Posted on 03/12/2007 9:37:05 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
He won't get them, either.
Yes.
Mayor Shifts the Focus From City Crime to Gun Control Laws
By DAVID FIRESTONE
Published: February 25, 1997
About 9 A.M. yesterday, United States Representative Carolyn McCarthy was on her way to Southampton, L.I., for a day off when a call came in from Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's office. Could she turn around and come to City Hall -- right now -- to appear with the Mayor at an 11 o'clock news conference and help make the case that gun control might have prevented the Empire State Building shootings?
Of course she could. Two and a half hours later (they waited for her), the new Congresswoman was standing beside the Mayor at the Blue Room podium with 10 other gun-control advocates from the region, all hastily assembled by the administration to highlight lax Federal gun regulation.
And suddenly, it was more than a story about tourists being shot in New York; it was a story about Florida's easy access to guns, about Washington's failure to pass strong enough gun laws, about the lobbying of the National Rifle Association.
With Mrs. McCarthy at his side, the Mayor said the gunfire was not the fault of poor security at the landmark tower, or anything related to New York.Rather it could be blamed on a far-reaching national issue well beyond his jurisdiction.
Yes, Giuliani's record is that his first kneejerk reaction to terror attacks is to curtail the liberty of law-abiding citizens.
Great post!
Damn. So Rudy wasn't following McCarthy's lead on this one - HE WAS THE LEAD. And he did this in part to response to charges that lax security at the Empire State building was to blame for the shootings.
RUDY LED THE CHARGE FOR MORE FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LAWS. Repeat: RUDY LED THE CHARGE FOR MORE FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LAWS.
Guess it just goes with the "Keep Austin weird" gestalt...
I gotta tell ya - I've represented dozens of ob/gyns, and have asked most of them whether they've ever personally had a case where they had to sacrifice the fetus to save the mom, and the answer has been 100% negative: none of them have ever had to make that choice. That tells me it's a straw man argument.
That is new.
Nonsense. Here is a thread from 1999 showing the attitude toward abortion then. Note posts 146 & 186, in particular, in which the posters vow to "never vote" for George W. Bush merely because they think that he is insuffiently pro-life.
Beautiful, all the extremists should go back and read that thread!
Read that thread! Do you not see the tone difference???
The only ones even coming *close* in tone to the anti-Rudy folks was the Buchannonites. Very interesting read, indeed.
The "my way or the highway" traditionalists here might be this election cycle's "Buchannanites". I see a lot of similarities . . .
That is not behavior that I want to see in a President.
Guiliani is a Hillary with gonads.
He looks better in women's clothing than Hillary does too.
Guiliani is a Hillary with gonads.
What does government funding of abortions have to do with advocating "smaller govt" and "lower taxes?"
The simple fact is that Rudy Kazootie isn't even a conservative on socially-neutral constitutional issues! He's a typical leftist on everything.
Murderers of children aren't conservatives. They ain't even libertarians. Monsters is what they are.
Do you have any idea what this veto involved (it’s from the first Bush administration) and what was the basis of Giuliani’s opposition to it?
Does this mean you have no more recent evidence than an 18 year-old speech? If not, then an objective observer would say you don't have the faintest idea what he would do today about public funding for abortions. It may be the same as then, but we would never know it from your pathetic attempt at research.
But seriously, you can tell Rudy and Hillary apart, even though they both wear pants. He's the bald one.
Then I support "free" government funding of castration for RINOs. There are far too many RINOs roaming the streets already. We need to stop them from breeding.
You should look at the clip. He clearly says that he disagrees with President Bush's veto of public funding for abortion. If President Bush was making a veto, then it must have been federal funding. If Giuliani disagrees with the veto, then he must support federal funding for abortion. In either case, he's wrong to support taxpayer funding of abortion.
Bill
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.