Did you guys catch this little pic of Hizdisonnor.Enjoy!
Posted on 05/05/2007 11:06:59 PM PDT by jdm
Rudy Giuliani portrayed himself as the heir to Ronald Reagan at the first Republican debate last night, talking tough on terrorism - but struggling to present a clear and consistent position on abortion.
Giuliani, who strongly supported abortion rights during his eight years as mayor, said he would not object to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision affirming abortion.
"It would be OK to repeal it," said Giuliani, who is courting key anti-abortion voters in the GOP primaries.
But he then added that "it would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as a precedent" - meaning upholding Roe vs. Wade.
"I think the court has to make that decision - and then the country can deal with it."
Giuliani was the only one of the 10 candidates onstage at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., to say it would be OK if Roe were upheld.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I have found this to be typical of people who have spent their entire lives in government.
| Obertroll: (conversationally) |
"...Mr. Giuliani now having moved more or less to the front of the pack and returning the wave of Howard Fineman..." |
| Fineman: (off-camera but heard clearly) |
"...waving idiotically..." |
| Obertroll (clearly annoyed) |
"...we appreciate that, Howard. Andrea, to the point that we just saw there... |
Heheh———thanks for that swell recap of the debate start.
However, I do believe the debate finish was more memorable.
Jooti Giuliani stomped onto the stage, took Rooti by the hand, and led him off like a whiney child who had to go real bad and wanted Mom to lead the way to the bathroom.
(Or maybe it was more like Jooti finding Rooti in a local bar-room chatting up a peroxide blonde, and was marching him home to give him what-for.)
Did you guys catch this little pic of Hizdisonnor.After a great opening sentence in your post at #17, your rhetoric went downhill. It was anti-Reagan and cynical. You attempted to have it both ways. First you said: "I am NOT criticizing Reagan." Which you were. You followed that up with: "He is one of our greatest presidents." Then you said: "I'm merely pointing out that we don't need "another" Reagan". Then you topped it off by saying:
>>>>Reagan's solutions were appropriate for the challenges he faced; they won't work now.
That was the part that set me off. I told you were WRONG and you are. The policies of Reagan will work today. Its exactly what the GOP and America needs today. Its what the world needs today. There will never be another Reagan, but we can follow the outline of his policy agenda. Reagan's policy agenda worked in the real world and it was highly successful ---- a strong defense, limits on the welfare state, real tax reform, support for pro-life issues --- throw in the mix that fifth issue of paramount concern today, tough immigration reform. Those aren't slogans, as you say. That was the Reagan policy of the 1980`s and it worked. By ridiculing Reagan's policy agenda, you ridicule the mans legacy. Another cheap pot shot on your part.
>>>>>>Reagan helped bankrupt and dismantle the Soviet Union so we could live in peace with Russia and the former Soviet Republics. We don't need someone who will help reshape an enemy state--we need someone who knows we have an ideological enemy which will never be satisfied, and must be battled from now on.
The strategy fighting the Soviets is basically the same strategy needed today against the Islamofascists. Its the tactics that are different. If you haven't noticed, for all intents and purposes the entire Middle East is the terrorists homebase --- minus Israel of course. The Middle East is one big enemy state. The USSR was around for 64 years when Reagan became POTUS. We fought the Soviets in the Cold War for 35 years up till that point. Some of that Cold War, btw, was a series of hot wars and smaller covert military actions, on a more limited scale. From Korea, to Vietnam, to Central America, to Afghanistan.
The fight against Islamofascists may take longer to win but the objective is the same. As Reagan said: "We win, they lose." To win the war on terror, we have to increase the size of the US military and have a buildup that gets us back to the levels of armed forces we had in place during the 1980`s. Back then, Reagan was spending upwards of 28.1% of the annual budget on the defense of America. Today Bush is spending less then 17% on national defense in the 2008 budget proposal. All the funding for Iraq and Afghanistan is off budget an falls into the overall deficit catagory, thus pushing the federal debt even higher. Reagan had high deficits and we won the Cold War. If we win the WOT, continued high deficits will be well worth the price in the long run.
>>>>>>Reagan signed an amnesty bill into law. People can spin that any way they like, but he did. We sure don't need that now.
No spin. Just the facts. When Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 into law, he did so after demanding and receiving provisions in the bill for tough employer sanctions and increased border patrol security. Those tough employer sanctions included up a one million dollar fine for employers hiring illegals to work for them. If the sanctions had been followed, the IRCA of 1986 would have been what it was meant to be. A one time ONLY amnesty grant. Instead, after the Democrats took back the Senate in 1987, Ted Kennedy began to gut the employer sanctions that Reagan fought so hard for. That led to 20 years of liberal immigration policy, from Bush41 to Bush43. We don't need another round of amnesty today. The 2.7 million illegals that received amnesty in 1986 would be dwarfed by the 15-20 million illegals Bush wants to grant amnesty to today.
>>>>>Reagan fought to cut the budget, but instead ballooned the deficit and the national debt. We don't need that now, no matter how beneficial Reagan's tax policies were.
Reagan did cut the rate of growth in the budget as a percentage of GDP, by 1.0%. From 22.2% when Reagan he took office, down to 21.2% when he left office. Reagan was also successful in slowing down the rate of growth in the federal welfare state. Carter's last budget in 1981 spent 53.4% on "Human Resources", AKA. welfare and entitlements. Reagan's last budget in 1989, reduced that down to 49.7%. Those savings were shifted over to national defense spending. One reason why even today liberal Democrats still HATE Ronald Reagan.
