I Accept This Rudy For All His Faults

[MrSanity]

I'm not trying to stir the pot, but here it goes.

I haven't made my final decision as of yet for the presidential candidate I will support. However, I have come to terms with Rudy Giuliani - I don't like a lot of his domestic policies, but on terror, I think he's the best man we've got. I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination.

From my blog:
__________________________________________________ ____________
I Accept This Rudy For All His Faults
Mr. Sanity


There's plenty to be said about America's Mayor, and given his current popularity, much will be said. Given his diversified worldview, few disagree that there is a Rudy for everyone.

Because this presidential election will ultimately make way for America's path in the War on Terror, there may never be a better time for Rudy Giuliani to receive the nomination. The Democrats are likely to champion the "anti-war" position - no protection under the Patriot Act, immediate retreat from Iraq - while Giuliani remains a consistent but civil advocate for getting the job done at home and abroad. While many conservatives find him weak on domestic policies, few can deny that he has the necessary will to protect all Americans, whether serving in the military, or living amongst the civilian population.

The Democrats' biggest problem: when Americans think of 9/11, they think of Rudy Giuliani.

He dealt with the issue firsthand, and his leadership and charisma were vital in restoring not only New Yorkers, but America's ability to get on with their lives. As of now, no contending Democrat has a public image of confidence and security that Giuliani has. The same can be said just as easily about Giuliani's Republican contenders.

As of yet, there is no Republican candidate who can compete with Rudy Giuliani on the most important issue of our time - Radical Islam. While he masterminded the troop surge in Iraq, Arizona's Senator John McCain has lost credibility with conservative voters on many domestic policies. Although to the contrary, Mitt Romney, the Governor of Massachussetts, has morphed into a solid conservative over the last few years, he has established himself as a flip-flopper in doing so. Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas is a strong social conservative, but he is weak on border security. While I leave many second tier candidates unnamed, I have my reasons: they won't get the nomination. The only potential and viable alternative to Rudy Giuliani at this point is former Senator Fred Thompson, and he might not even run for office.

Indeed, Giuliani's resume as Mayor of New York City is impressive for many Americans. Prior to Mayor, he served as Associate Attorney General under Ronald Reagan in 1981. In 1983, he became United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Under Giuliani as Mayor, overall crime decreased by 56%, and murder by 66%, making New York City the safest large city in the country according to the FBI. Not a bad record for a nation that is weary of crime and terrorism, both foreign and domestic.

His economic performance was met with the same successes. When Giuliani first took office, one in seven New Yorkers were on welfare. Welfare rolls were reduced by 60% as a result of a welfare-to-work initiative, or "workfare," for buzzword's sake. In addition, 23 city taxes were either reduced or eliminated, turning a $2.3 billion budget deficit into an enormous surplus. As a result, 423,000 private sector jobs were created in his two terms as Mayor, and tourism grew to an all-time high.


In response to his leadership, Giuliani has won enormous praise from former presidential candidate Steve Forbes, now serving as Senior Policy Advisor for Giuliani's campaign. In an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal, Forbes writes:"He set out to restore fiscal discipline to the 'ungovernable city' – and achieved results that Reagan Republicans can applaud."Rudy has also received praise from columnist George F. Will, who has criticized the Bush Administration as too optimistic about the War in Iraq. He says of Giuliani:"His eight years as mayor of New York were the most successful episode of conservative governance in this country in the last 50 years."Other endorsements include neolibertarian comedian and talk show host Dennis Miller, Michigan state Rep. Jack Brandenburg, and former U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas Richard Blankenship.




Rudy's biggest problem: his ornery conservative base. While many applaud his accomplishments as Mayor of New York City, as well as his contagious tranquility on 9/11, the domestic issues have hurt Giuliani the most. He supports legalized abortion, although he now oppposes partial-birth abortion. He has praised both John Roberts and Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court..."I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to if not exactly the same as the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire. Justice Alito, someone I knew when he was US attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any-- that I'd do anything different with that."...while delivering a bothersome complement for the radical ex-ACLU General Counsel turned Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And [John Roberts] fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category. I mean, she was -- she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person."Other criticisms include gun control, illegal immigration, and a "Kerry-esque" stance on homosexuality. Yet in spite of a handful of liberal positions, Giuliani is most loathed for attending a Gay Pride event in drag. However, if he manages to keep his Dukakis moments to a minimum, he will maintain his popularity as America's Mayor, rather than the "Drag Queen of New York."

Social conservatives find these domestic policies comparable to Bill Clinton. They are also comparable to Barry Goldwater and Margaret Thatcher, who both advocated expanded rights for homosexuals and legalized abortion. Yet today, many conservatives continue to revive them as heroes who stood up to their enemies, as well as the establishment, in times of great moral conflict.

Social conservatism will be remembered for 2004, when "moral values" defined the re-election of President Bush, in spite of harsh criticism for the Iraq War. Predictably, the social conservative movement has since lost ground, as Congress was soft on the positions that mattered most to the American public. Consider the mid-term elections in 2006.

The Grand Old Party made every effort to repeat its prior successes with a brilliantly crafted catchphrase: "San Francisco Values." Considering the indictments leading up to the election, real (Mark Foley) or fake (Tom DeLay), even the most religious voters weren't swayed into voting straight GOP. It didn't matter that William Jefferson had nearly $100,000 found in his freezer, or that Harry Reid accepted illegal bribes from the boxing industry, because the GOP did not fight back. Now, we have Speaker Pelosi, and we don't know what to do with her.

Domestic issues aside, neither Rudy's Republican or Democratic opponents can compete with the leadership we saw on 9/11. Rudy Giuliani has the charisma to unite America that his contenders lack. Barack Obama has a sense of civility, but his lack of experience in any given area will be difficult to overcome. Hillary Clinton is effortlessly exposable as a partisan panderer. John Edwards hasn't reinvented himself, and is still obsessed with "The Two Americas."

While "San Francisco Values" was a slick cliche for a while, it has been worn out to exhaustion. It's time to mature as American citizens and focus on the number one issue of our time. The Presidential Election of 2008 will remain crucial, and our direction in the War on Terror will be determined once and for all.
__________________________________________________ ________

Permalink: http://socialsurgery.blogspot.com/2007/04/i-accept-this-rudy-for-all-his-faults.html

Still fixing up the template a little bit...

[Naturalized-Texan]

MrSanity: You have eloquently expressed my ambivalence about Rudy Giuliani. He is by far the best candidate to pursue the War on Terror to the victory that is necessary for the future of our nation, but he certainly is carrying a lot of baggage on social issues.

I agree that the only other potential candidate that can rival Rudy's toughness on fighting the War on Terror is Fred Thompson, and he carries none of that baggage on social issues.

BTW, the criticism about Rudy appearing in drag with Donald Trump is unfair. They were merely participating in an innocent spoof. It should not be held against him.

[The_Elucidator]

I'm with you two but the coals will get white hot over this thread.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

Tough on terror? I hope you're joking (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=45211&page=9).

I'm afraid I can't look past the blood of 3,000 fellow Americans and his own New Yorkers on his hands. The man made it his personal crusade to guarantee foreign criminals will be safe from justice under his watch, and thanks to the efforts of men like him, some of the very foreign lawbreakers he fought to protect from justice flew planes into the buildings of his "haven."

911 displayed one thing to me overwhelmingly. You cannot be "tough" on terror or crime unless you are "tough" on illegal immigration.

The Republican party might as well officially disband and merge with the damnable democrats if this homo-friendly, 2nd amendment-hating, baby-killing, mistress-cohabitating, criminal/sovereignty-erosion facilitator is all they have to offer. Men like this being candidates signify that conservatism is DEAD in the Republican party, and Republicans are nothing more than social marxists for lower taxes. He seriously turns my stomach, the manner in which he's praised for shepherding people through a crisis made possible by his own policies (and which could not have happened were he truly "tough" on crime like immigration violations), and so too does the manner in which Republicans are willing to vote for what are borderline all out leftists, simply because they call themselves Republicans.

I don't post as Republican Hero anymore specifically because of this sort of thing. This man is not a conservative, and neither too are the Republican party or its constituency, if they are habitually willing to compromise (almost utterly) their self-proclaimed principles and values to support a candidate based almost exclusively on him being someone who "can win" by out-lefting the dems on social policy.

