Posted on 02/28/2007 6:27:06 PM PST by DKNY
Heh...
We have had 6 years of a pro-life President. What has been the effect of that?
I know you didn't ask me that question... but, none that I can see.
"We have had 6 years of a pro-life President. What has been the effect of that?"
Better judges. President BJ Clinton gave us ACLU Ginsburg.
Clemenza does seem to dislike all those folks living in NYC that are not white Europeans, along with those that are, that are in one or more of the categories you mentioned, at first blush. I still haven't read an anti-Semetic post of his, but then I don't read all the posts, obviously. Clemenza just doesn't seem to have much faith in the melting pot.
Do you think that Rudy would nominate a Ginsburg? Or would Hillary be more likely to nominate a Ginsburg?
"Third World immigrants and their children"
Oh know it's those damned immigants again! /s
see 6, "sidecurl Mafia"
You didn't think he was referencing La Cosa Nostra?
We never were a melting pot, we've never been a melting pot. I'm talking of the U.S. as a whole, not just New York.
New York may produce a few good things. Unfortunatly, Americanism (political or otherwise) and sane politicians are not among them. There was Alexander Hamilton and Teddy Roosevelt (the latter of whom was our greatest foreign policy president) but they were from an era before the slime of the earth began to take over NYC.
Now, back to my Brunello and Bloomberg.com.
BTW: If Sabra is reading this, he should be reminded that condemning incompetant Likudnik wannabes in Borough Park is no the same as anti-Semitism. He also seems to forget that not all Jews are "Yids." I know some lovely Mizrahim who would be angered by such a thought.
Ya, Clemenza has suggested that Rudy is tight with the Mafia before. He has a lot of opinions as it were.
I am just too goy to understand what the heck you are talking about. But your suggestion that NYC has not been a successful melting pot for ages, is well errant. The thing is, is that over a couple of three generations, folks assimilate to the culture, and depart the city, and others move in. The cast is ever changing. I tend to like New Yorkers, and l like their style, but then my dad was a Brooklyn boy.
Go with the Catholic. Neither shares our values. But the Catholic that doesn't share evangelical values is really at odds with the formal Catholic doctrine. At least in the area of abortion. So the ensuing debate would probably be helpful to Christianity.
The Mormon however introduces a God that is dramatically reduced from the Christian God, a Jesus that is a different God altogether and a plan of salvation that has the same similar sounding terminology but a dramatically different meaning than traditional Christianity. From a faith perspective, this confusion is not helpful. It' would be better to go with the Catholic and the ensuing debate within Christianity about values and issues than place a Mormon as the nations primarly role leader.
The polls say otherwise.
Go read your book!
If my Italian immigrant father was still alive he would punch Clemenza right in the nose!
The polls say otherwise.
I know many will say the polls mean nothing at this point, but I have always disagreed. They are a reflection of what people are thinking, and Rudy is drawing support across the board.
let's not take this argument too far. we have two originalists on the SCOTUS under Bush43. Reagan could only manage 1 of 3.
Regarding Romney and his Mormonism, we're not electing the next Billy Graham, so as an evangelical Christian, I'm not that concerned about Romney's religion.
Regarding Rudy, again, we're not electing the President of the National Association of Evangelicals here, but President of the United States. What are the big issues in this upcoming election? On national security and the war on terror, there probably isn't anyone better who can reinvigorate the nation's resolve and face-down the terrorists than Giuliani.
On fiscal responsibility, Giuliani has a record of balanced budgets, AND tax cuts in NYC.
On school choice, Rudy's in favor of it, and would be a forceful advocate for it.
On the important issue of abortion, while Giuliani's personal opinion is that he favors "choice," it really doesn't matter what a President's personal opinion is -- the abortion mess was created by the courts, and it will have to be solved in the courts, and Giuliani has pledged to appoint strict-constructionist to the judiciary. This is about the best we can expect from any president.
And I think there's something else going on. After 30-plus years of Roe v. Wade, two very pro-life presidents in Reagan and Geo. W. Bush, 12 years of Republican majorities in the House of Representatives, and 16 years of majorities in the Senate (including majorities during Reagan's terms in office), what do we have to show as progress on the issue of pro-life? Precious little. The ban on partial birth abortion was significant, but it's now balled-up in the courts. This is, again, reason to elect someone who will fight for conservative justices (again, that person is Giuliani).
But I think the weak results we've had on the abortion issue over 30-plus years, even with pro-life presidents and pro-life congresses, is an indication that we evangelicals have placed too much emphasis upon politics to solve the problems that we consider to be important. Maybe God wants us to engage in other means. I have a friend who's politically active, and yet he said he believes he's done more for pro-life values by volunteering at the local crisis pregnancy center washing and folding clothes than for all of his political activism. Christians have tremendous spiritual resources in Christ. Maybe it's time the church in America reassessed its use of worldly means, such as politics, and got back to praying as a church for God to act, and to bring revival to our nation. Having Roe v. Wade as the law of the land would be meaningless if people's hearts and minds were changed such that no one ever sought an abortion. Abortion is a spiritual problem. Let's assault it using spiritual weapons, and de-emphasize the weapons of secular politics, which has proven so ineffective over the past three decades.
The difference between them is in degrees..
also Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Chuck Schmer and John Kerry...
Rudy would be a GOOD working partner with democrats and criminal enterprise..
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.