Posted on 12/20/2006 8:29:40 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran
Rudy Giuliani, a contender for the Presidency in 2008, is receiving an inordinate amount of positive attention.
That's quite understandable since Rudy is charismatic, did a great job on the campaign trail for President Bush in 2004, and his phenomenal performance after 9/11 was much appreciated.
However, likeable or not, having Rudy as the GOP's candidate in 2008 would be a big mistake.
Worse yet, Giuliani even supports partial birth abortion:
"I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights,Giuliani said.
He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions.
"No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing," he responded."
It's bad enough that Rudy is so adamantly pro-abortion, but consider what that could mean when it comes time to select Supreme Court Justices.
Does the description of Giuliani that you've just read make you think he's going to select an originalist like Clarence Thomas, who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- or does it make you think he would prefer justices like Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy who'd leave Roe v. Wade in place?
Rudy's abortion stance is bad news for conservatives who are pro-life or who are concerned about getting originalist judges on the Supreme Court.
An Anti-Second Amendment Candidate
In the last couple of election cycles, 2nd Amendment issues have moved to the back burner mainly because even Democratic candidates have learned that being tagged with the "gun grabber" label is political poison.
Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani is a proponent of gun control who supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapon Ban.
Do Republicans really want to abandon their strong 2nd Amendment stance by selecting a pro-gun control nominee?
(Excerpt) Read more at rightwingnews.com ...
I was talking about government generally.. The U.S. stopped being a Republic after the Civil War.. States were not soverign anymore.. Which made us a defacto democracy..
Democrats are For a democracy...
Republicans are For the/a republic..
When Giuliani endorsed Cuomo for governor in 1994 I knew then that he was a selfish, contemptible little fink.
Alright, then. To what extent does that argument apply to us?
You seem to agree with the assesment that your argument amounts to an assertion that there is no such thing as a non-theocratic government, and we should abandon the idea of trying to have one. Are you making that argument about the US?
Politicians don't care if the people are happy or not. They know that 95% of the "people" pay no attention to government anyway. If folks do get "mad" the logical reply by a power hungry pol is to assert that he was elected by the people to do what HE thinks is best for the country...not what his constituents ask him to do and if that means the "people" are caused some substantial discomfort...well toooooo bad.
Settled law? You're confusing the law making powers with judicial review. You're also forgetting that politics is inextricably entwined with government. As long as there are opposing political viewpoints in terms of ideology, there will be deceptions and bad laws will be the result. Like the assault weapons ban.
When was the last USSC case spot on point as to the strict meaning of the 2nd Amendment? You'd have to go back to the 1800s. It's too hotbutton, there is too much to lose from the standpoint of precedent and the inevitable linkage (regionally) from such binding law at the High Court.
So Congress passes a law that is inimical to the 2nd Amendment -- like maybe Bill's AWB? Or the Brady Bill? Were those successfully challenged? No. So we got one hideous law for ten years and that sunset provision is all that saved us. Next time, make no mistake, they are going for the throat. Imagine a total police state and you've got a decent picture...because along with the restrictions on guns there is that pesky and little discussed clause of the Patriot Act that calls for a National I.D. card be in full effect within a few (very few) years.
Can you hear that voice with the thick KRAUT accent: Achtung! Halt! You vill Veee produce your PAPERS....now! Schnell! Schnell!
Aside from laws that include a sunset clause, once a bill is passed by the Congress and signed by the President, it's there forever unless there is judicial review and in the case of the 2nd Amendment, that isn't likely to happen.
Finally you are naive if you believe that there's not some kind of AGENDA taking place at all levels and in all corners of government. The Insiders control who gets those key positions of power. They control the flow of campaign money and the media tone -- either promoting or destroying candidates that fail to meet the standards for pliability. Watch this latest crop of young Democrats who swore to their constituents that they'd be pro gun or anti tax or pro life. They'll be reigned in and their arms twisted by seasoned pros. Maybe they'll turn out as two faced as "Peanut" Jimmeh Cartah.
If you look at the course of world events, you can see that events here march right along in time to the heartbeat of the middle east and the UN.
UNalienable rights can ONLY be given by God..
Governments can only grant privledges which are not rights..
Gov'ts can manipulate privledges on a whim...
UNalienable rights are unalienable else they are merely privledges..
Thats whats different between the U.S. and ALL OTHER governments..
GOD set up and watches over, its UNalienable base.. thats pretty theocratic..
Still trying to pull that one out, eh? Not gonna fly.
* Supports Senate guest worker plan & path to citizenship. (Nov 2006)
Supports Senate guest worker plan & path to citizenship Giuliani has been criticized for embracing illegal immigration. Giuliani continued a policy of preventing city employees from contacting INS about immigration violations. He ordered city attorneys to defend this policy in federal court. Giuliani has also expressed doubt that the federal government can stop illegal immigration. In April 2006, Giuliani went on the record as favoring the US Senate's comprehensive immigration plan which includes a path to citizenship and a guest worker plan
http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm#Immigration
All gun owners should pass written test. (Mar 2000) http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm
So basically you're arguing that we can't have a non-theocratic government, so any arguments about not having a theocracy are irrelevant. All we can do is decide what kind of theology we're going to use, and you want us to use yours.
LoL..
Well Jesus did come to make ALL religion obsolete, AND DID..
Especially yours and mine..
The primitive Democracys of Europe and Canada grant privledges not rights.. They have no rights.. Only privledges... And when God is kicked out of U.S. politics completely WE will have no rights either.. like Canada and Europe..
Then that is an accurate assesment of your argument?
The Theology of the Individual is as varied as there are Americans.. Everyone has a theology.. everyone.. Divorcing politics from theology is not possible.. its IMpossible..
The year of the Republican revolution; says a lot about him.
Look to your own country's disastrous laws and attitudes on abortion - as witness the fillers on canadian TV shows glorifying Morgenthaler and hailing him as a Northern Light or pathfinder or some such garbage. Hang on a few years and he will be gracing a postage stamp - launched in an abortion mill and televised, no doubt. I'm just saying.
You've jumped through as many semantic hoops avoiding answering that question as you did in constructing the original argument.
True I'm good.. And you are a good canard in displaying various things to lurkers.. Thanks..
Not sure I understand the use of the word "canard" in this context. A "canard" is a myth or unfounded story, or in aerodynamic circles, a horizontal control surface placed ahead of the the wing.
FYI . . . I am not a Canadian.
Canard; wing of deflection(literary)..
Sophistry can be a convenient means to an end, but the unintended consequences can vastly outweigh any actual gains you get from it.
I've been thinking about that proposition, and I have a question. If I understand it correctly, by that standard every political decision, every vote, every law and piece of legislation is a question of morality. If I, or my representatives oppose a particular piece of legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, that is a moral decision based on theology - it is religious. Under those conditions we cannot even require that our elected representatives swear an oath to uphold the Constitution without having violated the Constitution's proscription against requiring a religious test as a condition of holding public office. Are you sure you've thought this through?
How so? Juilie-annie is perfectly happy to have Mrs. Clinton as his senator... It is purely incompetent to have allowed her a second term senate seat from which she could launch a presidential campaign...
I want someone to vote FOR, not against...
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.