Posted on 03/07/2007 4:39:53 AM PST by areafiftyone
Wow! You mean it isn't about abortion 24/7?
Really? Who decides where to draw the line with WHO can OWN guns and who can't? You do realize that any criminal can buy a gun at a gun show right? So say...if someone wanted to close that loophole, you'd be for it then? What makes you any different from Rudy? THAT is my point. Becuase YOU decide who should have a gun and others can't? Hypocrits. You cannot call Rudy a gun grabber....because YOU YOURSELF are one...along with Charlie Crist...and as you say...the NRA.
I would prefer you were civil.
Wow! I'm amazed that I am the first responder to your post. While I can understand that many anti-Rudy posters have plenty of issues on some of the social stands Rudy has had in the past, to totally ignore your comprehensive list of decisive action by Rudy says plenty too.
For them it's better to ignore than admit that Rudy did all those things.
Why should I be civil to the far left wingers who try to stop any conservative voice on a conservative forum?
You have the option of hitting abuse on me!
Rooty came down hard on the New York squeegee men but he's just fine with amnesty for the 20 million illegal aliens that are here now and the next 20 million that will walk across the border that he would order kept open. Well, that's just a social issue.
Maybe you should support the candidate of your choice and let go of the ghetto name-calling slurs.
Of course, that would compromise your better-informed, wiser stance ...
We know from our own experience that a president's judicial nominees are subject to intense scrutiny by outside forces----the president's political supporters.
The presidential nominee may or may not survive the scrutiny-----I give you Harriet Meirs.
Irregardless of the crumbs he's throwing to conservatives about potential nominees, Rudy is joined at the hip to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the most radical pro-abortion elements.
You can bet your bottom dollar judicial picks will be scrutinized, decided upon, and seated, by the NARAL crowd. NO WAY would NARAL permit their boy Rudy to install conservative-leaning judges.
Anybody who believes Rudy would seat conservative judges is smoking something illegal.
The pro-abortion savages have commenced the killing of the innocents. Who knows where it will stop with Rudy controlling the levers of government, and NARAL whispering in his ear?
You know, I admire Rudy and have respect for him, especially during 9/11, but putting him in office with a Republican title will not help our case as conservatives, painting us as hypocrites and opening that door that will not be closed again. If we get ONE Republican president who is pro-abortion/gun grabbing, we'll get the lefties after us who will say, "Hey, you voted for a republican who was pro-abortion/anti-gun, why can't you do the same for a democrat who stands for the same? What's the difference?" I see it coming if Rudy is promoted.
Not to mention his NYC liberal pals of the justice department as his nominee pool and advisors,
his NYC attitude to eminent domain. (all his former mayor pals)
his atipathy to INDIVIDUAL gun rights. (or his law school left wing miseducation about the second amendment.)
A LOOK AT RUDY'S PAST IS A GLIMPSE INTO THE FUTURE.
...as far back as 1993, when he ran for mayor of New York City, Giuliani was dogged by accusations that he pulled strings to avoid the draft. In fact, Rudy wangled a rare occupational deferment from serving in the Vietnam war in 1969, when he was a law clerk. However, scheming to get an occupational deferment is a far cry from present-day Rudy's assertions, that he opposed the Viet war on "tactical and strategic grounds."
Egocentric Rudy's "tactical and strategic grounds" blather is nothing but a naked attempt to pump his 2008 resume in the the absence of solid military credentials. In a Kerryesque-like statement, Giuliani once said of the Vietnam war, "I disagreed with it."
Anyone who dismisses the significance of Vietnam as a potential issue in the 2008 campaign is forgetting how surprisingly potent it proved in 2004, when there was enormous interest in the military records of both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
"The pro-abortion savages have commenced the killing of the innocents. Who knows where it will stop with Rudy controlling the levers of government, and NARAL whispering in his ear?"
I agree 100% and will never vote for him for anything!
I will never cast a vote for that RINO.
No, Rudy is not a flaming liberal, except perhaps among those who have 5 more important issues than America's war for survival against Islamofascism.
That’s true, but it’s hard to address on so many threads.
On that most important issue, I thought Rudy’s speech at CPAC was outstanding. He made the point that, through the use of wiretaps and surveillance, he was able to make great strides against the mafia effectively. Ironically he made that point immediately after criticizing the Clinton administration for treating terrorism as crime. I’ll leave the wiretap/surveillance/gun permit revocations to a discussion of Rudy’s position on rights and judges.
The WOT, and I think Rudy would be effective, involves more than policing and mayoral skills, though leadership is important. It requires a cohesive world view, and understanding of terror, a couple centuries would be nice, but at least a couple decades.
An understanding of the working of the State Dept, often an impediment, and Defence
The legislative process, having established his plan can he get it through Congress. In you face combativeness helps from the bully pulpit, so does a knowledge of the process.
I don’t think military service is a requirement, familiarity with the operations military, not police or fire, both strategically because we’re not dealing with criminals, and institutionally is a definite plus.
Can you convince me that Rudy is clearly superior to Duncan Hunter or Newt Gingrich?
If he’s not head and shoulders above both, I’ve no reason to consider Rudy in view of my concerns about his social positions.
Rudy
Who may own a firearm is decided by both federal and state law. I'm amazed someone commenting on gun laws doesn't know that.
Who can purchase, the definition may vary by state but includes felons everywhere.
Criminals can purchase firearms all kinds of places.
When they do they comitt another crime. A felony.
The person selling them a firearm commits a crime.
If it's illegal to sell a firearm to felons and others, and illegal for a felon and certain others to purchase a firearm, what other laws would you like?
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.