Posted on 04/05/2007 9:14:04 AM PDT by Barney Gumble
Any you think my head is up my ass? Look around. All you can see is colon.
“Abortion thread...stay focused...on topic.”
Good rudybooster - avoid answering direct questions when the answer would make rudy look bad.
You brought up the “he has to obey the law” angle. I just pointed out that he refused to follow federal law against illegal aliens and wondered if you’d be consistent.
Will you actually state whether you support his decision to disobey federal law WRT reporting illegal aliens?
Come on, it will only take a second.
I have been paying attention. They aren't avoiding the rudy threads...they are just avoiding you.
So you are a person that believes what a politician says when they are running for the GOP nomination is more important than their lifelong record on the issue?
Interesting.
Using your logic, no recent Republican president has done the job. Remember, Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor, and we know what happened to her. Bush 1 appointed Souter, and we know what happened there. Nuff’ said. I understand the power of the presidency. Using your logic, no Republican president has succeeded in overturning Roe V. Wade because they haven’t got the job done in appointing the correct judges. Even Kennedy, another Reagan appointee, is squishy now. Personally, I don’t think the SCOTUS has the stomach to overturn Roe V. Wade.
What EXACTLY would you expect the mayor of NYC to do regarding abortion?
What EXACTLY would you expect the President to to regarding abortion?
The reason I ask these questions is that I am becoming more and more convinced that there is nothing short of the mayor or president using police force to close clinics that would please you and many others.
Is that what it would take?
Are you asking a question or setting up a straw man?
To save the live of the unborn, though extreme to the servere, I would support that.
“Are you asking a question or setting up a straw man?”
I’m asking a question to see if you are consistent.
You defended him by saying “it’s the law and he has to follow it”. I asked if you supported him disobey federal law WRT reporting illegal aliens.
Simple yes or no answer is fine. No need to drag this out. You are spending more time dancing around it than it would take to give your answer.
Duncan Hunter has no chance at being nominated let alone elected.
Let’s also establish something right here and now:
I really don’t know that much about Rudy and his policies and never paid much attention to them until very recently.
So if I an incorrect about his true position on something it is very likely an ignorant mistake.
You seem to have studied his policies and positions and have taken an active opposition to him. You know about him.
So if you are not correct on his positions is it not ignorance and it is not a mistake.
And I told you I wouldn’t discuss other topics on this thread.
Live with it or lump it.
Yep. Got a shiny badge to go with my uniform.
What a whiney response. Does the conservative movement need your protection? Or can conservatives make their own decisions on who to vote for.
Wasn't whining. I was making a statement. If Rudy's supporters lie about Rudy's positions, I will call them out on it.
That macho talk would be funny if it weren't so sad. Call them out...and do what? You can't even get them to stop.
That's their problem.
What I don't understand is why get so worked up talking to the same 20 people over and over again. Don't you get tired of having the same argument. You are persistent, I will give you that.
If a falsity is posted, I will call them out on it. Simple as that.
I think you would work harder trying to get Hunter's name known to voters than trying to convince people of what they already know. Both Rudy and non-Rudy supporters.
Hunter and Rudy threads are pretty much the only things I spend my time on FR these days. Can't blame me if the Hunter threads don't get as much activity. ;)
We’ll see.
“What EXACTLY would you expect the mayor of NYC to do regarding abortion?”
Well, if he’s going to be calling himself a “fiscal conservative”, he should at least oppose taxpayers having to pay for abortions. Don’t you think that would be a ‘fiscallly conservative’ position?
If roe v wade never happened, it would then be his job as mayor to decide on new york’s abortion policy, absent a state law that prevents him from doing that.
“What EXACTLY would you expect the President to to regarding abortion?”
I want a President who will appoint judges who are smart enough to know there is no “right to abortion” anywhere in the constitution, and those judges would return abortion to where it was pre roe v wade - a states rights issue, which means states will decide abortion policy. And then if there is any nationwide move to ban abortion or make abortion a constitutional right, it has to go through the amendment process to actually exist. In that case, if the president is pro-life, he would be able to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to support the amendment, since he doesn’t have any actual role in the amendment process.
Neither of those would happen with rudy as president. He believes roe v wade is a “strict constructionist” position - he called it good constitutional law, and he believes “choice” is in the constitution.
“The reason I ask these questions is that I am becoming more and more convinced that there is nothing short of the mayor or president using police force to close clinics that would please you and many others.”
It’s odd that you will ignore what other people are actually posting WRT their objection to rudy giuliani and abortion and latch on to the simple act of rudy saying he’s against abortion while disregarding his career record on the issue.
Odd, but typical, I guess.
Do you want me to ping you to an older thread on rudy and illegal immigration so it can be discussed there?
Or will you say that thread is about illegal immigration, so I can’t bring up what you said on this thread.
Just like a rudy booster - ignore direct questions when the answer would be too revealing.
Yes, but a) he is not elected yet, b) there is no law to publically fund abortions. Rudy would be supporting one. As was said earlier in the thread, there is a right to keep and bear arms, but the government doesn't buy you a rifle... and c) it's not really a law. It's a decree/intrepretation of a law written around 1865. It was never voted for or never signed.
The President, unlike other positions, does have a big outcome on abortion. Who is going to replace Justice Stevens when passes? Another Ginsburg, or another Scalia?
“So if you are not correct on his positions is it not ignorance and it is not a mistake.”
I am correct. Prove that I’m not.
Here’s a hint about me: I won’t bother entering a debate on something if I am not 100% certain I can back up my claims with facts. If I can’t, I will research something until I can.
Contrast that tidbit with your claim:
“I really don’t know that much about Rudy and his policies and never paid much attention to them until very recently.”
So you’re here defending rudy, telling people who has done a bit of research about rudy, that they’re wrong, when you admit you don’t know that much about rudy.
Funny how that works. What are you basing your claims of others being wrong on then - your faith in the spin from the rudy camp?
a) CNN limits excerpts to 100 words.b) If Rudy was so personally against abortion, why is wanting to fund it with my money?
His "I don't like abortion" sounds a bit like Clinton's position.
Carry on!
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.