Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

VANITY: Rudy Guliani...a Clinton Liberal

Posted on 11/13/2006 8:11:31 PM PST by Old_Mil

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-78 last
To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran

Don't forget that Rudy said that if his daughter wanted to kill his grandchild he'd give her the money to get it done.


51 posted on 11/13/2006 9:55:55 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil
...It's important that this information is out there. Rudy Guliani is a Clinton liberal and frankly would be no better than the Hildebeest as President.

He'd be a whole lot better than McKook.

52 posted on 11/13/2006 10:24:42 PM PST by freespirited (The MSM is the root of all evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale; Liz

Ping


53 posted on 11/13/2006 10:44:16 PM PST by MotleyGirl70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil
>> Well, the above information makes it impossible to cast an uninformed one for Rudy.

It's completely valid to surface his record; however, the Clinton association doesn't cut it. He turned NYC around at a very low point in it's history; something that's hard to envision a liberal pulling off. Giuliani prosecuted cases involving serious fellows, and also indicted Marc Rich who, oddly enough, was later pardoned by Bill Clinton.

As the article points out, he's certainly not the Conservative many of us are hoping for.
54 posted on 11/13/2006 11:12:34 PM PST by Gene Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Constipation partyite.

In all flame wars, I've never heard that one before...

55 posted on 11/14/2006 12:25:02 AM PST by MotleyGirl70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

NYC is NYC, you couldn't pay most of us enough to live there, to Hell with what Rudy did there, please keep him there!
The world I live in bears so little resemblence to NYC that we might as well be on different planets, and I prefer it that way.


56 posted on 11/14/2006 12:27:49 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (MAY I DIE ON MY FEET IN MY SWAMP, BUAIDH NO BAS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil

I don't care what names I get called, but so far HE is who I'm voting for in the Primaries unless Barbour or someone else gets in.


57 posted on 11/14/2006 1:31:01 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
He'd be a whole lot better than McKook.

This is a very serious question. On a whole host of issues, McCain is far more conservative than Guiliani, but I have to agree. McCain's a very dangerous person who would explode under the kind of media barrage that a president is subject to.

I'm not fond of Guiliani, I don't think he'd expend any capital for constitutionalist judges (I think he'd rather find common-sense, wise jurists...like himself) and despite his fondness for the social left, it's not that he'd be a activist leftist, but he wouldn't fight any of the wacky new ideas that they come up with.

That being said, McCrazy is just dangerous.

58 posted on 11/14/2006 5:47:46 AM PST by AmishDude (Libertarians didn't lose it for us. They're losers who work against what they claim to want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: MotleyGirl70; Liz

Thanks for the ping, MotleyGirl70!


59 posted on 11/14/2006 5:53:26 AM PST by TommyDale (Iran President Ahmadinejad is shorter than Tom Daschle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
NYC is a very liberal, diverse, tolerant city. It isn't Peoria. There are lots of homosexuals in NYC. It would be un-New York like to disparage them. It is what it is and no conservative is going to change the city.

I had two cousins where moved to NY City. No one here knew either were gay. That is why they moved there so they could openly practice their "gayness." Both came home in body bags, dead from AIDS. Yup, NY City is great. I visited there once coming back from a tour in Germany. You can have it. It is a dump in my opinion.

60 posted on 11/14/2006 5:53:59 AM PST by RetiredArmy (A second civil war is coming to the USA. It will be worse than the first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
"However, I also oppose idiots like you comparing him to the Clintons, who never miss an opportunity to bash national security."

National Security is going to be protected by our Pentagon and military no matter who the Commander-In-Chief might be. Rudy Giuliani is rejected by most informed conservatives when they find out his positions on abortion, partial-birth abortion, gun confiscation, amnesty for illegal immigrant invaders and other issues.

61 posted on 11/14/2006 5:58:09 AM PST by TommyDale (Iran President Ahmadinejad is shorter than Tom Daschle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
The world I live in bears so little resemblence to NYC that we might as well be on different planets, and I prefer it that way.

Same here. Rudy is just a big city yankee with no concept of rural values or lifestyle.

"I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they're intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we're talking about all dangerous weapons."
Rudy Giuliani

62 posted on 11/14/2006 6:58:30 AM PST by cowboyway (My heroes have always been Cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: MotleyGirl70

Thanks for the ping.


63 posted on 11/14/2006 7:12:53 AM PST by Liz (Nearly all men can stand adversity, but to test a man's character, give him power. Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
That being said, McCrazy is just dangerous.

My sentiments exactly. It speaks volumes about the man that despite his fairly high ACU rating most of us would clearly prefer Rudy who we all agree is an outright liberal.

64 posted on 11/14/2006 7:15:36 AM PST by freespirited (The MSM is the root of all evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
National Security is going to be protected by our Pentagon and military no matter who the Commander-In-Chief might be.

Oh no no no no no no. Do not delude yourself into thinking that. If they are not deployed or funded, they will not do any such thing. And the military cannot take action inside the borders.

That kind of thinking is going to get us killed.

65 posted on 11/14/2006 7:29:45 AM PST by AmishDude (Libertarians didn't lose it for us. They're losers who work against what they claim to want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

"I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms".



Here is the obvious misunderstanding of how America was designed. The idiot, and he is not alone, actually believes that "the government" was intended to have that power. Well, maybe they do, but only by conquest!



"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the
unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state
governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the
people."
-- Tench Coxe
(1755-1824)


66 posted on 11/14/2006 9:05:54 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (MAY I DIE ON MY FEET IN MY SWAMP, BUAIDH NO BAS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
The idiot, and he is not alone, actually believes that "the government" was intended to have that power.

