Skip to comments.Ron Paul = Hillary on the War; Rudy Giuliani = Hillary on abortion, etc
Posted on 09/23/2007 10:53:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Ron Paul = Hillary on the War; Rudy Giuliani = Hillary on abortion, gay rights, gun control, illegal aliens, etc. Neither are conservative. Neither are Republican. I would no more vote for the "Republican antiwar candidate" Ron Paul or the "Republican pro-choice candidate" Rudy Giuliani than I would the treasonous butcher Hillary Klintoon.
No need for humbleness.......you are spot on!!
Ron Paul is a leftist in the entire area of foreign policy and trade, not just war.
His policies of isolationism and protectionism are among the most dangerous in the entire presidential field.
Rut roh. Does this mean there’s going to be a purge of Paulistinians?
Rudy is our Hillary, Ron Paul is our Dennis Kucinich, Mitt is our John Edwards, John Cox is our Mike Gravel, and Fred is our new Ronald Reagan with a Southern accent...
Well, either the AMs do it, or we can wait for the men in white suits carrying butterfly nets.
We still have a number of FReepers who believe that if we refuse to vote for Rudy........................
“Oh, you wan’t Hillary then”
Yes, if we refuse to vote for a liberal, it stands to reason we are for a doctrinaire socialist.....LOL!!
So let me get this straight.
Ron Paul = No vote.
Rudy Giuliani = No vote.
Hillary Clinton = No vote.
Go Fred go!
In the primary, I would not vote for either.
In the general, if my choices are Hillary or Rudy, I will vote for Rudy. EVERY Republican is better than ANY Democrat in this election.
And let me add that, whatever your views on gun control, Giuliani’s use of the courts to punish a legally functioning industry is an abuse of the legal system.
It’s too bad Giuliani is not as zealous an advocate for conservative issues as he is for liberal issues.
I will not be voting for any constitution trampling liberal abortionist for president under any circumstances whatsoever. Party be damned.
I find Ron Paul's utter inability to acknowledge the seriousness and necessity of the war against Islamofascism incredibly disappointing, since otherwise it would be kinda nice to have someone with his other positions in the race as a serious contender -- it would spark some good debate. However, I cannot bring myself to support him.
Giuliani is so far off the mark I can't bring myself to write about him, much less support him.
I truly hope Fred Thompson mounts a successful challenge to the Giuliani juggernaut, since otherwise I don't hold much hope for the Republican ticket in 2008. I find Thompson's positions straightforward and comprehensible, and his style refreshing. I'm not a Fredhead (yet anyway), but so far he's looking the best of the litter.
“Its too bad Giuliani is not as zealous an advocate for conservative issues as he is for liberal issues.”
Too bad is right.
Who is more hungry for power....Rudy or Hillary?
Too close to call.
Rudy is indeed a lot like Clinton, and in more fundamental respects than mere policy... he is capable, intelligent, and evil. Assuming the last is a given, I would prefer to do without the former two. Heck, I'll take Ron Paul over Rudy.
On the up-and-up, if Ron Paul winds up running as a third party, he's going to draw off an awful lot of the Democrat vote. Or, to be more accurate, he will draw off an awful lot of the formerly Republican vote. As far as that goes, I say he's a great candidate to have around. ;)
I feel the same way.
I sense that Thompson is a clear supporter of traditional Constitutional Federalism -- the only one other than maybe Paul. But that also means Thompson likely won't support use of the Federal government to advance social conservative causes at the Federal level. Overall (being a big fan of the Constitution as it was written) I tend to support that Federalist view -- I'd rather address legislation regarding personal and moral issues at the State (or even local) level whenever possible.
May I ask your position on that?
I've not spent much time in New York, so I don't know Rudy as well as I know Hillary, so she seems more power hungry to me. But what I know about Rudy makes me cringe. From the example I gave in my earlier comment, you can see I despise him for all the reasons Jim posted, plus for abusing the legal system to promote a liberal cause. Rudy's not the worst Republican ([sotto voce] Ron Paul), but he's certainly no conservative.
What he said.
Assuming we get some originalists on the bench, overturn Roe vs Wade, and stop legislating from the judiciary, I’m all for it.
Do you really think any Democrats will vote for Paul because of his anti-war stance, in spite of the fact that everything else he stands for is diametrically opposed to the Democrats' socialist agenda? Dems are stupid, I grant you that, but are they THAT stupid???
If Paul runs 3rd-party, I fear he'd draw more conservatives who will hold their noses about the anti-war part, than he'd draw liberals who will hold their noses about everything else he thinks.
On the other hand, Paul's impossible blend of far-right and far-left positions may mean that NOBODY will vote for him except a few Paulistinians to whom that blend makes some sort of sense.
Suing gun manufacturers was a real piece of work : )
Ronald Reagan always advocated a big tent. As conservatives we still need to get to 50% +1.
