Skip to comments.
Giuliani's problem with the religious [large graphics]
Posted on 02/18/2007 4:12:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 941-943 next last
To: Jim Robinson
"Give us a no nonsense hard as nails conservative winner for a change!"
Absolutely, positively! (Psst, it ain't Rudy)
To: processing please hold
"Just nominate rudy and the '06 elections will look like a cake walk."
Maybe. But not for Hitlary.
62
posted on
02/18/2007 4:44:34 PM PST
by
Al Simmons
(Why Rudy in 2008? Because National Security should not be left to children.)
To: M. Thatcher
Conservative Baptist, evangelical, pro-life, lifetime NRA member, social conservative Rudy supporter here.Another one here! Go Rudy Go!
63
posted on
02/18/2007 4:44:48 PM PST
by
inkling
(exurbanleague.com)
To: Jim Robinson
Wow... Indiana and Kansas each have six different denomiation majorities throughout their states. Pretty decent diversity there!
64
posted on
02/18/2007 4:45:16 PM PST
by
Teacher317
(Are you familiar with the writings of Shan Yu?)
To: M. Thatcher
No, namecalling. Oh. I'm sorry if I offended you.
65
posted on
02/18/2007 4:45:33 PM PST
by
Enosh
(†)
To: FReepapalooza
"Give us a no nonsense hard as nails conservative winner for a change!" Absolutely, positively! (Psst, it ain't Rudy)"
There is no such person in 2008. Face facts.
Mitt Romney's flip-flops on various issues mark him as a candidate that I will NOT support on principle.
66
posted on
02/18/2007 4:45:37 PM PST
by
Al Simmons
(Why Rudy in 2008? Because National Security should not be left to children.)
To: Jim Robinson
Absolutely not. I intend to see Rudy defeated in the primary!! Thanks!
I'm getting really sick of all of these Rudyites talking about Rudy v. Hillary as if it is a fait accompli and then using that as the reason we should support a pro-infanticide, pro-homosexual gun grabber. Rudy WILL NOT be the nominee and I really don't think the 'Rats are going to nominate Hildabeast.
67
posted on
02/18/2007 4:46:12 PM PST
by
wagglebee
("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
To: Jim Robinson
"I don't know about you, but I doubt the Christian conservatives throughout the red state farm belt and especially down in the South are going to cotton to a liberal New York Yankee coming down to try to clean up crime by taking their guns and bringing abortion and gay unions (gay marriage) into their families, schools and churches." Yeah...I agree!! I think all of us Red Stater's will be lining-up behind Hillary 'cause she's clearly a better alternative to manage the our country's needs.
To: Jim Robinson
The last one I saw of these was circa 1976. The Mormons are spreading as are the Roman Catholics from the south. The one thing this doesn't indicate is the strength of the nonbelievers. As one raised in eastern New England, I can tell you that atheist/agnostic (even if they claim otherwise) is the largest single group around here. They may be outnumbered by believers, but not by much!
69
posted on
02/18/2007 4:46:32 PM PST
by
MSF BU
To: wagglebee
Hillary will get the nomination, since she has ways of getting what she wants.
70
posted on
02/18/2007 4:47:05 PM PST
by
darkangel82
(Socialism is NOT an American value.)
To: Jim Robinson
71
posted on
02/18/2007 4:47:07 PM PST
by
calcowgirl
("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
To: FReepapalooza
I am seeing a lot of posts that it is about WOT, not abortion. Why can't we have a candidate that stands strong on both?
To: NapkinUser
Ya know I am as ardently anti-Rudy as all you. But because I support Mitt, I have been removed from all your ping lists. Nice people you all are.
73
posted on
02/18/2007 4:47:27 PM PST
by
TAdams8591
(Rudy is a democrat in Republican drag.)
To: wagglebee
"I'm getting really sick of all of these Rudyites talking about Rudy v. Hillary as if it is a fait accompli and then using that as the reason we should support a pro-infanticide, pro-homosexual gun grabber."
Very nice illustration of the 'can't see the forest for the trees' point of view.
Please read my post 17 (as well as the two lengthier ones I posted afterwards.
74
posted on
02/18/2007 4:47:36 PM PST
by
Al Simmons
(Why Rudy in 2008? Because National Security should not be left to children.)
To: Al Simmons
Maybe. But not for Hitlary. Then the GOP wants her to have it.
I won't vote for him, mapain *spit*, or Romney. It'll be there fault if a dim wins, they ran a dim light to oppose her.
75
posted on
02/18/2007 4:47:52 PM PST
by
processing please hold
(Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
To: Jim Robinson
I just spoke with Duncan Hunter on the radio by the way. He may be too much of a straight-shooter; the limp-wristers (the same type that fretted about Governor Reagan) are going to be nervous about nominating him.
76
posted on
02/18/2007 4:48:08 PM PST
by
MSF BU
To: ReleaseTheHounds
>>>>And with California and New Jersey moving up to Feb. 5, 2008
Don't hold your breath about NJ. The primaries will be the first time we get to vote without the voter registration "legacy" system which contained DEAD voters and People that long moved away.
Every other election, the legacy system was used. The federal government finally stepped in and ordered them NOT to use it.
Excerpt:
The State of New Jersey is not in compliance with several provisions of Section 303(a) of HAVA, and was not in compliance by January 1, 2006.
21. Defendants violations of Section 303(a) of HAVA include the following:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/nvra/nj_hava_comp.htm
77
posted on
02/18/2007 4:48:47 PM PST
by
Calpernia
(Breederville.com)
To: Jim Robinson
There are times in life when one must take a stand, even if it means a potentially distasteful outcome. I will not be voting for a RINO, even if that means Hillary. Sorry, but I will sit home. I believe far greater damage could easily be done under a faux "Republican" administration than combating a known political enemy.
I do not want to hear any Republican leader tell me, a Christian, that I should suck it up and vote for a RINO in order to be a team player. I won't do it, because in my view a Rudy presidency could be a total disaster. Moreover, a Rudy presidency could easily set Republicans back 50 years or more. Rudy talks a good game now, but if a guy like Rudy gets in he will assuredly stick a dagger deep in the heart of conservatives and he won't even bat an eye claiming the greater public good, and then he'll do it again and again and basically tell conservatives, "tough cookies". Mark my words.
78
posted on
02/18/2007 4:48:48 PM PST
by
Obadiah
To: darkangel82
Hitlary IS the 'Rat nominee. No one else has a chance, no one else is stupid enough to run against the Clinton slime and crime machine.
Obama is not serious, just getting his name out there, maybe hoping for VP slot.
79
posted on
02/18/2007 4:48:52 PM PST
by
Al Simmons
(Why Rudy in 2008? Because National Security should not be left to children.)
To: Jim Robinson
I will work hard for Duncan Hunter in the primaries. Whoever the Republican candidate turns out to be will have my vote.
It is my opinion that many dims will vote R in this election as the "New Congress" is splitting their britches with the WOT. Not all dims are so ignorant that they don't understand that keeping the terrorists busy "over there" is much better for us than fighting them "over here".
80
posted on
02/18/2007 4:49:28 PM PST
by
basil
(Exercise your Second Amendment rights--buy another gun today.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 941-943 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson