You know, where it says "RIGA CONFERENCE", it wouldn't
be too hard to "fix" it so it reads "RINO CONFERENCE".
Posted on 04/27/2007 3:10:50 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
In a startling departure from his previously stated position on civil unions, Mayor Giuliani came out to The New York Sun yesterday evening in opposition to the civil union law just passed by the New Hampshire state Senate.
" Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Domestic partnerships are the appropriate way to ensure that people are treated fairly," the Giuliani campaign said in a written response to a question from the Sun. "In this specific case the law states same sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same sex unions from outside states. This goes too far and Mayor Giuliani does not support it."
The Democratic governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, has said publicly that he will sign the civil union law.
On a February 2004 edition of Fox News's "The O'Reilly Factor," Mr. Giuliani told Bill O'Reilly, when asked if he supported gay marriage, "I'm in favor of … civil unions."
He also said, "Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman." Asked by Mr. O'Reilly in the interview how he would respond to gay Americans who said being denied access to the institution of marriage violated their rights, Mr. Giuliani said: "That's why you have civil partnerships. So now you have a civil partnership, domestic partnership, civil union, whatever you want to call it, and that takes care of the imbalance, the discrimination, which we shouldn't have." In 1998, as mayor of New York City, Mr. Giuliani signed into law a domestic partnership bill that a gay rights group, the Empire State Pride Agenda, hailed as setting "a new national benchmark for domestic partner recognition."
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
“You forgot “baby-killer.”
That’s fully covered in abortion supporter.
You know, where it says "RIGA CONFERENCE", it wouldn't
be too hard to "fix" it so it reads "RINO CONFERENCE".
I haven’t followed all this, but I think the issue is that Rudy, since he is now classified as a “liberal,” is not going to be allowed support on FR. Is this wrong?
That is not correct. Rudy's supporters basically can't use FR as a springboard to make unsubstantiated attacks on conservative candidates, or to trash basic conservative principles.
Areafiftyone posts more pro-Rudy threads than anyone and she's still here.
“In a startling departure from his previously stated position on civil unions, Mayor Giuliani came out to The New York Sun yesterday evening in opposition to the civil union law just passed by the New Hampshire state Senate.”
And if this liberal gets the Republican nomination, he will jump back to the other side so fast it would snap an unborn babys’ neck.
Are you allowed to criticize “conservative” candidates if you are not a Rudy booster?
Don’t kill the messenger bump!
We're not talking criticism - we're talking spreading falsehoods like veronica was doing on this thread.
In addition, if someone supports an overwhelmingly pro-abort candidate like Rudy, they really don't have standing to challenge the relative pro-life bona fides of other candidates without being complete hypocrites.
“Are you allowed to criticize “conservative” candidates if you are not a Rudy booster?”
Instead of putting conservative in quotations, whey don’t you just come out and say what you mean.
Critique is not the same as misrepresenting btw which is what happened on this thread.
This is closer to the impression I'm getting. I understand Jim's logic - FR isn't for supporting liberals, and he's said, no doubt with good reason, that Rudy is a liberal. I happen to agree, but then I don't think the GOP is particularly about conservatism anymore in the first place.
I am distressed to see so many of us gone for having supported a GOP candidate, one that is well thought of by most Americans, even if he does turn up as a "liberal" upon close examination. But the GOP has had its share of "liberals" over the years.
They are not gone for that. Once again, they are gone for continuing to either spread falsehoods about conservative candidates or belittling core conservative values - after repeated warnings from JimRob to stop.
Bu Bye. Enjoy Ivan’s Rooty Rejects Room.
I usually put both “conservative” and “liberal” in quotes because I think both of those terms mean so many things to so many people that both have nearly lost their meanings. I do personally have specific meanings attached, but mine will be at odds with what others think.
The quotes I put do make it look like I don’t think the other candidates are true conservatives in my previous post, so I admit that it was ill advised of me to use them there.
From what little I’ve read on these threads, I’m starting to get the impression that Fred Thompson is actually a real conservative. IMO, McCain is not, nor even is Bush at the fundamental level. Bush is an old fashioned French rationalist. Rudy is probably accurately described as a “liberal,” which is an improvement over the outright socialists that the Dems wish to run.
Rudy is well thought of by most Americans, both for having cleaned up NYC and for having showed fortitude and leadership as mayor after 9/11. These things may or may not be enough to recommend him as a presidential candidate, but it’s understandable to me why some freepers are willing to get behind him.
One of Rooty’s queer roommates said that they trained him on his playing dress-up, how to walk and talk, bla bla.
He spent weeks on it AND he even had ordered custom made womens underwear!
OK, sounds to me like Fruity Rooty was into the cross-dressing a little more than just a passing interest.
>Regardless though, the global war against Islamofasicsm is my first priority.<
Then, please read: Library of Congress (Duncan Hunter floor speech excerpts #3) thread on Free Republic today.
You won’t be sorry.
“Rudy is well thought of by most Americans, both for having cleaned up NYC and for having showed fortitude and leadership as mayor after 9/11. These things may or may not be enough to recommend him as a presidential candidate, but it’s understandable to me why some freepers are willing to get behind him.”
Although I wouldn’t partake, I can see people rationalizing taking Giuliani over Hillary if he wins the nomination as a last resort. But I can’t for the life of me come to terms with conservative Republicans supporting him in the primary. I think this stunning development has led to the owner of this site pondering the reality that something has to be done. Conservative site...not GOP.
You're kidding right.
It's a private event, sponsored by a private community organization, the New York City Host Committee.
He didn't invite representatives of the palestinian authority, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Yugoslavia, Libya, North Korea or Somalia.
His choice.
The palestinians showed up uninvited, they were shown the door.
You're suggesting that because Avery Fisher Hall is publicly owned, I'm taking your word for that, legislation is needed to bar non invitees from an event held there?
Even Clinton didn't go that far, he simply noted that Arafat was a positive force in the mideast and should have been invited. A position I presume you agree with, since you equate an Arafat invitation with a John Howard invitation.
This isn't about lying or the nature of the source.
It's about supressing criticism of selective GOP candidates.
Which is certainly FR's perrogative.
But see it for what it is.
Horsecrap. You can claim that all you want. But the NewsMax article was a clear misrepresentation. And that's never been accepted on FR without challenge.
That's as it should be, conservative and not GOP, IMO, but I'm still going to miss some of the folk who jumped or were thrown overboard the last couple days. I thought they were good freepers. Not up to me to say, of course, but just what I thought.
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.
