Rudy Must Be Stopped

[EveningStar]

Joseph Farah
WorldNutDaily
April 16, 2007

In case you hadn't noticed, Rudy Giuliani is leading all the polls in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

This is scary to me...Farah and his ilk are scary to me. Hillbama should be stopped. Not Rudy. Not Mitt. Not Fred.

More lunacy here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55116)

[Naturalized-Texan]

Farah and his ilk are scary to me.

Yep! And to think that years ago I used to write a column in a small anti-Clinton magazine that also published Farah's column, among some others with much more credibility, e.g., Thomas Sowell and Oliver North.

[EveningStar]

I've said this before, N-T. In the primary, I will vote for the candidate who I believe has the best chance to beat the Democrats. In the general election, I will vote for the Republican candidate, whoever he is. I will even vote for McCain if he is the nominee. I will not stay home. I will not vote 3rd party. I will not vote for the Democrat.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: Giuliani must be stopped. A month ago, I thought that I might vote for him, if he should win the nomination. But then, about a week ago, he pledged his support to keep abortion legal. I will vote for him when...


http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/Longhorn_Platinum/WhenHellFreezes.jpg

[EveningStar]

The safety of the country comes first. If Hillary or Obama get in, we could end up with the whole nation being aborted.

:unsmile: Giuliani must be stopped. A month ago, I thought that I might vote for him, if he should win the nomination. But then, about a week ago, he pledged his support to keep abortion legal. I will vote for him when...


http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/Longhorn_Platinum/WhenHellFreezes.jpg

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: ES, I edited your title, because it was highly offensive. You have the right to support Rudy, but calling those who disagree with you hurtful names is uncalled for. And I feel certain that there are FreeCers who agree that Rudy should be stopped.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

EveningStar:
The safety of the country comes first. If Hillary or Obama get in, we could end up with the whole nation being aborted.

:unsmile: Oh, yeah, that's real good. As long as you & I are safe, that's okay, & those unborn babies can go to Hell. Sorry, but I seriously doubt that the God in who I believe will give us His support in the WoT, as long as we're killing those precious little ones. Those of you who have a weak faith in God can go ahead & vote for Rudy. I'm sure that in your view, Rudy has more power than God.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Joseph Farah:
Take the pledge with me: "Under no circumstances will I cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani as president, no matter whom he is running against."

:unsmile: Under no circumstances will I cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani as president, no matter who he is running against.

[EveningStar]

:unsmile: ES, I edited your title, because it was highly offensive. You have the right to support Rudy, but calling those who disagree with you hurtful names is uncalled for. And I feel certain that there are FreeCers who agree that Rudy should be stopped.
I wasn't attacking FreeCers, just Joe Far-out. :biggrin:

[EveningStar]

:unsmile: Oh, yeah, that's real good. As long as you & I are safe, that's okay, & those unborn babies can go to Hell. Sorry, but I seriously doubt that the God in who I believe will give us His support in the WoT, as long as we're killing those precious little ones. Those of you who have a weak faith in God can go ahead & vote for Rudy. I'm sure that in your view, Rudy has more power than God.

LP, I can't believe you said that. :(

[cerebraldebris]

:unsmile: Under no circumstances will I cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani as president, no matter who he is running against.

Neither will I. As much as I like Rudy- mainly for the strong leadership he displayed in the face of crisis- I just can't bring myself to put my vote up for a man who is pro-abortion. What a shame.

[libertyman]

"Farah and his ilk are scary to me."

"Yep! And to think that years ago I used to write a column in a small anti-Clinton magazine that also published Farah's column, among some others with much more credibility, e.g., Thomas Sowell and Oliver North."

WOW! I'm sorry, I didn't know that I accidentally surfed into democraticunderground.com, I intended to visit a uhhhhh...."conservative" site from the political Right that I really like called freeconservatives.com!

I apologize for the intrusion.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

EveningStar:
LP, I can't believe you said that. :(

:unsmile: Then you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying that I believe, dating back to March 15, 2001.

[libertyman]

The safety of the country comes first. If Hillary or Obama get in, we could end up with the whole nation being aborted.

Sorry, ES...but protecting & defending the Constitution of the United States comes first....&, as James Madison said in The Federalist Papers (I think it was him), the more constitutionally-limited we make our government means that it will be easier for the fedgov to pay ever more strict attention to defending our country.

That's why Dr./Rep. RON PAUL is the best choice....period.

[Naturalized-Texan]

WOW! I'm sorry, I didn't know that I accidentally surfed into democraticunderground.com, I intended to visit a uhhhhh...."conservative" site from the political Right that I really like called freeconservatives.com!

I apologize for the intrusion.

Since you've shown repeatedly with your support of that RINO, Ron Paul, that your conservative credentials are suspect, how would you even recognize a conservative site?

