Posted on 12/14/2005 7:00:30 AM PST by areafiftyone
Me too!
The nation is not a crime-infested cesspool, like NYC was under Democratic control. The nation doesn't need a Rudy to come in and restore common sense.
You will NOT get them to change their minds unless you can open them first with discussion they consider reasonable. Giuliani's results here are by far the best example of getting liberals to take a step forward in open-mindedness & willing to consider other points of view based on the results of policies that will benefit them & everyone else, the city, the state, the country, whatever.
What, besides law and order (and not caving in to terrorists), has Rudy done to advance conservative issues?
Has he taught people about social security and how it's going bankrupt and you're better off with personal accounts than with a promise from the gov't?
Has he shown how concealed carry permits in 31 states have lowered crime and it's a rational policy?
Has he argued for freeing education through vouchers or other choice systems?
You claim that Rudy has opened minds to conservative thoughts, in otherwise braindead NYC liberals. Where is the evidence of this, outside of law and order/security issues?
Your entire argument rests on this premise, which is shaky at best. Convincing liberals to vote for a tough guy to clean up the city is different from saying he is advancing a conservative agenda overall, or that he is even trying. Once he caves on guns and gays and abortion, in what sense can you say he is even trying?
I ask again, how does it advance life issues to elect pro-abortionists? To give up now in the hope that at some later date he might spring forth a harvest of full-spectrum conservatives? Don't you reap what you sow?
SD
10 times better than either McCain or Rice. Not sure about Romney. Is that all there is out there???
I heard the trains run on time.
OH NOOOOO NOT THE HAIRLINE!!!!! ;-)
>How long has it been since Roe vs. Wade, and how many more innocent babies have to die needlessly before "people" (death-dealing abortion lovers) see the error of their sick and disgusting ways?
I don't have the answer to that. Do you? What I have is an opinion, which I've stated. I say that regardless of Roe v. Wade, you're not going to get people to change their behavior unless you can show liberals a better way to look at things, which to us of course means conservatism. That 'pro-abortion' thing is a rhetorical red herring. Absolute nonsense. Applying it to a Dem is useful, if inaccurate. Applying it to a Republican such as Rudy is just nonsensical. But the guy who fixed the biggest city in the country isn't pro-life for some people here. Which is all that matters!
On the topic of my theory regarding how liberals came to look at conservatism differently after a couple of years' worth of Giuliani's accomplishments...well, most RINOs can get liberals to listen, but it doesn't matter that much, because they have little credibility. Giuliani's record is credible. I say, you start with him, and you work from there. Right now we have a pro-life President. Right? Well, there seem to be a lot of liberals who don't like him very much. My feeling is that Giuliani's style results in tangible accomplishments that cause opponents to at least consider shifting their views. If you have a better solution, offer it.
I didn't ask if the keywords bothered you, or if you had an opinion on the freedom to post them, or anything like that. I asked if resorting to such insults was a matter of 'advancing conservatism' to you. To me, it's not only inaccurate, but undignified. It's what I expect from a liberal. Not something I expect to see on a site like this. But, as I've said, it seems that this site is not what I remember seeing when I first started lurking here some years ago.
Beware the rude, arrogant NY RINOs coming to grab yr guns.
Sheesh.
>the keywords are not a big deal.
To me they are, not because I'm thin-skinned or pc or concerned about anyone being offended, or anything like that. I just think it's undignified & not befitting anything having to do with advancing the conservative agenda. To me a conservative deals with the abortion issue with dignity & class, & leaves using terms like those above to people with no class, whether they be liberals or not. To me conservatism involves standards, which are breached by this. And don't get me wrong, I'm certainly no tighta$$. But I think one of the most important aspects of thinking like a conservative is to stick to nuts & bolts & leave personal insults & attacks--particularly ones that are just plain inaccurate--to others. But that's just me.
If I were younger & didn't think of myself as either 'liberal' or 'conservative,' & saw something like that, I'd tend to think that if that's conservative, then I want to be anything but. My elders didn't raise me to behave that way. And I don't see how anyone could think that this sort of thing is going to make anyone who doesn't already agree with their premise, get them to choose to believe that their point of view is the correct one.
That's shooting yrself in the foot so far as I'm concerned. But there's LOTS of that around here.
Seriously, presidents have to look like presidents. He was great during 9-11, don't get me wrong, it's just that with all the president's staff doing the work the president is often an ambassador. And our ambassador should look the part. Yup, a person should look good when representing an entire nation. Again, Giuliani was great - he's just not presidential material.
We will see.
If that were the case with regards to baldness we should never have voted for John Adams, John Q. Adams, Martin Van Buren, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower and a few other presidents.
