Posted on 03/04/2007 7:07:39 AM PST by DKNY
If Giuliani can get through primaries, he stacks up well For a guy commonly regarded as a hero after 9/11, Mayor Giuliani is too quickly dismissed by presidential handicappers. Here's why he deserves a second look.
(Excerpt) Read more at sptimes.com ...
YDR, I agree that abortion is not as clear cut as some (on both sides of the issue) would seem to portray the argument. After many years of thinkerfying about abortion, I have come to the conclusion that the unborn are due all the protections guaranteed in our Founding Document, because they are humans and have certain inalienable rights which are violated when they are aborted. If one believes that a human is killed in an abortion, then it's a crime and those involved should be punished under law. This is the "conservative" position if you believe abortion is murder.
However, if I didn't believe that abortion violated anybody's rights and a human baby wasn't killed in the process, then I would think that government should stay out of the issue altogether. That would be the "conservative" position if one thought nobody's rights were being violated, becauce abortion = appendectomy.
Rudy has said he hates abortion, but is very much pro-choice-even going so far as admitting that he would cover the costs if someone close to him chose to abort. If abortion violates no rights, then why hate it? Who cares if the procedure is rare? I don't think he said he hates abortion because he hates all elective surgery-why specifically abortion? I think I might know, but what do you think?
Freegards
stm asserted that "you're pro-abortion or you're pro-life", which IMO is an ethically challenged position.
The surgeon presented with a critical ectopic pregnancy must decide whether he will be "pro-life" and let two people die (because he won't remove the fetus to save the mother), or that the fetus must be removed, in which case it will die.
Choosing to save the life of the mother at the expense of the fetus does not make him "pro-abortion".
Hey, it might work. Rudy will draw a lot of democratic votes, so we might be able to take the election with all the conservative voters, especially if the democrats pick Obama. You don't think there are a good number of democrats who by 2008 won't care so much about the war anymore and would support a pro-war democrat like Rudy over an untested political child like Obama?
It would be like Connecticutt in 2006, with the "democrat" candidate getting so few votes that there'd be room for two "republicans", a conservative one and Rudy.
SO here's a question for the Rudy people: It's late October, 2007. Obama's the democrat candidate. The Iraq war is really over and our troops are all out but about 30,000 that are still training. Obama's polling 30% nationwide, but only leads in 6 states. Meanwhile, the 3rd-party candidacy of a strong conservative is at 31%, but with the south solidly in his grasp, while Rudy is sitting at 39% with California and New york and the rest of the democrat states on his side.
The 3-way race is clearly going to put us in the house and senate. But it's also clear if enough of the Rudy supporters jump to the conservative candidate, he will WIN. There's no doubt about it.
So all the "we need to pick Rudy or we'll lose" doesn't matter anymore, you can pick Rudy or the conservative and whichever one you pick will win.
How many of you still support Rudy?
I'll probably vote for Rudy in the general election if I am forced to.
But I'd rather not have to worry about whether the republican will be pushing for federal funding to planned parenthood, be speaking annually at NARAL, and be taking people's guns away.
And I'd rather not have to rely on the predictions of people on internet forums that a candidate won't do what he's said he's in favor of.
The 'sarc' tag was a bit of a givaway. My point is that your sarcasm suggested that the rudy opponents were very concerned about his 3 marriages, so I was noting that his marriages weren't the reason I distrust his candidacy.
I had a sarcastic comment about his marriages as well.
Hillarys choice of judges will make the nomination of Harriet Meiers look like the second coming of Scalia
The difference between Rino Rudy and Hitlary is? Not Much.
I do not think she is a better option, I think they are both equally as bad.
You think A President Guiliani and a President Hillary Clinton is the same? I promised I wasn't going to argue with you and I won't...but that's just insane. Sorry up front for breaking my promise, a little.
In the top 5 issues I care about they share the same views on 4.
A sickness of humor? Is that supposed to make sense? The post wasnt meant to be humorous, try reading it again.
Welcome to the Rudybot club!
I disagree. Not every abortion-hater thinks that abortion is murder. But they all think that it is morally wrong. However, that is not sufficient to say that abortion should be outlawed. I think that hunting is morally wrong. Yet I don't favor prohibiting it.
With Rudy in the White House there wouldn't be any difference than having Hillary or Obama in the White House. With Rudy or a dem in the White House the USA will continue on its' downward spiral. Sorry you have such a difficult time understanding that there is essentially no difference between Rudy and the dem candidates. I bet if Hillary put that (R) behind her name you would be cheering for her.
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.