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 ...
I repeat the essential choice: 50+ million slaughtered infants to date and counting vs. McCain Feingold as somehow a restriction on "free speech" rather than on free spending. Poor Mr. Zillionaire not being allowed to buy elections under PACs but having instead to go to allllll that effort to set up 527s instead to buy elections and to buy the elected!!!! Puhleeze, this is NOT a cause to die for and it is not a limitation on any cognizable form of "free speech" as even SCOTUS has noted in a rare decision following the actual text of the Constitution.
Your speculations notwithstanding, technology or no technology, abortion is still going to be an issue so long as the sun may shine and the rivers may flow and so long as Margaret Sanger will rightfully roast in hell, whether abortionists and those who would protect their homicidal work like it or not. So will basic personal morality still be an issue whether the immoral and amoral like it or not. Whether or not perversion will somehow be "legally recognized" as though it were a legitimate expression of "family" sexuality will also continue to be an issue whether that discomforts the perverted or not.
If "privacy" becomes a wall of protection for such evils, then "privacy" is less important than is the destruction of civilization by those who would slaughter infants, by those who despise moral standards, by those who confuse the questions of what body parts belong where and why. If you then wind up missing "privacy", blame the pro-aborts, blame those who despise moral standards, blame those who would deconstruct marriage to play or to facilitate others in playing lavender make-believe.
Rudy won't be protecting anyone or anything except insofar as he does so as Attorney General (without input on judges or social issues) because he won't be nominated much less elected. Hillary is no sure thing to be nominated. At the moment, I would bet she loses to Obama but she won't be elected even if she is nominated.
You persist in posting that baloney about Rudy protecting ALL the children. First, he has absolutely no intention of protecting the unborn if he is so eager to pay the fees of the babybutchers who kill them and to pay out of tax money. Second, unless you and I are "children", the notion of protecting "born children" is meaningless in this context. Rather than nominate and elect an babykilling enthusiast, as a Republican no less (and thereby permanently surrendering the babies' lives for the pie in the sky bye and bye of Rudy protecting me and mine (not a morally acceptable alternative in that I would have to sacrifice other innocents to save me and mine), I am happy to look out for myself and my own. Third, we who are born can protect ourselves. The unborn have no voices of their own. With all due respect, I have seen many of your posts but not the slightest credible suggestion that you oppose abortion.
I reject Rudy as a presidential candidate unless and until the GOP might be so suicidal (for party and nation) as to nominate him. Keeping the GOP united means keeping social conservatism now and always in the ascendancy. That is not inconsistent with a militant military and the vigorous use thereof to which most social conservatives are quite dedicated. Nor is it inconsistent with gun rights. Quite the contrary, actually, since social conservatives tend to be strong on guns. There is room for those who regard themselves as "constitutionalists" and those who favor lower taxes and less non-military spending.
Ronald Reagan led us out of the mental midgetry, spiritual desert and moral wasteland of Gerald Fordism and of Main Street boosterism and of the wimpy foreign policies of isolationists and internationalists alike. Reagan led us back into caring about moral considerations and forming a society to which he referred in saying: America is great because America is good. If America ceases to be good, it will cease to be great. We are NOT going back.
We (conservatives who are conservative) shall do things in their proper order. First, we are going to defeat Rudy's expressed ambitions and with it his attempt to have the GOP irretrievably abandon morality, the babies and marriage in favor of the lifestyles of Studio 54. Then we shall defeat the Demonrats by pinning the tail on the donkeys as that tail has not been pinned during the last seven years. I like Dubya but "compassionate conservatism" has had its day, along with Rockefellerite surrender monkeyism, elitist windtunnelism, and Northeastern "Republicanism" generally. You will be very surprised at just how obsolete Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist has truly become even in her own party. I expect to be a bit surprised at how effectively we will drop Osama bin Obama and/or the faggoty Breck Girl.
You seem to be a glutton for punishment. Okay, we will, in that one respect, do it your way. Killing babies by the tens of millions or even individually is a lot more evil than even electing a Demonrat. Fortunately however, THAT is the false choice. The GOP will maintain its social standards and, because it does, the GOP will defeat whatever the Demonrats nominate.
Rooty Rooters are victims of Stockholm Syndrome.
Stockhom Syndrome is a psychological disturbance found among hostages, characterized by unwarranted feelings of loyalty toward their captors, hostages who succumb to their captor’s feigned kindness.
Rooty once tore up a check——now Rooty Rooters are fawning over, and flacking, this flawed candidate and want to inflict him on the rest of us.
