Posted on 12/26/2001 9:15:08 AM PST by Notwithstanding
Just want to see what people think.
Rudy has been a "good leader" in the wake of 9-11. Men with shoddy morals can be "good leaders" - but is a leader really good if he fails to show remorse for his evil acts (abortion support and public adultery)? Is a man really a good leader if he publicly advocates serial killing of preborn babies? If he publicly parades his mistress before the cameras? If he never publicly expresses remorse about these two hugely important moral errors.
Some people hate that.
I find it necessary to highlight the plight of the babies in a nation that tolerates such butchery - bloody baby "carcasses" ripped limb from limb.
Abortion is an abomination, make no mistake. Do not confuse my post in 142 as condolence or acceptance of abortion... it is an abomination upon the earth. But you cannot take away a heroic act because of other acts unrelated that were not great.... Slavery was an abomination upon this earth as well, yet slave owners founded this great nation.
The arguments being laid forth regarding Guliani in this thread that he can't be a hero because he has bad stands on other positions are preposterous, and ones that you expect from Jesse Jackson, or others... its the same line of reasoning the left uses all the time to tear down anything they do not agree with, and it is fundamentally flawed and failed.
Guiliani is not a saint, but one does not have to be a saint to engage in heroic acts or deeds... The moral attempt to equat that since he is stands I do not agree with, all accomplishments he has done are valueless is failed flawed and intellectually dishonest. This whole thread is nothing more than bashing for the sake of bashing, if you wish to call Guliani out for his political stands, feel free to do so... but do not try to question or undermine his actions on and through 9-11 because of them.. that is a fools errand.
I also wanted to hear what others thought about the idea I posited. Many agreed, many did not. Surprise, surprise - we are not unanimous!
The issue is, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance allows us "freedom of religion" not freedom from religion. The PC lunacy of today's society is taking religion out of everything. That is not what our founding forefathers intended.
Give Rudy to God (or maybe you think you are God), Satan enjoys your wrath and anger. Do not let him win...
Rudy was attending a breakfast in Midtown when the first plane struck Tower One. He immediately left to go to what was formerly referred to as "the bunker". I say formerly because it was located beneath the WTC. (To be honest, I don't remember if it was located under one of the Twins or if it was under 7 WTC.) NYC's Emergency Ops were conducted from this location.
The second plane struck Tower Two while he was on his way Downtown. He could have diverted to the safety of City Hall, Gracie Mansion, or any number of other locations to oversee the emergency efforts. He CHOSE to go to the bunker. He stepped over the debris, saw the body parts of the jumpers on his way in to meet with his emergency management team.
Rudy left that bunker roughly 10 - 15 minutes before Tower Two collapsed (the first to fall). Those who remained in the bunker perished (several were good friends of Rudy's). He almost didn't make it out . . . numerous exits were tried before one was found that was passable.
So if TIME was so biased against conservatives as you claim, why would TIME put Bush on the cover if he was unpopular? Also, Ronald Reagan was on the cover twice, once in 1980 and againg sharing the cover in 1983 with Gorbachev. Surely you would agree Reagan was a conservative president.
Move to the head of the class, Penny.
They'd NEVER give it to him twice.
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.