[Wolfcounsel]

I'd bet a million to one Rudy would kiss bin Ladin's ass if the camel humper were to visit New York.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'm afraid I can't look past the blood of 3,000 fellow Americans and his own New Yorkers on his hands. The man made it his personal crusade to guarantee foreign criminals will be safe from justice under his watch, and thanks to the efforts of men like him, some of the very foreign lawbreakers he fought to protect from justice flew planes into the buildings of his "haven."
That's one of the biggest piles of crap I've ever seen on this board.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'd bet a million to one Rudy would kiss bin Ladin's ass if the camel humper were to visit New York.
I can't believe that you really wrote that. Has some left-wing conspiracy theorist stolen your identity? :D :biggrin:

[Wolfcounsel]

"I can't believe that you really wrote that. Has some left-wing conspiracy theorist stolen your identity? :D :biggrin:" --Naturalized-Texan

Any pro-murder candidate is <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->capable of kissing terrorist butt. Any of them.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Any pro-murder candidate is <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->capable of kissing terrorist butt. Any of them.
You know better than to post nonsense like that. C'mon. Get real.

[Maggie_T]

Sorry. Rudy is just oo liberal for me. Apart from kicking Islamofascist ass (so far), he stands for everything that goes against my principles.

[Riverboat]

I've bent over backwards to like this guy, but his latest announcement that he would let his wife sit in cabinet meetings was like seeing Jimmah in that yellow sweater making a national address back when I was a liberal. i can only bend over so far until I have to grab my ankles and I'm NOT about to let the rest of an ugly scenario take place in my dirt backyard.

[Lubbock]

I'm with Boat when it comes to the wife sitting in on Cabinet Meetings. That just about finished me with Rudy --of course, now he's backing off of it [another reason not to vote for him --too much backing off when someone calls his hand.] I've Twisted myself into a pretzel over the possibility of having to vote for Rudy. I guess I could do it if there isn't any other choice, but I ain't gonna like it.

McVain will make me sit this one out, but I don't think it's something I have to worry about; he'll be out by mid-summer.

We're all hoping for Thompson, and if he's going to make a move, he better get on with it.

Wolf, you're full of crap. You aren't often, but on this one, you are.

And if anyone plans to read anymore of CH's stuff, you better get stocked up on Reynolds Wrap ahead of time. Practice your orgami. You're going to have to learn to fold the foil into those funny-shaped hats with the pointy tops.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

...Tired of shooting too low
So raise the bar high
"Just enough," ain't enough this time
I ain't settlin' for anything less than everything.
"Settlin'" by Sugarland



1. He is a social liberal -- I will not, I cannot, I am not going to vote for ANY candidate that is pro-abortion, pro-"homosexual" (special) rights, anti-2nd Amendment.

2. We do not believe it when ACTUAL liberals claim they will uphold the Constitution and support constructionist judges -- why then would we believe a social liberal RINO when he says the same thing?

3. New York City is NOT comparable to the United States of America. He might have been fine as a "conservative"/Republican leader in New York, but he is NOT representative of conservatives, or even Republicans for that matter, as a whole.

4. My line in the sand has been drawn, I can go no further in support of a party that has abandoned it's principles if it chooses a candidate that no longer represents a conservative foundation. I pray a) the GOP wises up, and realizes ONLY a conservative Republican nominee will do, b) Fred Thompson cowboys up and runs, and c) the American people steps up and votes this country back to being the greatest nation in this world, by helping to elect him (Senator Thompson).

[ConservativeYouthMovement]

Right now, the only thing keeping this country the greatest nation on earth IS the war on terror. If no other candidate can win, he is the only option.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Then that's no option at all.

[Wolfcounsel]

It looks like I struck a nerve.:evilgrin:

I'm not voting for any pro-murder, pro-homo, anti-gun, fruit loop.

Except if he's running against Hillary. It's a two-horse race, people. Always has been as far as I know.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

...Tired of shooting too low
So raise the bar high
"Just enough," ain't enough this time
I ain't settlin' for anything less than everything.
"Settlin'" by Sugarland



1. He is a social liberal -- I will not, I cannot, I am not going to vote for ANY candidate that is pro-abortion, pro-"homosexual" (special) rights, anti-2nd Amendment.

2. We do not believe it when ACTUAL liberals claim they will uphold the Constitution and support constructionist judges -- why then would we believe a social liberal RINO when he says the same thing?

3. New York City is NOT comparable to the United States of America. He might have been fine as a "conservative"/Republican leader in New York, but he is NOT representative of conservatives, or even Republicans for that matter, as a whole.

4. My line in the sand has been drawn, I can go no further in support of a party that has abandoned it's principles if it chooses a candidate that no longer represents a conservative foundation. I pray a) the GOP wises up, and realizes ONLY a conservative Republican nominee will do, b) Fred Thompson cowboys up and runs, and c) the American people steps up and votes this country back to being the greatest nation in this world, by helping to elect him (Senator Thompson).

This is good to hear. It gives me a bit of hope. I couldn't care less what the wishy-washy Republicrats call me. I disassociated myself from the Republican party (for which Republicans attacked me) a few years ago because it's becoming more and more difficult to distinguish who exactly is the leftist. Especially with a man like Giuliani.

I'm so tired of oblivious Republicans shaking their heads in puzzlement at what happened to the Republican party/Conservatism. You know what happened to it? You did. Giuliani voters happened to it. Republicans are increasingly reminding of the finatical neo-marxist libertarians I've fought tooth and nail in the past in their efforts to redefine conservatism as nothing more than a right-wing economic policy, excising altogether morality and religious principle from conservatism. Wanting lower taxes and less government are the only criteria required for one to proclaim themselves a conservative. Ironically their "less goverment" serves to sanction virtually all things socially left as left can be as "less government" calls for the eradication of our religious heritage through the total secularization of our society, and the effective dissolution of both our borders and sovereignty through open immigration, with abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia being justified as "property rights." (Hell, some of these "conservatives" actually argued in favor of legalized bestiality, as according to these libertarians sex with animals too is a "property right.")

I see these same characteristics surfacing in republicans. Moral principle must be eviscerated and conservatism reduced to nothing more than economic policy in order to vote for a man who lived with his f**king mistress while still married. Morality and all sincerity in one's duty to God must be wholly excised from conservatism in order to consider voting for a man who essentially would make the election a question of, do I vote for the homosexual supporting/abortion defending/gun-grabbing/illegal immigrant appeaser for lower taxes (R),..... or the homosexual supporting/abortion defending/gun-grabbing/illegal immigrant appeaser for higher taxes (D)?

And just who the leftist is becomes harder and harder to tell.

[Republican_Legion]

That's one of the biggest piles of crap I've ever seen on this board.

Why dont you disprove it instead of calling it crap. I really dont like the way you call things crap without any proof or such data to back your case.

[Republican_Legion]

Tough on terror? I hope you're joking (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=45211&page=9).

I'm afraid I can't look past the blood of 3,000 fellow Americans and his own New Yorkers on his hands. The man made it his personal crusade to guarantee foreign criminals will be safe from justice under his watch, and thanks to the efforts of men like him, some of the very foreign lawbreakers he fought to protect from justice flew planes into the buildings of his "haven."

911 displayed one thing to me overwhelmingly. You cannot be "tough" on terror or crime unless you are "tough" on illegal immigration.

The Republican party might as well officially disband and merge with the damnable democrats if this homo-friendly, 2nd amendment-hating, baby-killing, mistress-cohabitating, criminal/sovereignty-erosion facilitator is all they have to offer. Men like this being candidates signify that conservatism is DEAD in the Republican party, and Republicans are nothing more than social marxists for lower taxes. He seriously turns my stomach, the manner in which he's praised for shepherding people through a crisis made possible by his own policies (and which could not have happened were he truly "tough" on crime like immigration violations), and so too does the manner in which Republicans are willing to vote for what are borderline all out leftists, simply because they call themselves Republicans.

I don't post as Republican Hero anymore specifically because of this sort of thing. This man is not a conservative, and neither too are the Republican party or its constituency, if they are habitually willing to compromise (almost utterly) their self-proclaimed principles and values to support a candidate based almost exclusively on him being someone who "can win" by out-lefting the dems on social policy.

