Skip to comments.RUDY WILL SPEAK AT REV. PAT U (conman Rooty ditching conservatives off Repub party lifeboat)
Posted on 04/16/2007 4:25:25 AM PDT by Liz
....Rudy Giuliani will speak tomorrow at the university founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, a major appearance for the former mayor...who holds liberal social views....Giuliani made his sharpest case for moving beyond social issues this weekend in Iowa, telling The Des Moines Register, "Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we're for, not if we're a party that's known for what we're against." Asked about abortion, he said, "Our party has to get beyond issues like that." Giuliani upset conservatives - and surprised supporters - by saying he favored public funding for abortion....His campaign quickly noted he wasn't proposing changes to current federal laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
once Roe goes, the states can do what they want. if they want to keep abortion legal, perhaps they do want to see that poor women are not denied access to the procedure THEY have deemed legal in their states. the issue of public funding is such as it is now, because abortion has been mandated by the Court.
The States have lost their authority to the Feds.
Until someone can shrink the size of the federal government, Roe vs. Wade will stand.
one new SCOTUS justice would flip it. one.
but here is the rub. that justice, and the other 4 who are needed, won’t flip it if is viewed as a moral issue. Not that I don’t think its a moral issue mind you, of course it is. But you won’t get 5 to flip it on that basis, it must be framed as a constitutional issue.
If I’ve learned anything, it’s to be patient and persistent.
One conservative SC Justice is still a step in the right direction.
And then one more... if we win the WH and then win it again.
Mia T...Would you describe yourself as pro-life?--jla
As I have said repeatedly on this thread, I want to protect the lives of ALL children, the unborn, the living, the not yet even imagined.
I know you are trying to help, jla, but I don't want to keep this thing going indefinitely. ;)
It's too exhausting, too repetitive. And I really don't have the time.
Maybe I can just sneak away. ;)
The others seem happily involved now with like-minded folks. More precisely, with like minds impervious to reason.
Some here have become so fixated on abortion, per se, that their concern for the lives of babies fails to extend beyond the unborn, witness how easily they give their de facto vote to hillary clinton.
If they were equally concerned about ALL children, the living, the not yet imagined, as well as the unborn, they would be far more horrified by the prospect of a clinton takeover than a President Giuliani.
To my mind, this isn't 'pro-life.' This is its perversion.
2. Scalia's dad was a professor? They made a lot less during the Depression than they wallow in nowadays and a lot less than successful extortionists (whose families were traditionally paid in full while they were incarcerated). Maybe, I had the family mixed up with that of Judge Sirica of Watergate fame. Score another for you. When Rudy's dad was doing arms and legs for Joe Profaci, Scalia's dad was teaching college before it was required that one be a red to be tenured.
3. Rudy is still a pro-abort and therefore UNFIT to carry the GOP presidential nomination. 2-1.
4. Rudy is still a promoter of lavender hoopla and its acceptance in our society and therefore UNFIT to carry the GOP presidential nomination. 2-2.
5. The day that the GOP abandons social issue conservatism, personal morality, guns, babies, marriage, etc., is the day that the GOP will rightfully go the way of its Federalist and Whig predecessors and wind up in the dustbin of history. 2-3. One, two, three strikes: You're out at the old ball game!
6. Have you noticed that I am merely humoring you at this point and that you have, by now, along with your candidate, become quite irrelevant?
P.S. The one really great quality about Rudy is that he is the most passionate and honest New York Yankee fan in American politics but he is still a pro-abort, etc. He used to take that ingrate son of his to Yankee games all the time but the kid disses his dad anyway. Although I am as great a Yankee fan as Rudy, and although my dad was (I confess) a Red Sox fan from their second last World Series victory in 1918 to the night 75 years later when he died, I never dissed my dad and he never dissed me.
P.P.S. The late great Brooklyn Don, Joe Profaci, was also a pillar of the Brooklyn Catholic Church. When Our Lady Star of the Sea Church (Profaci's parish) was being left unlocked in a bad Brooklyn neighborhood 24/7/365, some local punk broke into the tabernacle and stole the chalices, ciboriums, patens and other gold items one night. Joe Profaci had his guys post quickly printed flyers on utility poles all over Brooklyn at about midnight that night suggesting the career and health disadvantages that would accrue to the thieves if the gold items were not returned (no questions asked) to the pastor before 5 AM the next morning. And so, Profaci's credibility being so verrrry much superior to that of pro-abort, pro-lavender, gun-grabbing Rudy, the gold was returned unharmed on schedule. End of story. Makes me proud to be in the same Catholic Church as Joe Profaci, Joe Bonnano, Lucky Luciano and those other guys who really know the meaning of the word "colleague."
Yeah, WTH is a mere 50+ million slaughtered innocents??? Why should we care? No one is stopping you from “sneaking away.” Ease your pain.
1. The unborn are deemed by SCOTUS to be "persons" under the Equal Prtection Clause of the XIVth Amendment. End game for the babykillers because that would mandate a constitutional RIGHT TO LIFE for the innocents conceived but not yet born.
2. More likely: Abortion was none of the fedgov's or SCOTUS's business in the first place (Xth Amendment). The states are free to legislate as they see fit. It will take a while but that will also produce endgame for the babykillers and a political victory will be more permanent.
