Posted on 03/18/2007 11:17:46 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Right. As long as they're "very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer[s]," they meet Giuliani's supposed criteria. Like Ruth Buzzie Ginsberg. Two peas in a pod, I have no doubt.
There's no argument from me on that one. SS was a New Deal left wing creation. Conservatives are stuck with it now. Best we can do is try to reform it with private accounts like Bush tried to do and create an ownership society.
That is what Rudy would try to do also. First, we have to get past the liberal cry of "waaahhh, the stock market is risky" and "conservatives want to risk your grandmothers' livelihood on the stock market". Of course, if the Dow or the S&P are worth less 10, 20, 30 years from now than they are today (which has never happened even over a 5 year period), than we have bigger problems...like who can elbow who on the soup line to get to the front.
When even Reagan had trouble getting it right, how can we expect Rudy to?
Rudy is tougher.
Precisely because Rudy is more pragmatic.
Let's get this 'protection' thing straight. The police have no duty to 'protect' anyone from anything. Their job is largely to show up after a crime has been committed and document it for a possible trial later on.
If they happent to stop one in progress, well that's great. But 'protecting' citizens from crime isn't in the job description.
Protecting oneself from miscreants is ones own job. And it's one that Rudy has shown he's dead set against allowing you to do.
He's also dead set (no pun intended) against allowing you to own the most effective tools for your own defense, namely firearms.
New Yorkers are strictly forbidden to carry handguns for their personal defense and Rudy supports that position 110%. He was also responsible for stripping New York residents, including one Freeper, of their legally owned firearms.
He's gone on record several times as supporting and in fact 'strengthening' the so called 'assault weapons ban'. Rudy is no friend to anyone who holds the BOR dear.
He should be rejected as a Presidential candidate outright for that reason alone.
L
Folks forget that 7 of the 9 justices on the court were appointed by Republicans.
If our party showed more discipline, we would already be well on our way to restoring our constitutional form of republican governance.
But no, they've squandered the decades of hard political work of millions of principled patriots. It's shameful. And now these RINOs want to complete the sellout.
Weasel words.
The police is supposed to maintain law and order, not just stay home and then investigate crimes after they have been comitted.
As an aside, that is the attitude of the Democrats towards the terrorists: let's wait until they blow us up, then investigate, sort of and punish those directly responsible, but never mind going after the terrorist organizations.
Rudy WILL go after the terrorists.
This piece is at it again, separating us out as "fiscal" and "social" conservatives. Hogwash. Here's Buckley's American conservativism:
Through his intellectual leadership, Buckley consolidated the disparate themes that became modern American conservatism: anti-communism, free-market economics, limited government and a cultural perspective rooted in religion and religious values.
These abortionist, same sex marriage Rinos rallying around their standard bearer, Guiliani, are NOT conservatives. They are utterly lacking of "a cultural perspective rooted in religion and religious values."
Bang. You nailed it.
What's he gonna do, give 'em sanctuary?
There is no doubt what judges Hillary will appoint, is there?
How many terrorists did law enforcement kill on 9-11? Zero.
How many did private citizens kill, armed only with what was at hand? How many lives did they save?
No one I know is planning on voting for Hillary, so your question is moot. They're not voting for her fellow lefty Rudy, either.
Sounds like you want to see the police force abolished. Is that correct?
Foolish straw man. But, I would rather see the police force abolished than to see the citizenry disarmed. How about you?
When did I say he wouldn't? He'll go after terrorists, Duncan Hunter will go after terrorists, and Mitt Romney will go after terrorsts.
What's your point?
I was discussing Rudys contempt for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
If you'd like to address that point then please do.
If not then please don't bother me with the 'go after terrorists' canard.
L
We saw it with Bush's signing of campaign finance reform.
Jeb with Terri Schiavo.
Mitt with gay marriage.
Now we're supposed to believe that Giuliani will not only enact NO liberal legislation, he will give us "good" oligarchs on the bench.
Does anyone really believe a liberal is capable of governing in harmony with the Constitution?
Supporters of abortion see a right to abortion defined by the constitution. So just because Rudy says he will appoint "strict constitutionalists" as judges, that doesn't mean that he won't appoint liberals. In fact, his track record has been one of appointing liberal judges.
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.