Posted on 08/19/2007 9:52:10 AM PDT by wagglebee
So you say. I have yet to see that in evidence. But for your further reading:
The Real Rudy Giuliani:
From Human Events:
Rudy's Strong Pro-Abortion Stance
As these comments from a 1989 conversation with Phil Donahue show, Rudy Giuliani is staunchly in favor of abortion:
"I've said that I'll uphold a woman's right of choice, that I will fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise, and that I would oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal.
I do that in spite of my own personal reservations. I have a daughter now; if a close relative or a daughter were pregnant, I would give my personal advice, my religious and moral views ...
Donahue: Which would be to continue the pregnancy.
Giuliani: Which would be that I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman - my daughter or any other woman - would be that in this particular circumstance [if she had] to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it."
Worse yet, Giuliani even supports partial birth abortion:
"I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights,Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing," he responded." -- CNN.com, "Inside Politics" Dec 2, 1999
It's bad enough that Rudy is so adamantly pro-abortion, but consider what that could mean when it comes time to select Supreme Court Justices. Does the description of Giuliani that you've just read make you think he's going to select an originalist like Clarence Thomas, who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- or does it make you think he would prefer justices like Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy who'd leave Roe v. Wade in place?
Rudy's abortion stance is bad news for conservatives who are pro-life or who are concerned about getting originalist judges on the Supreme Court.
An Anti-Second Amendment Candidate
In the last couple of election cycles, 2nd Amendment issues have moved to the back burner mainly because even Democratic candidates have learned that being tagged with the "gun grabber" label is political poison.
Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani is a proponent of gun control who supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapon Ban.
Do Republicans really want to abandon their strong 2nd Amendment stance by selecting a pro-gun control nominee?
Rudy is far to fond of government to be a Classical Liberal
Care to explain that statement?
Actually, all I've seen on this thread is your ability to make ad hominem attacks, which is why at least one of your posts here was removed.
Hmm, my mother had been previously divorced from my father, and he had been DEAD for 8 years already when she decided to remarry.
And for a church that stresses “forgiveness of sin” as one of it’s cornerstones, why this one could not be forgiven is beyond me (don’t not quote chruch doctrine on the subject, I know it already, and it is stupid — it’s only purpose is to enforce superstition and bestow upon the church a power it’s more than willing to use as a club on people emotionally, and for it’s own benefit).
I have not “misstated” anything.
“...which is why at least one of your posts here was removed....”
Called the Thought Police, did you?
God forbid someone know the truth about most “conservatives”, right?
Score one for Free Speech, JimRob and Admins! (/sarc)
“Rudy is far to fond of government to be a Classical Liberal”
Hmm, I find it interesting that people who have never livind in New York City (and perhaps visited here for a few days of vacation) are suddently experts on whether Giuliani is a Classical Liberal or not.
Reading the propaganda here is not going to inform you of anything, Oz.
But serial adultery, including parading your mistress in front of your children and attempting to move her into the home you share with your children and wife, surrounding yourself with cronies who are involved in criminal behaviors and indicted on such does constitute a history of judgement that is not trustworthy.
That, plus rudi's stance on immigration and gun control is enough for me. There are other issues but those character and border safety issues are plenty to prove to me that he is not the man for the job.
God forbid someone know the truth about most “conservatives”, right?
Score one for Free Speech, JimRob and Admins! (/sarc)
No, YOU accused conservatives of advocating violence against homosexuals and illegal immigrants.
And do YOU think that free speech applies to a PRIVATELY OWNED business? Is that what your liberal friends have told you? Well, I have news for you, NO SUCH RIGHT EXISTS and it never has.
More for your education about Rooty Tooty the Frooty left wing candidate you seem to defend.
Soft on Gay Marriage
Other than tax cuts, the biggest domestic issue of the 2004 election was President Bush's support of a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani has taken a "Kerryesque" position on gay marriage.
Although Rudy, like John Kerry, has said that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, he also supports civil unions, "marched in gay-pride parades" ...dressed up in drag on national television for a skit on Saturday Night Live (and moved in with a) wealthy gay couple" after his divorce. He also very vocally opposed running on a gay marriage amendment:
His thoughts on the gay-marriage amendment? "I don't think you should run a campaign on this issue," he told the Daily News earlier this month. "I think it would be a mistake for anybody to run a campaign on it -- the Democrats, the president, or anybody else."
Here's more from the New York Daily News:
"Rudy Giuliani came out yesterday against President Bush's call for a ban on gay marriage.
The former mayor, who Vice President Cheney joked the other night is after his job, vigorously defended the President on his post-9/11 leadership but made clear he disagrees with Bush's proposal to rewrite the Constitution to outlaw gays and lesbians from tying the knot.
"I don't think it's ripe for decision at this point," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"I certainly wouldn't support [a ban] at this time," added Giuliani..."
Although Rudy may grudgingly say he doesn't support gay marriage (and it would be political suicide for him to do otherwise), where he really stands on the issue is an open question.
I seem to remember that one. Would you happen to have a link to it?
“You have any hard evidence to back up this OPINION? Seriously, who?”
I’ll be the evidence :)
Here’s the link to one of the best threads EVER:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts
I was baptized and raised a Catholic. Since the Catholic church is a business, and not a religion, and full of s*it to boot, I guess I am a ‘lapsed’ Catholic. However, the Christian philosophy is all well and fine, I just hate it when those who claim they live by it never seem to remeber “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, and then try to explain that way with gibberish about ‘repentance’.+
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
“That, plus rudi’s stance on immigration and gun control is enough for me.”
I do get soooo tired of having to repeat myself.
What did you expect the Mayor of a major city to do vis-a-vis immigration when a) the Federal Government doesn’t do what it’s suposed to do, and b) when the elected legislatures of both the City and State declare the city a “sanctuary” either tacitly or overtly?
I ask the same question, vis-a-vis your gun control comment.
The Mayor of NYC does NOT WRITE THE LAWS and does not have the ability to just “do” things because he wants to. He is an administrator, not a legislator. Stop blaming the man for things that were beyond his control and outside his powers as Mayor to change.
The rest of the record is there for anyone to see: lower taxes, smaller government, more responsive government, cleaner streets, less crime, economic prosperity.
As for the personal character issues, fine, you’re entitled to an opinion on these, and I never said you weren’t. My objection was based on the fact that those who cite them seem to ignore the same shortcomings in people they have lionized.
Afternoon wagglebee. Your pings drew me from a very deep slumber.
He FILED A LAWSUIT against gun makers!
More ad hominem attacks I see. Opposing a candidate who represents everything you oppose does not make you a bigot.
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.