Posted on 04/25/2007 3:41:28 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
This is the start of a series of threads that will be used to expose the truth about Rudy Giuliani in his own words and deeds.
Please post all of the quotes, speeches, interview transcripts, video clips, photos, newspaper/magazine articles, reports, records, statistics, NYC budgets, NYC spending, political appointments, gun grabs, connections to the gun control lobby, lawsuits against gun manufacturers, the truth about crime reduction in NYC, private property grabs, asset forfeitures, abuses of office, individual rights trampling, constitution trampling, violations of public trust, violations of the rule of law, national security risks, failures in security preparedness prior to and after 911, corruption, graft, bribes, favors, union dealings, mob dealings, business dealings leveraged through government contracts and contacts, rainmaking for his business partners, connections to US, Middle East or South American oil and energy companies and law firms that have profited and or will profit from Giuliani's government offices especially if he becomes president, war profiteering, his personal and business finances, his train wreck of a private life and lack of character, lack of qualifications for high office, illegal alien sanctuaries, welfare for illegals, pandering to illegals/illegal alien lobby, support for the abortion and gay rights lobbies, NARAL connections and participation, past and current support for McCain-Feingold, connections and dealings with liberal officeholders or the liberal/socialist caucuses/lobbies, etc, etc, etc, that you can find.
We're primarily interested in the words from his own mouth or primary source records and reports of his deeds/misdeeds. All submissions must contain true facts with documentation and links to source documentation and a link to FR thread on the individual item if available.
We do not need to embellish the record. The ugly truth from his own liberal mouth will impeach his credibility and the reader will be able to disqualify the man from consideration for high office based solely on his own words and deeds.
Here's an example entry:
FOX News | Feb 6, 2007 | Hanity and Colmes
http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250497,00.html
HANNITY: Let me move on. And the issue of guns has come up a lot. When people talk about Mayor Giuliani, New York City had some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country. Do you support the right of people to carry handguns?
GIULIANI: I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms. When I was mayor of New York, I took over at a very, very difficult time. We were averaging about 2,000 murders a year, 10,000...
HANNITY: You inherited those laws, the gun laws in New York?
GIULIANI: Yes, and I used them. I used them to help bring down homicide. We reduced homicide, I think, by 65-70 percent. And some of it was by taking guns out of the streets of New York City.
So if you're talking about a city like New York, a densely populated area like New York, I think it's appropriate. You might have different laws other places, and maybe a lot of this gets resolved based on different states, different communities making decisions. After all, we do have a federal system of government in which you have the ability to accomplish that.
HANNITY: So you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?
GIULIANI: Yes, I mean, a place like New York that is densely populated, or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem, like a few cities are now, kind of coming back, thank goodness not New York, but some other cities, maybe you have one solution there and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you have a different set of rules.
HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?
GIULIANI: It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.
HANNITY: How do you feel about the Brady bill and assault ban?
GIULIANI: I was in favor of that as part of the crime bill. I was in favor of it because I thought that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at, 1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did.
Free Republic thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780940/posts
RUSH: Rudy Giuliani, setting himself apart from the field, at least with that appearance. Again, that was in Manchester, New Hampshire, at the Rockingham County Republican Party's annual Lincoln Day Dinner.
Of course Rush is a liberal - so what do you expect. The full transcipt and audio is on Rush's liberal web site. ???
Hardly. It was extremely short, and all I did was pose questions, and spoke of my own concerns. As for writing a catechism from the left, that is pure nonsense.
You people are so oversensitive to views that even question far-right orthodoxy, and so afraid of people who think differently than you, that a post like no. 7 freaks you out -- because it asks direct questions that require concrete responses. That fear and oversensensitivity is unhealthy.
Jim's responses to me speak volumes. I'll let others decide for themselves.
Here are some of his speeches on DUI asset seizures. He seems to think that its the greatest thing since sliced bread:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/99a/me990404.html
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/99a/me990221.html
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2001b/weekly/wkly0813.html
NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL MAY 20, 1999: The Giuliani Administration won a sweeping court victory yesterday upholding its get-tough policy of confiscating the cars of motorists arrested for drunk driving, which started in February. Acting Justice Michael Stallman broadly affirmed the statutory and constitutional underpinnings of the new seizure policy offered by the City Corporation Counsel’s Office, finding that no hearing — pre-or post-seizure — is required under state or federal due process principles as long as a criminal case is pending. Similarly, on one of the thorniest legal issues presented by the new policy, he concluded, the car seizures did not run afoul of the federal constitutional ban on “excessive fines.” Justice Stallman found that all of the objections ~~ dissolved under the common-sense observation that “the automobile of a drunk driver is the quintessential instrumentality of a crime — the sine qua non without which the crime could not be committed
I have read many but not all of his speeches. They show his liberal positions in his own words. They are at:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/
Haven’t had a chance to go thru the press releases yet!
Enjoy!
Dick Gephardt’s NARAL rating: 30% (somewhat pro-life)
Tom Daschle’s NARAL rating: 50% (moderate)
Rudy Giuliani’s NARAL rating: 100% (VERY pro-abortion)
Kinda puts everything in perspective. I guess that makes Rudy twice as liberal as Tommy Daschle, at least with regard to abortion!
Alrighty then. Put your holiness down for a minute and take a look at the bolded parts of your comments. ALL of the bolded parts.
speaking of laws, the Gospel is not "a set of laws", but then go on to say, The gospel says, God died for our lawbreaking.
First, I didn't know God died. I certainly missed THAT memo, but you insist that God died for our, and heres where it will get really tough for you, God died for our "lawbreaking".
So which is it?
...and please point out to me where you were taught that God died.
