Posted on 03/04/2007 1:04:27 PM PST by Al Simmons
Sarcasm duly noted. Seriously, though, do you not think that Rudy's lawsuit showed a desire for him, as mayor of N.Y.C., to restrict firearm ownership outside his jurisdiction? And has he done anything to repudiate such a philosophy?
Held accountable in what way and define goodwill? Duncan Hunter did not vote on Human Rights in China Bill Number: H Res 364
Dream on, Rudy is a New York liberal, I don't vote for liberals anymore. I don't lie either.
OK, I have taken a few minutes and now think I understand your sentence. Sort of.
It is PROVED by the record that Hunter voted in FAVOR of the PBA Ban.
The onus is on you to go to the record of the votes and convince the official record keeper to change to it your view. From the way you talk to people here on FR, they may just back down and change the record to lie about Hunter's vote out of fear. Especially if you use some CAPS.
Rudy said himself that he would NOT vote in favor of a ban on PBA. That's where they pull almost the whole LIVE VIABLE baby out and then kill it and so they can deliver it dead.
Now as for the "some of you" comment, don't include me in your broad brush. I haven't ever said the cases against Hunter have been dropped. In fact, I don't know of any cases against him. Has he been indicted for some crimes?
If so, take it up with those talking about them, and present your proof that he is guilty. (no links now though...)
Don't forget to ping me to the accusations of you being a baby killer that you promised. Thanks.
I am looking at Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter in about that order. Were Fred Thompson to run, I'd consider him, as well.
"That is in fact an act of disrepsect, and it assults those you want to open a discussion with right up front."
I put that statement up as a harsh one and attention grabber to reflect on the fact that the choice between Rudy and Hillary is that clear cut. If the match-up comes to pass and after careful thought the choice is not obvious then that is my assessment. Before I explain, I want to be clear this statement is in no way applicable to anyone at this time.
Now my brief explanation as to why I believe this statement holds and despite what you wrote I have a belief that you might agree at some point in the future. I fully expect you to disagree right now. You are not faced with the realities of the choice.
The language of the statement is not reflective in any way of the discussion that I want to pursue in presenting my case. It is more of a reflection of strong anti- Hillary statement and is reflective of disbelief that any conservative can think to not walk thru broken glass to stop Hillary.
I intend on presenting only intelligent discourse. Since you asked, I will highlight some of the major points why they are different.
First and foremost is ethics. The Clinton administration is arguably the most crooked. Hillary was probably more involved than her husband. Here is a list of some.
- Lying to a grand jury. It is a travesty that this was not impeachable in itself. (This one was all Bill.)
- Pardons - payoff to Hillary's brothers
- FBI files - who doesn't think that info was used. Chuck Colson went to jail for one file.
- Billing Records in the White House
- Large numbers of people taking the 5th in testimony to Congress
- Illegal money donations. Perhaps giving technology to the Chinese.
Hillary Clinton comes from the Big Julie of Guys and Dolls philosophy on ethics who said "I was indicted 31 times with no convictions." Hillary declared her strong ethics by virtue of the special prosecutor concluding that he could not get a conviction.
This ethical concern is at the top of my list. The Clinton administration, with the willing LSM, was effective in dealing with corruption by throwing out the most extreme charges that people made and lumping them in with legitimate issues. This issue is more important to me than any other. For the good of the country, we can not elect such a person.
For me, this issue is sufficient. But there is far more issues.
Judges. Rudy has stated that he would nominate judges such as Roberts & Alito. Politically, he will not be able to falter on this. Rudy has always been a straight shooter. As a New Yorker, I have followed him for years and have much experience with this. The negative that people have brought up is his appointment of judges while he was in New York. However, as pointed out in recent threads on FR, Guiliani was limited in his choice. Rudy's background makes this issue an important one for Rudy. Additionally, his views on crime are in line with the type of judges he would want to appoint. Who will Hillary appoint? Probably the most radical left wing. Look at the Clinton record. While Rudy might have views that strongly differ from yours, his judge picks will far more resemble Conservative philosophy than Hillary's picks. As you know from the Supreme Court, this choice lasts long after the Presidency.
War On Terror. Guiliani has shown he is second to none on this front. He has demonstrated leadership in times of crisis and gets it. We are in a struggle for our safety. The danger is real. The Clinton administration in their appeasement to the Palestinians, treating terrorism as a police action has exacerbated the terrorists and help set the stage for 9-11. Hillary's recent performance gives no confidence in her ability to effectively wage the WOT.
Taxes. Guiliani is more fiscally conservative than Hillary.
Leadership. At this time we need a strong leader. Even you can't question Guiliani's leadership skills. He transformed New York City into a crime riddled city to one of the safest cities. Look at Times Square for noticeable proof.
Team. Would you rather have leftist Democrats.
Congress. What happens if there is a Democratic Congress? This is a possibility for 2008 as the number of senators in play favors the Democrats. What damage to the country can be taken?
Reasons to Not vote for Guiliani.
- A number of issues that you strongly disagree with him is what generates your strong feelings. However, what is the alternative? At worst, Guiliani will agree with Hillary on some items. Is there any one issue where Hillary has a superior position? Not that I am aware of. Lets say that the choice is terrible in this area for these candidates. I would suggest that each person's party will have some influence on what outcomes are enacted. This would result in dramatic differences. I will not get into it now, but I believe that we just stuck with this category itself, the choice would be clear cut but to bolster my point right now lets take the worst viewpoint and label this as no difference.
So here is the choice with the most unfavorable Rudy viewpoint. Lets elect a left wing radical who is ruthless and crooked. Lets screw up the country further for years to come by electing left wing judges. The hell with the WOT. Lets enact all the socialism and let the country go downhill. (By the way the pain would be more than a couple of years.) This is better than electing someone who is strong leader who gets the WOT and has a reasonable change of protecting us better, will nominate far better judges, will probably be more fiscally responsible, have a better team than the left wing democrats but would allow the same poor choices on a number of items that his opponent would.
Hmm, seems like a difficult choice. Not!
If the Rudy Hillary matchup materializes, I will look forward to your rationale. Please do not answer right now as you are not forced to deal with this reality right now and there is no reason for you to accept the Rudy possibility right now. Focus on the primary and I look forward to engaging you in a discussion in the future.
Giuliani isn't doing a complete makeover just prior to the election.
If you don't like Giuliani, don't vote for him, because what you see is what you'll get. I lived in Massachusetts while Romney ran for Senate, then became Governor, and now is running for President, and I see very little consistency in him.
Romney's qualifications for the job seem to be that he's telegenic and he says what some conservatives want to hear at rallies. Meanwhile his biggest accomplishment while governor was instituting a small-scale version of Hillarycare.
We push hard for conservatives, hold our nose and vote R if in the end we don't succeed in getting our favored candidate.
In my experience, that's how I've always voted, actually. I wish I could really get behind a candidate, but I've never seen one who wanted to lead in a direction I through and through thought the nation should be led.
Last response - it's late here on the east coast.
I'm not familiar with the lawsuit. I promise to look into it, though. I do care about the Second Amendment. No doubt we will have occassion to discuss this again, in detail. Thanks for informing me about the lawsuit.
I'm seeing double at this point. Good night.
Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it?
The Msm will turn and trash Rudy if he gets the nod. There are other candidates out ther who may get the nod and they might not be able to so trash.
You don't know what a liberal is, obviously.
"Some of you" excludes you, if you have not made those statements. But then, you do enjoy nonexistent picking nits.
So there you have it. Rudy supports killing babies. And as an added bonus, he wants to force me to pay for it in direct violation of the Hyde Amendment!
He's a fraud.
L
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.