Posted on 09/23/2007 10:53:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Ron Paul = Hillary on the War; Rudy Giuliani = Hillary on abortion, gay rights, gun control, illegal aliens, etc. Neither are conservative. Neither are Republican. I would no more vote for the "Republican antiwar candidate" Ron Paul or the "Republican pro-choice candidate" Rudy Giuliani than I would the treasonous butcher Hillary Klintoon.
JMHO.
What he said.
Assuming we get some originalists on the bench, overturn Roe vs Wade, and stop legislating from the judiciary, I’m all for it.
Do you really think any Democrats will vote for Paul because of his anti-war stance, in spite of the fact that everything else he stands for is diametrically opposed to the Democrats' socialist agenda? Dems are stupid, I grant you that, but are they THAT stupid???
If Paul runs 3rd-party, I fear he'd draw more conservatives who will hold their noses about the anti-war part, than he'd draw liberals who will hold their noses about everything else he thinks.
On the other hand, Paul's impossible blend of far-right and far-left positions may mean that NOBODY will vote for him except a few Paulistinians to whom that blend makes some sort of sense.
Suing gun manufacturers was a real piece of work : )
Ronald Reagan always advocated a big tent. As conservatives we still need to get to 50% +1.
Well said; agreed on all counts. Thanks for the reply.
Remember, it was Rudy who threw away our only chance to keep Hitlery out of the Senate in the first place. Rudy = Bill Clinton. He is a talented narcissist who threw it all away because he couldn't keep his zipper closed. Dumocrats don't have to worry about Hitlery doin' interns or floozies. She's more ambitious than that--shy wants to screw the whole nation.
Thanks for that visual image.... NOT. ;-)
Yeah. I’m not a big gun-rights nut. I have a hunting rifle and a handgun for personal protection (and a CCP). But the broader issue for me is that Giuliani is willing to use those methods to further a liberal cause. No telling what he’d do if he were President. He certainly wouldn’t do anything I’d like, or care what I thought about it. But he’d be in control of the DOJ, suing everyone he didn’t agree with.
B/S. Constitution trampling, gun grabbing, abortion rights pushing, gay rights pushing, illegal alien supporting lying liberal scumbags need not apply.
Well said.
You don't have to be a "gun-rights nut" to see the danger in Rudy getting power.
The 2nd Amendment is the teeth in the Bill of Rights. It's not just about mounting a successful challenge to a foreign invasion, ya know.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.That also means our OWN government, when it becomes destructive of the security of our free Nation. Gun-grabbers are out to disarm Americans so that there is no threat to their power. The Founders were wise and foresaw that possibility too. That's not a "nutty" position -- it's built right into the Constitution.
I agree.
That's what I mean by gun-rights nut.
However, like you said, the purpose of the second amendment is to protect us from our own government. So, law-abiding and sane citizens should have no restrictions on bearing small arms.
Do you think Ronald Reagan would have voted third party if his preferred candidate wasn’t nominated?
There is evidence he would.
“I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”
Probably. He didn't have party loyalty, he had values loyalty. He switched from Dem to Rep. If the Rep's had gone nuts on him, he'd have voted third party. Reagan was a true conservative.
Okay, I'll grant you that there are some absolutists lurking amongst those of us who believe that the 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear and means what it says. You may be cheered to know that there aren't that many who are that absolutist.
But at the risk of being labeled a gun-rights nut, let me explain the quandary.
The problem with drawing a line -- any line -- is that it allows a corrupt government to define you as being over that line, and take away your God-given rights. They don't like you? All they have to do is arrest and convict you of something, or declare you insane (and that's not very hard, if they want to do it).
Be very careful in defining that line, because you could find yourself on the wrong side of it, all too easily, in the precise circumstance when you need to be on the right side of it.
That said, I don't think that someone who is certifiably insane or a convicted serial killer should have unrestricted access to fully-automatic weapons, either. But in a sane world, those people would not be out loose on the street, either. The crazy would be in a rubber room for life, and the serial killer would be pushing up daisies; problem solved.
> Probably. He didn't have party loyalty, he had values loyalty. He switched from Dem to Rep. If the Rep's had gone nuts on him, he'd have voted third party. Reagan was a true conservative.
Hear, hear.
For example, would the populace stand for a city or State limiting our freedom of speech the way they limit our freedom to bear arms?
I'd like to see the reaction if the State of Texas sued NBC, CBS, and ABC because it thought the content of their newscasts were dangerous.
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.