[libertyman]

Since you've shown repeatedly with your support of that RINO, Ron Paul, that your conservative credentials are suspect, how would you even recognize a conservative site?

So if you are calling Rep. Paul a RINO, & considering the fact that he consistently casts his Congressional votes according to the Constitution, what does that say about the GOP in general? The GOP should be ashamed of themselves for violating theor Conatitutional Oaths like they do.

This incident right here alone should prove to us why Goeorge Washington criticized what he called the "Spirit of Party" in his Farewell Address: constitutional principles shouldn't matter, 'cuz The Party has an agenda to force upon all of us.

[cerebraldebris]

I've said this before, N-T. In the primary, I will vote for the candidate who I believe has the best chance to beat the Democrats. In the general election, I will vote for the Republican candidate, whoever he is. I will even vote for McCain if he is the nominee. I will not stay home. I will not vote 3rd party. I will not vote for the Democrat.

That reminds me of a comment I made when I first came to FC:
http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=525029#post525029

The answer(s) I got make sense to me. It's definitely a struggle for me to think along the lines of what others posted in reply to my comment, and I actually think of it often. But the more I see the direction the GOP has gone, the more I understand the points of view from that thread.

One in particular was from HomeschoolRUs:
I absolutely do NOT want a democrat president, make no mistake about it. But settling for a democrat-lite (RINO) isn't going to make anything any better, stronger, or safer, nor will it lead to the road that will return us to firm conservatism. If not now, when? What has to happen before those who claim to be conservative finally have had enough? If we staunch the flow NOW, perhaps a greater surgery will not be necessary. If we wait, if we continue to choose that "lesser-of-two-evils" what will it take THEN to regain what was lost and/or restore the freedom the Founding Fathers bled and died for?That one there was what set my mind on fire... it was that thread that drew me in to FC and I'm grateful for it.

Anyhow... just reminded me of where I was at when I came here. FWIW.

[Naturalized-Texan]

libertyman: As I have shown you repeatedly, Ron Paul has aligned himself with Teddy Kennedy and other leftists in Congress against the U.S.

A couple of weeks ago I heard an interview of Ron Paul conducted by a local conservative talk show host. If I hadn't heard the host introduce him as Congressman Ron Paul, I would have sworn that it was Teddy Kennedy being interviewed because of the far left positions he took and the bald-faced lies he told. About the only issues where Ron Paul differed from Teddy Kennedy were that he supported the Fair Tax and that he favored free trade. Other than that he was a straight down the line lefty.

The conservative talk show host was appalled at how much Ron Paul sounded like Teddy Kennedy and told him so.

I don't remember all the lies he told, but these 3 lies that he told are favorites of the loony left:

Lie #1) Reagan paid off Iran to release the Americans being held hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran for more than 400 days.

It's obvious that he believes in the "October Surprise" in which George H. W. Bush supposedly flew in an SR-71 to Paris in October 1980 to work out an agreement with Iran. The problem with that is that at the very instant he was supposedly in Paris, Bush was making a campaign speech before 5,000 people in Indiana.

Lie #2) Reagan supplied arms and funds to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan when the Afghanis were fighting Soviet troops.

That is false. Reagan supplied arms and funds to the mujihideen fighting in the north (later the Northern Alliance that helped us overthrow the Taliban and drive al Qaeda out of Afghanistan), not to bin Laden in the south. Osama bin laden got all his arms and funds from the Saudis.

Lie #3) We are fighting an undeclared war in Iraq.

There WAS a declaration of war in the War on Terror passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, and Ron Paul voted for it. The Iraq campaign of the War on Terror is as much a part of the War on Terror as the Normandy invasion was part of WW II and it was authorized by that declaration that Ron Paul voted for.

[libertyman]

I like the latter quote that you posted, cerebral.

I would compare getting to where we want (a limited, constitutional government) to the hellish process of my quitting my addiction to nicotine: I knew that I wanted to quit, I set a goal for it, & that I would have to grin & bear the tremendous suffering that I went through for almost 5 months in order to quit being a drug addict. I knew it wasn't going to be easy, but reaching the ultimate goal was worth the journey.

It seems to me that those who insult Rep. Paul & other Constitutionists (are you listening NT?) would rather play it safe & remain in their "addiction" in order to not hafta go thru a tiny amount of hardship that taking the journey may cause.

[Naturalized-Texan]

It seems to me that those who insult Rep. Paul & other Constitutionists (are you listening NT?) would rather play it safe & remain in their "addiction" in order to not hafta go thru a tiny amount of hardship that taking the journey may cause.
Ron Paul is anything but a constitutionalist since he has voted to get Congress to limit the president's constitutional duties as Commander-in-Chief as well as his duties to conduct foreign policy, despite having voted to declare the War on Terror on September 14, 2001. In other words, Ron Paul no longer recognizes the Separation of Powers as mandated by the Constitution. He has become a Teddy Kennedy liberal who has endangered the lives of every American by voting to surrender to the terrorists.

