Posted on 04/25/2007 3:41:28 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
This is the start of a series of threads that will be used to expose the truth about Rudy Giuliani in his own words and deeds.
Please post all of the quotes, speeches, interview transcripts, video clips, photos, newspaper/magazine articles, reports, records, statistics, NYC budgets, NYC spending, political appointments, gun grabs, connections to the gun control lobby, lawsuits against gun manufacturers, the truth about crime reduction in NYC, private property grabs, asset forfeitures, abuses of office, individual rights trampling, constitution trampling, violations of public trust, violations of the rule of law, national security risks, failures in security preparedness prior to and after 911, corruption, graft, bribes, favors, union dealings, mob dealings, business dealings leveraged through government contracts and contacts, rainmaking for his business partners, connections to US, Middle East or South American oil and energy companies and law firms that have profited and or will profit from Giuliani's government offices especially if he becomes president, war profiteering, his personal and business finances, his train wreck of a private life and lack of character, lack of qualifications for high office, illegal alien sanctuaries, welfare for illegals, pandering to illegals/illegal alien lobby, support for the abortion and gay rights lobbies, NARAL connections and participation, past and current support for McCain-Feingold, connections and dealings with liberal officeholders or the liberal/socialist caucuses/lobbies, etc, etc, etc, that you can find.
We're primarily interested in the words from his own mouth or primary source records and reports of his deeds/misdeeds. All submissions must contain true facts with documentation and links to source documentation and a link to FR thread on the individual item if available.
We do not need to embellish the record. The ugly truth from his own liberal mouth will impeach his credibility and the reader will be able to disqualify the man from consideration for high office based solely on his own words and deeds.
Here's an example entry:
FOX News | Feb 6, 2007 | Hanity and Colmes
http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250497,00.html
HANNITY: Let me move on. And the issue of guns has come up a lot. When people talk about Mayor Giuliani, New York City had some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country. Do you support the right of people to carry handguns?
GIULIANI: I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms. When I was mayor of New York, I took over at a very, very difficult time. We were averaging about 2,000 murders a year, 10,000...
HANNITY: You inherited those laws, the gun laws in New York?
GIULIANI: Yes, and I used them. I used them to help bring down homicide. We reduced homicide, I think, by 65-70 percent. And some of it was by taking guns out of the streets of New York City.
So if you're talking about a city like New York, a densely populated area like New York, I think it's appropriate. You might have different laws other places, and maybe a lot of this gets resolved based on different states, different communities making decisions. After all, we do have a federal system of government in which you have the ability to accomplish that.
HANNITY: So you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?
GIULIANI: Yes, I mean, a place like New York that is densely populated, or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem, like a few cities are now, kind of coming back, thank goodness not New York, but some other cities, maybe you have one solution there and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you have a different set of rules.
HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?
GIULIANI: It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.
HANNITY: How do you feel about the Brady bill and assault ban?
GIULIANI: I was in favor of that as part of the crime bill. I was in favor of it because I thought that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at, 1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did.
Free Republic thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780940/posts
Hoping to go to bed soon.
Another eight years of the Clintons and a Democrat Congress.
Well, you’re sidestepping the practical questions I’ve asked you. Your right to do so. But the “good luck with thats” and “get over its” don’t play with anyone but the simple minded.
The so-called “danger of living in a big city” is overstated. People get killed everywhere. They also get taken advantage of everywhere. And the people who live in small towns are just as ungodly as those in the cities — but many of them are too self-righteous to know it.
God has a special place in his heart for cities, because the poor and disadvantaged are often safer there. You notice he didn’t command us to “dwindle and move to the sticks.” He told us to multiply. That means cities.
He has even compared himself to a fortified city.
And that thing coming down from the sky at the end times will not be a patch of land or a suburb. It will be a city, built for us by God.
I hope you’re there when it comes down from heaven. I’ll show you how to navigate the subways.
“It specifically says it CAN’T.”
Cool, walk through town with one, then. You talk the talk, now walk the walk.
How about stepping into the ugly REALITY in which we live instead of some fantasy world that does not exist anymore and hasn’t in almost 100 years. You think “small government” will ever exist in this country again without a complete do-over? Do you honestly think whoever you vote for will roll-back 100 or more years of intrusive legislation? Dream on!
