Posted on 02/23/2007 7:45:02 AM PST by Alberta's Child
Well, we'll just see about that. I will truly be surprised if Rudy survives and becomes the GOP nominee.
That was a delightful movie.
Just let me know the next time you write another! :)
Good old fashioned observation and analysis.
I'm glad I don't have to argue against the points you have made.
Dear daviddennis,
Why does the "burden of proof" fall on to those pointing out that there is no evidence generally that Mr. Giuliani typically appointed conservative jurists?
After all, the question doesn't appear out of thin air. The question comes from Mr. Giuliani's own statements, that he will appoint judges and justices like Mr. Scalia, Mr. Roberts, et. al.
That laughable claim being made, it's perfect appropriate to ask the question, well, is there any past behavior on the part of Mr. Giuliani that would show that he may be telling the truth? Has Mr. Giuliani appointed judges before?
The answer is, yes, indeed, he has! Then the next appropriate questions are, how many did he appoint? How many of those were conservatives?
Here, it seems that the burden of proof is on Mr. Giuliani and the rudybots who so defend him. After all, the conservatives asking the question are only asking it to see whether or not Mr. Giuliani's claims about what he will do in the future are supported by his actions in the past.
Actual conservatives are highly skeptical that this man will do conservative things after two decades of liberalism. Without evidence of appointing conservative jurists, our skepticism will not be overcome. In fact, lack of evidence of appointing conservative jurists will only confirm our doubts about the man and his promises to appoint "strict constructionist" jurists.
It is inexplicable that if he'd appointed large numbers of conservative jurists that he wouldn't present that as evidence of his bona fides on the issue of Supreme Court appointees.
Although not conclusive, the most reasonable conclusion from his failure to tout his own appointments to the bench, by giving us a breakdown of who he appointed by party, is that he appointed pretty much liberal Dems, and he understands that to permit the truth of it to come to light would undermine his current claims and promises.
The burden of proof is on Mr. Giuliani and all the rudybots.
Conservatives who oppose Mr. Giuliani have every right to say that Mr. Giuliani has not shown that he will appoint conservative jurists, because there is no evidence that he ever did that in the past, in spite of his admission to have appointed a hundred judges or so.
sitetest
Great post, thanks for the ping.
According to my lights, Mr. Giuliani is on the wrong side on far too many issues.
The line in the sand for me is his stance on gun control. I won't provide money or time to an anti-gun candidate.
Below is another of my responses to the person making accusations of laziness.
To: TommyDale
"There are literally dozens of articles, ranging from the Washington Post to the Washington Times. If you weren't so lazy you would read them and decide for yourself, rather than shoot the messenger."
Lazy! You do a document dump and you call that research. What are the charges against Rudy??? What was illegal, what was unethical, what crimes or misindeamores is he being charged/accused with? I read all the leftist/communists hit pieces you referenced. There's nothing there, there. He trusted a colleague and excellent ex-NYC police commissioner and got embarrassed. That's not a crime. The articles were only written to bring down his negatives, which by the way have remained high in spite. Come up with some factual examples of illegal or unethical behavior on Rudy's part or move on, or you'll just have to bear more scrutiny.
560 posted on 02/23/2007 10:50:58 PM EST by Gop1040
Rudy feels an incessant need to interfere with gun rights. Hmm - right to bear arms - enumerated in the Constitution. Right to abortion - fabricated by SCOTUS. Some constructionist he is - and you are.
"If there is something posted that is not true, then disprove it. I posted the sources, the burden of proof is on you. Case closed."
You forgot to add:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, you are dismissed. The Court of "throw as much mud on the wall and see what sticks" is adjourned. Proceed to your huts and caves and have a nice day.
We all should be on the side of the truth.
And if it makes you feel any better . . . the article I linked in the original post only got three replies when I re-posted it back in 2004!
Find someone who served in the NYPD with Kerik and ask what he thinks about the guy . . . you'll likely have him laughing his @ss off.
BTW, how did you know my nickname is Dude?
It was just a guess, really. :-)
Will do, thanks.
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.