Or, maybe he is just senile.

[Lubbock]

Up until a month or so ago, I didn't even know who Ron Paul is. His name came up here and generated a lot of heat. Almost more heat than I had ever seen here on any subject.

I decided to look at the guy and try to figure out for myself who he is and what he's about.

I did.

He's a certified nut case. Just loony.

It doesn't surprise in the least the support for Ron Paul is coming from certain quarters . . .

[Incident_command]

We're screwed come 08. But if its a choice between a rino and that no good dyke bitch clinton, I'll go rino. The lesser evil:flame:

[Air-Warrior]

I've said this before, N-T. In the primary, I will vote for the candidate who I believe has the best chance to beat the Democrats. In the general election, I will vote for the Republican candidate, whoever he is. I will even vote for McCain if he is the nominee. I will not stay home. I will not vote 3rd party. I will not vote for the Democrat.You sound like a man of (someone else's) real convictions.

If you're not going with a solid conservative man from the start...you're part of the problem and not part of the cure. We have a country full of gutless limpwristed RINOs who hedge their bets with this exact strategy and all the while, they're playing right into Dems hands...pick the weakest link, a candidate who'll be adored by Dems and RINOs, and shout his name to the rooftops in the November elections. Get a spine eh? We have weak-ass RINOs in this race because of Kow-towers with just such a surrender monkey attitude. I'm ashamed of folks like you in any party that truly considers itself CONSERVATIVE.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Joseph Farah:
Take the pledge with me: "Under no circumstances will I cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani as president, no matter whom he is running against."

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

:unsmile: Under no circumstances will I cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani as president, no matter who he is running against.

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/wave0000.gif Under no circumstances will I cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani as president, no matter whom he is running against.
Hms


Link http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon2.gif Get Past Social Issues, Giuliani Tells Backers (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770415001)

Snippet:
"Republicans can win, he said, if they nominate a candidate committed to the fight against terrorism and high taxes, rather than a pure social conservative.

“Our party has to get beyond issues like that,” Giuliani said, a reference to abortion rights, which he supports."


Sorry RUDY, I just can't "get over" my social conservatism, as it is an integral part of my CONSERVATISM! :flame:

[EveningStar]

Homes, we cannot run around with our heads up our butts. We have to defeat the Democrats. Remember this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/bruckner/Humor-Political/burkhadem.jpg

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Burn me once, shame on "you" (GOP), burn me twice, shame on ME.

I have made myself quite clear, will not settle for the "lesser of two evils," because that means regardless of degree they are BOTH evil! We MUST return the GOP to its conservative roots, and there will NEVER be an "appropriate" or "convenient" time to do this -- it must be done NOW, it must be done decisively, or it will become impossible to do so.

I will no longer swallow my principles, staunch my gag reflex and vote AGAINST "the other guy". I demand, I deserve, this country deserves, and our children and grandchildren deserve a candidate worth voting FOR. As far as I am concerned, I see only two -- Tancredo and Fred Thompson. If Senator Thompson declares, this all becomes a moot issue, because he WILL win the "R" nomination (barring any unforseen catastrophe or closet skeleton).

Having someone with an "R" behind their name who is going to work toward the same goals (or accept the same) as one with a "D" behind their name isn't furthering the conservative cause. Rudy is a RINO at best, democrat-lite at worst.

[Timberwolf]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Joseph Farah:
Take the pledge with me: "Under no circumstances will I cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani as president, no matter whom he is running against."
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Longhorn_Platinum http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/white/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=542144#post542144)
:unsmile: Under no circumstances will I cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani as president, no matter who he is running against.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/wave0000.gif Under no circumstances will I cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani as president, no matter whom he is running against.
Hms
Under no circumstances will I cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani as president, no matter who he is running against.

Link http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon2.gif Get Past Social Issues, Giuliani Tells Backers (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770415001)

Snippet:
"Republicans can win, he said, if they nominate a candidate committed to the fight against terrorism and high taxes, rather than a pure social conservative.

“Our party has to get beyond issues like that,” Giuliani said, a reference to abortion rights, which he supports."


Sorry RUDY, I just can't "get over" my social conservatism, as it is an integral part of my CONSERVATISM! :flame:
:yeahthat:

[Timberwolf]

Homes, we cannot run around with our heads up our butts. We have to defeat the Democrats. Remember this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/bruckner/Humor-Political/burkhadem.jpg
Then you better work your ass off to ensure the GOP candidate is not only tough as nails on border security and the WoT and a fiscal conservative, but a SOCIAL conservative as well. I'm not voting for a liberal just because he has an "R" behind his name. I did so with Bush41, Dole, and Bush43 (twice) and I'm NOT GONNA do it again. I'll NEVER AGAIN vote against the other candidate, nor for the lesser of two evils.