I agree, but in this political climate he wouldn't stand a snowballs's chance in hell.
Just for your information:
1. So what if I'm ex-Navy, I served, just as you did, and the flight deck of an aircraft carrier during flight ops is just as (if not more) dangerous than a foxhole on the front lines. Especially when your job involves handling explosives, like mine did. Take you Jarhead prejudices, roll 'em up real tight and cram them. Perhaps any incidental contact might accidentally kick start youru brain.
2. Don't tell me about reality; you seem to live in one in which everyone is a god-fearing, gun carrying fascist and that this is somehow representative of American values. I'm delusional? I think not.
3. As a Catholic, I'd harly consider myself to be someone who hates "all things Christian". I do hate all things smelling of totalitarianism wrapped up in Christian platitudes. I hate to say it, but Julian Bond was right --
there IS a Taliban wing of the republican party. You exemplify it.
4. The reason no one has showed to take your guns has little to do with the Second Amendment and more to do, I would guess, with your being a responsible gun owner, obeying ther law. They may be laws that you disagree with, but somehow you find the strength to obey them. Unless you have an artillery piece stashed somewhere that no one knows about, perhaps?
It's more than possible for a politician to divorce his ideology from his performance: the "conservative" Congress has done so for the last five years, and no one has seemed to notice, unitl recently. And only that after we were shamed by the pictures coming from New Orleans this past summer.
Apparently, it's a conservative virtue to fund multi-million dollar bridges that serve 50 people, use democrat tactics to bribe people into voting for us, i.e. No Child Left Behind, Medicare Drug plans, Guest Worker programs which are nothing but a euphamism for unbridled illegal immigration, "Free Market" economic plans which encourage shipping jobs to every thrid-world sh*thole on the planet, but not to Michigan or North Carolina.
Conservatives are all for that. We can't get them to act on behalf of their own citizens unless, of course, one of them is having her feeding tube removed or is in danger of being vacuumed out of it's mother's womb in a procedure which is horrible, but legal.
"If that were the case with regards to baldness we should never have voted for John Adams, John Q. Adams, Martin Van Buren, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower and a few other presidents."
When you researched our bald presidents did it occur to you that the most recent president in your results, Eisenhower, began his first term in 1953? That was at the beginning of the television set's explosion onto the marketplace. Now that people can see who they are voting for things have changed. Since that time, no other bald man has been elected president.
Speak for yourself.
I wasn't "shamed", nor do I know of ANYONE (certainly not any conservatives which preach self-reliance, personal responsibility, etc.) that was.
FEMA needs to take a small part of the blame, but the main fault lies with the goofball democrat mayor and Governor.
Only the left-wing media, liberal democrats, and fools (including RINO's and RINO-lovers) would have us believe otherwise.
Besides the direct corruption and ineptitude of democrat politicians which facilitated and exacerbated the debacle, there was the indirect result which was evidenced by an uneducated, unmotivated, inner-city, nanny/welfare-state populace which depended entirely on the government to help them. That is thanks to 30-40 years or more of democrat rule. Keep 'em on the dole, keep 'em dumb/ignorant, and they'll vote democrat everytime.
Liberal democrats, and their kindred spirits, RINO's, sicken and disgust me, for the above reasons, and so many more.
And saying, previously, "I once owned a gun" is like a racist saying "I once had a black friend", VERY hard to believe.
I think you belong over on DU my misguided Squidly friend.
Well I don't go by looks. I go by what that person can and will accomplish and I hope most of the voters do too. If that is what this country bases its voting on then they would have chosen girlie man wonderwoman John Edwards. People vote on what that person can do or what he says but if we are that superficial then we need to seriously look at ourselves.
"ADULTRY IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERNET KIND OF SIN"
Where does it say that in the bible?
I just love how the rudy supporters try to justify his adultry.
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, no idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (I Corinthians 6:9-10)
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, no idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (I Corinthians 6:9-10)
"Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)
If you think that adultry as a sin is as simple as the little screwups we do in our daily routine, then you are beyond redemption. Only rabid rudy supporters would excuse his adultry as just a little screwup here and there, a little indiscretion is getting angry, or idolizing, or gossiping. Adultry is a violation of the most sacred of bonds. Your guy did it, maybye you and the other rudy fans will happily look the other way, but i will not, and most evangelicals will not either.
It would be hippocritical of us to have gone after clinton for all his marital screwups, then to turn around and nominate somone whose personal life reads like a XXX novel. IT just wont fly with value voters and i will never vote for an adulterer. I depise mccain, but if he were the nominee i would pull the lever, if rudy was i would not. I have no respect for any man who commits than sin.
"NY wants Guliani in Whitehouse".
People in Hell want a glass of Icewater too.
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.