultant for fake but accurate posts.

It's not the nature of the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charge!

Your hysteria is amusing. Maybe a court jester job is in your future.

You don't even have the humility required to admit you were caught in a lie. With your own posts. For the second time you denied it.

I'm still waiting for a link to that Wikepedia post I supposedly sent you. You know, the Wikepedia post that makes you a nervous nelly and hysterical?

Where is it? You gave a link here but it doesn't even take me to my post, let alone that link.

I'm still waiting for a link to that Wikepedia post I supposedly sent you.

You provided the link, Peach. It's right there on the thread.

You are now basically admitting you tried to claim there was a SECOND California abortion law signed by Reagan after the 1967 law was shown NOT to be the liberal pro-choice bill you had been claiming. In your zeal to twist Reagan's legacy, you cited something referenced from Wikipedia - without checking it out.

And even now, having had the facts presented to you in excruciating detail, you go on trying to claim that Reagan was pro-choice and signed a liberal abortion bill. You're full of it.

This is the link you provided:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1771792/posts?page=254#254

It's not even my post, dimwhit, let alone a post I made that references the site that seems to send you into a panic - Wikepedia.

Since you're like Dan Rather and too damn lazy to substantiate your own claims, here is your post on the same thread I referenced earlier:

As governor in 1970, Reagan signed into law California's liberal abortion rights legislation, before Roe v Wade was decided. However, he later took a strong ... www.answers.com/topic/ronald-reagan

447 posted on 01/23/2007 10:41:19 AM EST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)

If you go to that link, you see that the section in question is under a big honkin' banner announcing it is from ... Wikipedia.

See post 617 - who is the dimwit now, Peach? Once again, YOU DENIED A POST YOU MADE. Even when I linked you to the thread where you made it. And this is the SECOND time you've denied it and had your own past posts shown to you to counter your denials.

You have no veracity on FR. You have shown you will make up bogus allegations against Reagan and follow unsubstantiated sources to try and further your claim that Reagan was pro-choice and signed a liberal abortion bill - when he did nothing of the sort.

As I was perusing the linked thread, I came upon this tidbit:

Peach: "And I don't really care who votes for whom. I like three candidates myself and won't make up my mind until the primary approaches."

Changed course, I see. What happened?

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.