How else can you explain the airheaded rationalization of Rooty’s killing of the unborn on the taxpayer’s dime? Looking past Rooty’s gun-grabbing, gay worship, draft-dodging? Ignoring his serial marriages, and public adultery?
Well said — as always.
What credentials does RG have that the other presumptive GOP candidates don't? Especially Duncan Hunter.
Mia T...Would you describe yourself as pro-life?
I may be wrong but I believe that Scalia is originally a native of Waterbury, Connecticut, and was born to a family of an immigrant shoemaker. If that is what you mean by "privileged," go for it. Giuliani's father was a clothing salesman (???) whereas "blue collar" suggests manual labor such as my own parents engaged in at a paper factory and garment factory (before Mom took a pay cut to be an office worker at Yale).
Was someone who got a job as a customs inspector at the Vermont border also a "colleague" or a postal carrier or a Social Security bureaucrat or a post-strike air traffic controller or a US Army private in Greenland (so long as each was hired when RR was president)? You might want to consider that Rudy misspoke and said Scalia when he meant Alito who was in the US Attorney's Office in New Jersey and was investigating the New Jersey (Lucchesi) Mafia Family while US Attorney (NY) Rudy was working on the other four "families" established by Charlie "Lucky" Luciano (Bonnano, Profaci, Genovese, and one other NY "family"). There is little doubt that Rudy's path and Alito's crossed during that period.
I would bet that Scalia shined shoes, that Alito did not and that Rudy may have unless he considered himself too good to be laboring with his hands (which I doubt).
Thank both of you for your kind words. May God bless each of you and yours.
I agree with you. Rudy fails miserably on enough other issues that his abortion stance is almost secondary.
However, I'd point out that people who don't "get it right" on THIS issue usually do very poorly on other issues that are important to conservatives. For example, I believe that nearly everyone in public office (or a candidate for public office) who is a far-left radical when it comes to abortion is also a radical zealot when it comes to his/her outright hostility to the Second Amendment, too.
Thank you very much. We can use it :-).
On the thread topic, Mark Steyn points out that our struggle with Islamic terrorism is a culture war, not just a shooting war. The culture with the most will to survive - demonstrated, at the most basic level, by its birthrate - will win.
Europe is basically Dar al-Islam already. If the U.S. doesn’t want to go the same way, it will take more than a strong economy and an expensive military. It will take the will to resist terror, and the will to resist compromise. I think RudyG’s America would be a place where the citizens don’t get to have a will; the government will make all the decisions for them. Turn in your guns. Kill the babies, the handicapped, the elderly. Don’t be rude to a homosexual. Pretend terrorists aren’t Moslems.
I’ve been asking some of the Rudy supporters why they think Rudy would be a good President, and I’m not getting much in the way of meaning answers.
executive experience. Hunter hasn’t “run” anything, and Thompson spent most of his washington career - as a lobbyist.
the constitution neither allows, nor excludes anything regarding abortion.
Roe will go because its bad constitutional reasoning, and for only that reason, not because tossing it represents any moral opinion regarding abortion.
That’s a helluva good rant! ;^)
In electing people, always remember as follows.
1. Ignore what they promise.
2. Decide based on what they have done.
3. Unless they have worked in the free market economy, legislators make lousy presidents, because they are consensus builders, not decision makers.
4. In choosing a candidate, like choosing a spouse, you can always have anything you want, but never everything you want.
Don't nominate a guy whose track record is conservative on about 20%-25% of the issues -- and who is an unapologetic, radical leftist on the 3-4 "absolute" issues -- and expect me to support him.
I’m kinda big on “cruel and unusual punishment” too... but often I’m for it.
For example, all those convicted of Islamic terroristic activities should be attached to a 10 mile long chain connected to the base of the WTC and denied police protection.
I've gone through a number of iterations of this with Rudy Giuliani, and my guess is that his ACU ranking would be somewhere in the range of 20-25 if his track record and public statements were used to measure his conservative credentials.
I was merely trying to point out the conflict in Rudy’s statements.
He says he’ll appoint ‘strict constructionist’ judges, but also says he supports federal funding for judges.
A ‘strict constructionist’ would not, IMO, support federal funding of abortions.
So I am quite leery of his intentions.
I particularly like and agree with that third paragraph. Why didn’t I think of that??? ((slapping his own antlers!)
Seriously, I did think of another possibility.
