Posted on 02/04/2007 11:08:45 AM PST by Clintonfatigued
For this reason, contrary to conventional wisdom, a victory by Rudy Giuliani would strengthen even the socially conservative agenda in the long run. As the new Fox Dynamics Poll shows, 65 percent of Americans would be “comfortable” with a Rudy Giuliani administration. Being comfortable is a major step in the right direction. Americans might actually listen to him when gives the State of the Union (without a teleprompter no less, as he usually speaks with note cards or does so extemporaneously). A Giuliani administration that would focus on fighting the Islamic Extremists, reducing the size and scope of government, handling crisis, and putting strict constructionists on the bench who will interpret the law properly will draw more support from more people in the short term. This will translate to more understanding of conservative policies on other matters because individuals will have more patience to read the conservative ramblings of columnists and pundits. In the long run, as a result this will turn into more votes. As Winston Churchill is often quoted, "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain"...
Due to the challenges facing this country, this election cycle we Republicans need to nominate someone with an actual record of accomplishment of tackling seemingly intractable problems. As George Will said on “This Week,” “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.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
One reality is that the president does not merely react to legislation drafted and passed by Congress. He is also fully complicit in proposing and signing his own legislation.
If Giuliani, extreme social liberal that he is, takes over the executive branch he will be joined at the hip with fellow social liberals Pelosi and Reid. (it's disturbing to think that of this social liberal Troika, Reid is the most conservative). There is no end to the mischief they can cause in advancing the radical social liberal agenda through legislation.
And if (a BIG if) Giuliani actually appoints a sufficient number of strict constructionists to the SCOTUS to stem the tide of judicial activism, will that impede the implementation of the radical social liberal agenda that he, Pelosi, and Reid will inflict on us? NO!
On the contrary, the new strict constructionist majority would be bound to UPHOLD those abominable laws!
Don't check your brains at Rudy's door, FReepers. Use them!
You're correct. I've never read or heard him say anything good about the Second Amendment.
Yes, I understand, that the Catholic Church thinks that even gay attraction is genetic, or sometimes is, that attraction is disordered, and acting on it while perhaps not an "abomination," is a sin. Maybe the notion that God created man in his own image, requires some revising and extending.
What is our understanding of marriage based on? See, some people forget this. It's based on the Bible. And by the way, the Supreme Court, in the polygamy decisions that were handed down in the 1890's, explicitly acknowledge that this was so, and enforced the decisions that had been made by the state of Utah with respect to polygamy based on the notion that, well, this was the religious tradition of the people, and they had the right to establish it in the law. It's very clear.
http://www.keyesarchives.com/speeches/04_10_20pastors.htm
Yes, I understand that you don't agree with me. I am not trying to persuade you of anything. This is one issue, where we make our own a priori judgments.
The second step to tyranny and destruction. (The first was the loss of reverence for the Creator in the first place.)
Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it.
Rudy Giuliani
N-i-i-i-ce take by both posters.
As TitansAFC brilliantly posted on another thread: "the hide Rudy campaign is in full-force. We're going to be treated to Clinton-style "no questions" forums, carefully staged only-pro-Rudy meetings and speeches, and a PR blitz focused on everything but the issues SoCons/Gun Conservatives care about.
What is even more disturbing is that the the very same people demeaning and belittling conservatives now, are the selfsame people Julie-Annie will surround himself with (if--big IF--he ever got near our WH).
Conservatives would be beaten back, laughed at, and drummed out of the political discussion.
As Mark Levin said on his radio show, being a conservative is a way of life, and that INCLUDES the social conservative issues.
Pastors' meeting in South Holland, Illinois
Alan Keyes
October 20, 2004
What is our understanding of marriage based on? See, some people forget this. It's based on the Bible. And by the way, the Supreme Court, in the polygamy decisions that were handed down in the 1890's, explicitly acknowledge that this was so, and enforced the decisions that had been made by the state of Utah with respect to polygamy based on the notion that, well, this was the religious tradition of the people, and they had the right to establish it in the law. It's very clear. . . .
But why do I say it's the Biblical tradition? Because contrary to what some people want to suggest, if you look over the history of humankind, every possible kind of thing has been put under the rubric of marriage in terms of male/female combinations that you can think of. Except that never before in the history of humankind has any civilization been foolish, mad, insane enough to suggest that homosexual relations could be put under the rubric of marriage. Isn't that interesting?
Our era, our time, is the first time that madness has gripped humanity. I mean first time, because even in the days of the ancient Greeks and these folks who were practicing homosexuality, open to it and all that, if you had suggested in the Athenian assembly that there should be a law that would have gay folks get married, they would have all stood up and laughed you out of the place. Why? Because it has been the common sense of humankind that marriage has been about procreation. If you cannot, in principle, procreate, you cannot marry. It's as simple as that. It's not discriminating against anybody. It's just a simple fact. "Marriage is irrelevant to you. You can't procreate. Why are you coming here asking for something that has nothing to do with you?"
The simple fact of the matter is that in principle, everywhere and always, in human history it has been acknowledged that as an institution, marriage exists to deal with the consequences of procreation. If those consequences do not arise, marriage cannot be a question.
We are the first sort of people who have gone so far down the road of utter moral confusion that we don't see this simple common sense fact that seems to be deeply engraved on the heart of humanity by the finger of God. Call it the natural law. That's what they used to call it.
http://www.keyesarchives.com/speeches/04_10_20pastors.htm
Assuming it is true, why has God via genetic wiring created some folks with a sexual attraction for the same sex, and not the opposite sex, if they are in his own image? Reconciling the postulate that even if there is a gay gene, man is still created in God's image, is beyond my pay grade.
Dear Torie,
"Yes, I understand, that the Catholic Church thinks that even gay attraction is genetic,..."
Actually, the Church is neutral on the question. It's a scientific question, not a theological question. It's true that some years back, the American bishops published a document that strongly suggested the acceptance of that thesis - that the disorder is at least partly genetic, but one of the legitimate criticisms of the document was that that isn't actually the Church's belief.
"... or sometimes is, that attraction is disordered, and acting on it while perhaps not an 'abomination,' is a sin."
No, homosexual behavior is an abomination, in the view of the Church. Sodomy is one of the sins that cries out to Heaven for vengeance.
"Maybe the notion that God created man in his own image, requires some revising and extending."
Well, Catholic teaching has extended, if not revised the belief that we are made in His image.
Although we are made in His image, because of Original Sin, we have lost our Original Justice, and we are marred, with an inclination often to do that which is evil.
sitetest
The Catholic Church understands human nature. Set aside the question of 'gay-ness' or same-sex attraction. Most of us are attracted to those of the opposite sex. The Church acknowledges that and yet says acting on that attraction (even if just with lustful thoughts) is wrong except for those married to each other.
Again, ignoring the debate of Church-State question, Rudy is a Catholic. A Catholic who has been an open, serial adulterer. That calls into question his integrity, right?
Rudy's quote is stating the obvious. Total freedom is being in a state of nature, at once brutish and short.
How long can a free nation survive after turning its back on God?
My fear of your POV grows even greater.
Well, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the problem with folks like you (liberals) isn't that you're ignorant. It's that you "know so many things that aren't so."
Is original sin saying that God wires man to sin? That does not seem Godly.
Only God knows that.
What makes anyone think Rudy would reduce the size of government?
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.