|
Posted on 05/09/2007 12:10:40 PM PDT by jedward
|
Maybe we should try to post something positive. about Rudy
He's a strong support of the 2nd Amendment - No that's not it.
He'd be great at appointing strict constructionist justices. Not quite
He would stand up against special rights for gays. - No, that isn't it.
He'd be great on illegal immigration. - Sorry can't say that.
He has high personal morality. Let's not go there.
Wait! I got it!
He is the one candidate who may look better in stockings than Hillary! - Thats it! Something positive.
Okay... how about 2nd Amendment support - Guiliani is against it.
How about gay rights? Guiliani is for them.
Abortion? As we've already covered, Guiliani is pro-choice (with the typical "personally opposed" fig leaf)
Illegal immigrants? Guiliani made NYC a "sanctuary city", thumbing his nose at federal law.
Taxes? Guiliani's support for tax increases outweigh his tax cuts. He also supported Cuomo over Pataki due to Pataki's position of cutting taxes.
War on terror? Prior to 9/11, Guiliani's record on terror was to downplay the terrorist aspect, while using the event to call for additional gun control for law abiding citizens.
Judges? Guiliani called Ginsburg an ideal choice for the US Supreme Court; he has recently said that a "strict constructionist" could rule any way they wanted.
Conservative enough? For whom???
Well, umm....FreedomNeocon, do you have any proof whatsoever that Giuliani will fight the war on terror better than any other republican candidate except for Ron Paul? People like you act like Giuliani is undisputedly the best, despite never serving in the military, just because of his nice and cheap words and speechs he made after September 11, 2001.
How can anyone in there right mind act like Giuliani is better for the war on terror than Duncan Hunter? Hunter served, has a son in Iraq, chaired the armed forces committee for years in Congress, yet he gets nothing. But oh, Giuliani made us feel good after 9/11. Big deal.
I love that visual! That’s a great one!
Too funny :)
Absolutely. Rudy lied yesterday and said NY wasn't a sanctuary city. He sued the federal government to stop them from enforcing immigration laws in 'his' city. He thinks the second amendment is about hunting.
And he hates ferrets.
http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/vanity-fairs-crazy-rudy-article.html It’s always worth recapping Giuliani’s famous riposte to a ferret owner who called in to the mayor’s weekly radio show to protest the city’s ban on them as pets:
Rudy: “There is something deranged about you.… The excessive concern you have for ferrets is something you should examine with a therapist.… There is something really, really very sad about you.… This excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness.… You should go consult a psychologist.… Your compulsion about—your excessive concern with it is a sign that there is something wrong in your personality.… You have a sickness, and I know it’s hard for you to accept that.… You need help.”
Also audio of it here: http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/02/audio_rudy_giul.html
Second, the Republican Party has won 5 of the last 7 elections---with the only two losses occurring when it moved 'to-the-left'!
If you think the Republican Party is just NOT LIBERAL ENOUGH,,,and you want to great accelerate the movement TO THE LEFT,,
JulieAnnie is JUST THE MAN FOR THE JOB!!
Win what? Certainly not anything worthwhile. I want us to win. For real. There is a difference.
In short, The Weekly Standard wishes to see, on a Republican ticket and a heartbeat away from the presidency, a proud liberal Democrat who supports partial-birth abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, gay rights, affirmative action, reparations for slavery, gun control, higher taxes on the top 2 percent, distribution of condoms in public schools and driver's licenses for illegal aliens.
What does Joe oppose? School prayer, the American Legion's flag amendment, Sam Alito, drilling in the ANWAR and any phase-out of death taxes.
Last year, Joe's rating by Americans for Democratic Action was 80. The ACLU gave him an 83, the NAACP an 85, the AFL-CIO a 92, LULAC a perfect 100. In 2004, Joe got a 100 rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League and a zero from National Right to Life. His American Conservative Union rating was zero. His Christian Coalition rating was zero. The National Rifle Association, which grades by letters, gave Joe a big, fat "F."
