Time out here.
If I am not mistaken, it says that this right shall not be infringed. Do I need to get the definition to explain that to you AL or Crudy Guliani? I did not think so.
Posted on 02/25/2007 2:07:53 PM PST by Al Simmons
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.
So I am taking the liberty of reproducing My Gop's post here in full:
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.
LOL, I was going to print that bad boy out but it was 43 pages--on 75%.
If you find the quote, page up from there about a dozen times. YMMV.
It's too late for me to go looking at 43 pages; besides, we're not the ones hysterical about this matter.
Thanks for answering my question.
For clarification purposes, http://www.answers.com/topic/ronald-reagan did not merely make a reference to Wikipedia. They credited Wikipedia with Wikipedia's article, which http://www.answers.com/topic/ronald-reagan reproduced in its entirety, and from which the quote was taken.
Here's a link to google's cache of the original Wikipedia article from which that quote was taken. http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:L7gTa5ak5I4J:en.wikilib.com/wiki/Ronald_Reagan+%22As+governor+in+1970,+Reagan+signed+into+law+California%27s+liberal+abortion+rights+legislation,+before+Roe+v+Wade+was+decided.+However,+he+later+took+a+strong%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us .
Not only did you link the wrong post the first time, but apparently the second time as well. There is no Post 617 on the link you provided. The thread only goes up to post 569.
Do you care to try again?
This is the link you provided:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1771792/posts?page=258#254
Hey, Einstein! You may remember this from your own thread:
You went through the trouble of lifting someone's post and creating an inflammatory title, but it doesn't look like you have any idea what you are talking about when you follow it up by making a talking-out-my-posterior statement like "when President Hitlary makes homeschooling illegal..."
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.
Where, praytell, did you get the idea that Hillary Rodham Clinton would 'make homeschooling illegal'? If she had actually said something like that (I don't have to disprove it -- you have to prove it), what makes you think she could outlaw homeschooling anymore than a pro-life President could outlaw abortion?
Are you going to answer my question or are you going to pretend you didn't read it?
Hillary is shallow, unqualified, and every bit as "stubborn" as Bush-bashers say he is. She would be a pale imitation of her husband in the same way that W is a shadow of his father. That's scary enough. Leave Hitler and Stalin out of this.
By the way, I wouldn't believe what Giuliani says to Sean Hannity is an accurate indication of how he would govern. Many of us in Kollyforneya remember how Schwarzenkennedy shined on Sean when he first announced his candidacy in the recall election. Now look what we've got to deal with -- a muscle bound lightweight that spins like a weather vane.
617 on this thread, miss obtuse.
Time out here.
If I am not mistaken, it says that this right shall not be infringed. Do I need to get the definition to explain that to you AL or Crudy Guliani? I did not think so.
Okay, so first you posted the link that took me to someone else's post at #254.
Then you call me lazy because I don't look through 500+ posts to prove YOUR point? ROFL
I can see that I posted what was on the Answer.com link. Period. I've gone there again and have yet to see where it says anything about Wikepedia in a "big banner".
Now try and get over your vapors and act like a big boy today.
I went there myself. The link leads to various postings from encyclopedia-type sources. What you cited was under the Wikipedia banner. And that was explained to you in the original thread - yet you've forgotten that as well. Want me to got back to the original document and link that as well? It's there.
And beyond that, this is the SECOND time we've been through this little exercise. You act like no one notices your little routine. You demand a link. Quibble over the details. Heck, I've even seen you deny something you posted earlier in a thread.
I used to think you were doing this deliberately. No one can be that dumb. But I must admit, you are starting to reach the threshhold of reasonable doubt.
Still having the vapors, I see. Try to toughen up. I'm content to have anyone who is interested in this minutia go to the link and see what I posted.
This is what I posted:
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 stand against abortion. He published the book Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation, which decried what Reagan saw as disrespect for life, promoted by the practice of abortion. However, two of the three Supreme Court justices he selected, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, voted to uphold Roe v. Wade.
http://www.answers.com/topic/ronald-reagan
Nowhere in my post does it mention Wikepedia. Yes, within the answer link, there are OTHER links, some of which lead to Wikepedia, but it's clear that I didn't click on those or post from those.
So carry on with your little charade.
Of course not. When you made that post, THE REST OF US, having never heard of Reagan signing a 1970 abortion bill, HAD TO DO THE WORK YOU NEVER DID BOTHER DOING - getting secondary verification. WE HAD TO FOLLOW THE LINK YOU PROVIDED to find out it was citing Wikipedia.
You keep making my case for me. You're just too dense to realize it.
OMG. You're quite the little drama queen, aren't you?
No, but you're a pretty bad liar. And having finally been nailed down on your bogus posts, you just continue the personal attacks.
DQ (for drama queen) -- you're the one who said I linked to Wikepedia. Anyone with a brain can see my post which directly linked to Answer.com. So that would make you the liar, not me.
Now toddle along and do whatever it is you need to do get over your vapors.
WHICH CITED WIKIPEDIA. Quite clearly. And you were informed of that in the intial thread.
You're as bad as Clinton parsing "is". For the exact same reason.
It didn't cite Wikepedia unless one clicked on the links within the Answer.com article, which I didn't do because I quoted directly from Answer, not Wikepedia.
You need this.
Rudy is a Great American Hero???
Giuliani
Abortion on Demand--- Supports
Partial Birth Abortion--- Supports
NY ban--- Supports
Roe v. Wade--- Supports
Taxpayer Funded Abortions--- Supports
Embryonic Stem Cell Research--- Supports
Federal Marriage Amendment--- Opposes
Gay Domestic Partnership/Civil Unions--- Supports
Openly Gay Military--- Supports
Defense of Marriage Act--- Opposes
Amnesty for Illegal Aliens--- Supports
Special Path to Citizenship for Illegal Aliens--- Supports
Tough Penalties for Employers of Illegal Aliens--- Opposes
Sanctuary Cities/Ignoring Immigration Law--- Supports
Protecting 2nd Amendment--- Opposes
"Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." - Rudy Giuliani
That hardly sounds like a Democrat, let alone a RINO, that needs to be in office.
Sorry AL, your argument is pitiful and deserves to be stricken from the record.
Are they "poo poo heads" as well?
''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. '' He isnt going to veto any new gun bills based on conservative principles either...
"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"
Let the anti gunners get into the white house and we will see that change in a microsecond.
Disarming Americans instead of putting thugs in jail is what they live for.
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.