Posted on 09/08/2007 12:24:11 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Rudy sure fits a democrat profile!
IT is for the murder of unborn babies!
IT is a big gun control nut!
IT covered for the invaders in ITS city!
IT surrounded ITself with thugs!
Why does IT have an R by ITS name instead of a D?
Frankly, seems like Glen Beck is pulling a Sean Hannity. Beck's another Rooty shill.
My god I really get tired of you shrill mouth foamers.
Try to participate in an adult conversation instead.
And before you try to direct any of your insane vitriolic ranting my way, know that my support is leaning towards Fred Thompson currently.
I like Rudy for many reasons but this is just, what's the word...stupid.
I have a feeling we'll soon be seeing articles headlined "Thompson gaining, Rudy losing support"
I heard the interview and he expressed zero interest in this. In fact he said it would overwhelm police and we wouldn't have enough jail space
More VIRTUAL FENCE crap. This guy is no different than Chertoff and GW Bush. I'll believe in virtual fences when I see Israel using them.
Clearly Rudy has taken some positions out of step with conservatives. That’s not in contention by anyone.
But let’s discuss his real record like reasoned and mature adults.
It doesn’t seem that you need to convince many against supporting Rudy here, so while you may not like many of the policies and positions he’s taken, there is no reason to disrespect the man, who after all was a great leader and true hero of 9/11.
I just hate seeing fever swamp posts whose tone is more fitting a DUer or Kossack.
Correction. Rudy was making a MIS-statement of fact regarding the law. Illegal entry into the United States is already a federal crime, a misdemeanor punishable by 6 months in prison for the first offense. The second offense is a felony punishable by 2 years in prison. 8 U.S.C. 1325.
For Rudy, a former United States Attorney and Associate Attorney General, not to know this is really stunning particularly since he is constantly brandishing such credentials, even in the dig he took at Fred in the debate the other night. (”Fred does a good job play in my role on TV”)
It reminded me of what he said during one of his interviews to the effect that there was a constitutional right to abortion and that he believed the government had to fund that right for indigent women. Another breathtakingly ignorant statement of the law, implying that a constitutional right should be funded by the government. This is not strict constructionism and it is not, by the way, fiscal conservatism, nor is it in any way socially conservative. This statement, which I am sure will come up again, manages to offend nearly every part of the Republican coalition, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and judicial conservatives.
What statement were you referring to exactly?
Rudy's assertion that illegal immigration isn't a crime is most certainly not true.
Regarding federal funding of abortion, Rudy also has a point here if looking at it as someone charged with upholding the law as currently construed by the courts.
Just look at how Voting Rights has been applied. The courts have found that as a Constitutional right, the government has an obligation to make voting accessible to low income people. This is the same court precedent in effect.
Obviously it is a grotesque distortion of law when applied to abortion, but it’s what happens when liberal judges are allowed to reinterpret it to their whims. My concern with Rudy is that he seems quite content with the legal status quo, and despite what he says to the contrary, he may seek out judges who will continue upholding it as is.
Giuliani brings that out in people on this forum, thats for sure.
Too bad he is not pro life, he could have been a good one.
Beck just went down in my own polls.
Start believing.
The security fence forms a strip approximately the width of a four-lane highway. At its center is the chain-link fence that supports an intrusion detection system. This technologically advanced system is designed to warn against infiltrations, as is the dirt "tracking" path and other observation tools.
GLENN: Should it be (a crime)?
GIULIANI: Should it be? No, it shouldn't be because the government wouldn't be able to prosecute it. We couldn't prosecute 12 million people. We have only 2 million people in jail right now for all the crimes that are committed in the country, 2.5 million. If you were to make it a crime, you would have to take the resources of the criminal justice system and increase it by about 6. In other words, you'd have to take all the 800,000 police, and who knows how many police we would have to have.
That is one reason I dont watch or listen to Glenn Beck. He loves Rudy. The other reason is everytime I tune in, he has that dirt bag Sharpton on for crying out loud.
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.