Posted on 03/12/2007 9:37:05 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
""There must be public funding for abortions...I disagree with President Bush's veto...of public funding for abortion."
Typical democrat agitprop comment ... I'm stayin' home if my candidate isn't nominated.' You expect us to not see that you're trying to discourage any conservative votes for other offices? Sheesh, you people need to realize just how exposed you are when at FR. Freepers aren't the dummies you're used to ... 'These are not the voters you're looking for.'
Yeah, this is just what we do when there's no real news. It's a slow time.
I think it's gonna be interesting. If Rudy *survives* this vetting process here, nothing the Ds throw at his supporters will phase them at all!
And I'm nowhere near ready to predict a Rudy nomination. One good torpedo can sink that boat. We know he has weaknesses. Some of the mistakes we *know* about are pretty hard to talk about. What we don't yet know could be atomic!
I wouldn't vote for Rudy even if his position did completely change on this. He's a bad nomination for the Republican party....conservatives deserve better.
tagline.....
So, if Ruth Bader Ginsberg is doing a good job, it doesn't matter to you if she is flaming leftist and judicial activist?
And, we can't elect a conservative that is tough on the war on terror and crime? Or isn't conservativism a priority to you?
Yeah, but i just wanna try it one more time -- with *ME* in charge!
If she were doing a good job, she wouldn't be being a judicial activist.
By definition.
Y'see, I'm gutsy enough to think Rudy *does* believe in the conservative use of federal power. He does believe in lower taxs, local control, tough on crime, strong defense.
But YMMV!
You cannot actually read can you?
If that is what you think my position is, then it confirms what your other responses have already indicated. You cannot read and you cannot process rationally what you do read.
In 1989 I was also for abortion. I was out nailing everything that looked decent and had a pulse. I changed. I don't know if Rudy did.
lol
I have, over the past fifteen years, gone the opposite of Rudy, becoming less and less open to abortion under fewer and fewer circumstances.
I can no longer support an abortion for no reason other than "just because a woman should have the right to one" - abortion on demand; which to me is the same during any part of the term, when the mothers life is not at risk.
When the mother's life is at risk, I realize there is no good choice (in my view).
The GOP isn't being ran nor policy decided by conservatives. That went out the window when Newt went out the door in a power coup within the party. The Liberals controlling the party platform and money for the past 10 years could care less about pro-life. They only mention it to get suckers to send bucks to the RNC.
The GOP will never again face a serious conservative issue head on until they are forced to do so out of fear for their seats. Unless the GOP changes course I will again be looking at the Constitution Party in state and national elections. I will vote GOP only on the candidate's personal merit.
Yep, the two main political parties right now are both democrats. The dems have infiltrated what used to be the Republican party and are now running it from within.
The ones who jumped over the fence from the DEM side especially in 1994 brought their liberalism with them. You're right and the two parties are now far too close in platform and national direction that there is no real dissent being taken serious on major issues. Either side will sell out to the other or make deals on key issues for their own personal political futures. Ten years later they come back and try to sell themselves as being 180 against what they pushed 10 years ago or even more recently.
"guns kill many more people than automobiles do, even though there are many more cars than guns, and cars are used much more often than guns. Perhaps, we should require insurance for handguns"
(Not true, auto accidents kill more people in America every year that all deaths from firearms)
If liability insurance were required to purchase and own a handgun, you better believe that the insurance industry would promulgate a pretty rigorous licensing and purchasing process to control the risk."
Just as unimpeded interstate travel is Constitutionally guaranteed, but we reserve the right to regulate driving automobiles, so too must we sensibly regulate gun purchases to preserve the safety of all Americans.
There is no Constitutional right to own a car, and you don't have to register or license a car unless you drive it on public streets or roads. Rudy wants guns licensed and registered even if they never leave your home.
"As a private citizen, as a prosecutor, as a Mayoral candidate and as Mayor, I have advocated for more regulated and more uniform gun licensing regulations, similar to those for a drivers license."
" I know many people argue that keeping and bearing arms is federally guaranteed right as stated in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. But even in the Second Amendment, it refers to firearms in the context of a well regulated militia, and well regulated is what we're trying to accomplish."
That sounds exactly like what Sarah Brady and her gang has been saying for years. The term "well regulated" as it was used in the 18th century meant well trained, or well adjusted, as in a "well regulated clock" or a well regulated musical instrument. Anyway, the amendment refers to a "well regulated militia", not to regulating firearms.