Well said; agreed on all counts. Thanks for the reply.
Remember, it was Rudy who threw away our only chance to keep Hitlery out of the Senate in the first place. Rudy = Bill Clinton. He is a talented narcissist who threw it all away because he couldn't keep his zipper closed. Dumocrats don't have to worry about Hitlery doin' interns or floozies. She's more ambitious than that--shy wants to screw the whole nation.
Thanks for that visual image.... NOT. ;-)
Yeah. I’m not a big gun-rights nut. I have a hunting rifle and a handgun for personal protection (and a CCP). But the broader issue for me is that Giuliani is willing to use those methods to further a liberal cause. No telling what he’d do if he were President. He certainly wouldn’t do anything I’d like, or care what I thought about it. But he’d be in control of the DOJ, suing everyone he didn’t agree with.
B/S. Constitution trampling, gun grabbing, abortion rights pushing, gay rights pushing, illegal alien supporting lying liberal scumbags need not apply.
You don't have to be a "gun-rights nut" to see the danger in Rudy getting power.
The 2nd Amendment is the teeth in the Bill of Rights. It's not just about mounting a successful challenge to a foreign invasion, ya know.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.That also means our OWN government, when it becomes destructive of the security of our free Nation. Gun-grabbers are out to disarm Americans so that there is no threat to their power. The Founders were wise and foresaw that possibility too. That's not a "nutty" position -- it's built right into the Constitution.
That's what I mean by gun-rights nut.
However, like you said, the purpose of the second amendment is to protect us from our own government. So, law-abiding and sane citizens should have no restrictions on bearing small arms.
Do you think Ronald Reagan would have voted third party if his preferred candidate wasn’t nominated?
There is evidence he would.
“I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”
Probably. He didn't have party loyalty, he had values loyalty. He switched from Dem to Rep. If the Rep's had gone nuts on him, he'd have voted third party. Reagan was a true conservative.
Okay, I'll grant you that there are some absolutists lurking amongst those of us who believe that the 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear and means what it says. You may be cheered to know that there aren't that many who are that absolutist.
But at the risk of being labeled a gun-rights nut, let me explain the quandary.
The problem with drawing a line -- any line -- is that it allows a corrupt government to define you as being over that line, and take away your God-given rights. They don't like you? All they have to do is arrest and convict you of something, or declare you insane (and that's not very hard, if they want to do it).
Be very careful in defining that line, because you could find yourself on the wrong side of it, all too easily, in the precise circumstance when you need to be on the right side of it.
That said, I don't think that someone who is certifiably insane or a convicted serial killer should have unrestricted access to fully-automatic weapons, either. But in a sane world, those people would not be out loose on the street, either. The crazy would be in a rubber room for life, and the serial killer would be pushing up daisies; problem solved.
> Probably. He didn't have party loyalty, he had values loyalty. He switched from Dem to Rep. If the Rep's had gone nuts on him, he'd have voted third party. Reagan was a true conservative.
For example, would the populace stand for a city or State limiting our freedom of speech the way they limit our freedom to bear arms?
I'd like to see the reaction if the State of Texas sued NBC, CBS, and ABC because it thought the content of their newscasts were dangerous.
Have seen first hand L Ron Paul Paulestianians with signs and their anti war rants.
Also signs and material that 9/11 was an inside job and planes into the WTC were by remote control.
Talked first hand with them and just like talking to the
The Paulestianians on FR try to suck Conservatives into their cult and will make the election of a Democrat possible
Agreed. One picky point: Rights are God-given; the government can only guarantee those rights, it cannot grant them, nor rescind them. (Or conversely, if it does grant them, it can also take them away.) The role of the federal government in that regard is to guarantee, uniformly across all States, the God-given rights described in the Bill of Rights (explicitly and implicitly).
> Generally, this is one of the few things the federal government should be doing (along with immigration, etc) and not leave to the States. As soon as the federal government abdicates its authority, and allows States to limit our federal rights, we are screwed.
Agreed. The only stuff the Fed Gov should involve itself with are those things that affect all States (such as invasions, illegal immigration (but I repeat myself), roads, currency) and the guaranteeing of our God-given rights.
The idea that different States can arbitrarily limit 2nd Amendment rights drives me up a freakin' wall. It's exactly wrong; precisely backwards.
In the general, if my choices are Hillary or Rudy, I will vote for Rudy. EVERY Republican is better than ANY Democrat in this election.That's not necessarily true.
What is your take on the almost identical positions and level of responsibility of Senators McCain and Thompson in giving life to McCain/Feinold?
Who do you consider as a candidate that would make that a safe assumption?
Won’t be Giuliani. Or Romney. McCaine is out. Paul is a nutcase who can’t be trusted with national security. Of the remaining candidates, I’ll go with Thompson or Hunter.
Okay. Where can I find infomation on thier views on constitutional issues and interpretation?
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.