The rudy fanclub will totally ignore it and they wont even bother to look it up. Good job for posting it. Its a shame the rudy club wont even try to disprove it.

What good is rudy on the war on terror if he lets Terrorists immigrate here and plan terrorists attacks ? What good is a war on terror candidate if his domestic policys give us nothing worth defending ?

The "Country Club Republicans" like Rudy, believe in immoral/sinful values and with the only conservative stance they have is tax cuts because it will help them in their personal life. They dont care about society or about cutting the PORK or securing the border. All they care is that their wallet stays big and thats all that matters to them and that their daughter or mistress can get an Legal abortion.

They are nothing more than Liberals who support tax cuts because unlike the other Liberals they figured it out that Tax cuts will help them spend more money towards their evil Agenda such as NARAL/ACLU/ELF/HRC etc. Thus when a candidate like Rudy pops up they get excited and go lengths to defend him.

[Lubbock]

Speakng of Rudy . . .

I hope everyone is keeping up with the "Draft Fred" website.

Now that I've gone back to being a full time Working Girl, I don't have much time to keep up with a lot of things, and the Thompson possibility is one of those things. About all I get is whatever's posted here, and links to articles and sites.

[The_Elucidator]

I'm so tired of oblivious Republicans shaking their heads in puzzlement at what happened to the Republican party/Conservatism. You know what happened to it? You did. Giuliani voters happened to it.


Ain't nobody here shaking their heads in puzzlement at what happened to the Republican party, NOBODY! What we are shaking our heads at is the complete lack of viable candidates WILLING to throw their hat into the ring to run against the most left winged nuts the 'Rats have to offer.

I am all for Fred Thompson 1000000000000%. But if he decides not to run that will just prove what I am talking about, and I DON"T want to be proven right on this one!

Every year 10's of thousands of young kids sign on that dotted line to possibly pay the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Yet we have established successful men and women who aren't willing to do the very same thing for the country by running for political office.

Too many men and women have died giving us the freedom to vote, so staying home is NOT an option for me. And if dying a slow bleed by voting for Rudy over Hitlery is what we get, then so be it. You can later patch a slow bleed, you CAN"T patch a freakin' decapitation!

[Naturalized-Texan]

Why dont you disprove it instead of calling it crap. I really dont like the way you call things crap without any proof or such data to back your case.
When one posts crap, it needs to be pointed out. Crap is always very obvious and very stinky no matter where it's found - in the toilet, in a farmer's field, or in crappy posts - so there is no need to be superfluous by trying to prove that it's crap.

[Wolfcounsel]

Okay, N-T. Can you answer if this is crap or not--

President Bush is doing a great job of protecting our borders from foreign intrusion.

Crap or truth?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Every year 10's of thousands of young kids sign on that dotted line to possibly pay the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Yet we have established successful men and women who aren't willing to do the very same thing for the country by running for political office.
All one has to do to understand why "we have established successful men and women who aren't willing to do the very same thing for the country by running for political office" is to read Tom DeLay's book, No Retreat, No Surrender, as I just have, to see how a successful man and a tremendously successful conservative leader like DeLay has suffered from the the left-wing politics of personal destruction. The trumped-up charges made against Tom DeLay in the past 8 or 9 years have cost him millions of dollars in lawyers' fees and imposed tremendous personal hardships on his family, and it isn't over yet.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Okay, N-T. Can you answer if this is crap or not--

President Bush is doing a great job of protecting our borders from foreign intrusion.

Crap or truth?
Crap, but that has nothing to do with the crappy lie posted by CONSERVATIVE HERO that Rudy Giuliani has "the blood of 3,000 fellow Americans and his own New Yorkers on his hands." That is a flat-out, bald-faced LIE and he/she/it knows it. In other words, it's crap.

[Wolfcounsel]

Okay, N-T. Thanks. And, yes, that was crap I posted about Rudy kissing Osama's butt. I get brain farts when I don't mix enough prune juice in my coffee.

[Lazarus]

I see absolutely no evidence that indicates that Giuliani is qualified to be anything but a City mayor... There is nothing on his resume' that qualifies him as the only candidate capable of fighting the war on terror - So far, all he has demonstrated to us is that he is capable of efficiently organizing the fire and rescue squads and cleaning up some bombed out buildings...

Giuliani is no more qualified to deal with international issues than McCain - In fact McCain, with his military and Senate background, is probably MORE qualified on that front...

Giuliani is NO Conservative, and IMO is the absolute WORST choice for Conservatives to make for this party's candidate... He is pro-homosexual... He is anti-gun... I could probably list any number of other Conservative issues that he stands in opposition to, but those two alone negate him as a candidate...

Giuliani is a New York Liberal - Done! Dont swallow the media hype about him being America's mayor - He's not! What he is, is the Left's backup in case they fail to get a Dem elected to the Whitehouse... They want their candidate to win first and foremost - but failing that, they want Giuliani on the Republican side...

[ANI]

I like Rudy...I think that he's got great leadership skills..but, he's not my first choice...at this point I would love to see the Republican ticket..as Thompson/Hunter...that I could get excited about and involved with.


Edited by DD to remove useless HTML code.

[Beowulf]

It looks like I struck a nerve.:evilgrin:

I'm not voting for any pro-murder, pro-homo, anti-gun, fruit loop.

Except if he's running against Hillary.

Nice choice we would have then wouldn't we? Hitlery will finish off the country quickly or Rudy would finish it off slowly. I'll take a third party over that option thanks.

[BuckeyeMike]

Me too!

[Bluemoon_Rising]

I like Rudy; if he's the nominee, I'll happily support him. As for his personal views touching on the social issues of abortion and marriage, he's made it clear that as far as court appointees go, he will appoint strict constructionists. If this means he will avoid those who would create civil rights protections out of thin air along these lines then his personal views are significantly less relevant. Rudy is a tough guy; he'll hold the conservative line on economic policy and the war on terrorism.

On the other hand, should he prove himself to be incapable of putting his personal views aside -- as I do expect, demand, that he promote the conservative line on family and 2nd Amendment issues -- I'll drop him like a bad habit.

I'm still waiting for my sort of conservative to emerge, one that can win. For me, Fred Thompson ain't it.

The bottom line: anyone but a Democrat.

[Beowulf]

I'll support McCain if he's the nominee, but I like Rudy better more and more.
He also fits my earlier post. I'll vote 3rd party in this case as well.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Nice choice we would have then wouldn't we? Hitlery will finish off the country quickly or Rudy would finish it off slowly. I'll take a third party over that option thanks." --Beowulf

Anybody who thinks a third party candidate stands a chance, okay. He has a 50-50 chance of being elected. He either will, or he won't. That's 50-50.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'm still waiting for my sort of conservative to emerge, one that can win. For me, Fred Thompson ain't it.
Why not Fred Thompson? I think that he is by far the best bet to win in 2008.

[Beowulf]

Why not Fred Thompson? I think that he is by far the best bet to win in 2008.
With that, I agree. I can't support a McCain or a Guiliani no matter what.

[The_Elucidator]

Okay, N-T. Thanks. And, yes, that was crap I posted about Rudy kissing Osama's butt. I get brain farts when I don't mix enough prune juice in my coffee.

Prune juice in coffee...Wolf, please tell me you are kidding... :fart2:


On a more serious note though...I think there is a misunderstanding about the Pro Rudy crowd, if I may! This has nothing to do with folks on this board thinking that Rudy is the next coming of Ronald Reagan. This comes down to some willing to hold their nose and try to keep Hitlery out of office and some that are so fed up that can't do that! Nothing more, nothing less! This doesn't require finger pointing, name calling (neo-con comes to mind) or anything of the sort. With Hitlery and a 'Rat controlled house & senate we know for a fact that we will get social engineered communism shoved down our throat. With Rudy who knows what the hell we will get, but given the choice between the two I'll take chance over a sure thing!

And this isn't about just the POTUS either. Rudy or Fred or Hitlery or even Osama Obama isn't the end all catch all. It's our responsibility to make sure that we have good conservatives in the houses of congress so that whoever is elected the POTUS can't shove any unwanted crap down our throats. And again it comes down to getting electable conservatives to even run for office. Even some of the outstanding conservatives were swept from office in this last wave of "sending a message." We lost J.D. Hayworth from AZ who was one of the strongest border advocates we had...but voters stayed home because they weren't energized and now...well, you get my message!

