No deal, Rudy

Catholic Online ^ | 3/6/2007

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

electing a man, however eloquent, however likeable, with Giuliani's character deficiences effectively sanctions the very worst of Western culture - the very things that make the WOT worth fighting in the first place.

More than just sanctions--it puts someone with these ethics into the position of Franchisor. But there are no franchise royalties for the 'disenfranchised,' who are kept as voting-cannon-fodder by and for the elitists who manipulate them.

[fatima]

I did you are already the insult monitor.

[Enosh]

"You'll have to ask them."

Exactly.

But according to areafiftyone, "them" are nothing but mindless robots voting however they're told.

I still await her defense of post #17 on this thread.

[mad_as_he$$]

He may destroy Hillary, but he will destroy the gun owners next. No Rudy.

[nopardons]

Of course it is NOT!

Yes, it's his site, his rules, and he manages it; however, once this site is turned into a one candidate promoting site, with all other views banned, then the LLC nature of the rules come into play and FR becomes an illegal political arm of that candidate.

[mad_as_he$$]

The good news is that Rudy has better legs than Hillary.

[mad_as_he$$]

The good news is that Rudy has better legs than Hillary.

[mad_as_he$$]

The good news is that Rudy has better legs than Hillary.

[FreeReign]

I'm glad to see people actively standing their moral ground, and not sheepishly following "the party line."

The party line? What's that?

[abishai]

You can say that again!

[montag813]

It is Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, or nobody. No one else will get a penny from my checkbook in 2008. Ok, Chuck Norris, but no one else!

[Siobhan]

I believe you are saying his position on abortion is not an issue for you, but his gun control positions are vis-a-vis the Second Amendment which should mobilize us as a nation to the defense of our homeland. Is that right?

[voltaires_zit]

> But I see no reason to support a candidate who goes so
> strongly against my most important beliefs.

We're speaking at cross purposes here.

I don't have any illusions about convincing single issue pro-gun, or single issue pro-life, or single issue pro-family voters that Rudy is "their guy".

He's not, quite simply. And if they can find a candidate to support who better reflects their values, by all means, support him or her.

My point is rather that the internecine savaging (of Giuliani or any other candidate) only serves whoever the dems put up. It serves no constructive purpose whatsoever. That was the reasoning behind Reagan's 11th commandment.

[abishai]

I honestly think that the GOP will not care what socons think and nominate Guiliani.

[takenoprisoner]

"Lame eating of one's own like that is not very productive."

Speaking for myself, I have but one thing in common with Rudy the G-man. We are both registered Republicans. Beyond that, we share no political or social values. He should do the right thing now as he has done in the past...switch parties.

[fatima]

I am a housewife who does a few other things.I am dumb-heeehe.Answer my question please.

[MHGinTN]

I'm a writer ... I spittled it out faster than you can even imagine ... and the mistakes in typing are the result of that. Try clicking on 'Home Page' to read the founder's vision for FR. BTW, the post wasn't meant as a lecture ... your mileage may vary.

[FreeReign]

I honestly think that the GOP will not care what socons think and nominate Guiliani.

I disagree.

I honestly think that the majority of GOP primary voters are pro-life and pro 2A.

Sorry to hear that you have such a negative view of the GOP voters.

[wouldntbprudent]

Thank you, but I am well aware of the founder's vision, having been on FR since 1999.

Going to great lengths to pontificate upon the obvious is generally construed as a lecture. Your mileage may vary.

[Siobhan]

I have noticed that double standard with regard to Newt Gingrich. The lack of consistency is bewildering.

I think Giuliani provokes a high level of anxiety that results in incredible emotional overflowing. Sometimes that is a good thing for a candidate, but in his case it is not.

Most Americans I know put abortion in their top five concerns. Polls are entertainment but they do not tell me what I can observe in my own world, so I don't see confirmation of your point about most Americans and this issue. Perhaps I will see it after these primaries and the election but not now.

Having Republican presidents alone does not mean that Roe will change. There must be court appointments etc. that turn the tide of judicial review. Of course, if the Republican Presidents had used the Executive Order in the way that Bill Clinton did then they could have changed Roe in a number of ways. But in general Republicans do not like rule by Presidential decree.