Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
I assumed so. Rudy supporters have no sense of writing style, sarcasm, or hyperbole.
Exactly. And that makes me think there are too many liberals among the PTB. Way too cozy. IMO, it's the almighty $ (or whatever symbol the globalists will ultimately choose to represent their income from the peons).
Yes, you are absolutely correct. This is one of the reasons why Rudy appeals to so many Republicans. They think the democrats and MSM will be less harsh on republicans if the party becomes more “moderate”. Not a chance. Too many conservatives are drinking the MSM kool-aid and beginning to believe their lies. If a lie is told often enough people begin to believe it.
Many people aren’t willing to stand up and fight for what they believe in because they don’t want to pay the price (persecution). I often say, “Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die”. Well, there is no other way to get there—you gotta die first. If conservative principles are worth having, we better be willing to pay the price. Persecution comes with the territory, and as the saying goes, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Sadly, that’s exactly what many republicans have been doing--because they aren’t willing to pay the price.
B U M P
It's not what I would do. But there is still a distiction. For example there are third party candidates that would benefit from such action.
The kids in the classroom may be dazzled by your boundless ego and your ceaseless pretentiousness, but the rest of us already BS'ed our way through your class, got the grade we needed, and moved on to real life.
I don't care about your classroom antidotes, your reading list, your godless enlightenment or your twisted rationalization of the practicalities of barbarism. You're a ghoul. A ghoul with a few degrees and tenure, perhaps. But a ghoul, all the same.
Yeah, about that...
Sorry to all of the old-timers, but - hey. You snooze, you lose.
Frankly I could not believe it myself. There are (I am sure) other ‘classics’ to be had for the taking.
However, user ID#1, is, has always been, and shall always be, taken.
ROFL! Good comeback.
Welcome to FR.
More revisionist history. Nothing of the kind happened - it was the leftists who became imboldened, and the country club GOP types who never liked RWR in the first place.
It wasn't a conservative who coined 'kinder & gentler America'
Are you implying that a Christ-like Peach was crucified?
Good grief.
> However, I’m going to be perfectly honestly. I’ve grown to hate some of the anti-Rudy crowd so much, because of their own visciousnes.
The rough language on both sides has been pretty heavy.
I think a lot of it has to do with the complete lack of good candidates in the Republican 2008 field, with any traction. I like Hunter but his numbers are abysmal. I like Fred but he hasn’t declared. Rudy and McInsane, the 2 frontrunners, are deeply troubling to me in many ways and I deeply hope neither become the candidate for Prez. I’ve really had to bite my tongue to keep my discussion civil, because I’m so troubled about this upcoming election. Where do we find the man (or woman) who has the stuff to take America into tomorrow, triumph over the liberal decay taking root?
Then WTH is up their butt? I like flashbunny. What is up the butt? A Rudy probe, maybe?
Look, it was a simple thing. A freeper says others are so bad they would VOTE for Hillary. The freeper says that to denigrate and attack her fellow freepers. I made a simple request -- show me where they said it. The freeper declined to do so, and nobody has since found one.
You can talk all you want about "distinctions without a difference", but when the topic was "people who said they would vote for Hillary", there is no "distinction" to be differentiated -- don't point to people who said they would NOT vote for Hillary.
Obviously, TitanAFC and others don't think the distinction is without a difference, or they wouldn't go to such lengths to say they would work against Rudy but not vote for Hillary.
Sir, I supported Steve Forbes. Maybe before your time. There was some kind of awful about Keyes but I was always respectful of him. And this forum fought me tooth and nail about my support of Steve Forbes, but they never EVER told me I had to go.
There, all better.
Even when he later called something terrorism, or broke up a terrorist plot, he didn't connect the dots back to a concerted war against us -- he just kept swatting at flies.
Even your tagline is intriguing... what’s the context of it?
Here's the background -- Giuliani argued in favor of collecting DNA from all newborns. More troubling to me than the issue itself is that the statement shows that this former prosecuter (who should absolutely innately understand how the Constitution works) thinks that the Constitution "gives" us a limited number of rights, that we have no rights beyond that, and everything else is fair game for government intrustion. In fact, as you probably know, the Constitution limits government power, not our freedoms. As Reagan said: "Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which 'We the people' tell the government what it is allowed to do. 'We the people' are free." Giuliani lacks this most basic understanding.
Here's are the links:
Support for collecting DNA from every newborn --
While not actually proposing it here, he defends the idea (and demonstrates a truly flawed view of how the Constitution works in the process): http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5DF103DF934A25751C1A96E958260
Key excerpt: When asked whether all children should have DNA tests at birth, the Mayor said: ''I don't know that that's the proposal, but I would have no problem with that, or fingerprinting all children. We go through a massive effort to try to fingerprint large numbers of children'' now, he said, ''so in case they are lost they can be found again or in case if they are kidnapped they can be found again. There is absolutely no reason why people should be afraid of being identified.''
-snip-
''It's not invasive,'' the Mayor said. ''It doesn't invade any right of privacy. You don't have a right not to be identified. I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified.''
Later, he does propose that the state legislature mandate collection of DNA from all newborns:
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/11/32617
Key excerpt: Many experts believe the FBI's database will be expanded in the future. The International Association of Police Chiefs has asked Congress to require DNA samples from anyone arrested, and New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani has requested that the state legislature require DNA samples from every newborn baby.
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.