Have you seen Escape from New York? We could use less expensive real estate and do Escape from the Federal Penitentiary at Antarctica. Dress them in bikinis.
#1 will cover late term (20 weeks and over) abortion, because the issue of viability can be demonstrated scientifically.
but I do not think it will apply to first trimester abortions - the states will get that back. and I don’t think many states will outlaw those, but I could be wrong, either way I can live with whatever decision each state makes on the issue.
Who is 'humoring' whom, I wonder....
Your mantra, 'a mere 50+ million slaughtered innocents' contains an inadvertent truth.
Continue on your course to help elect hillary clinton (the woman who wants to crush you, BTW) and '50+ million slaughtered innocents' will be a drop in the bucket.
With all due respect you really need to cease with this canard that I, and likeminded folks, will be responsible for President Hillary because we follow our consciences and God's laws.
With all the furor over Giuliani potentially being the G.O.P. nominee one would think the R's as a whole would negate this and promote a candidate(s) we all, or a good majority, can support.
And Giuliani has indeed lied. In 1989 Giuliani smugly dismissed the notion that he be described as a "Reagan Republican", insisting on the less 'controversial' term "Republican", sans 'Reagan'.
During the past several months Giuliani has readily invoked the name of Reagan in his speeches, as if the two men were blood brothers.
Not only is this a lie it is an abominable one - using Reagan's popularity in a vain and deceitful manner to enhance his credibility amongst conservatives, especially social/religious conservatives.
Where Reagan wrote and had published the book Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation the year leading up to his reelection, Giuliani dismisses the issue as one we need to 'get away from'.
The difference is stark and clear, as is the choice we face now.
It is not hard, not at all, for me as I follow the simple creed of doing the right thing. Allowing Giuliani, whom I descibe as a mountebank, the nomination will cause an irreversible schism in the G.O.P. And those who support Giuliani will have won this contest, but at a price, I'm afraid, too dear for this nation.
I agree, it will take time.
And if we elect someone like Rudy, it will take much, much longer.
BUMP! for the truth!
Let's stick to the primary race and save the Hillary boogeyman for later!
First the underlying premise: the only thing electorally each of us controls is our own vote. Each of us is responsible for the consequences of our own vote.
If we take the primary and the general election separately, that helps to define the problem.
In my view, we are faced, in the primary with selecting someone who will successfully prosecute the war and someone who will successfully protect and defend the Constitution, generally. I suspect no one will disagree with this.
But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some on this forum.
Anyone who demonstrates to me he can satisfy the above gets my attention, and the one who satisfies the above best will get my support.
Notice that I do not mention ideological purity. I don't even mention ideology. Lincoln understood that sometimes you must go outside the system to save the system, that Lady Liberty cannot lift herself up by her own bootstraps.
So in step one, the primary, if you (or I) vote for and help nominate a sure loser in the name of ideological purity or for whatever reason, then yes, you are (or I am) helping to elect hillary clinton or whichever D is nominated.
In the general, if it's hillary vs. Rudy, say, and you don't vote or vote 3rd party, then you are helping to elect hillary clinton. To think that you have any other options in this de facto 2-party system of ours is self-delusion.
And if you help to elect hillary clinton, you must bear the responsibility for all the deaths of all the children, living, unborn, not yet even imagined, that will flow from that election.
Those are the facts. You may not like them. They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.
Dilemmas are tough. Life is full of them. Cognitive dissonance is not comfortable and many, like, you find comfort in rationalizing dilemmas away.
But the problem is still there, you are no closer to the real solution. To the contrary. You are fast approaching real disaster. I sincerely hope you recognize it before it is too late.
No, those are your opinion.
You're wont to view matters as if they were a mathematical theorem, remaining aloof to factors such as conscience and morality, (and yes, I realize HRC possesses neither).
And you may insult me all you wish, (cognitive dissonance indeed!), I will still -
...think you to be very bright
...consider you a pal
...never vote for Rudolph Giuliani
They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.
A very unfair, and untrue remark.
MORALITY: Nothing less than morality undergirds my argument. What I am disputing is not your moral underpinnings--I admire them-- but rather your failure to acknowledge that your solution is no less (and I would argue, far more) immoral than the alternative.
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: No insult intended. Dilemmas cause cognitive dissonance. No option is wholly satisfactory. I understand why you don't want to vote for someone who is pro-choice. But there is a dilemma: Your solution, to vote 3rd party or sit home, ultimately helps to elect someone who is by your very own criteria far worse than Rudy.
They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.
This statement is not meant as an insult. Being 'pro-life' means so much more than simply being against abortion. When we fail to recognize that fact, we do dangerous, irrational, ultimately self-destructive things like helping to elect hillary clinton.
This is true, yet it is not my solution.
My solution is to nominate a true conservative in the first place.
...and you're welcome, young lady.
Statists are statists. They are consistent...
And they differ only on the level of taxation which should be applied for their Statist dreams to come true.
I've not seen any evidence of that, on either the 700 Club or on Christian World News. The coverage is definitely pro-family, pro-self-defense, pro-life, and pro-Jesus!
CBN is giving all the candidates an equal chance at exposure. They've already interviewed John McCain and John Edwards.