[Wolfcounsel]

Try two fingers of prune juice in your beer! Delicious!

Okay. Back to the topic of Rudy Patoody.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

Ain't nobody here shaking their heads in puzzlement at what happened to the Republican party, NOBODY! What we are shaking our heads at is the complete lack of viable candidates WILLING to throw their hat into the ring to run against the most left winged nuts the 'Rats have to offer.
There are viable candidates, but they're not being supported by their own party, which is instead opting for someone that (by compromising conservative principles altogether) "can win." One can only ask why they'd do this. Is it perhaps because Republicans no longer represent conservative principles? And just how could Republicans who don't represent conservative principles even be in the party, much less be candidates, unless republican voters were all too willing to vote for who "can win?"

Crap, but that has nothing to do with the crappy lie posted by CONSERVATIVE HERO that Rudy Giuliani has "the blood of 3,000 fellow Americans and his own New Yorkers on his hands." That is a flat-out, bald-faced LIE and he/she/it knows it. In other words, it's crap.
A lie? Not at all. Harsh? Yes. I didn't say he killed them, but he sure as hell did his part (as did every politician who failed to uphold immigration law) to make it possible for it to occur. He especially takes the cake in my eyes. The man essentially did everything in his power to protect criminal immigration violators, to make his city a haven for them, and as a result some of the very criminals he made it a personal crusade to protect murdered 3,000 of his city's residents. That's more than just a mistake to me. He failed, nay outright refused, to uphold immigration law and it contributed to people dying. The people who flew planes into the towers weren't just terrorists, almost all of them were illegal immigrants, and Giuliani is a man that was hellbent on protecting illegal immigrants.

I honestly don't care if you disagree. If you're someone who'd vote for this man, I think it's safe to say you're about as conservative as he is (and every bit as willing to compromise principle for power as is the party leadership), and there's no productive conversation we could have on the topic.

The bottom line: anyone but a Democrat.
This is amusing, as a vote for Giuliani is a vote for a democrat. One can't be looking at anything other than the title by a candidate's name (cause it sure isn't the issues) and honestly say a vote for Giuliani would be much different.

So this is what the Republican party has become. "Compromise your principles to win." What good is winning if you've compromised to the point you elect someone who doesn't stand for anything you believe?

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Why not Fred Thompson? I think that he is by far the best bet to win in 2008.

I suppose I'm still smarting from Thompson's decision to back McCain and become his national co-chairman in 2000. At the time I was furious with McCain and haven't exactly warmed up to him since. McCain-Feingold, a disastrous piece of legislation, which Thompson supported, pissed me off.

I have to ask myself -- with McCain in the running -- what exactly is Thompson's contribution?

I'm a practical man, however. If he's the nominee I'll back him.

[Naturalized-Texan]

A lie? Not at all. Harsh? Yes. I didn't say he killed them, but he sure as hell did his part (as did every politician who failed to uphold immigration law) to make it possible for it to occur. He especially takes the cake in my eyes. The man essentially did everything in his power to protect criminal immigration violators, to make his city a haven for them, and as a result some of the very criminals he made it a personal crusade to protect murdered 3,000 of his city's residents. That's more than just a mistake to me. He failed, nay outright refused, to uphold immigration law and it contributed to people dying. The people who flew planes into the towers weren't just terrorists, almost all of them were illegal immigrants, and Giuliani is a man that was hellbent on protecting illegal immigrants.
It's still an flat-out, bald-faced lie to maintain that Rudy Giuliani has "the blood of 3,000 fellow Americans and his own New Yorkers on his hands" no matter how much spinning you do and you are certainly spinning like a top

I honestly don't care if you disagree. If you're someone who'd vote for this man, I think it's safe to say you're about as conservative as he is (and every bit as willing to compromise principle for power as is the party leadership), and there's no productive conversation we could have on the topic.
Where have I ever said that I would vote for Giuliani? Please provide the proof. I'm merely objecting to those who falsely portray Giuliani's position as you did. I would make the same objection if you were falsely portraying the positions on any candidate.

We've had others, who are no longer here, who have falsely accused some of us of being unprincipled. Don't you start.

Please look at my Avatar to see where I stand.

[The_Elucidator]

There are viable candidates, but they're not being supported by their own party,



This is not a true statement, it is only opinion! God, sometimes I feel like I'm beating my head against the wall. This mythical establishment that keeps getting harped on about supporting only RINOS, who is it? Who runs it?

One of the biggest problems that Sen Liz Dole had was finding conservative candidates that were willing to withstand the politics of personal destruction and run for public office. It's easy to find a RINO who is pro-choice, anti-gun, anti/pro whatever because they won't be under as much scrutiny as a true conservative. This isn't a huge conspiracy, but it is a battle, and it's a battle that we are going to lose as long as Conservative candidates with name recognition aren't willing to step up to the plate and run for office. And on that note, I have to question whether or not a candidate that is wishy-washy about running will have the balls to be a true leader anyway!

I'm sorry but I'm not buying the crap about Republicans not getting behind conservative candidates, especially if they don't know who in the hell they are! Tom Tancredo is well know in his congressional district and by those on the board, and if nominated would be voted for by everyone on this board 'cept Book and his clan; but outside of his district what else has he done to become known?

[Naturalized-Texan]

This is not a true statement, it is only opinion! God, sometimes I feel like I'm beating my head against the wall. This mythical establishment that keeps getting harped on about supporting only RINOS, who is it? Who runs it?
Ironically, in the 2000 Republican primaries, the establishment candidate was John McCain and the anti-establishment candidate was George W. Bush. As we know, the anti-establishment candidate won because the conservative grass roots rose up and smote the establishment.

One of the biggest problems that Sen Liz Dole had was finding conservative candidates that were willing to withstand the politics of personal destruction and run for public office. It's easy to find a RINO who is pro-choice, anti-gun, anti/pro whatever because they won't be under as much scrutiny as a true conservative. This isn't a huge conspiracy, but it is a battle, and it's a battle that we are going to lose as long as Conservative candidates with name recognition aren't willing to step up to the plate and run for office. And on that note, I have to question whether or not a candidate that is wishy-washy about running will have the balls to be a true leader anyway!
Tom DeLay says much the same thing in his book, as I have been noting in the past couple of days.

I'm sorry but I'm not buying the crap about Republicans not getting behind conservative candidates, especially if they don't know who in the hell they are! Tom Tancredo is well know in his congressional district and by those on the board, and if nominated would be voted for by everyone on this board 'cept Book and his clan; but outside of his district what else has he done to become known?
If the Republicans nominate a conservative, the conservative grass roots will again rise up and smite the establishment.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

This is amusing, as a vote for Giuliani is a vote for a democrat. One can't be looking at anything other than the title by a candidate's name (cause it sure isn't the issues) and honestly say a vote for Giuliani would be much different.

So this is what the Republican party has become. "Compromise your principles to win." What good is winning if you've compromised to the point you elect someone who doesn't stand for anything you believe?

Rudy does stand for a number of things I believe in. He took the nation's greatest city that was in utter ruin at the time and transformed it with a hard-nosed, zero-tolerance enforcement of the law against violations of life and private property, with dramatic reductions of outrageous tax rates and with a war on socialist pan-handling, i.e., the welfare plantation. In terms of his convictions on social economics, he is a staunch Reaganite, every bit as dependable as any conservative you wish to name on that score.

I thought I made my position clear. Should he be the nominee, I am willing to back him against any Democratic alternative as long as he is prepared to refrain from imposing his personal views on the judiciary at the national level. He says that he is. For the moment, I’m seriously considering him accordingly.

Beyond that, make no mistake about it, my conservative credentials are beyond reproach. I am perhaps the most conservative member on this board, and my enmity for governmentally enforced civil rights protections against life or prefaced on behavior -- read, ultimately, ideology -- are well documented.

[DesertFox]

What Moon said. Giuliani amply proved himself in New York City, taking on a Leftist establishment that was as corrupt as San Francisco's is nutty -- and turning it around.

