Posted on 01/20/2004 2:34:08 PM PST by presidio9
If Giuliani runs for the Presidency expect social conservatives to run on a 3rd party ticket. It will be as disaster for Republicans and the Democrats will take over Congress again. I also think Giuliani will have a very dificult time in the Republican primary. Republicans better think before putting a pro-abort, anti-gun candidate on the ticket.
If Giuliani runs for the Presidency expect social conservatives to run on a 3rd party ticket. It will be as disaster for Republicans and the Democrats will take over Congress again.
I also think Giuliani will have a very dificult time in the Republican primary.
Republicans better think before putting a pro-abort, anti-gun candidate on the ticket.
Things are not so just because you want them to be. Adults realize that.
Jeb seems like the heir-apparent to me. Bush/Santorum would work for me, although I'd prefer Bush/Keyes. Someone give Alan a role in a Republican administration, please!
Make a silly statement then back it up with false reasoning and pretend you got it right....
Back to work now...see ya around.
"If Mr. Abu Kamal would have tried to buy a gun in New York, he would not have been able to do so. Because in New York our gun control laws are much stricter and more responsible than in Florida.
"And thanks in part to our stricter gun control laws, crime is down dramatically in New York City. Shootings are down over 50 percent. Murder is down over 50 percent. But the fact is that 90 percent of the guns we take out of the hands of criminals in New York City come from out of the State of New York.
"We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions"
WINS address Sunday, March 2, 1997
And before you go making goofy proclamations about Gay rights and abortion, take a look at this:
“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded.
Source: CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999
Make a silly statement then back it up with false reasoning and pretend you got it right....
I am saying that 500,000 people in NY decided to vote for Gore and not Clinton. I am saying that a million people in NY decided to vote for Lazio and not Bush. Admittedly, Lazio was an exceptionally weak candidate. I said that from the beginning. A strong percentage of NYers did not want to see Clinton elected. This is a very simple concept.
Back to work now...
Yes, I would like fries and a hot apple pie with my order please. Thanks for asking.
Thanks for pointing that out. Why not try it yourself some time?
Do not waste too much time on this imbecille. Ignorance can be corrected. Stupid is forever.
If anything the fact that 500,000 Gore voters passed on Hillary contradicts your coat tail reading and indicates the effect of the publicized animosity between the Gore and Clinton wings of the party.
As for getting back to work...I meant you. I myself managed to retire and live well before reaching fifty...and, no there is not a government pension involved...not bad for someone so thick.
Change the argument enough and eventually you just might be right. My original point was that a significant percentage chose to vote against Hillary Clinton, and I was right. The numbers back me up. When a landslide of Democrat voters showed up to vote for Gore, Clinton faced much stiffer competition from an unknown and disorganized candidate.
As usual, I backed up that statement with cold hard facts. As usual, you choose to debate from a position of stupidity, because you are unable to admit when you are wrong. Like when you said that my comments about Giuliani's gun control advocacy were based on opinion, not fact. Or when you tried to prove that I am not a native NYer (remember that?). Which is why I generally choose to give you a wide berth. As easy as it is to go on embarassing you, there's no sport in it.
I asked you to prove your statement about Rudy and gun control. I didn't accuse you of false statements on that.(reread the post)
Your argument that Hillary won by riding Al Gore's coat tails was the original statement of yours to which I reacted. And, the fact that she received 500,000 (@12%) fewer votes in the state than Al did really kind of indicates that she did not slip in on his draft. Twist it any way you want...it doesn't wash.
As for the personal attacks...stupidity, thick skulled...etc...why do you feel you need to go there? It's a common MO with you towards anyone who challenges anything you say, including others on this thread. You've even in the past declared a GZ survivor a "coward" for having the honesty to say that he would not want to work in a rebuilt Trade Center. You called him a coward...What did that buy you? All you posters who resort to name calling and vilification seem to think that such behaviour gives you some sort of victory, especially when the target refuses to sink to that level. What it really does is cause more mature and controlled posters to slide you over into a certain category.
You believe that you've embarassed me...as I wrote before, things are not true simply because you want them to be.
Your demand that I back up my statement implied that you thought I was bullshitting. Why else did you refuse to accept my statement of fact?
Your argument that Hillary won by riding Al Gore's coat tails was the original statement of yours to which I reacted. And, the fact that she received 500,000 (@12%) fewer votes in the state than Al did really kind of indicates that she did not slip in on his draft. Twist it any way you want...it doesn't wash.
Geeze, here we go again. Here's exactly what I said:
"I scratch my head every time I see the ridiculous "Rudy or Hillary, take your pick" assessment. Sure, Hillary's "the most admired woman in America," according to People Magazine, or Entertainment Tonight, or some other "important" gage of public opinion. But she's also easily the most hated person in America. She is the reigning world champion of polarization. Will 30% of the voters come out just to vote for Hillary? Probably. But 40% will come out just to vote against her. Rick Lazio was an unknown with no credentials who joined the race at the last minute in a very liberal state. Hillary rode algore's coat tails during a presidential election. She still only got 56% of the vote. A healthy margin, but hardly a blowout."<>
Are you that stupid that you do not understand that it is generally accepted that local candidates receive a boost in voter turnout in Presidential elections? My point was, and still is that Gore voters specifically chose not to vote for her.
As for the personal attacks...stupidity, thick skulled...etc...why do you feel you need to go there? It's a common MO with you towards anyone who challenges anything you say, including others on this thread. You've even in the past declared a GZ survivor a "coward" for having the honesty to say that he would not want to work in a rebuilt Trade Center. You called him a coward...What did that buy you? All you posters who resort to name calling and vilification seem to think that such behaviour gives you some sort of victory, especially when the target refuses to sink to that level. What it really does is cause more mature and controlled posters to slide you over into a certain category.
I resort to name calling because your stubborness and stupidity are exasperating. They know no bounds. And get your story straight, would you? I'm the one who used to work in the Trade Center, not the other guy. I said I'd be proud to work there again. Somebody else said they wouldn't. You chose to jump into an argument without all the fact (sounds familiar, come to think of it). I never called him a coward.
I'm not trying to "win" anything here. I choose to make this an anonoymous platform. Therefore, there is nothing for me to gain here. Again, I don't expect you to grasp that intermediate concept.
You believe that you've embarassed me...as I wrote before, things are not true simply because you want them to be.
Things are true when they are verifiable by documented fact. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
No, really. Feel free to go on making an ass of yourself inventing more lame inconsistencies...
Do you really?
Did you have your television turned to the "on" position in the days and weeks following 9/11? Do you know what happened to New York City's crime rate during his term as governor? Do you know anything about his record as a prosecutor? Have you read his book Leadership? The man has uncommon conviction and follow-through.
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York the man was a pillar of strength and stability. "As unstable as Dean?" How laughable!
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.