Posted on 02/18/2007 4:12:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Considering that I responded to post 500, and you didn't get into personal stuff until well after that, I don't think that could be considered a cheap shot. And if you cheated on your wife, then you ARE a liar.
Dear dirtboy,
"Past GOP winners such as Reagan and Bush II pulled in pro-life Catholic Dems."
Mr. Reagan actually made this pro-life Catholic, registered Democrat vote Republican, and even re-register as a Republican.
But although I've been a registered Republican now for a couple of decades, I won't vote for a pro-abort.
That was the single biggest reason why I left the Democrat Party.
sitetest
Jane Wyman is considered to be the cheater in that situation.
AFAIK, there was no suggestion that Reagan was unfaithful. Wyman filed for divorce.
Try being honest for cripes sake.
Rudy vs Bill/Hill/Obama
Who do you think will put pro-life judges on the courts?"
NONE OF THE ABOVE!
My spiritual convictions will not allow me to vote for Giuliani. I am not alone in this. That is why I'm arguing so strongly against Giuliani. I want to have someone that I can vote for in the general. I don't want to see the Republican Party lose the general as they would if Giuliani is the nominee. There's a significant number of people whose Christian faith will prevent them from casting a vote for Giuliani. Your sophistry will not exceed their beliefs. We don't need an unacceptable, divisive candidate like Giuliani. We need a candidate who appeals to a broad spectrum of voters who isn't absolutely offensive to a group of traditional voters necessary to electing a Republican to the Presidency.
I do not like this in any person, but find it particularly hypocritical in loudly-professing Christians, and YES, this comes from a very PAINFUL personal experience that lasted, oh, about 12 years and almost killed me....
Absolutely not! He's prevaricating.
Because:
He says a woman has a RIGHT to choose to kill her unborn child. There is no such constitutional right. He's ok with Roe vs Wade as settled law. Law? When did it get enacted by the congress and signed by the pres? Where is the Clause it's based on. If a court cannot overturn a bad decision made by an earlier court, America would be in even worse shape today than we are. Give us a break.
He says he's for gay unions (marriage) and protecting gay rights. Gay RIGHTS? They have special rights in the constitution that the rest of us don't have? Riiight!
He's a gun grabber. Says he understands the constitution and understands the second amendment. Wroooong! If he did he'd know he cannot infringe upon our rights.
He says he will appoint strict constructionists? Riiiight. Hillary Clinton says she will appoint strict constructionists. He and Hillary see eye to eye on abortion, gay rights and gun control. Their platforms are identical on these important matters and the judges they would appoint would be identical: strict constructionists. Only their interpretation of strict constructionism is obviously slanted hard left.
We want judges who will interpret the constitution using the original definitions, meanings and intentions of the founders and ratifiers, ie, "originalists." Someone twisting the constitution to find abortion, gay rights, gun grabbing, etc, constitutional is obviously NOT an originalist.
And so you project that bitterness onto every Christian you encounter. That's productive...
All these quotes from when he was Mayor are red herrings of the biggest order because you have to remember where he was serving and where he had to get elected.
9/11 changed all that. If he was this eeeeeevil left-winger that some on this thread make him out to be, would he have campaigned since 9/11 for every single GOP candidate he could get to - all over the USA, with no litmus test on whether that candidate was pro-life, pro-NRA (they probably all were).
I believe that was because he felt an obligation, given his sudden national prominence, to help elect members who would support the President and the WOT - and not because he suddenly started scheming to set himself up to run for President 7 years later.
Giuliani spent years supporting radical gay groups who advocated for gay marriage, he marched in their parades where they carried signs and advocated for gay marriage, he worked to pass their legislation to enact policies in New York City that was nearly identical to gay marriage, and he was considered a champion of "gay rights". In all the years the he supported "gay rights" he never said "I support gay rights EXCEPT for their 'right' to marry". No, he supported the gay agenda with a blanket endorsement of their agenda.
Just pointing that out because I just realized it. He's supported gay rights all this time but never mentioned the exception for gay marriage until he decided to run for President.
Anyone connected to the current Administration will not fare well as the nominee in 2008. That is a sad but true fact.
Rudy is the only one that transcends politics (a bit like Arnold here in CA) and has massive positives plus name recognition in every poll.
He may not be a military genius Jim, but I'll tell you one thing - he is smart enough to tell the military to make up the plans, give them what they need, and tell them to go kick butt - in my opinion.
Baloney. Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.
Absolutely! He was planning to run for president and he had to gain as much political capital as he could. It is obvious what he was up to. Now a great number of Republican politicians owe him one and he got himself in front of thousands of Republican voters and donors in the process. It was a great political move.
People who are frothing at the mouth about Rudy and trying to make him 'damaged goods' are opening the door to the possibility of the UNTHINKABLE - the election of a Marxist (who would indeed rule like a Stalinist if our Constitution could just be subverted).
We need to point our the TRUTH about Rudy's record, as well as the danger of Hitlary's nomination (which is a FOREGONE CONCLUSION at this point in my view) and I plan to do so every time I go online from now on.
This is the kind of infighting that gave us:
Jimmuh Carter in 1976 and
The Toon in 1992.
But what's lurking out there in the shadows next year makes those two fellows seem harmless by comparison....
Well, I'll say this much Jim. I think that the debate starting now is something that FR has needed since the debacle of last November. In the end it WILL wind up recharging us and the base out there. That's my global view. We may not agree on everything but after November 2006 a shake-up is in order. Even around here.
Rudy Giuliani has said that he doesn't believe in private ownership of handguns. If the Democrat Congress passed a bill banning handgun ownership or making it much more difficult, he'd likely sign it. I can't vote for someone like that. If you really want to stop Hillary from being elected, you need to work for a real conservative in the GOP primaries.
Baloney again. There's no reason a conservative party can't run a conservative and win. If we can't stand on our convictions we might as well not call ourselves a conservative party. Arnie and Rudy are not the solution, they are part of the socialist problem we've been fighting for the last thirty some odd years. We can't fight evil by becoming evil ourselves.
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.