The deficit did go up under Reagan, but unlike Bush43, Reagan's party didn't control the purse strings. The GOP didn't control the House. The GOP did control the Senate and that was helpful when Reagan was dealing with Speaker Tip O'Neil. As I mentioned above. The deficits and debt went up in the 1980`s, because Reagan had such a huge military buildup. That military buildup was the MAIN factor in us winning the Cold War.
Like I said, the problems you have with Reagan's record go way beyond the liberal soundbite strategy you employed to make Reagan look bad, on just those three issues alone. The policies that Reagan promoted in the 1980`s are considered the most succesful conservative agenda America had seen in 60 years! While not perfect, the historic record is also crystal clear.
President Reagan policies in the 1980`s won the Cold War, dismantled the Soviet Empire and the communist Eastern Bloc, freeing some 500 million people from totalitarian rule; revived a battered US economy from the worst conditions since the Great Depression; rebuilt the US military; cut federal income taxes 25% across the board; reduced the top tax rates from 70% to 28%; reduced welfare state and non-defense discreationary expenditures; and reduced federal regulations like no Prez before or since. Reagan`s leadership was extraordinary, winning two historic elections and uniting America behind common goals. In the 1980`s Reagan confronted liberalism head on, fought it to a standstill and halted its march towards euro-socialism.
Reagan also proposed and advanced the Strategic Defense Initiative, aka."STAR WARS". He negotiated historic reductions in the strategic nuclear weaponry of the worlds two super powers. IMO, Reagan should have won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in ending the Cold War.
In addition, Reagan was America's first pro-life President ---- post Roe v Wade. Reagan advanced the idea of a right to life amendment to the Constitution that would protect the life of the unborn. In Reagan's essay, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", he clearly defines his support for a strong right to life agenda.
Finally. If it wasn't for President Ronald Reagan there would be no conservative movement today; no GHWB victory in 1988; no victory by Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America in 1994; and no 43rd President called George W. Bush.
And finally, I'm an optimist, you're a pessimist. The Reagan legacy will survive mindless assaults from dolts like you.
************
How does one argue against capital punishment without including God? From where does morality originate if not from God?
Okay... I’m not kidding... the title of the thread made me do a spit take.
Funniest thing I’ve seen in weeks! This guy is such a complete and total joke!
I’m not sure Clinton will win the primary...but I agree with you that whatever donk wins the nomination will be hard to beat. The donks are going to be incredibly energized this time — and every election these days seems to be very closely divided. I also don’t put much stock in polls one way or another this far out.
However, I do think Thompson is our best shot, assuming he runs. I’m going to work hard, and hope hard!
I agree with your point.
I do think it’s worthwhile and appropriate to invoke God and faith when discussing why government should NOT intrude into personal matters. I think it’s usually not worthwhile to use God and faith as an argument for why government SHOULD intrude into personal matters.
Bravo Reagan Man, Bravo Indeed!
Excellently articulated, detailed and of course: accurate.
A wise Freeper would recognize when their faux arguments criticizing Reagan had been totally blown out of the water. We’ll see.
It is truly pathetic when supporters of the most liberal-RINO in recent memory have to criticize the legacy of Ronald Reagan in order to make their guy look ‘good’, despite their disclaimers to the contrary.
Without this advantage I never should have ventur’d upon a third volume of such abstruse philosophy, in an age, wherein the greatest part of men seem agreed to convert reading into an amusement, and to reject every thing that requires any considerable degree of attention to be comprehended.
A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume
Any video of the pre-debate?
No, Rudy, you are not.
Giuliani was the only one of the 10 candidates onstage at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., to say it would be OK if Roe were upheld.
***Just one in a dozen ways he managed to distinguish himself.
In your dreams Rudy!
Rudy isn’t good enough to even shine Reagan’s shoes if he was still alive.
Your previous posts did not include the word “LEGAL”. An individual does not have to argue the legal merits of an issue in order to legitimize it. There may be citizens who choose to recognize only the legality of an issue, but that does not devalue it’s validity.
To recognize an issue solely on it’s legal merit is absurd. If pedophilia was legal, does this therefore mean it is lawful? And if the answer is no, which it is, then why is it unlawful?
It is fair to say that to establish ‘truth’ in the validity of an issue is reasonable. I will say that the origin of truth is not in man, but God.
It is reasonable to conclude that you do not embrace God as your personal Lord, judging by the statements you have made. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that when hearing opposing views, you may dismiss a candidates position if he expresses his convictions according to moral law. That is fair enough, but if you’re suggesting that your position is one exercised by most, you’re wrong, my friend.
For if the moral issues did not matter, why are so many candidates addressing moral concerns? Because there are Americans that value these moral issues.
My meaning is very clear in what I wrote. I don't care what you or anyone else cares about in your private life--what motivates, say, your opposition to abortion--only what you care about in terms of government. Why would I have to stamp LEGAL on my comments, since this is a board about politics and government, not morality? One can have all the Bible-based values in the world, it doesn't matter WHERE one gets their values, only that they go about legitimizing laws in a LEGAL context--you can't go to the Supreme Court and say "Abortion should not be the law of the land because God says so."
“We don’t need another Reagan (which is good, because we won’t be getting one, anyway). What we need is a leader who will be what Reagan was in his time, for our time.”
-well said! And thank you for saying it!
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.