Althougth I certainly support stringent sentences quickly applied for major crimes, I do have a problem with the death penalty in some cases. Where the guilt is admitted or blatantly obvious, fine, but where there are some questions, I hate the fact that some innocent people have been executed...
With that in mind, a modest proposal...
Approach serious crime from the added perspective of civil law. Capitol criminals and other major criminals have broken the “social contract.” They have broken the coda of a civil society. As such, they have forfeited their right to live in our society.
Let’s let them live in the one they have chosen.
Key West is not the last island in the Florida Keys. It is simply where the road ends.
Why not build a concrete “barracks” type set of buildings on an unoccupied island 15 miles from Key West. It would have rooms, beds, kitchen facilities, and that’s about it.
There would be no walls, no cells, no guard towers, because there would be no guards. Prisoners condemned to live there would run it themselves. A month’s supply of food and new prisoners would be dropped off every 30 days. Water would come in on a pipeline. Laundry would be by scrubbing their clothes in the surf. There would be no classes or attempts at rehabilitation, because these prisoners do not want to be rehabilitated.
All “management,” operations, etc. would be by the prisoners themselves, with no input from the Bureau of Prisons. The only guards would be on a relatively small Coast Guard cutter type boat that would circle the island to prevent anyone approaching to try to evacuate a prisoner or a prisoner swimming away. Monthly supplies would be packaged in such a way as to prevent the building of any sort of flotation device.
The entire small island would have a very strict set of prisoner-agreed-upon rules, or no rules at all. It would be up to them. They have violated their right to live among us.... so they will live among their own kind.
If a prisoner steals, they handle it. If prisoners rape one another, they handle it. If a prisoner kills another prisoner, they handle it. There is no worry about assaults on guards or the killing of guards, because there are no guards on the island.
If a sentence is commuted or reversed, they are evacuated at the next monthly supply run.
Basic medicine would be provided, as well as telephone contact with a doctor. If they die, they die. Burials would be at sea, setting them adrift from the beach.
It would be very inexpensive to run, and a place no one would ever want to go to.
If some criminals choose an entirely anti-social life, why not give it to them?
Your fixation on Rudy's use of the word 'colleague' to try to prove that he is a liar strikes me as a bit silly. Colleague can mean something as generic as a fellow member of a profession. And as 1981-82 fellow appointees of Reagan, they likely did have some interaction, so what is your point? You are grasping at straws.
Re 'privileged', judge for yourself:
Antonin Scalia was born March 11, 1936, in Trenton, New Jersey, the only child of S. Eugene Scalia and Catherine Scalia. His father, who was born in Sicily and emigrated to the United States as a young man, was a professor of Romance languages. His mother, born to immigrant Italian parents, was a schoolteacher. As the first American of Italian heritage appointed to the Supreme Court, Scalia's ascent to the pinnacle of his profession was proclaimed by many as an example of the American dream.
When Scalia--"Nino" to his friends--was five years old, his father became a professor at Brooklyn College, and the family moved to Elmhurst, a section of Queens, New York. Growing up in New York was stimulating and challenging, particularly when Scalia carried the French horn he played in band to and from school on the subway during rush hour. He was a good student, first in public school in Queens and later at St. Francis Xavier, a military prep school in Manhattan, where he graduated first in his class. He received his A.B. summa cum laude in history in 1957 from Georgetown University and was the class valedictorian. At Harvard Law School, where he received his LL.B. magna cum laude, Scalia served as note editor of the Harvard Law Review. Following graduation, he spent a year traveling in Europe, including Eastern Europe, as a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard
Rudolph W. Giuliani was born in 1944, in Brooklyn, New York to working-class parents Harold Angel Giuliani and Helen C. D'Avanzo, both children of Italian immigrants. The family was Roman Catholic and its extended members included police officers, firefighters, and criminals. Harold Giuliani had trouble holding a job and had been convicted of felony assault and robbery and served time in Sing Sing prison; after his release he served as an enforcer for his brother-in-law Leo D'Avanzo, who ran an organized criminal loan sharking and gambling operation out of a restaurant in Brooklyn.
In 1951, when Rudy Giuliani was seven, his family moved from Brooklyn to Garden City South on Long Island. There he attended a local Catholic school, St. Anne's. Later, he commuted back to Brooklyn to attend Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School, graduating in 1961. He went on to Manhattan College in Riverdale, The Bronx, graduating in 1965. He then attended New York University School of Law in Manhattan, graduating cum laude (another source says magna cum laude) with a Juris Doctor in 1968.
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.
All I know is that he said Rudy would make a great President. Huh?
Robertson is confusing at times.