Posted on 04/02/2007 12:28:27 AM PDT by RWR8189
>>Republicans keep a faggot in office<<
But its ok to have a Queen of fagots 3rd in line to the Presidency. What logic!!
LOL! No, your analysis is wrong, and NOT backed up by polls. Another cute try.
But its ok to have a Queen of fagots 3rd in line to the Presidency. What logic!!
Of course it's not ok. The point is that it's not the media's fault that we give them so much ammo. We can't help that the media has a double standard in reporting (not to mention manufacturing) corruption, but we can help that we tolerate the corruption in our own party.
Weak response. Right now Rudy leads in OH, PA, NJ, FL, MN, OR, IO, RI, CT--to name a few blue or purple or battleground states. He is more than competitive in CA and would probably win that state. What polls can you cite that indicate otherwise?
Sure, right now he's leading in a few polls against Hillary. He won't do so well when A) mor people hear about his hardcre leftwing views, and B) the dems real candidate starts polling near the top. Hillary is a weak candidate, and wil NOT get the dem nod.
Why support Rudy, and be guilty of supporting the slaughter of more than seventeen thousand times more americans than occurred on 9/11? Why support the homosexual agenda and a radical anti-war communist group, as Rudy has done? Why support gun control, which is in part responsible for the murder of millions of people worldwide? Why would you support further illegal immigration?
Friday night, while out with friends, in less than 10 mintes o describing Giuliani and his agenda, I had every single person in the group totally turned off from Giuliani. It was not hard at all, and will happen BIGTIME as this thing draws to a close. Yur candidate is a disaster, but if you want, keep on supporting thta abortion-man, but make sure you have gentle soap to scrub the abortion blood from your hands, because you have a lot of blood to scrub.
"We can't help that the media has a double standard in reporting (not to mention manufacturing) corruption, but we can help that we tolerate the corruption in our own party."
This is mixing apples and oranges. If there is real corruption in GOP governing, then it should pay the price politically. But if there is a drum-beat of phony pseudo-scandals--such as the one that hounded George Allen in the last election--then we should start fighting fire with fire. The problem is that most of the GOP leadership was born to a comfortable echelon of society unused to ungentlemanly behavior. It's about time we started electing people with gonads--with streetfighting potential. This is one reason I'm backing Rudy. I'm tired of the nice guy crowd. I want somebody who will haul the editors and publishers of the NYTimes to court the next time they violate national security. I want somebody who will make the media itself the issue when it knowingly spreads disinformation. I want somebody willing to stand up and fight.
A couple of things. A lot of the stuff for which Rudy takes credit wasn't his doing.
A) Much of the crime was lowered by policies and technology brought in by police comissioners. And some of the crime lowering was brought about as a natural function of crack cocaine and an improved overall economy.
B)He didn't do much to reform education.
C)Closing the porn shops mostly had to do with cleaning up 42nd street -- a project started under Koch.
D)Workfare was his program and he deserves full credit for it. I'm not being sarcastic here, it really is a good program.
That said, the three marriages (one of them to a second cousin), living with a couple of gay guys during his divorce, general support of gay rights, and a highly combative attitude will eventually sink him. There's also no telling what else will come out during the campaign.
The problem with Ohio is the lib-tards in Cleveland and NE Ohio. This part of the state emits a strange sucking sound as it tries to suck the rest of the state into its Black Hole.
"Why support Rudy, and be guilty of supporting the slaughter of more than seventeen thousand times more americans than occurred on 9/11?"
This is a country of more than 300 million Americans--not all think as you and your friends do. So the name of the game is to win as many of these voters as possible and elect somebody who will defeat the Democrats. That's the ultimate goal--not self-righeous fulminating which makes you feel good in the short run but results in political defeat in the long run. It's the Congress which is the answer to your concerns in the end. If we lose both houses again, then the Dems will be stronger and push even harder against conservative values. Only Rudy assures a victory because he's by far the strongest candidate who would win over many blue and purple states. That's the bottom line.
"Pro abortion, pro gay, pro illegal alien, and anti gun. And that is just the tip of the iceberg on unacceptable for me. I will go third party rather then vote for Rino Rudy."
He has pledged to nominate strict constructionists. That should allay your fears about his private views. As for being pro-gay--he is against gay marriage--that should be enough. He is not pro-illegal aliens but favors the same guest-worker program Bush favors. As for gun control--as a former big city mayor, his position is not surprising. Just the same, he has argued that he would leave that issue up to the individual states. In a way it's a moot point since a federal court has affirmed the right of individuals to own guns. So many of these fears are groundless and purely emotional.
It's true. I've never understood the "sky is falling!" rhetoric. Elections are a game of inches now. The dem majority in the Congress is no bigger than the Repulicans was on average during the years we "controlled" both houses. With all the negatives going in (corruption, Iraq fatigue, abandoned priniciples) I'm surprised we didn't lose more.
That said, the pubbies need to put up some good, conservative candidates. It will be tough. We've got to go back to the drawing board and stop mindlessly pressing the buttons that worked for the last 10-15 years. The case for conservatism has to be remade to a new electorate.
I think he is lying out his rear. He has a history, a long history of nominating liberals. I will not vote for anyone who is so wrong on so many issues.
"Much of the crime was lowered by policies and technology brought in by police comissioners. And some of the crime lowering was brought about as a natural function of crack cocaine and an improved overall economy."
Is that why he was invited to speak at other cities across America by other city officials who wished to emulate his philosophy of fighting crime? You're talking about an individual whose entire political career was engaged in crime-fighting, not just another politician. He has stated that "government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets, not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering". He said this and he meant this.