You want a Republican at any cost...I do not. I want a Constitution-loving conservative. I fell for the above "fear-mongering" represented by your graphic 4 years ago...not gonna work this time around. So, get on the horn with the RNC and tell them to get their socialist, elitest heads outta their butts and give us conservative candidates...otherwise, they can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

[EveningStar]

Has the conservative movement gone insane? We are supposed to be patriotic, not egocentric. Good lord!

[Longhorn_Platinum]

"Republicans can win, he said, if they nominate a candidate committed to the fight against terrorism and high taxes, rather than a pure social conservative.

“Our party has to get beyond issues like that,” Giuliani said, a reference to abortion rights, which he supports."

:flame: Screw you, you sorry son-of-a-bi+ch. Why don't YOU get over being a pro-abortion wacko? You're in the minority in the Republican party. Why should the rest of us change our point of view? If you think that terrorism & high taxes are such great threats, then why don't you compromise your positions, instead of asking the rest of us to compromise ours? If abortion is that important to you, then you will in no wise get my vote.

[Timberwolf]

Has the conservative movement gone insane? We are supposed to be patriotic, not egocentric. Good lord!
The conservative movement has been told to sit in "the back of the bus" of the Republican party since it rid itself of the last conservative elected to the WH....Ronald Reagan.

It is not WE who've gone insane, but those elitests who "lead" the party. I'm no lemming and have made up my mind that I'll never blindly follow them again.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I will not be (no, never again will I be) "guilt-tripped" into voting for an unacceptable candidate. If conservatives had the cojones to eliminate this "lesser of two evils" mentality several elections back, we would not be in the position we are in today. If we continue along the same path, how much MORE difficult will it be to do the hard thing (i.e. the RIGHT thing) and vote principles instead of worrying about "the other guy" getting into office.

You know, one good definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

It is not I who has become cranially anally impacted.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

EveningStar:
Has the conservative movement gone insane? We are supposed to be patriotic, not egocentric. Good lord!

:sulk: Obviously so, since you & a few others are willing to vote for a liberal nutjob like Giuliani.

[EveningStar]

:sulk: Obviously so, since you & a few others are willing to vote for a liberal nutjob like Giuliani.
He's not a liberal. Please. And I haven't made up my mind about who I'll vote for. But I won't rule out Rudy, or Mitt, or McCain.

[Timberwolf]

Mitt is against abortion, except when he supports it...and he's against gun-control, except when he supports it.

Scratch one (for me, anyway).

McCain is probably one of the most dangerous men in the world, because of his vanity, self-centeredness and arrogance.

Scratch two.

Giuliani is a New Yawk liberal trying to pass himself off as a 'conservative'. Voting for him would be like a farmer buying a wolf to guard his henhouse.

Scratch three (as I said, for me).

If the Pubbies wanna continue to be the Democrat-lite Party, there is no reason for me to pledge my support to them any longer. If you wanna keep Hilary or Obama outta the WH, email the RNC and inform them that their BASE is pissed off and they had best "get with the program".

[EveningStar]

Fine. Why don't we just turn the whole ****ing government over to the ****ing Democrats? Better yet, why don't we just turn it over to Iran?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: Might as well, if you're gonna turn it over to Giuliani.

[Timberwolf]

:yeahthat:

[Timberwolf]

Fine. Why don't we just turn the whole ****ing government over to the ****ing Democrats? Better yet, why don't we just turn it over to Iran?
Whaddyamean, "why don't we"? We ALREADY HAVE!!! That's my whole point! The "republicans" that are being elected to Congress and the WH are nothing but "democrat lite".

I've had it 'up to here' with being slowly conditioned into accepting communism/socialism by the "we know better" crowd in DC. We either make a clean break from that type of thinking/action or we embrace it completely. I refuse to do the latter by voting for liberals just because they belong to a certain political party. THAT is how we got this far down the road to hell in the first place.

[thoughtomator]

I am seriously considering whether it is more important to vote against Hillary than for any GOP candidate. Seems that no matter who wins in the GOP, the candidate will be of about the same quality. I may very well register as a Democrat in order to cast a vote for whoever looks most likely to beat her.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

You sound like a man of (someone else's) real convictions.

If you're not going with a solid conservative man from the start...you're part of the problem and not part of the cure. We have a country full of gutless limpwristed RINOs who hedge their bets with this exact strategy and all the while, they're playing right into Dems hands...pick the weakest link, a candidate who'll be adored by Dems and RINOs, and shout his name to the rooftops in the November elections. Get a spine eh? We have weak-ass RINOs in this race because of Kow-towers with just such a surrender monkey attitude. I'm ashamed of folks like you in any party that truly considers itself CONSERVATIVE.
Yeah, it's amazing isn't it? It's akin to arguing that we must vote for the socialist to save us from the communist. It really illustrates how some folks have become so completely misguided to the point they're willing to support much of what they claim to hate in the belief it will prevent the advance of... what they hate?