Too, I get the impression that Rudy's attitudes on some issues aren't so much favorable as "I don't have a dog in that fight." I'm that way about a lotta things that upset many of my conservative friends.

[MrSanity]

I'm not surprised by all the tomatoes being thrown at America's Mayor. It has been made clear as daylight that he is not domestically and socially conservative.

However, suppose he gets the nomination, which is pretty likely at this point.

Are you going to vote for Rudy, or are you going to vote for the third party candidate in the green pants who wants us to apologize for our involvement in Iraq?

[Lazarus]

I'm not surprised by all the tomatoes being thrown at America's Mayor....Oh please, Sanity... Please, do refrain from subjecting us to that Pop Culture, Media Sweetheart crap (since we are discussing crap so openly here today)...

Giuliani is not America's Mayor... Nor is he America's Hero, Daddy, or Sweetheart... I dont mind debating the pros and cons of Giuliani - I admit that I admire how he cleaned up New York... But lets try to leave the MSM propoganda out of it, shall we? I accept that you approve of Giuliani - But I dont, and I resent anyone trying to tell me that he's MY Mayor - He's not!

We've had others, who are no longer here, who have falsely accused some of us of being unprincipled. Don't you start.Sounds like a threat, Tex... IS that a threat?:brow:

[The_Elucidator]

I accept that you approve of Giuliani - But I dont, and I resent anyone trying to tell me that he's MY Mayor - He's not!


I take it that neither the Dallas Cowboys or the Atlanta Braves are your teams either... :biggrin: After all they are AMERICAS teams...!

[Lazarus]

...Too, I get the impression that Rudy's attitudes on some issues aren't so much favorable as "I don't have a dog in that fight." I'm that way about a lotta things that upset many of my conservative friends.Only problem is, Fox, if and when Giuliani becomes president, he WILL have "dogs" in every fight, whether he openly has them in today... He WILL have positions on every issue that is on the table - As president, he must... And I for one dont want to get screwed over the issues he doesnt want to discuss today...

My butt is still hurting over Mr Bush and his "unpublicized" Latinization of America policy... That was one of those Dogs that wasnt in the fight when we elected him... Im not gonna take that chance again... Every candidate for president had dogs in every fight - Some just dont want to reveal those dogs during the campaign... This time, I intend to know every one of them...

[Lazarus]

I take it that neither the Dallas Cowboys or the Atlanta Braves are your teams either... :biggrin: After all they are AMERICAS teams...!Right on the mark! Although I did like Dallas when Staubach was playing... :biggrin:

[The_Elucidator]

Right on the mark! Although I did like Dallas when Staubach was playing... :biggrin:

:roar: Man your old Laz!

[The_Elucidator]

My butt is still hurting over Mr Bush and his "unpublicized" Latinization of America policy...

Laz, You think it hurts now, wait till Hitlery's new healthcare policy hits and they euthanize your butt instead of giving you a kidney transplant cause it's more cost effective. :ooo:

[Lazarus]

:roar: Man your old Laz!You better believe it, Bro... I remember when the Braves were all Ted Turner had to offer TV (not that he offers much more than that now:rolleyes: ):D..

Laz, You think it hurts now, wait till Hitlery's new healthcare policy hits and they euthanize your butt instead of giving you a kidney transplant cause it's more cost effective. :ooo:Yeah but it'll be FREE!!! And isnt that what we all really want? :ooo: Who cares if we all die - We'll all be Equal!!!

Free at Last!!! Free at Last!!!

Sorry, I'm in a loony mood today... :D

Hey, I marked Hilary down as a screaming hardcore Marxist back when she was in her "Co-Presidency" with BJ Billy... So I know what column she is listed in... She is our Winney Mandella - the American "Madame Mao"...

Its all those "dogs" that arent in the fight that worry me - especially on the Republican side... One wonders what undeclared Healthcare Dogs are waiting out there to bite us in the ass...:smirky:
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Rhino]

The rudy fanclub will totally ignore it and they wont even bother to look it up. Good job for posting it. Its a shame the rudy club wont even try to disprove it.As far as his stance on illegal immigration, I agree. But trying to say he's personally responsible for 9/11, or that illegal immigration policy even had anything to do with 9/11, is beyond ridiculous, unless you like tinfoil hats. I don't. And I'm far from being in a 'rudy club'. I don't care for him at all, but trying to say he's responsible for 9/11? Puh-leeeeze! http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/drunk000.gif

[Naturalized-Texan]

Sounds like a threat, Tex... IS that a threat?:brow:
No, it was a warning from my status as a Mod. However, I'll use your question as the jumping off point for the following elaboration:

Once again I have been attacked as being unprincipled. I'll proudly pit my conservative credentials against those of any other conservative posting here and come out at least even with them.

It would be a gross violation of my principles to vote in such a way as to help someone like Hitlery or Barak Hussein Obama get elected president - i.e., by either voting 3rd party or by not voting. Helping someone like them become president would be by far the worst disaster that could possible befall our great nation, a disaster from which it could easily take a generation or more to recover - or even worse, could easily result in the slaughter of millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent Americans, including our children and grandchildren, in terrorist attacks from which we would have no defense.

Before someone asks: Yes, I could hold my nose and vote for Giuliani should he get the Republican nomination. I don't think that McCain has a snowball's chance in hell to get the Republican nomination, so I don't think that I will be faced with the tough decision about whether or not I will vote for him, so don't even ask.

That said, I want Fred Thompson to be our next president.

[Lazarus]

No, it was a warning from my status as a Mod....Warning against what? I seem to have missed the infraction... Was a board rule violated?

[thenotch]

Rudy is nothing but show... his positions on moral American values are too far to the left...

America's Mayor? Whatever... he is a homo-loving, baby killing, adulterer... yeah.. thats who I want as our President... :rolleyes:

[omegatrump]

I'd bet a million to one Rudy would kiss bin Ladin's ass if the camel humper were to visit New York.


I don't get where the Rinos think he is tough on terror. He hasn't done one thing to eliminate terror. The first thing this liberal lackey will do is declare all private owner ship of firearms illegal. Just like New York.

This guy is a pathetic Joke. One thing is for sure he sure exposes the liberals in the Republican party.

[DesertFox]

He hasn't done one thing to eliminate terror.Neither have you. Nor I. Nor Aunt Jemima. None of us, Rudy included, is in any position to do anything to eliminate terror, unless we shoot a terrorist.

The first thing this liberal lackey will do is declare all private owner ship of firearms illegal.I don't think so. He had to play by the local rules to win in NYC, since it's true that all politics is local.

The first thing this liberal lackey will do is declare all private owner ship of firearms illegal.Rudy may be a lotta bad things, but "pathetic joke" ain't among them. He is a mighty competent fellow, real smart, far more able an executive than almost anyone else out there. Don't let hatred blind you to his very real ability.

[Lazarus]

I don't get where the Rinos think he is tough on terror. He hasn't done one thing to eliminate terror...Precisely the point I was making in my initial post... Just because he stepped up and oversaw the rescue effort in New York City with a moderate degree of efficiency (which I would expect since it WAS his job), that does not magicly endow him with the title of "Terrorist-Fighter" - Regardless of how often the MSM tries to pin such a title on him... In fact, such an overwhelming endorsement from the MSM tends to automatically give me cause for suspicion...

[DesertFox]

Not me. The MSM dasn't attack Rudy. America saw him acting magisterially in a role no mayor had ever played. America properly has a fondness for Giuliani, who knew what to do when nobody else did, and the MSM always follow the Pied Piper.

[The_Elucidator]

that does not magicly endow him with the title of "Terrorist-Fighter" - Regardless of how often the MSM tries to pin such a title on him...

So how then did BJ Billy get the title of "The first black President?" Can ya answer that one Laz, can ya huh, can ya...betcha can't...

[Lazarus]

...Rudy may be a lotta bad things, but "pathetic joke" ain't among them. He is a mighty competent fellow, real smart, far more able an executive than almost anyone else out there. Don't let hatred blind you to his very real ability.I've always thought he was an excellent city manager... I'll give him that credit without reservation...

But there are some who have declared that he is the best choice to deal with the Terrorist threat, and I just dont see the incredible leap of logic from the Former ot the Latter - There simply is no objective evidence to support such an assertion... And on top of that, I might add that there are a lot more problems on our national table than Bin Laden and company... Being an efficient big city mayor does not automatically qualify one to be the President of the nation...

