Posted on 01/26/2007 12:29:42 PM PST by Ol' Sparky
Well, I happen to be a conservative, and have been since the late 1960s. What I'm not is one who will sit idly by in 2008 and watch this nation return the Clintons to the White House. I think it's very telling that the "true believers" on these threads say more vicious things about Giuliani (and Romney) then they do about Hillary. I think it's about time we demand that you people actually demonstrate that you're all conservatives, rather than spout empty cliches. Reading your comments, one would get the impression that "conservativism" has turned into mindless emotionalism. I think you're all mainly empty suits.
I would never vote for Guliani because he is too "moderate" for me, but at least he is direct about his beliefs. I respect that more than those who pretend they are conservative.
Your points are spot on and all the "single issue 100%ers" in this forum cannot change the fact that the only candidate that will win is one with broad based appeal.
I'm all for exposing the frauds and charlatans in the primary process but to trash a legitimate candidate as exemplified by the crapola on this thread is just plain lunacy.
I am against gay marriage, but is a Constitutional Amendment the way to address it? I see the Constitution as a very sacred document, and I think that nothing that is not very much in the spirit of the Founding Fathers should be added to it. I'll say this for Rudy, he doesn't waffle. He believe what he believes, not what is politically expedient for the moment and he makes no bones about.
STATES VOTE TO RATIFY AMENDMENTS!
There is your states' rights...
Then read it once or twice...
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...
I see no reason to vote for a liberal who calls himself a Republican.
Protecting MarriageWe strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage. Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.
President Bush said, “We will not stand for judges who undermine democracy by legislating from the bench and try to remake America by court order.” The Republican House of Representatives has responded to this challenge by passing H.R. 3313, a bill to withdraw jurisdiction from the federal courts over the Defense of Marriage Act. We urge Congress to use its Article III power to enact this into law, so that activist federal judges cannot force 49 other states to approve and recognize Massachusetts’ attempt to redefine marriage.
It just shows how little either of you know about the Contitution...
READ it for yourself...
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...
If he's not popular a year and a half away from the election, then he doesn't stand a chance. /sarc
Hunter appears to be a conservative. McPain, Julieonny, and the rest are merely Republicans.
Read again what it actually says...
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...
I am more for states rights in that regard.
"when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof"
We true Conservatives are not backing hillary, but we are not backing a VIRTUAL, RINO CLONE of her either.
We are merely saying that if the Republican powers-that-be are SO STUPID as to run a liberal northeast-corridor, gun-grabbing, abortion-supporting (among his MANY liberal positions) candidate, then we are voting third party, writing in a candidate, or staying home. In short, we are NOT going to vote for a liberal demonRAT, OR a VIRTUAL liberal demonRAT like RINO-rudy (who, as a POSING "Republican", is actually WORSE that hillary.
If you and your kind are backing a RINO like rudy, ESPECIALLY at THIS stage of the game, then you ARE, in effect, helping ENSURE that the clinton's return to the White House.
We true Conservatives always KNEW that northeast corridor politicians were LIBERAL, whether there was a (D) OR an (R) next to their name, but after reading all of the fawning RINO-loving TRIPE on FR the last many months, it is BLATANTLY APPARENT that the same is true of their "constiuents" (actually "sheeple", "subjects", etc.).
Maybe it's just a mental deficiency that makes you all THINK you are "Conservative", or maybe it's just that your ULTRA LIBERAL environs make you THINK you are "Conservative" merely based on a relative comparison.
As a Liberal who THINKS they are "Conservative", maybe you'd like to commission a study, with tax payer dollars funding it of course, to determine the causes of your dementia, huh?
I am tired of these masked liberals and their fancy Madison Avenue designer labels...
Aren't they what has been derogatively termed, "Country Club Republicans"?
I call them the new Rosie O'Donnell wing of the party since they equate the Christians with the Taliban...
Well, that TRUMPS the old term "Country Club Republicans"!
Just so we're clear, I'm not "implying" anything about Giuliani's positions, I'm stating them. He is a vocal advocate of special rights for homosexuals, a vocal advocate of gun control and a vocal advocate of unfettered abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion.
If you dispute those statements please provide the remarks in which he repudiated those positions. Don't try to pass off the "priorities have changed" or "nobody likes abortion" BS. No matter what anyone thinks of Mitt Romney's sincerity, he has unequivocally changed his positions and stated them. Let me see the Giuliani statements where he does the same.
You mean Masked Liberals with tasseled loafers that show a lot of sock.
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.