- Rudy Giuliani
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 03/22/2007 11:28:22 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
...We constantly present the false impression that government can solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve. Families are significantly less important in the development of children today than they were 30 or 40 years ago. Religion has less influence than it did 30 or 40 years ago. Communities don't mean what they meant 30 or 40 years ago.
As Americans, we're not sure we share values. We're sometimes even afraid to use the word values. We talk about teaching ethics in schools -- people say, "What ethics? Whose ethics? Maybe we can't." And they confuse that with teaching of religion. And we are afraid to reaffirm the basics upon which a lawful and a decent society are based. We're almost embarrassed by it.
.... What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
... The fact is that we're fooling people if we suggest to them the solutions to these very, very deep-seated problems are going to be found in government.
... They are going to have to be just as solid and just as strong in teaching every single youngster their responsibility for citizenship. We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens. Schools exist in America and have always existed to train responsible citizens of the United States of America.
If they don't do that, it's very hard to hold us together as a country, because it's shared values that hold us together.
(Excerpt) Read more at query.nytimes.com ...
"The SCOTUS supports a State's right to infringe.
Bringing up the SCOTUS was a bad idea."
But in presser v illinois they found that the states could not impose restrictions on arms because that would interfere the power of congress to raise a militia. The infringement they allowed in that case was along the lines of a municipal code (a parade of people carrying guns) not a restriction of gun ownership.
But if you want to go to the supreme court, we can go to the "militia use" of certain weapons as a defense for ownership. But why bother? You're just going to change the subject when things start to go against you.
Do you think I'm even breaking a sweat swatting down your continued pathetic arguments?
Darn, getting time for bed soon. I can't stay up all night laughing.
Adams took the Oath of Office on a book of laws, instead of the more traditional Bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams
Changing the subject?
I've been trying to get you to explain your original post on this thread for hours.
You won't...why not?
"Now...are you going to explain your first post n this thread or not?
Talk about intellectually dishonest."
I told you this before. I HAVE EXPLAINED IT SEVERAL TIMES.
You are the one who has repeatedly failed to answer a direct question from me.
"Did you know that it existed before tonight? "
Gee, I don't know, running a second amendment web site that, I don't know anything about that there militia act!
I've spent years fighting for the 2nd amendment. The only thing I've seen you do is justifying infringements on it.
You are nothing but a troll. Maybe someone else can play with you for awhile while I get some sleep.
"If hillary clinton had said that, people here would be ripping her left and right. "
Then you;re not looking very hard.
I understand the Constitution, you don't.
"I've been trying to get you to explain your original post on this thread for hours. "
For pete's sake, you really are trolling. I've told you, I have explained it several times before. Just not a way that you can twist around.
This is one question you haven't really answered:
"Show me in the constitution where we were instructed to "cede to lawful authority a GREAT DEAL of discretion about what you do"."
That's about the constitution and where it has people ceding a GREAT DEAL of discretion about what THEY do.
Your reply was a copy and paste job of the supremacy clause. In no way does it answer the question about ceding a great deal of discretion about what a person does.
Find it yourself. It's here on the thread. You've wasted enough of my sleep time. Have fun trolling.
Just before I go, I did notice you couldn't muster any defense to the period meaning of 'well regulated' so you changed the subject yet again.
Typical of you.
Excuse me?
I think a quote from Madison (a man "from the period") in Congress while introducing the Bill of Rights, that draws a distinction between "well armed" and "well regulated" more than addressed the subject.
You on the other hand, posted some stuff from some guy named Harry Schaffer, who isn't a man of the time.
Try again.
Show me Madison saying that they mean the same and then you got something.
In other words...you never did.
Boy o boy what is this? 30 straight hours of anti-Rudy postings?
Jeez his poll #'s seem to be unhinging you. So sad.
FLOPSWEAT?
On the contrary, it seems that the popularity of two candidates who haven't even declared yet is making the rudyphiles come unhinged lately. Here's the latest poll from hannity's website. Remember sean hannity? He's the guy that's pimping hannity HARD.
Results: What GOP candidate are you most likely to vote for even if they have not announced yet?
1. Newt Gingrich 16.52%
2. Rudy Giuliani 11.89%
3. Mike Huckabee 1.28%
4. Sec. of State Condi Rice 4.29%
5. Sen. Sam Brownback 1.90%
6. Sen. Fred Thompson 54.33%
7. Sen. John McCain 1.80%
8. Gov. Mitt Romney 7.99%
Rudy is third behind two people who haven't even thrown their hats in the ring. And this is on sean hannity's website - where all his listeners have been exposed to his constant build up of all things rudy.
Seems like the Rudyboosters are starting to FLOPSWEAT at the thought of fred thompson entering the race!
"In other words...you never did."
Just back after brushing my teeth to say a few things:
- I posted it. Your inability to either find it or comprehend it is your issue, not mine.
- Again you didn't answer my direct question, while accusing me of not answering a question that has already been answered.
- You apparently "understand" the constitution the same way rudy giuliani "understands" the 2nd amendment - with an outright hostility towards it and the original intent of the founders.
The States who ratified the Constitution and the BOR already had Constitutions of their own at the time of the ratification of the Federal Constitution (with the exception of two who lived under charters), and their Constitutions were not nullified by the ratification of the Federal government's Constitution.
You clearly like looking like an idiot for misusing that word.
I LMAO every time I see you make that gaffe.
LMAO! You used the word incorrectly AGAIN!
***...Read much?***
Train, as in pledging allegiance to the flag.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
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.