Bottom line, Rudy is a proven gungrabber who is trying to soft pedal his record on gun control as mayor of NYC, and will not say what he really wants regarding national gun control laws. His speech to the City Crime Commission clearly shows that he wants national gun licensing and registration, the same thing Hitler imposed on Germans after taking office. Free people aren't forced to get a license to exercise an inalienable right, and gun registration is always the first step to confiscation. The government agents have to know who has the guns before they can confiscate them, and if they're registered they know who has them and where to find them.
During Rudy's time as mayor that's what happened to NYC owners of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns that the authorities erroneously classed as assault weapons (assault rifles are full automatic). They were told that if their semiauto guns were registered they would be allowed to keep them. A short time later they were told to turn them in or be arrested, and if they didn't the cops knew where to find them because they were registered.
Only law abiding people will register their guns and apply for gun permits, criminals get theirs without permits or registration, because criminals by definition are law breakers and law breakers don't obey gun laws any more than they obey any other laws. While Rudy was mayor approximately 100,000 NYC residents applied for a permit to buy and keep a gun, almost all were either turned down or stopped trying because of the expense and endless paper work required. During that same time an estimated 60,00o guns were aquired by NYC criminals without permits or licensing. Rudy is a smart man, and he knows that gun licensing and registration doesn't work. What he wants is to make it so hard and expensive to buy and keep a gun that most people won't jump through all the hoops and plow though the red tape required to own them. And even if they do all they may not have the guns very long anyway When the government decides it's time for us to turn our guns in they will know who has them and where they are.
If Rudy becomes president with a gun-hating Democratic Congress to pass the gun laws he wants, we can look for federal lincensing and gun registration with the BATF jackbooted thugs within his first term.
From Ohioans for Concealed Carry:
Rudy Giuliani Defends Gun Control
Written by Mike Kinsey
Monday, 12 February 2007
A recent article from Townhall.com recounts former Mayor of New York City and Presidential hopeful Rudolph Giuliani’s anti-gun views. History has repeatedly told the Republican National Committee that a candidate that does not support the individual right to keep and bear arms will not be supported by the large majority of their members. Unfortunately, it appears as if the GOP has not yet learned that important lesson.
"I used gun control as mayor," [Giuliani] said at a news conference Saturday during a swing through California. But "I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms."
Unfortunately, Mayor Giuliani quickly proved that he does not understand the Second Amendment. In a feeble attempt to justify his gun control measures, Rudy said that what he did as Mayor “did not affect hunters.” My apologies, Sir, but you need to re-read your history books and the Constitution you swore to uphold. The innate right to bear arms protected by the U.S. Constitution and almost all state constitutions has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. The need for individual firearm ownership is far more important and is easily discernible from the constitutional language itself.
From the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
From Article 1, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution:
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security.
I do not see anything in either of those simple statements that discusses hunting. Rather, they describe the necessity of individual firearm ownership for “the security of a free state” and for our “defense and security.” Is Mayor Giuliani really trying to convince us that our “free state” can be threatened by white-tailed deer? Is he honestly trying to tell Ohioans that we need “defense and security” from spring turkeys?
No matter which political party you generally find yourself supporting, OFCC humbly asks that you take thirty seconds and send them a quick email, letter, or phone call unequivocally stating that you will not support an anti-gun Presidential candidate, regardless of how they try and justify their victim disarmament policies.
I can read, Wuli. But you cannot think. Clearly, in the case I described the mother's rights outweigh those of the unborn child. And in general, a mother will always have rights that outweigh those of a fetus. That was my original point, the one that caused you to wet your pants once again as you follow me from thread to thread.
Now go wash up, little boy.
Your candidate Sali won in Idaho by 5% in 2006 in his congressional contest in a district Bush won by 38% in 2004. Punish the RINO's and punish them some more. Drive them out of the temple. One, two, three, many Idaho's.
Yep. We took on the world. Dems, RINOs, the media, all of you. And we won. We also won every single statewide office for the first time since Hoover. We also knocked off a ton of legislative RINOs in the primaries, replacing them with solid conservatives. If you want to consider that a win for "your side," and the margins not large enough for us to be creditable, great. Here's to lots of those sorts of "victories" for you all in the future! :-)
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.