Such an assertion reminds me of those who like to promote Condolesa Rice for president... She may be an outstanding diplomat, but that does not in the least qualify her to make the enormous leap to POTUS... All we know about her is that she is articulate, well-dressed, and loyal to George Bush... To suggest that these qualities alone qualify her to be the chief executive is irresponsible and shallow at best - yet some have made just such a suggestion...

I feel like the same celebrity worship is what is recommending Giuliani for the job...

[Lazarus]

So how then did BJ Billy get the title of "The first black President?" Can ya answer that one Laz, can ya huh, can ya...betcha can't...When all else fails, I fall back on our stock answer... "It was the Liberal Media...!":thumb:

Personally I know and respect too many decent Black people to insult them by associating such a conman with them...:D

[Republican_Legion]

As far as his stance on illegal immigration, I agree. But trying to say he's personally responsible for 9/11, or that illegal immigration policy even had anything to do with 9/11, is beyond ridiculous, unless you like tinfoil hats. I don't. And I'm far from being in a 'rudy club'. I don't care for him at all, but trying to say he's responsible for 9/11? Puh-leeeeze! http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/drunk000.gif

I never said he was responsible for 911.
He contributed to the weakened securtity that led to 911.
We would have had a better chance to stop 911 had he not been an Open Borders amnesty guy. Nothing far fetched about that.

[Republican_Legion]

I've always thought he was an excellent city manager... I'll give him that credit without reservation...

But there are some who have declared that he is the best choice to deal with the Terrorist threat, and I just dont see the incredible leap of logic from the Former ot the Latter - There simply is no objective evidence to support such an assertion... And on top of that, I might add that there are a lot more problems on our national table than Bin Laden and company... Being an efficient big city mayor does not automatically qualify one to be the President of the nation...

Such an assertion reminds me of those who like to promote Condolesa Rice for president... She may be an outstanding diplomat, but that does not in the least qualify her to make the enormous leap to POTUS... All we know about her is that she is articulate, well-dressed, and loyal to George Bush... To suggest that these qualities alone qualify her to be the chief executive is irresponsible and shallow at best - yet some have made just such a suggestion...

I feel like the same celebrity worship is what is recommending Giuliani for the job...

Ditto.:claps:

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

It's still an flat-out, bald-faced lie to maintain that Rudy Giuliani has "the blood of 3,000 fellow Americans and his own New Yorkers on his hands" no matter how much spinning you do and you are certainly spinning like a top
/Yawn Un huh, yeah. Blood on his hands means nothing more than I feel he has some fault or blame (which I've already explained). For example Pilot didn't kill Jesus, but he did have blood on his hands because he had the opportunity to do the right thing, but chose not to. I'll say it again, since some seem to be having a hard time grasping it. If it were not for men like Giuliani, it would have been virtually impossible for 911 to transpire, as most of the terrorists (who were immigration violators) would have been either incarcerated or deported.

Perhaps I made a poor choice of wording to express my opinion. Oh well. But I suppose you'll just keep ignoring what I say to clarify my opinion and continue telling me what I think. If you ask me, the man is nigh unsupportable as a conservative candidate, thus erroneous claims against him (like saying I said 911 was his fault) must be outright fabricated in order to find any cause to defend/support him at all. As aside from this his pretty much sole selling point is that we should support him becuase he's "slighty less left than the leftists."

If this is all the Republican party has to offer in terms of candidates and strategy for success, they're effectively Democrats. We've already seen first-hand that this doesn't get us anywhere. It's beyond absurd to assert that putting a man in office who is not a conservative will be good for conservatism, or that he will suddenly "find conservatism" after being elected. This is the same bogus scheme that was sold to us in regards to Bush. "Just wait til his second term, and he'll take a more hard-line conservative stance as he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected." It never happened. Bush has governed his second term very much the same as his first. Bush is what he is, and Giuliani will be just as much post election a homo-loving/abortion-defending/illegal immigrant-protecting/gun-grabbing CINO, as he is pre-election.

Electing Giualini does not advance or help conservatism in any way shape or form. It actually advances the left and their social platforms of homosexuality, abortion, illegal immigrantion, and gun-grabbing.

Where have I ever said that I would vote for Giuliani? Please provide the proof.
Where did I say "Guiliani is responsible for 911?" Provide the proof. Secondly, I never said you would vote for him, I clearly said "if" you would vote for him. I don't need to provide proof to support claims I never put forth.

I'm merely objecting to those who falsely portray Giuliani's position as you did. I would make the same objection if you were falsely portraying the positions on any candidate.
Yeah, I'm still waiting to know what exactly I portrayed falsely, because he's everything I've said he is (a homo-loving/abortion-defending/illegal immigrant-protecting/gun-grabbing CINO). Guiliani is a man who did everything he could to protect illegals and undermine/defy immigration law. The saddest thing of all is that in all the nation the 911 hijackers would have been safest in of all places, New York, because it was an illegal sanctuary (per Guiliani) as according to him (Guiliani) the INS exists to "terrorize people."

As of a couple of years ago, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimates include approximately 78,000 illegal aliens from countries who are of special concern in the war on terror, all of whom would have been free from being terrorized by the INS in Giuliani's New York.

Anyone who doesn't see how a man who created a sanctuary for illegals helped make it possible for 15 illegals to do what they did is.... clueless? I don't know how else to put it.

And how exactly can he tough on terror if he's not tough on illegal immigration, being that our risk of terrorist attack comes virtually exclusively from foreigners? Tough on terror my ass.


We've had others, who are no longer here, who have falsely accused some of us of being unprincipled. Don't you start.
Well, if you're going to ban me, could you get on with it please? Because I'm going to continue calling Giuliani voters exactly what they are, that being fake-ass conservatives. People willing to vote for someone like Giuliani aren't "saving" us from the leftist beast, they're in fact delivering us into its hands, and bringing us ultimately to the same outcome (if only marginally slower). I will continue to question their principles, as to vote for a man with as few as he, essentially requires the relinquishment of your own. Because "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities" and "wickedness in high places."

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Video: Rudy stands by support for public funding of abortions (new-not the 1989 clip) - FreeConservatives (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=538244#post538244)


I do not accept this Rudy because of all his faults -- they simply outweigh ANY positive qualities that may exist.

[TSawyer2112]

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) -- Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.

"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected," Giuliani said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in Florida's capital city...MORE (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/TALLAHASSEE,%20Florida%20%28CNN%29%20--%20Former%20New%20York%20City%20Mayor%20Rudy%20Giu liani%20told%20CNN%20Wednesday%20he%20supports%20p ublic%20funding%20for%20some%20abortions,%20a%20po sition%20he%20advocated%20as%20mayor%20and%20one%2 0that%20will%20likely%20put%20the%20GOP%20presiden tial%20candidate%20at%20odds%20with%20social%20con servatives%20in%20his%20party.)"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul." Mark 8:36

So which principles is one willing to cast aside to support a pro-abortion "Republican" the msm polls show can beat the dems? What really will have been gained and what will have been lost.

If the GOP decides to completely sell it's soul in '08, it will do so without me.

[Republican_Legion]

Well, if you're going to ban me, could you get on with it please? Because I'm going to continue calling Giuliani voters exactly what they are, that being fake-ass conservatives. People willing to vote for someone like Giuliani aren't "saving" us from the leftist beast, they're in fact delivering us into its hands, and bringing us ultimately to the same outcome (if only marginally slower). I will continue to question their principles, as to vote for a man with as few as he, essentially requires the relinquishment of your own. Because "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities" and "wickedness in high places."

I call it censorship. Some can't handle a heated debate and when losing a debate they rely on someone to push the ban button. But oh well having the green or red username you are god and above everyone else in terms of having an opinion and being able to debate.

I've seen one with the green name call others liars without proof and calling them unprincipled and yep the double standard sticks. I've seen this happen to Dowple, Omega and many others. Of course I will be slammed harshly for this post and made fun of.

Forums in general are almost always this way and its not something uncommon. Theres bullys in every forum. We have to just deal with their bullying and threats as its the only way to survive.

