Posted on 02/18/2007 4:12:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson
I don't know about you, but I doubt the Christian conservatives throughout the red state farm belt and especially down in the South are going to cotton to a liberal New York Yankee coming down to try to clean up crime by taking their guns and bringing abortion and gay unions (gay marriage) into their families, schools and churches.
Sorry, but he made it impossible for most long-term NYC carry permit holders to renew their permits. And supported Bill Clinton's call for more gun control laws after the 1997 Empire State Building shootings. And sued gun manufacturers. So he didn't just inherit gun laws - he made them more draconian and asked for more.
Not my job, but you should do so yourself considering that you no doubt claim to be a citizen of this country. I don't think you will find anything in the Bill of Rights that says the Amendments are to be applied subjectively in certain geographical areas and to only certain citizens, and not to others.
Don't lay that on me, lay it on the shoulders of the GOP if liberal rudy is all they can come up with.
If this argument is too difficult to follow in the abstract, recall Perot.
Not difficult at all, rudy is the hildabeast' Perot. He'll split the vote and drive republicans into the arms of any awaiting 3rd. party or stay at homes.
And I look for him to basically telegraph that he won't push some of the hot-button issues at a time of war and will appoint constructionist judges who are more likely to be anti-abortion and gun control than pro.
With Hitlary, you are guaranteed 100% ultra-liberal Fed Court appointments who will be limiting and taking your rights away for the next 30 years.
See, its the Judiciary that has been taking those rights away in the main - NOT the president.
And if you don't think that there will be lightyears of difference between the kind of nominees Rudy sends up vs. Hitlary's, well, you've lost touch with reality.
Thank you.
"Conservative Baptist, evangelical, pro-life, lifetime NRA member, social conservative Rudy supporter here."
Same here, except I'm just a gun owner and not a member of the NRA.
The all or nothing crowd is going to guarantee this election to the Rats next year.
You are dim! LOL
I just got done telling you that pro life folks are concerned with the life of Mom and child. You're an extremist nut. (g) How do like the label?
Rudy does seem late to this particular party. At a minimum, he wanted to seem an abortion maximalist, when that was convenient, and now is trying to edge back from the precipice. Making the case that Rudy has been seemlessly consistent on this issue is going to be a tough one; just ask Mitt. :)
You're right. I jumped to a conclusion after hearing other's refer to Rudy as 'the stalinist in a dress'. But, you're absolutely right, hitlery is the stalinist in a pants suite. I was willing let Rudy as 'the stalinist in a dress' stand.
seamlessly
We could all do with a little education on the 2nd amendment, or, actually, some clarification.
At this point, if I understand aright, the 4th circuit has openly decided it is a personal right and the 9th circus has decided exactly the opposite.
When is a case going to make it the Supreme Court to clarify which was right, or will they duck the issue for **another** 80 years?
Slapping a fancy Madison Avenue label on a bargain basement retailer isn't going to make a difference...
Oh, hon. You mean you're surprised I'm rather disappointed that the rules aren't being enforced with regard to Spamming of the Rudy threads. That Rudy supporters have been told they should wear identifying arm bands. That Rudy supporters are called the most malicious, sexist names that I'm embarrassed to re-rost them here.
Your manufactured, faux outrage is duly noted.
Sure is a danger of that happening.
No less a man than Theodore Roosevelt (my #1 personal hero) did just that by running third party in 1912 (because the GOP machine had literally stolen the nomination from him and given it to Taft), saying later that he knew this would throw the election to Wilson, but running on 'principle'.
Well, lets see what that did:
Wilson helped institute the Income Tax while running an administration of 'the Big Lie' like an early Bill Clinton in many respects; Federal Regulations increased and new ones were created, which have since grown, and grown, and grown, and worst of all
Wilson failed to take a decisive role to help the Allies early in the war - despite the torpedoing of the Lusitania and other ships with thousands of American deaths by the Germans. By doing so he helped to prolong the European bloodletting which DIRECTLY led to the rise of the Communist regime in Russia - and we know what consequences that had in the 20th century.
However bad and weak Taft was, he would have been a much better choice in 1912 than Wilson. Roosevelt could have mended fences, cooled his heels, and won the nomination in 1916, and boy would history have been different.
But Roosevelt's lapse in judgment (pursuing a personal vendetta that he knew would throw the election to the minority party) was perhaps THE biggest mistake of his career.
He starts out by admitting that he is a liar- for pay He impeaches himself.
Even if he is not lying in the second instance, he has no way of knowing the truth of this recent statement. I doubt many doctors and patients submit to him explanations on why they did the procedure.
Being related to a whole bunch of doctors and having numerous friends who are doctors, none of whom do abortions, I refuse to believe that doctors and mothers are so depraved- with very rare exceptions- to do LTA for convenience as a matter of course.
Since the President has no say on abortions, Giuliani's judicial nominees are all that matter.
I predicted months ago, long before he made assurances last week, on what sort of Justices he would pick.
I find you labeling me funny.
I agree, although I find it difficult to believe that Rudy would nominate someone whom he strongly suspects will vote to reverse Roe v Wade, or even it more expansive progeny. Why would Rudy do that, if he agrees with the decision as a legal matter? Granted, Rudy has ducked directly answering that one recently.
But given that national survival is at stake - first from the WOT, and second from the almost certain nomination of a doctrinaire Marxist as the Dem nominee, I am prepared to make an exception to my above listed pattern of voting if Rudy is the nominee.
I have elaborated on my reasons why earlier - no need to repeat them.
Crystallize your mind on the immediate and deathly threats to America - listed above, and you may come to the same position I have.
For example, though I would have voted against him in 1932/36/40, I would have voted for FDR in 44 due to his leadership on the war and the need for continuity at a time of unprecedented crisis.
Consider it after you have cooled off and stepped back from the keyboard, and you may come to see that while this may be a difficult position to come to, it may be the best decision for the nation as a whole.
And with that I have to go away to work, so I'll be interested if there are any thoughtful replies to this particular post - or regrettably, more of the same.
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.