I'm as fed up with principle compromising, issue-waffling, politcal snakes at the ballot box as I am with those in public office, as the latter could not exist without the former. I'm against homosexuality, abortion, illegal immigration, and gun-grabbing... except when I'm for them with my vote for a leftist tool like giuliani.

I'll definately be voting third party or for a candidate like Tom Tancredo (unless Thompson enters). If Giuliani is the only candidate the pubs can produce that "can win," it's time for any decent moral human being who considers themself a conservative to take a big step back and reassess the Republican party's relevance (if any) to conservatism.

[Tazeeyore]

If abortion is the only issue of importance to some then think about the consequences of voting for and electing a democrat for president with a majority in both houses. Abortion will not only become legal with no exceptions but we will pay for it with tax dollars. On the other hand if there is a Republican president maybe he can sway enough votes for house and senate members to keep abortion out of our wallets and cloning illegal. One issue voters are as dangerous as terrorists when the chance of electing a democrat as president becomes paramount because of it.

If you want abortion legalized at every stage of pregnancy and at the taxpayers expense along with legalized cloning of embryo's for dubious research just maintain the attitude that one issue will put us out of control and let democrats destroy every evidence of human decency in America. Think before you vote....or not vote. We see the results of not voting or voting for democrats because we pitch a hissy fit over weak republican policies and it isn't a pretty picture, ie;Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosim et al. What a nightmare.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:rolleyes: Yes, of course. I'm sure that the God that I serve will be saying, "Oh, well... Those Americans are still killing babies, but at least they're not paying for it with taxpayer money. That's better than nothing, I guess."

:unsmile: Or not.

[omegatrump]

You sound like a man of (someone else's) real convictions.

If you're not going with a solid conservative man from the start...you're part of the problem and not part of the cure. We have a country full of gutless limpwristed RINOs who hedge their bets with this exact strategy and all the while, they're playing right into Dems hands...pick the weakest link, a candidate who'll be adored by Dems and RINOs, and shout his name to the rooftops in the November elections. Get a spine eh? We have weak-ass RINOs in this race because of Kow-towers with just such a surrender monkey attitude. I'm ashamed of folks like you in any party that truly considers itself CONSERVATIVE.

Very well said. When every conservative should be crowding this bunch of liberal Republicans toward Conservatism the "Cut and Run" crowd settles for a warmed over Democrat.

People talk of Guilllllianis leadership. Where? When? The man is a pathetic joke. Let's see if he comes after gun ownership in the wake of this latest Colege shooting. There isn't much difference between he and Hitlery.

[omegatrump]

[quote=CONSERVATIVE HERO;542291]Yeah, it's amazing isn't it? It's akin to arguing that we must vote for the socialist to save us from the communist. It really illustrates how some folks have become so completely misguided to the point they're willing to support much of what they claim to hate in the belief it will prevent the advance of... what they hate?

Hate? They don't hate it. They love it. If they hated it they wouldn't "Cut and Run".

[omegatrump]

[quote=EveningStar;542257]Fine. Why don't we just turn the whole ****ing government over to the ****ing Democrats?


You did that when you voted for the shrub last time around. As for Iran, The only way to deal with Iran, is not even under consideration. What is Guillliani going to do? Ban private ownership of firearms in Iran? That will go over great. I'm sure they will recognize his leadership immediately.

[thoughtomator]

People talk of Guilllllianis leadership. Where? When? The man is a pathetic joke.

New York City 1993-2001. Turned the biggest city in America from a free-crime zone into the safest large city on the planet. Was the only politician to actually think of rallying the people rather than taking care of his own rump - and this includes the President and VP - as 9/11 unfolded.

Prior to that he was the leader in eliminating the mafia from the city, and did so with thorough effectiveness. The mob went from a real presence to a historical footnote under his tenure as DA.

Critique is fine, but make it accurate critique. It helps to be viewed as reasonable when one gives credit where it is due.

[MrSanity]

I don't plan on supporting Rudy Giuliani in the primary. Even if Fred Thompson doesn't run, I could settle for someone else. If he gets the nomination, I plan on voting for him in the presidential election. He would be a reliable man when it comes to crime, terror, and taxes. Three major issues give him decent credibility. Unfortunately, he has yet to convince myself and others that he will close the border and take a stronger stand against abortion. I probably agree with him 75% of the time, but I am very reluctant to accept a pro-choice Republican candidate.