[Rhino]

I never said he was responsible for 911.That wasn't directed at you, RL.

[Rhino]

/Yawn Un huh, yeah. Blood on his hands means nothing more than I feel he has some fault or blame (which I've already explained). For example Pilot didn't kill Jesus, but he did have blood on his hands because he had the opportunity to do the right thing, but chose not to. I'll say it again, since some seem to be having a hard time grasping it. If it were not for men like Giuliani, it would have been virtually impossible for 911 to transpire, as most of the terrorists (who were immigration violators) would have been either incarcerated or deported.That makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification.

Well, if you're going to ban me, could you get on with it please?There seems to be some considerable confusion on this point. Nobody is threatening to ban you. It was merely a request that people not sink into insults as a prime method of debate. If that were to become rampant, it could indeed get to the point of banning, but all he was doing was asking you not to get to that point so we wouldn't be forced to consider banning at some point. But you aren't at that point, so he wasn't threatening a ban. He just didn't want you to get there. None of us do.

[Rhino]

I call it censorship. Some can't handle a heated debate and when losing a debate they rely on someone to push the ban button. But oh well having the green or red username you are god and above everyone else in terms of having an opinion and being able to debate.

I've seen one with the green name call others liars without proof and calling them unprincipled and yep the double standard sticks. I've seen this happen to Dowple, Omega and many others. Of course I will be slammed harshly for this post and made fun of.

Forums in general are almost always this way and its not something uncommon. Theres bullys in every forum. We have to just deal with their bullying and threats as its the only way to survive.If you have an example of such an instance, please PM one of the admins with it. Quite frankly, most such perceived instances have been issues of mistaken interpretation. But we have, and do, deal with them as necessary when we are aware of them. You make a good point though. At some point lines have to be drawn, and there is no way that everyone will be pleased with where they are drawn. That's simply the nature of the beast, and there is no way to avoid it completely unless we drop all rules and decorum to allow a 'free for all'. We're not going to do that. But we don't tolerate unnecessary bullying either. Keep in mind though, as I pointed out to another member, we don't post such discussions in the general forums, so it's quite possible that we've chastised a moderator, completely without your knowledge of it.

[The_Elucidator]

Because I'm going to continue calling Giuliani voters exactly what they are, that being fake-ass conservatives.

You are starting to become tiresome! I'm guessing there isn't one person on this board who's sending money to Rudy, got Rudy bumper stickers or anything of the sort. And you sure as hell ain't gonna find too many if any that will vote for him in the Primary.

But if Tancredo gives it his best shot in the primary and I vote for him to get the best "conservative" nominated and he doesn't win then so be it. But you are walking on thin ice calling people "fake-ass conservatives." Because when the smoke clears and the GOP couldn't find a good candidate and the choice is between Rudy, Hitlery and freakin' Captain Kangaroo, I am going to do my best to keep that communist B**** from invading the WH. I'm willing to fight again another day, but I will not roll over and die! I can't stand Rudy but I "FEAR" Hitlery!

[MrSanity]

Video: Rudy stands by support for public funding of abortions (new-not the 1989 clip) - FreeConservatives (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=538244#post538244)


I do not accept this Rudy because of all his faults -- they simply outweigh ANY positive qualities that may exist. He wasn't clear on the issue, in my opinion, but his leanings suggest that he would favor such a policy.

I don't agree with some of his social policies, abortion being a major issue at that, which is why I probably won't support him in the primaries. But honestly, we didn't overturn Roe v Wade with Reagan, Bush Sr, or Bush Jr, and it's unlikely that we will with our next Republican president. The president will not ultimately overrule the Roe v Wade verdict. All he could do is reduce the number of abortions and increase the number of adoptions, as he has done successfully in New York City.

But if Giuliani does in fact appoint strict constitutional judges, it makes up for his personal opinion on the legality of abortion. An important issue, I agree. A defining issue, I agree. He's "pro-choice", and that's the bad news. The good news is that he opposes partial-birth abortion and he supports parental notification. Bill Clinton was a pro-abortion extremist in comparisan.

[MrSanity]

I want Fred Thompson to be our next president.I like his policies for the most part, but you've got to admit he looks funny in a suit.

http://www.furman.edu/riley/programs/images/TOG05John%20Roberts&Fred%20Thompson_jpg.jpg

[Rhino]

She looks okay to me, though I've never been much for high heels......

Oh! You meant Fred!!!!

[DoctorDoom]

<table bgcolor="red" cellpadding="2"><tr><td><div align="center"><font face="Verdana" color="white" size="5"><b>SIDEBAR ON</b></font></font></div></td></tr></table>

I call it censorship.Censorship is an official act by government. This is a privately-owned, -operated and -supported Internet BB. If you have a problem with that, feel free to buy a license for BB software and start your own board with your own rules.

Some can't handle a heated debate and when losing a debate they rely on someone to push the ban button.Nothing in this thread is cause for banning or even censuring. If the thread goes beyond acceptable limits, it will be beamed over to FC's hell, Flame Wars, but other than that, no action is called for nor will there be any.

But oh well having the green or red username you are god ...Yes, we ARE gods here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/BB%20Pix/SmiteIdiot.jpg

And ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/heman.jpg

... and above everyone else in terms of having an opinion and being able to debate.Wrong. In terms of posting, all members are created equal. Mods/admins are not prohibited from issuing occasional flames (although the standards for them are higher), nor are they immune from receiving them.

This isn't the Disney board. It's a political board, and politics is by its nature a source of far more heat than light. Thin-skinned folks need not apply, because it's guaranteed that they will eventually be offended or pissed off. It comes with the turf. Give-and-take requires being able to do both.

There are political BBs with outrageous demands for civility and decorum, e.g., calling politicians only by their titles, with no name twists. On those boards, that person from N'YAwk must be called Senator Clinton, and her husband is President Clinton. "Queen Bitch" and "BJ Billy" are verboten. I posted briefy on one such board, and was as out of place as Jack Bauer at a Debutante Cotillion.

FC is not one of those prissy, be-nice boards. It's free-wheeling and largely uncensored, and as such there will be debates, conflicts and occasional insults. Live with it.

And BTW, someone with over 3900 posts crying "Censorship!" is not going to be taken very seriously.

<table bgcolor="green" cellpadding="2"><tr><td><div align="center"><font face="Verdana" color="white" size="5"><b>SIDEBAR OFF</b></font></font></div></td></tr></table>

[Rhino]

And FYI, moderators don't have the power to ban.

[thoughtomator]

For all his faults, Giuliani was the only one who told the Saudis where they could shove their blood money. Contrast this to the President who walks hand-in-hand and plays kissy-face with them. I find it credible to believe that Giuliani would take on the Islamists in the same way that he took on the mafia and defeated them as a prosecutor in Brooklyn.

There are good and reasonable objections to Giuliani's candidacy for the GOP nomination (personally, I think what he is is what a loyal Democrat would look like, if there were any anymore). But the level of outright lying and Ninth-Commandment breaking that I've seen in allegedly conservative and/or Christian discussions is breathtaking.

[MrSanity]

Although I consider Giuliani to be a faith-friendly candidate overall - considering his support for educational choice and his head-on efforts to defund the "Piss Christ" painting, I would like to know his official stance on hate crime legislation.

Religious freedom is extremely important for politicians to respect.

[MrSanity]

For all his faults, Giuliani was the only one who told the Saudis where they could shove their blood money. Good point. Presidential pandering to Saudi interests go back to the days of Franklin Roosevelt, but they haven't stopped with George W. Bush.

[Rhino]

I already personally have enough reasons not to support Rudy, so his hate crimes stance really isn't much of an issue to me at this point.

[MrSanity]

I already personally have enough reasons not to support Rudy, so his hate crimes stance really isn't much of an issue to me at this point.If Thompson doesn't run, I may have to go with Tancredo.

In my mind, Tancredo and Hunter have become the "top tier" candidates, while Romney and Giuliani are "second tier."

The only notable Republican I loathe in the race is John McCain. The media loves him for one reason: he loves to attack the conservative platform when it doesn't suit his interests. I'd probably stay home if he ever got the nomination. This time around, he's a burnout.

Rudy is the establishment candidate, but he's a shoo-in if he gets the nomination. I love the guy personally, but... can't stand some of his policies on key social issues.