That is the sad state that we have come to.

People are just ignorant of US history. Several of the Founders were proponents of a nation-state government (basically what we have today) but were overruled by the majority of the delegates at the 1787 Convention.

The Declaration of Independence states " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."

Most of the delegates were devout Christians and intended the US to be run as a Christian nation and that the rights in the Constitution were God given; not man given.

The secular movement has clouded our nations history because of their perverse hatred of Christianity.

The secularist point to 'separation of church and state' as if the Constitution defines such. And people nod their heads in agreement because they're ignorant of history.

Jefferson's 'wall of separation between church and state' was a line in a letter written to some churchmen in Connecticut. Jefferson wasn't even a delegate at the Convention of 1787.

The First Amendment simply states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

And now with the dems on the verge of power we'll see the secular nation-state become more powerful and the secular dem congress resume their destruction of the Constitution.

67 posted on 11/14/2006 9:39:20 AM PST by cowboyway (My heroes have always been Cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

Any Commander-in-Chief that does NOT protect the U.S. national security will be overthrown by the military. You can take that to the bank.


68 posted on 11/14/2006 11:10:13 AM PST by TommyDale (Iran President Ahmadinejad is shorter than Tom Daschle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
"I don't think he'd expend any capital for constitutionalist judges (I think he'd rather find common-sense, wise jurists...like himself)"

"I don't THINK? Using your own words, "Oh no no no no no no. Do not delude yourself into thinking that." THAT kind of thinking gave us Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

69 posted on 11/14/2006 11:12:25 AM PST by TommyDale (Iran President Ahmadinejad is shorter than Tom Daschle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
>> to Hell with what Rudy did there, please keep him there

Keep in mind I was differentiating him from the boy from Arkansas.

This morning I finally got around to turning the first page on the November 2006 issue of the Limbaugh Letter. Rush describes the news commentary regarding the "insurgent sniper teams" killing our troops in Iraq. The bizarre enthusiasm demonstrated by the news team is unequivocally grotesque. Further down the first column of Rush's editorial, Rush makes reference to the lack of media attention given to those jumping from the burning Towers in NYC on 9/11.

Should Atlanta and Arkansas share in the contempt given to NYC?

One more point relevant to the issues before us. The NYC Policeman, Firefighters, and other rescue personnel exhibited courage and selfless regard for their fellow citizens to a historical degree and likewise perpetuating the unmatched greatness of Country. And they were fighting against the 'Hell' perpetrated by our mutual enemy.
70 posted on 11/14/2006 11:48:49 AM PST by Gene Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

Hey, Einstein, don't argue with someone who's making your point.


71 posted on 11/14/2006 1:35:20 PM PST by AmishDude (Libertarians didn't lose it for us. They're losers who work against what they claim to want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
Any Commander-in-Chief that does NOT protect the U.S. national security will be overthrown by the military. You can take that to the bank.

Idiot.

72 posted on 11/14/2006 1:40:51 PM PST by AmishDude (Libertarians didn't lose it for us. They're losers who work against what they claim to want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

This is still a free country, if you want to vote for Guliani, you certainly may. Just don't expect to take your credentials as a conservatives seriously when you've demonstrated your willingness to vote for gay rights, abortion, and gun control.


73 posted on 11/14/2006 6:35:48 PM PST by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

--On President Bill Clinton: Shortly before his last-minute endorsement of Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential election, Giuliani told the Post's Jack Newfield that "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wayne Barrett.



The association doesn't cut it, eh?
74 posted on 11/14/2006 7:01:02 PM PST by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil
>> The association doesn't cut it, eh?

Giuliani is certainly liberal on the social issues and, when appealing to the New York media, he made it a point to emphasize that; and, I'm glad you're bringing this to the forefront. Conservatives and Republicans need to understand where Giuliani stands on issues like gun control and abortion. Here, I'm in agreement with you.

That said, I still stand by my remark about the validity of the comparison to Bill Clinton. I used the 'Marc Rich' example as a leading wedge to the array of issues where I think Clinton and Giuliani fork off in different directions. Here's a question worth thinking about and hopefully raises my point:

Where would we be today if Giuliani was the President from 1993 to 2001?

BTW, the spell checker had issue with my spelling of 'fork off'.
75 posted on 11/14/2006 7:35:25 PM PST by Gene Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

Comment #76 Removed by Moderator

To: JMack

I totally agree with you. I've come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with RINOs is a carrot and stick approach.

The carrot is, "you liberal Republican types have the money and want the power...we have the votes. So long as you give us what we want, we'll vote for you and let you enjoy the perks of power. Don't think this gives you license to have independent thought about how to actually make policy, however."

The stick is, "If you should get into office and spend your days pushing illegal immigration, gay marriage, abortion on demand, secularism, and so on we will let the Democrats beat you like pinatas until you change your mind."

2006 was an example of this. If a guy like Rudy gets nominated, 2008 will be an even clearer example of it.


77 posted on 11/16/2006 10:04:57 AM PST by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: jdm

Perhaps, but we nominate Rudy, we’re done.

Hopefully, Fred or Duncan will get the nomination. At least Mitt.

Damn right the war is important. It’s a fight for our country, our way of life.

So what’s to fight for if we elect a Rudy, a man likely to parade around dressed as woman, grabbing guns, legalising illegals, and gutting the nation in perfect unison with the left?

At the end of the day with Rudy calling the shots, there’s likely not much left worth fighting for.

Last thing we need right now is that RINO in the White House.

Lord have mercy, don’t forget to say your prayers!


78 posted on 10/01/2007 6:58:35 AM PDT by Kowboy_Kaziglu_Bey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-78 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson