VANITY: Rudy Guliani...a Clinton Liberal

[TommyDale]

"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.

[cowboyway]

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

[Liz]

Thanks for the ping.

[freespirited]

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.

[AmishDude]

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.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

"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)

[cowboyway]

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.

[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.

[TommyDale]

"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.

[Gene Eric]

>> 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.

[AmishDude]

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

[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.

Idiot.

[Old_Mil]

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.

[Old_Mil]

--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?

[Gene Eric]

>> 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'.

[Old_Mil]

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.

[Kowboy_Kaziglu_Bey]

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!