Romney could get the nomination, but he would be unelectable as far as I can tell. I like him overall, but he hasn't established himself as a conservative for very long.

[Rhino]

I could definitely support Tancredo. I'd take Romney over Giuliani. McCain I would simply sit out, and probably would with Giuliani as well. Not something I would relish, but I simply don't think I could vote for the man.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

At this point, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson are the only two candidates I would absolutely vote for. As Tancredo has announced and Thompson has yet to do so, as of right now he (Tancredo) has my vote.

[Riverboat]

And FYI, moderators don't have the power to ban.Do they have the power to stop underarm perspiration?

[Timberwolf]

I see absolutely no evidence that indicates that Giuliani is qualified to be anything but a City mayor... There is nothing on his resume' that qualifies him as the only candidate capable of fighting the war on terror - So far, all he has demonstrated to us is that he is capable of efficiently organizing the fire and rescue squads and cleaning up some bombed out buildings...

Giuliani is no more qualified to deal with international issues than McCain - In fact McCain, with his military and Senate background, is probably MORE qualified on that front...

Giuliani is NO Conservative, and IMO is the absolute WORST choice for Conservatives to make for this party's candidate... He is pro-homosexual... He is anti-gun... I could probably list any number of other Conservative issues that he stands in opposition to, but those two alone negate him as a candidate...

Giuliani is a New York Liberal - Done! Dont swallow the media hype about him being America's mayor - He's not! What he is, is the Left's backup in case they fail to get a Dem elected to the Whitehouse... They want their candidate to win first and foremost - but failing that, they want Giuliani on the Republican side...
http://www.gocomics.com/pricklycity/2007/04/02/

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/prc/2007/prc070402.gif

[Timberwolf]

At this point, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson are the only two candidates I would absolutely vote for. As Tancredo has announced and Thompson has yet to do so, as of right now he (Tancredo) has my vote.
Exactly the point I've been making for some time, Homey. I will vote FOR a candidate or I will not vote at all. I will NEVER AGAIN vote against the "other guy", nor will I vote for the LESSER of two evils. Evil is evil, water is wet, the sky is blue, a frog has a water-tight butt, and ol' Satan Claws is out there waiting to feast upon our bones. Voting for a liberal because he has an "R" behind his name is insane.

[Lazarus]

A frog has a water-tight butt... That's a good one...:rotflmbo:

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: I no longer accept Giuliani for all his faults. He has just announced that he is in favor of keeping abortion legal. He has lost my confidence.

[Rhino]

Do they have the power to stop underarm perspiration?No, but there's a rumor they may have water-tight butts. :D

[Republican_Legion]

:unsmile: I no longer accept Giuliani for all his faults. He has just announced that he is in favor of keeping abortion legal. He has lost my confidence.

Hopefully that will throw away any chance of him winning the Southern primaries.

[libertyman]

I'm sorry folks, but Rudy's a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-2nd Amendment liberal who anyone that calls themselves "conservative" should run away from. I find it appalling that he he thinks the government should fund abortions! :flame:

This one's for you, Rudy! :finger:

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

You are starting to become tiresome! I'm guessing there isn't one person on this board who's sending money to Rudy, got Rudy bumper stickers or anything of the sort. And you sure as hell ain't gonna find too many if any that will vote for him in the Primary.
I'm afraid I don't know everyone here well enough to know their opinions yet. I wasn't really speaking of people on this board with the fake-ass conservative comment so much as Giuliani supporters in general though. A thread titled "I Accept This Rudy For All His Faults" left me with the impression that at least some support him however.

But if Tancredo gives it his best shot in the primary and I vote for him to get the best "conservative" nominated and he doesn't win then so be it. But you are walking on thin ice calling people "fake-ass conservatives." Because when the smoke clears and the GOP couldn't find a good candidate and the choice is between Rudy, Hitlery and freakin' Captain Kangaroo, I am going to do my best to keep that communist B**** from invading the WH. I'm willing to fight again another day, but I will not roll over and die! I can't stand Rudy but I "FEAR" Hitlery!
Like I said before, this seems to be the sole strategy for success from the Pubs now. It is a strategy that will end with utter and total failure for the right. You're not "saving" us from anything with this approach. You're getting us to the same outcome (just a bit slower). It's not like you'd be electing a conservative hard-liner who'd stave off leftist damnation on every front for 4 more years.

From what exactly would Giulani be saving us? He'd advance (or leave the left unopposed to advance) virtually the entire leftist social agenda (while doing little to nothing to advance conservatism) leaving Hillary (or the next dem) with little left to do.

I can't recall where exactly, but I've seen so-called conservatives saying they'd vote for this man despite his leftist inclinations, because he promises to appoint strict "originalist" judges. Hearing this stuff leaves me shaking my head in utter frustration. That's right folks, a man who supports homosexuality, abortion, gun-grabbing, and illegal immigration (a man who clearly has no idea what "originalist" means, as he personally believes all of the afore mentioned are constitutionally sanctioned), is gonna appoint hard-line conservative judges. The man's basically saying, "as President I promise to appoint judges that completely disagree with my interpretation of the constitution." I support homosexuality, but I'll appoint judges that don't. He's already clearly contradicted himself with this. How can one say "I won't seek to overturn roe vs wade," but promise to appoint "originalist" judges that (if they are truly originalist) will.

Full of sh*t much Giuliani? Apparently he hopes the word "originalist" will be erroneously interpreted as "conservative" judges by the Republican voter.

"A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state's lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.

A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology."

I have a feeling the voters swallowing this will buy the beachfront property I'm selling in AZ too.

Anyway, that's my piece.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Everybody knows I'm not a Rudy fan, nor will I vote for him regardless, but I think the word you were wanting to use is "constructionist" not "originalist". :smirky:

I absolutely agree with your assessment in this regard -- I cannot see someone who is personally for things that are surely unconstitutional appointing judges who will rule against them.

The only reason Rudy is being propped up by the GOP is because they believe he can beat Hillary, but the "R" behind his name does NOT stand for Republican, but for RINO.

[DesertFox]

A thread titled "I Accept This Rudy For All His Faults" left me with the impression that at least some support him however.People normally use the title that came with the article, to avoid duplicates. It doesn't avoid them completely but it does help; and it doesn't mean the poster agrees with the point-of-view taken in the article.

[The_Elucidator]

From what exactly would Giulani be saving us? He'd advance (or leave the left unopposed to advance) virtually the entire leftist social agenda (while doing little to nothing to advance conservatism) leaving Hillary (or the next dem) with little left to do.



Oh, make no mistake about it I don't want either one, but if one had to make the choice between skin cancer (Giuliani) or lung cancer (Hitler) I'll take the most treatable form. Your odds of recovering from a Giuliani cancer are far greater than the Hitlery cancer. And I'm not advocating that anyone else on the board follow my lead. Just don't give me crap about my choice if that choice comes down to (D) Hitlery, (R) Rudy, (G) ???, (I) Bloomberg and (C) ???. God help us if these are our choices, I would rather get a root canal without anesthesia.

[omegatrump]

Nice choice we would have then wouldn't we? Hitlery will finish off the country quickly or Rudy would finish it off slowly. I'll take a third party over that option thanks.

The bottom line is going to be; Not very much difference between Rudy and Hitlery. Like it was said, Destruction by degrees, slow or fast is all.

I'll vote Constitution party.

[The_Elucidator]

I'll vote Constitution party.

I don't care how anybody on the board votes, as long as they vote!

[Etaoin]

Rudy is the establishment candidate, but he's a shoo-in if he gets the nomination. I love the guy personally, but... can't stand some of his policies on key social issues.

The social issues are very bad as it is spread across the spectrum.

I heard him speaking over the radio and he was very impressive!

When you add his anti-gun position to a very bad social position, I'd have to look elsewhere!

[DesertFox]

But you gotta admit, he was HOT in that dress. :limp:

[CzechPrince]

I see absolutely no evidence that indicates that Giuliani is qualified to be anything but a City mayor...

New York City is bigger in population than quite a number of states, who have governors I'm sure you wouldn't mind running for President.

[TheIrishman]

The two candidates I would vote for, at this point, Are Fred Thompson and Sam Brownback.
And Brownnback just needs more national recognition.