Posted on 02/28/2007 7:54:19 AM PST by Al Simmons
Yet, on the Fox News show, Giuliani said that he supports a ban on partial-birth abortion as long as there is a provision to protect the life of the mother.
"If it has provision for the life of the mother, then I would support it," he told the Fox News program.
SAME AS HUNTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps, that's what elections are about. If he enters and Republican's don't vote for him because of his "negatives", he loses. Same for the general.
Based on negatives, Hillary doesn't stand a chance, it's Obama in a landslide followed by Edwards. And Giuliani is the only Republican with a remote chance of beating Obama, particularly Obama/Edwards. Things will change.
I'm sure your a fair man Spiff so i expect you to post those graphics on all Duncan Hunter threads.
Yet, on the Fox News show, Giuliani said that he supports a ban on partial-birth abortion as long as there is a provision to protect the life of the mother.
"If it has provision for the life of the mother, then I would support it," he told the Fox News program.
Washington, D.C. – The House of Representatives yesterday passed H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, by a margin of 282-139. Congressman Duncan Hunter (CA-52), who is a cosponsor of the legislation, proudly voted in favor of this measure which prohibits medical doctors, except in situations where the LIFE OF THE MOTHER is threatened, from utilizing certain procedures that involve the partial delivery of a living unborn baby, killing the child, then completing the delivery
I'm sure your a fair man Spiff so i expect you to post those graphics on all Duncan Hunter threads.
Yet, on the Fox News show, Giuliani said that he supports a ban on partial-birth abortion as long as there is a provision to protect the life of the mother.
"If it has provision for the life of the mother, then I would support it," he told the Fox News program.
Well, I've been accused of a lot worse than naivety. But I also believe that the Muslim Brotherhood has an end goal, supported by much evidence, which is the establishment of an Islamic empire. They are now closer than many realize. Yes, they live for blood lust, but they are also politically aware. If they want us out of the Gulf area, a major attack on us will have the opposite effect. Even Democrats will realize that this WOT is real. You may be absolutely right, and I may be in outer space, but I believe they will wait until we are no longer positioned militarily like we are today. They no longer have Afghanistan, but they are still receiving support from Iran, Syria, and more secretly, other nations.
I am not hopeful at this point because the democrat party has so divided US in order to manipulate voting blocks, it has made us impotent.
That's my whole point. They understand American politics, and how the Democrats have become their useful idiots. Why would they throw that away with a direct, major attack on us?
The clinton goons wants Rudy as their main opponent, IMHO, and that tells me they know how to soil his image in order to promote her lowness to the white whorehouse.
Believe me, Rudy is the last opponent they want. He is, at least now, the only one who can defeat either Hillary or Obama. I don't think they want to chance a backlash by overdoing it on the baggage issues he carries. Hillary especially would be vulnerable to such an attack. No, they are very content to let the social conservatives chew him up, and remain "above" the fray. But they want any other candidate as their main opponent.
The democrap party doesn't get it, the war with Islamofascism, and Republican politicians are too focused upon their political negatives to act out of principles ... those intangibles of conservative character.
I couldn't agree more. In fact, with the Hillary-Obama fracas going on now, and some signs of progress in Iraq, I'm surprised and troubled that the President doesn't go on the offensive with major speeches giving the other side. But he has failed many times before to use his bully pulpit, as Reagan was so effective doing. He is missing a great opportunity right now.
Rudy is not a unifying figure though he may be tough. Without unity of purpose in the nation's politicians, we are disarmed and totally vulnerable, split in half on resolve ...
To the contrary. Only he, Mitt or McCain would willingly include the other side of the aisle in the development of major initiatives. The others, Brownback, Newt (though I respect him), Tancredo, Hunter, et al, are polarizing figures, and would do nothing to try and unify the Nation.
just the way the democrat party wants this nation so we the people fall at their socialist feet to beg for government to care for us not just protect us.
The Democrats understand that only half as many people consider themselves liberal compared with conservative. But most analysts consider the defeat of 2006 was less a rush to liberalism as it was a rejection of the social agenda in favor of moderation.
I fear that is Rudy's strategy also, to so tie his future to protection as to ignore the fundamentals of what conservatism is. Rudy Giuliani is no conservative.
I'm not going to get sucked into a discussion of Rudy per se, but the fundamentals I discussed with you earlier do not rule him out as a conservative. The social fundamentals that many here on FR believe represents conservatism (though I've explained why they don't) would obviously exclude him. So be it.
Go look at the stats for FR over the past year - continuous decline. These threads will only exacerbate the situation.
I think Mitt is the only canndidate with the appeal to beat either Hillary or Obama.
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel, WOT
..................
Since you've decided to be an arrogant, pompous ass with your candy & gun equation, this will be my last comment to you. All I need to be satisfied from a candidate is one who will unequivocally declare his support for my consititutionally enumerated rights. Not only has Guliani not done that, he has declared his opposition to them (1st and 2nd amendments).
Jump on Rudy's Rino bandwagon if you'd like. I won't be making the trip.
Don't count on Spiff presenting things in a manner that represents the actual truth.
And Duncan Hunter did well, also. ;)
Shooting yourself in the foot is not as bad as blowing your foot off with a shotgun blast. Just my 2 cents worth. But what do I know, anyway. I'm just a geezer living in Oregon.
What do you think will happen when Roe v. Wade is finally overturned?
And do you think that, before Roe v. Wade was announced, that all those abortions in New York and Oregon were permissible under the Constitution?
The Roe decision can be and should be opposed because it is completely ungrounded in the Constitution, and represents an extreme power grab by the USSC which, if not reversed, undoes the whole Constitutional system. A court which can issue the Roe ruling is a court which recognizes NO limits on its own power.
This is more or less unrelated to what the states will legislate after Roe goes away. For myself, I think the number of abortions after Roe is reversed will not change at all, and that if you want abortion to end, that Roe and Constitutional Law is the wrong place to look.
Do people who believe in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution deserve to be ridiculed?
You don't have to prove you're not stupid by correcting your mistakes. That cow has already left the barn.
Obviously, homophobia is not a problem for you, you've demonstrated you're good with it frequently.
I like Mitt and would have no trouble supporting & voting for him. But (and isn't there always a but) I'm thinking it may take a Rudy to beat Hillary (And at this point in time I believe she will be the democrats candidate). Someone who can get down and dirty and play hardball politics. Because you know she will.
To my ping list, post 1969 was a mistake
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.