Posted on 11/15/2006 6:06:03 AM PST by steve-b
If we allow the dims to win the presidency, we'll never get over that hump.
So I'd like to announce that I am pro-choice on slavery. If you don't approve of slavery, don't have a slave, but don't interfere with my right to own humans. Keep your laws off my chattel.
Similarly I think that states should have the right to decide whether or not they will allow chattel slavery.
This is known as the Douglas or Democrat position, but hey, I'm all about Liberty.
/ sarc
The most disturbing aspect of the judicial nomination process in recent years has been the abject surrender of many people in the Republican Party when it comes to judicial appointments. The Harriet Miers nomination by the current administration -- perhaps inadvertently -- exposed the GOP establishment as a bunch of phonies on this issue. And any doubts about the GOP's half-@ssed approach to the nomination/confirmation process should have been dispelled when the Republican members of the U.S. Senate -- many of whom had no qualms about giving near-unanimous approval to that avowed communist Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- started asserting themselves as sole arbiters of the judicial confirmation process under a Republican administration.
With all due respect to Mr. Giuliani, he will have absolutely no credibility with true conservatives when he tries to assure us that he would nominate "strict constructionists" to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Did you mean Rudy?
Or was that the author's error?
Excsue me? I'm a native New Yorker and lived here through the Guliani years, I don't recall any of this list:
You wanna check your facts before you post, perhaps?
"High taxes."
Rudy lowered taxes in New York City across the board.
"More Gov't $ for everything."
Rudy cut the city budget and pared the welfare rolls,leaving Mayor Bloomberg with a $6 billion budget surplus.
"Wierd social systems."
Define "wierd". Or am I supposed to take this to mean "any system that did not originate in Scripture" or am I supposed to apply the "what would Jesus say?" test?
"Very "creative" prosecutions for invented crime. "
Name one instance, please. Name one "invented" crime, please.
"Highly intrusive laws (see Bloomberg, transfats, smokes). "
Again, name one. The cigarette taxes were championed by Mario Cuomo, and Rudy had nothing to do with the transfats 'controversy' of today.
"Illegal Immigration/amnesty and free medical care for those breaking the law--sending YOU the bill."
Sorry, that's thee fault of the United States Congress which a) won't enforce the laws it writes, b) mandates that states and municipalities WILL provide emergency room care, bi-lingual education, social services, etc., to just about anyone, and fobs the expense off on the LOCAL taxpayer. The Mayor of New York City does not stand guard over the Rio Grande.
"No guns for citizens--for Rudy self-defense is the crime."
Ha! The Assault Weapons Ban and awholeslew of other legislation was passed by the NY State Assembly, not Rudy. The Assault Weapons ban went into effect long before Rudy even ran for Mayor (1987-88, I believe). As for the "gun-grabbing"; I'll bet you're referring to the special detachments that went out on the streets looking for suspicious-looking characters, stoping them, collecting their ILLEGAL weapons and then prosecuting them?
P.S. I live half the year in New York City and I own four (4) guns. Does this mean I can't defend myself?
Perhaps you might want to have facts on your side before you post next time?
Nope, I'm not kidding.
DeWine, Chaffee...and others.
The national campaign was a run left.
Thanks, Neal Boortz. Calling pro-lifers "zealots" is such a great way to hold the conservative coalition together (sarcasm).
How can a person call for "a political movement dedicated to individual ... liberty," but then jettison the "right to life"? I, for one, can't reconcile a love for "individual liberty" with a willingness to completely ignore the fact that pre-born children themselves are "individuals" and their liberty is being denied at a shocking rate.
Yeah...many of the Democrats who won, ran to the RIGHT of their Republican opponents.
It just boggles the mind.
I also love Boortz's dismissive description of "some group called the Republican National Coalition for Life." That's right, he thinks of it as some silly little group, some political sideshow.
FYI, that group was founded by Phyllis Schlafly in 1990. I'd take Schlafly or Boortz (a.k.a. the host of "some radio show called the Neal Boortz Show") any day.
Oops ... I meant to say, "I'd take Schlafly OVER Boortz (a.k.a. the host of "some radio show called the Neal Boortz Show") any day.
".. .it didn't take long for the religious right to announce that up with this they will not put."
Errant pedantry. (My Years With Ross)
If it were to go Rudy/Hillary, you're damn sur right I'd go Rudy,, but if we get to that point, we are in a world of hurt. The liberals certainly win.
More than worth repeating, this is the bottom line.
Well .. if it comes down to a choice between Rudy and McCain, I'll take Rudy any day.
I know Rudy can beat Hillary .. and Rudy is very pro-military and winning in Iraq.
Those two issues are important right now.
Pawlenty. Hunter. There are others... just not those Leftist RINO's and their MSM hero's want to talk about as it doesn't fit their agenda.
I wish I had a good answer for you.
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.