[DoctorDoom]

<table align="center" bgcolor="800000" bordercolor="#CCCCCC" border="4" cellpadding="8"><tr><td><div align="center"><font face="Verdana" color="white" size="6"><b>Under no circumstances will<br>I cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani<br>as president, no matter whom<br>he is running against.<font size="4"><br></font></b></font></div></td></tr></table>

[Naturalized-Texan]

When I consider that if Hitlery or Obama become president they will surrender to the terrorists - a surrender that could easily result in the slaughter of tens of millions of innocent Americans, including our children and grandchildren, I can't in good conscience rule out voting for Giuliani.

[Republican_Legion]

Has the conservative movement gone insane? We are supposed to be patriotic, not egocentric. Good lord!

We are patriotic. Obviously you havent noticed that.

[The_Elucidator]

This is headed for Flamewars...soon! Same argument different thread!

[Republican_Legion]

You sound like a man of (someone else's) real convictions.

If you're not going with a solid conservative man from the start...you're part of the problem and not part of the cure. We have a country full of gutless limpwristed RINOs who hedge their bets with this exact strategy and all the while, they're playing right into Dems hands...pick the weakest link, a candidate who'll be adored by Dems and RINOs, and shout his name to the rooftops in the November elections. Get a spine eh? We have weak-ass RINOs in this race because of Kow-towers with just such a surrender monkey attitude. I'm ashamed of folks like you in any party that truly considers itself CONSERVATIVE.

Get used to it. ES always pops up threads to defend Rudy and RINO columists. His thread attacking Thompson on McFeingold shows his stance against Conservatives while defending the Rudy camp. Not suprised he would attack Joseph Farrah also. He's one of the few annoying country club RINOs from OC California, good thing most OC Republicans are not like him otherwise we would lose Congressman Rohrabacher and Cox. He's in the minority over here in OC country.


Joseph Farrah is one of the few out there that is looking out for Conservatives...unlike that traitor Sean Hannity.

Joseph Farrah = Enemy of the Rudy Camp.

[Republican_Legion]

Farah and his ilk are scary to me.
More lunacy here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55116)



Yep. He tends to scare the Country Club Republicans.
The one thats insane is Neil Booritz and his RINOism.

[Republican_Legion]

This is headed for Flamewars...soon! Same argument different thread!

Good :D
We'll be able to challenge to the Rudy camp there.

Ditto on sending it to the flamewars ! :thumb:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

This is headed for Flamewars...soon! Same argument different thread!

Not if I can help it, Luc, :thumb:


Look y'all, attacking each other's principles isn't going to get a conservative elected, isn't going to beat the democrats, and isn't going to further party unity. We (all of us -- pro- & anti- Rudy alike) have a difference of opinion, NOT because we are unprincipled, NOT because we have our heads up our rears, NOT because egocentric or unpatriotic -- we have a difference of opinion because we care so much about the direction of this country, our party, and conservatism.

I admonish all of you who have engaged in name-calling, position slandering, and issue twisting -- STOP IT! You CAN disagree without attacking others here on this board, and out there in the public proper. The whole idea is to find unity, to elect a SOLID candidate, to DEFEAT the democrats, to RESTORE this country to the greatness it once enjoyed. If we are to sway others to OUR side of the opinion, we must do so with honor and integrity -- and I'm chastizing myself as well, for behaving in such a disgraceful manner, as I too have enagaged in such activity BECAUSE this is such an important election.

Let's lay down our opinion, let's put before others the reasons WHY we feel/believe/think the way we do, let's try to gently urge and persuade others in our party to come together, but let's NOT divide ourselves in such a manner that we alienate the very people we mostly agree with!

I know we are better than that ... we have to be, because we ARE better than liberal democrats. On that I'm sure we can ALL agree, :smirky:

[EveningStar]

Yep. He tends to scare the Country Club Republicans.
The one thats insane is Neil Booritz and his RINOism.
I like Boortz. In fact, I'm listening to him right now.

[The_Elucidator]

Not if I can help it, Luc, :thumb:


Look y'all, attacking each other's principles isn't going to get a conservative elected, isn't going to beat the democrats, and isn't going to further party unity. We (all of us -- pro- & anti- Rudy alike) have a difference of opinion, NOT because we are unprincipled, NOT because we have our heads up our rears, NOT because egocentric or unpatriotic -- we have a difference of opinion because we care so much about the direction of this country, our party, and conservatism.

I admonish all of you who have engaged in name-calling, position slandering, and issue twisting -- STOP IT! You CAN disagree without attacking others here on this board, and out there in the public proper. The whole idea is to find unity, to elect a SOLID candidate, to DEFEAT the democrats, to RESTORE this country to the greatness it once enjoyed. If we are to sway others to OUR side of the opinion, we must do so with honor and integrity -- and I'm chastizing myself as well, for behaving in such a disgraceful manner, as I too have enagaged in such activity BECAUSE this is such an important election.