Like I said, back to bible school for you! Blackbird.
Are you unaware that Jesus was God?
Let’s make this simpler: Would you state, in your own words, the message of the Gospel? It will help give me a starting off point for you.
I'm aware that Jesus is The Son of God! Blackbird.
I see NO EVDENCE that you would understand any message of the Gospel. Please, explain to me where mear mortals would gain the ability to Crucify and kill God. JESUS died on the cross at the behest of God HIS FATHER to absolve me of my SINS. Seems to me, the simpler the message, the further over your head it goes. I'm no socon (and don't belittle those that are) but you certainly learned of the Gospel in a wholly different place than I did. Seek help in your failings to understand. Blackbird.
First of all, don’t worry about whether you think I would understand the Gospel or not, or where I learned it. I just need to hear you explain it in your words so our discussion is more meaningful.
Regarding Jesus/God: There is one God, and he exists in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each is completely God. This is known as the trinity. Jesus is God incarnate (”in the flesh”). It was very hard, even impossible, for Jews to accept this. They were taught never to worship a created thing. When Jesus accepted the worship of others, he outraged the Jewish religious leaders. He was a popular teacher (a rabbi) who attracted large crowds. People did worship him, but any ordinary rabbi would have been obligated to tell them to stop, and refuse to accept worship. Jesus just stood there and took it.
This is Christianity 101. Go ask your priest or pastor about it, then come talk to me. Meanwhile, outline your own view of the Gospel, and we can have a frame of reference for comparing our views.
No silly, I think we're done. You can't even address your "law" are not "laws" but "God died for our "LAWBREAKING" comment. Nothing else you say has any meaning to me. You want to exhalt your meaning of the Gospel on others, as if your interpretation of things is the only one, and frankly, that's why I don't associate myself with folk like you on this forum. My interpretation of the Gospel is not open for public consumption, hence you won't see me wear it on my sleeve from thread to thread. When you can step down off of your holy high horse you might have a chance to realize that you don't quite have the grasp you think you do. Trust me, we're done! Do have good day! Blackbird.
Well, let the record show who you’re the one running from a discussion, and refusing to share the Gospel (which all Christians are commanded to do).
You criticize my interpretation of the Bible, but refuse to express your own. Not a reasonable position in a discussion forum.
I don’t claim that my understanding of the Gospel is special. My understanding is a plain, widely-held view. I will state it in my own words:
1. Each of us is sinful and wicked, more sinful and wicked than we are willing to admit or dare comprehend. All our thoughts are sinful, as are our motives, even when we’re trying to do right. We are too wicked to save ourselves.
2. Each of us is loved and treasured by God, more loved and treasured than we dare hope for, and more than we can comprehend. His love is like that of a brother, a best friend, a father, and a lover, all wrapped into one. He treasures us more highly than anything, even his throne and personal glory.
3. Our sin separates us from having a loving, intimate, personal relationship with God. God takes sin seriously; he has no sin and cannot associate with sinners.
4. Sin demands a sacrifice. To solve this problem, the only solution acceptable to God (that would bring us to himself) was to come down to earth in the form of a man, Jesus. In this form, God lived the life we should have lived, and imputed that perfect life to our accounts. Then he took the combined penalty for all our sins, and in fact “became sin”, on the cross, was separated from the Father, experienced hell. When he was raised from the dead, he conquered death forever.
5. Those who trust in him to take their sin penalty, and turn from their sin, and believe he is God, come to earth as a man and raised from the dead, will live forever. We cannot be saved on our own. We cannot be saved by doing good works. We cannot be saved by keeping a set of rules. We cannot be saved merely by assenting to the truth of a set of correct doctrines. All of that is “religion”. Christianity is not a set of rules that will save us. It is not a religion. It is the opposite of religion.
That is how I would explain the Gospel (the good news).
***Rolls Eyes***
Who is running from the discussion?
You can't even address your "law" are not "laws" but "God died for our "LAWBREAKING" comment. Nothing else you say has any meaning to me.
See you around silly. Blackbird.
Vote in the primaries, ABR - Anybody But Rudy!
What exactly is your problem with my statement? You’ve objected to it, but you haven’t said why. Explain yourself so I can address it.
And while you’re at it, let me know if you have a problem with my explanation of the Gospel, and if so, which part and why.
Not only is Rudy pro-abortion, but he acts as if Margaret Sanger, PP’s founder, who ESPECIALLY wanted minority and poor peoples’ preborn babies to die, and started her evil work in NYC, is something to be proud of.
“Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani, 107th Mayor
Opening Remarks to the N.A.R.A.L. “Champions of Choice” Lunch
The Yale Club, Thursday, April 5th, 2001
As Delivered
Thank you very much for inviting me to say a few words of welcome. This event shows that people of different political parties and different political thinking can unite in support of choice. In doing so, we are upholding a distinguished tradition that began in our city starting with the work of Margaret Sanger and the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century.”
excerpt http://www.nyc.gov/html/rwg/html/2001b/champlunch.html
Vote in the Republican primaries, ABR, Anybody But Rudy, but my favorite TRUE CONSERVATIVE candidate is......... (read my tagline).
Why was NapkinUser banned? Anybody care to inform me, please?
This is the first that I heard about it. I wish I knew. He was the keeper of the Stop Rudy 2008 ping list. Probably an overzealous Admin Moderator with an itchy trigger finger.
The cause of violence in NY City is the same as everywhere else: Departure from our Biblical Christian foundation. The constitutions of the first thirteen states guaranteed "Protestant Christian Government" to all of their citizens, and when that was allowed to be undermined by socialist tampering with those principles, our society began to crumble.
Guns have never promoted violence; they prevent it. Get over it soon, OK?
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.