But as long as you support war in Lebanon, war in Iraq and a "war-fighting Republican Party," in The Weekly Standard's phrase, you get a pass on everything else. Beat the drum for permanent war for global democracy and against Islamo-fascism, and all other sins are forgiven you.
As long as ol' Rudy bangs that war drum, some people don't care what else he thinks. Some people really are war-mongers.
It’s no sure thing that the dim nominee will be Hillary.
“So it would seem that you want the anti-American pro al-Qaeda Democrats to win.”
Really? Is that what you get out of this thread, and the information provided in the thread? If so, then I’d say toke-up, by happy and piss off, I’m not interested in the way you think. What are you doing to support other republican candidates or help others gain information about them.
Far more is at stake than the Presidency. It’s up to the GOP to realize it or face the consequences.
If the GOP can do no better than the liberal abortionist, gungrabbing, queer-bot Giuliani, it deserves a very hard, arse-first fall.
You vote for Giuliani. You subtly tell Congress it’s okay to regulate your Second Amendment rights to defensive arms away.
Not me.
You vote for Giuliani. You subtly tell Congress it’s okay to require you embrace homosexual unions equal to your marriage vows, regardless of your religious convictions that they deem places you on a “hate” list.
Not me.
You vote for Giuliani. You subtly tell Congress it’s okay to allow a baby to be slaughtered so long as its head is still partially concealed and that you have no choice but to help fund those “procedures” because they believe it’s “constitutional”.
Not me.
And you vote for Giuliani. You subtly tell Congress it’s okay the government require you believe it is the all-powerful, final authority - not the people from whom that power comes and you must cede any of your rights upon its demand.
Definitely, not me.
Rejection of one rotten Apple decreases the likelihood the merchant would think of unloading the peck of bad ones on you.
I find the ferret tape very funny!! Thanks for the link!
that was a gun not numchucks.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0719,barrett,76566,2.html
“Giuliani has been seen on the campaign trail wearing a World Series ring, a valuable prize we never knew he had. Indeed, the Yankees have told the Voice that he has four rings, one for every world championship the Yankees won while he was mayor. Voice calls to other cities whose teams won the Series in the past decade have determined that Giuliani is the only mayor with a ring, much less four. If it sounds innocent, wait for the price tag. These are certainly no Canal Street cubic zirconia knockoffs.
With Giuliani’s name inscribed in the 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000 diamond-and-gold rings, memorabilia and baseball experts say they are collectively worth a minimum of $200,000.”
Rooty gets caught with 100’s of 1000’s of $$ worth of illegal gifts.
Boy, did you ever get your behind handed to you on this thread.
By moderate, you really mean liberal. Fred Thompson is a moderate (slightly right of center) Republican (Go here, scroll to bottom), while Giuliani is a liberal Republican. I defy you to find a more liberal Republican presidential candidate in the history of the United States. His record shows it. His statements demonstrate it. He's a damned liberal. Being pro-partial birth abortion is an EXTREME position, not moderate. It falls well within the liberal camp. Giuliani is pro-radical gay agenda (a member of the Stonewall Veterans Assocation - look it up), pro-abortionist, pro-national gun control, pro-gay marriage, pro-gay military, etc. These are not "moderate" positions. They are radical liberal postions.
In the 1850's, would you have been one of the Democrats saying "I really don't care about slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery...?" Would you? The issue we faced at that time, that lead to the very formation of the Republican Party, is precisely the same issue we're facing today. That is the protection of human life. In 1850 it was whether the life and freedom of humans with dark skin pigmentation should be protected. You and I will both agree that it is good that African slaves were recognized as human beings and set free. But, today, we have over a million human beings killed in the United States every year by abortion. The Party Platform recognizes the humanity of unborn children and calls for their lives to be protected from conception. Our greatest President, Ronald Reagan, also lead by example in proclaiming that unborn children deserve the full protection that Constitution provides. But, to you, it is a minor issue - an annoyance. "Slavery, slavery, slavery..." You should be ashamed.
“Saves them the pain and pride.”
Preventive Maintenance.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that! He does have a 'I'm entitled' attitude.
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.