Besides, the facts belie your attempt to cast doubt on his record. Crime in NYC plummeted to around 64% as a result of Rudy's executive genius in appointing qualified officials to carry out his programs-- the murder rate alone declined 67%. That was not due to new technologies or an economic upswing as you claim, but was the result of aggressive new strategies and the hiring of the best talents to carry them out.
And Rudy shut down porn shops throughout the downtown tourist areas, not just in Times Square, and he kicked them out of residential neighborhoods as well. He went after drug dealers also--something unheard of previously in NYC. No other mayor had the gonads to tackle that huge problem.He also went after the welfare cheats, removing illegal recipients, cutting the outlay for welfare by 20%. Over 600,000 recipients were dropped from the roles. At the same time he began a work requirement program for remaining recipients--a program derided by the NYTimes as reinstituting slavery.
He ended the set-aside program for minority contractors as well, refused to meet with Al Sharpton, and otherwise would not allow himself to be cowed by racial politics. That had nothing to do with technologies or economics. Neither had his refusal to lower job requirements for minorities and women. He pushed to reform the city's schools by firing ineffectual officials and supported school vouchers--both of which went against the liberal grain. Ditto his fight against using public money for anti-religious art displays. And on and on it goes.
He saved hundreds of millions of dollars by reorganizing the police force and transit authority and trash collection agencies. He cut taxes and levies over and over, saving billions for taxpayers. He cut NYC's top income-tax rate by 20.6%. Local city taxes on a family of four dropped 23.7%. He cut the commercial-rent tax. He cut sales taxes, including taxes on clothing. He cut the marriage penalty tax. He cut taxes on commercial rents and on small businesses and self-employed New Yorkers. He privatized municipal assets, selling city-owned radio and television stations and divested the City from the New York Coliseum adding $345 million to erase the City's red ink. He cut NYC's hotel tax from 6% to 5%. Tourism increased 50% in the city per year during Rudy's tenure. Personal income increased 50%. Unemployment in the city went form 10.3% to 5.1%.
In all of this he was fought by the liberal media, beginning with the NYTimes, every step of the way. But he fought back and won over public opinion time and time again. Nor was he just successful as mayor. As a U.S. Attorney in the Reagan administration, Rudy amassed more than 4,000 convictions, including the five family heads of NY's notorious Mob. He went after Wall Street white collar criminals. He also prosecuted terrorists and illegal immigrants.
So his success was indeed chiefly of his own doing and not, as you claim, the result of an improved economy or new technologies. He was a pro-active mayor and operated according to a philosophy gleaned from a lifetime of crime-fighting.
The people who believe that the 2006 elections is a tsunami that changed the landscape for many years to come are extremely stupid. It was simply a combination of many factors that lead to Republican losing Congress, narrowly, and I think that the major reason is at some time a majority party has to lose and cannot keep winning forever and in addition many conservatives stayed home. It was a bad loss, as all losses are, but it is no way near a catastrophic loss as liberals and the knee jerk conservatives make it to be. The Republicans have more chances on winning the White House than democrats, even the biased media polls show that liberal Republican Rudy Giuliani and John McCain beating Hillary Clinton for the Presidency. Imagine when Fred Thompson decides to run and win the Republican nomination, the odds of him winning the Presidency will be even higher.
Brevity the soul of wit, etc.
I suggest you review your NYC history. Bratton was chief at the time of the decrease in crime. He had some ideas he wanted to try out and they worked. Some of the technology that he tried was computerized tracking of crimes combined with accountability at the precinct level.
The porn thing was the result of a law that was passed barring the shops from within a certain distance of schools/churches. There was another law passed regarding content of the stores, which they eventually worked around.
I have no idea what you mean by "downtown tourist areas." Downtown is Wall Street etc. Have you ever been to NYC?
Yeah, right, who cares about character, principles and doing the right thing. Vote for a scumbag because some loser on the internet and the msm say he's my only shot. Pffft. I don't trust internet losers nor the MSM. I won't compromise my principles fr a false premise, either. You can, and appear a though you not only will, but will campaign so that others will. That's cool, but you are the one who has to live with yourself. Good luck come judgement day.
I understanding that you are referring to his legislative program and not his personal behavior, but first he has to get elected.
And IMO it’s very risky to for those hoping that a “moderate” Republican Presidential candidate will maintain and expand Republican membership in congress to pin their hopes on Giuliani, and his personal values are one reason.
As voters get to know him, I think its going to become increasingly clear - and not just to social conservatives - that Rudy is likely going to keep being Rudi: that he’s the kind of guy for whom increasing power and personal success increases his contempt for popular morality and his constraint – or at least desecration – in his personal behavior. Are voters really going to look forward to the prospect of a White House occupied by a bed-hopping President rising dubious personal associates from unseemly backgrounds suddenly raised to positions of great power and influence?
And if that seems a bit extreme, consider: that’s how Giuliani has behaved in past irrespective of position or public opinion, and I don’t see him a apologizing, or expressing any regrets.
In fact, as far as I can tell he enjoys poking a stick in the eye of conventional morality, and what better stage for this kind of show the most powerful office in the land, and so what if citizens on a White House tour feel like they are getting a guided tour of a smoke filled room at the back of a Presidential bordello - the Rubes are lucky they haven't seen the videos.
Weren't these porn shops legitimate businesses? I am no fan, but that seems pretty dictatorial, and anti-constitutional to me. Similar to how legal handgun owners were treated.
Julie-Annie campaigning for Republicans in '06 was a complete failure, so that is a line of bull...
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.