Let's lay down our opinion, let's put before others the reasons WHY we feel/believe/think the way we do, let's try to gently urge and persuade others in our party to come together, but let's NOT divide ourselves in such a manner that we alienate the very people we mostly agree with!

I know we are better than that ... we have to be, because we ARE better than liberal democrats. On that I'm sure we can ALL agree, :smirky:

I couldn't have said it better sister H...thank you! :thumb: Ya bunch of poo poo heads... oops

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Naturalized-Texan:
When I consider that if Hitlery or Obama become president they will surrender to the terrorists - a surrender that could easily result in the slaughter of tens of millions of innocent Americans, including our children and grandchildren, I can't in good conscience rule out voting for Giuliani.

:unsmile: And I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a dedicated baby killer for the sake of my own safety.

[Naturalized-Texan]

:unsmile: And I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a dedicated baby killer for the sake of my own safety.
I'm not much concerned about MY safety. After all, I'm 74 years old and I have lived a full life. I AM concerned about our sons and our grandkids. I will vote for the candidate whom I believe will be most likely to win the War on Terror and protect our sons and our grandkids from being slaughtered by terrorists. If that happens to be Giuliani against Hitlery or Obama, so be it.

That said, I would definitely prefer Fred Thompson and I will vote for him in the Republican primary if he decides to run.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: Again, I cannot, in good conscience, jeopardize the lives of others on the pretext of my family's safety. Giuliani is a pro-abortion wacko. He favors killing babies, & has made it clear that he will not back down. He is so arrogant that he expects the majority of his party to compromise their principles to please him. He will not get my vote. Not in 2008, not ever.

[EveningStar]

...Giuliani is a pro-abortion wacko. He favors killing babies...
This is so over the top that I don't know what to say. :(

[Timberwolf]

Well then, you're gonna LOVE this one.

Rudy is a gun-grabbing liberal...he embraces the mindset that got those 32 students killed at VT.

[Naturalized-Texan]

:unsmile: Again, I cannot, in good conscience, jeopardize the lives of others on the pretext of my family's safety. Giuliani is a pro-abortion wacko. He favors killing babies, & has made it clear that he will not back down. He is so arrogant that he expects the majority of his party to compromise their principles to please him. He will not get my vote. Not in 2008, not ever.
I place the lives and safety of all Americans above every other issue that may come up in the 2008 elections and you don't. If we don't win the War on Terror, nothing else matters because most of us will be dead. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[omegatrump]

Well then, you're gonna LOVE this one.

Rudy is a gun-grabbing liberal...he embraces the mindset that got those 32 students killed at VT.

Yes, besides being a child killer, he doesn't think Americans can or should be allowed to own firearms. If he is elected we will see disaster.

Where is all of this leadership people attrribute to him? Is it leadership to kill little children? Is it leadership to disarm people so they can't protect themselves? Gilliani is a full blown liberal, nothing more nothing less.

[omegatrump]

New York City 1993-2001. Turned the biggest city in America from a free-crime zone into the safest large city on the planet. Was the only politician to actually think of rallying the people rather than taking care of his own rump - and this includes the President and VP - as 9/11 unfolded.

Prior to that he was the leader in eliminating the mafia from the city, and did so with thorough effectiveness. The mob went from a real presence to a historical footnote under his tenure as DA.

Critique is fine, but make it accurate critique. It helps to be viewed as reasonable when one gives credit where it is due.

From a free crime zone? I guess I don't follow you. Safe city? Mafia gone?

So you are telling me that Drug traffic, pimps and prostitution, illegal immigration, murder, rape kidnapping etc. with all that comes with it has been eliminated from New York?

The Mafia has been changing faces for a long time, not just in New York, but all across the country. I actually had a good friend that was connected to the Chicago family. He had to leave the country, (I didn't know him then). He said in 1993 that the family run organizations were waning. You can't attribute that to Gilliani. I would give more credit to say, Time Square Church, and the like.

Don't listen to Rudy yes.com so much, Thoughtmotor. Statistics don't allways say everything.

Violent crime in NYC
1965 58,802 Population 18,073,000
1978 149,257
1984 162,157
1990 212,458
1992 203,311 Population 18,197,000
1993 195,352
1999 107,147
2000 124,890
2005 85,839 Population 19,254,630

Demographics out of Gillianis control were factors, like the Regan economy in the 90's. Gilliani did increase the NYC police department by 35%. Misdemener arrests were up 70%. There were fewer youths in the city. The economy up definately had something to do with it. So I say, is turning America into a police state going to be a show of leadership?

[EveningStar]

Well then, you're gonna LOVE this one.