This isn’t even about Rudy. It’s about a group of conservatives who live in la-la land. America does not exist in reality as it does in many Freeper’s minds. A good 2/3 of this country, more probably, do not share your ideas of “the ideal candidate”. Even if miraculously elected, how do you expect anybody to get anything done with that kind of opposition?
People on this site claim conservatives are realists. I see no evidence of that from many here. I certainly hope the more conservative candidate will get the nomination but it ain’t gonna happen. I don’t like that but that is reality. So the purpose of threads like this is what, then?
Personal gratification.
Obviously, you have no comprehension whatsoever of Liberty and zero ambition to defend yourself or your freedom. May your chains rest lightly. You are no conservative.
So you think the way to reverse all the garbage that has been handed down by the government, for the last 100 years,is to put another liberal in office?
Yes. My conservativism IS idealogical.
But you think it’s just not worth the fight.
I wonder how the Founding Fathers would have felt with that attitude.
There is no way that another liberal like Rudy is going to bring the conservative party back to the grass roots.
I’ve made my statements about it in the last few days, so I’m not going to repeat myself again, other than to say, I will never ‘settle’ for a ‘win’.
If you have no principals to base your choices on, then you will have won nothing.
It doesn't have to be that way, RottiBiz. I'm simply trying to demonstrate the truth and what will happen if the GOP deserts conservatism. As the truth about Rudy becomes obvious, his chances will plummet and a more acceptable conservative will become apparent. If we're to be successful in the long run, we must continue to stand by our longstanding principles and core conservative values.
Keep the faith!
Your problem, Jim (one of them at least), is you are not relying on God to preserve and protect you. You are relying on a man-made construct of liberty, one that you narrowly define in your own limited mind. You are relying on "the right kind of government" to save you. This is called idolatry.
Speaking of chains:
"Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound!"
It is a Christian's duty, destiny, and glory to be bound in chains, to suffer, to be humiliated and broken for the sake of the Gospel (which, by the way, is the only antidote to man's problems).
I pray that you will invert your values and let the Bible inform your view of "right" government, and not the other way around.
I read the statements you posted. They are not conservative statements. If you think they are, you are confused.
“It is a Christian’s duty, destiny, and glory to be bound in chains, to suffer, to be humiliated and broken for the sake of the Gospel”
Bull!
Christ DIED for your sins so that YOU would NOT have to suffer the pain and humiliation he went through.
Your INTERPRETATION is a bit SKEWED!
Nice post - reasoned and real world.
Thanks
Since when is it a Christian’s goal to live up to someone’s idea of what it means to be conservative?
Why are you so preoccupied with the label of conservative or liberal? Both philosophies are riddled with problems. Neither of them can save the human race, or our country. Only the Gospel can.
Christ’s example is neither conservative nor liberal. He is wiser than that — certainly wiser than any man.
So, labelling me “not a conservative” is a pretty meaningless act. I don’t fall into either category. I place my trust in God. You seem to place it in correct government, right thinking, and ideological purity.
You’re a nice fellow, Jim Robinson, but you’re no thinker. You need to get out a bit, humble yourself, and ask God to show you His way, not your way. There’s still time and hope for you.
No, Christ died for our sins so we would not have to suffer hell. He did, however, often and explicitly, tell us we would suffer for the Gospel.
When American Christians stop trying to avoid suffering and start sacrificing for others, the world will be a different place.
The past several weeks were very frustrating seeing a liberal gaining momentum here at FR.
Glad to see us back on course.
If “puke” is the best pearl you have, I’m really not interested.
Sorry about my lack of ideological purity!
The single most effective method for crime reduction has shown to be an increase in the size of the police force. Couple that with Bratton/Giuliani's philosophy of enforcing petty crime, and that would be my strategy.
Notice that gun control is not necessary to enact either of those two measures.
“He did, however, often and explicitly, tell us we would suffer for the Gospel.”
He told us we would suffer through PERSECUTION for our Christian beliefs.
He didn’t say to ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD and give in to evil!
I’m not going to waste my time with you because you obviously just don’t get it.
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.