Posted on 02/06/2007 10:43:27 AM PST by ElkGroveDan
Excellent response!
So, is English not your first language, or are you just stupid?
There is absolutely nothing inconsistent about these two statements.
Terence P. Jeffrey is not the sharpest tack in the pundit box.
Exactly what I was thinking. I would like Newt to be the first name listed if possible. Given the alternative (Hitlery, Obama, Breck Girl) would take it the other way with Rudy first I suppose.
The thought of casting a vote in the GE for the third party or alternative party just baffles the dogsh!t out of me. Some of you people will only vote for a bible thumper and it is absurd.
---"I want Rudy to chief of homeland security in the Gingrich Administration. Let him do to terrorists what he did to criminals in NYC!"---
That would be unlikely, since he'd probably continue his policy of special protection for Muslims.
That doesn't put the PBA issue to rest. It's just sophistry, and almost the same as what the all-out pro-abortionists want. First, there is no documented condition in which PBA is needed to save the life of the mother. The medical community has said so. Second, it's a tiny step rhetorically from "life of the mother" ton "health of the mother," which is a loophole the left has proven you can drive a truck through. Health then includes "mental health," which is anything a leftist shrink says it is.
"In your dream, pal. No Republican can win without the conservative southern GOP vote. Facts is facts!"
And them is the facts! ;)
There you go again. Social security? Medicade or taxes? Immigration? Perhaps you meant the President has little impact on State issues?
You mean Tom McCilntock, the man who has now lost statewide races 3 times?
Regardless of what you think of Arnold, I'm very disappointed in him myself, people who said McClintock was hopeless have since been totally vindicated.
Yes, it is enough.
If you want social engineering, join the party that favors it. It starts with "D" and ends with "rat".
Thank you for your reply.
Yah, and southern conservatives are sure to vote for Obama or Hillary over Rudy because of this, right? /sarc
When did the desire and expectation and requirement for a Republican to be conservative become outrageous and downright offensive to lifelong Republican voters?And why?
"New York has a very large gay population. These people vote. Do you think its smart for a mayor to totally ignore shuch a big voting block? I don't."
You've raised an interesting point. Rudy's entire track record in elections is running for Mayor of NYC, which is among the most liberal places in the country, and a cinch to go Demon anyway. His politics is way out of line for even a moderate Republican (someone like a Bush or a Gerald Ford). Yet some people seem to think, purely on faith, that he can win a national election with his RINO stance.
Just forcing the police in NYC to start enforcing the law does not qualify someone to be POTUS.
I've asked the rudy supporters, but I don't know of any politician who has been elected president after the highest elected office they've held was mayor.
We've had military men with no experience, but has someone ever gone from mayor to president - and 6 years after they last served in public office?
Giuliani has also said that he does not want to impose a litmus test on nominees and is rabidly pro-abortion. Translation: he cannot be relied upon to appoint constructionist judges (who, by definition, would overturn Roe v. Wade). Even if abortion never comes to a knock-down, drag 'em out fight and there are no vacancies on the court (unlikely, but just as a hypothetical here) during a potential president Giuliani's term a pro-abortion president is still bad, because he will still have to deal with abortion issues such as state funding for abortion. Another problem is that it will become increasingly hard to get pro-life candidates on the ticket because the RNC will pick more pro-aborts. Why? They want to win the middle vote and if the pro-lifers will go along with them anyway, why not? The line has to be drawn in the sand now.
1. Opposing a ban on something that is already illegal is not the same thing as promoting that such a thing be legal.
2. In plain English, he said he didn't support a ban "at this time," clearly meaning he at least would be open to supporting such a thing should it become necessary.
If you are still confused, I recommend you buying a copy of this book:
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.