Rudy is a gun-grabbing liberal...he embraces the mindset that got those 32 students killed at VT.
This is beginning to sound like another board. :(

[TheKellyCrew]

:rolleyes: Yes, of course. I'm sure that the God that I serve will be saying, "Oh, well... Those Americans are still killing babies, but at least they're not paying for it with taxpayer money. That's better than nothing, I guess."

:unsmile: Or not.
Amen, MOO! :claps:

Take it from a New Yorker- Rudy is an ego-centric abortion supporting, gun-grabbing LIBERAL.
I appreciate his stance on security..and there is a place for him in that regard..but POTUS isn't it.

Fred/Newt 08!

[omegatrump]

Amen, MOO! :claps:

Take it from a New Yorker- Rudy is an ego-centric abortion supporting, gun-grabbing LIBERAL.
I appreciate his stance on security..and there is a place for him in that regard..but POTUS isn't it.

Fred/Newt 08!


A red flag for me is, government imposed security. Another term, Marshal Law.

If he could succeed in taking away our guns, the next step is going to be, increasing the National Police Force. Always when a dictatorial government slides it's way in, security is an issue.

I agree that Security is a good thing, but I think it could be better facilitated by having better judges, and bigger prisons, if necessary. My best line of security is to be able to take care of myself and not have to rely on a policeman that won't get there till it's to late.

[EveningStar]

Nice to see you, TKC! :)

[TheKellyCrew]

*snip* If he could succeed in taking away our guns, the next step is going to be, increasing the National Police Force. Always when a dictatorial government slides it's way in, security is an issue.

*snip*.
hmm
-hadn't thought about it that way

[TheKellyCrew]

Nice to see you, TKC! :)
You too, ES! :)

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Naturalized-Texan:
I place the lives and safety of all Americans above every other issue that may come up in the 2008 elections and you don't.

:unsmile: That is patently false. The real difference between you & me is that I consider "all Americans" to include the unborn.

[Naturalized-Texan]

:unsmile: That is patently false. The real difference between you & me is that I consider "all Americans" to include the unborn. BS!
And for some stupid reason you seem to think that I don't include the unborn.

However, I apparently value the lives of those already living much more than you do. That's why I place winning the War on Terror above all other issues because if we don't win that war, none of those other issues will matter a hill of beans. If we don't win the War on Terror, there won't be any babies, born or unborn, because we will all be dead.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:whatever:

[Naturalized-Texan]

LP: I don't understand why you have to falsely represent my position on abortion. Oh, well. It isn't the first time you have falsely represented my position and it probably won't be the last.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: Maybe you should stop misrepresenting me.

Naturalized-Texan:
However, I apparently value the lives of those already living much more than you do.

:moo: Truth is, we both want the unborn to have a chance at life, & we both want to win the war on terror. We disagree on how that can best be accomplished.

[Naturalized-Texan]

:unsmile: Maybe you should stop misrepresenting me.



:moo: Truth is, we both want the unborn to have a chance at life, & we both want to win the war on terror. We disagree on how that can best be accomplished.
I'm glad you clarified that. That's the very first time I have seen you state that you wanted to win the War on Terror. Until you provided that clarification, it certainly appeared that you placed the lives of the unborn above the lives of Americans who have already been born.

I have always made it clear that I value the lives of both the unborn and those who have already been born. However, you objected to my position, making me conclude that you only wanted to protect the unborn. Again, thanks for the clarification.

Truce?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:moo: I never said that I didn't want to win the War on Terror. What I said was, I don't think God will be on our side, as long as we're killing babies.

:moo: Truce.

[CzechPrince]

I've said this before, N-T. In the primary, I will vote for the candidate who I believe has the best chance to beat the Democrats. In the general election, I will vote for the Republican candidate, whoever he is. I will even vote for McCain if he is the nominee. I will not stay home. I will not vote 3rd party. I will not vote for the Democrat.


I have thrown my support behind Rudy 110%. We need a strong leader to fight the war on terrorism, stand up to nations like Iran, someone who is fiscally conservative (unlike Bush), and someone who respects the rights and privacies of others. Rudy is the closest to my Libertarian views, and our country needs someone like him.

[CzechPrince]

:unsmile: Might as well, if you're gonna turn it over to Giuliani.

LP, I respect you a lot, and actually enjoy your posts even though we disagree often, but I find this to be ridiculous. I don't think anyone here can question Guliani's backbone when it comes to standing up for the defense of this nation. I trust America will be safe if he is elected.

I understand your irate and pissed about his stance on abortion. Lots of people are. I don't really vote for politicians based on that one issue.

Abortion will never be outlawed in this country. It won't. And far to many times Republican candidates play this issue to win voters. Why? Because they know it won't be overturned. Can it be limited? Of course. There are a lot of things we can do to make sure abortion is not used as a form of birth control, but it will only get so far. There are radicals on both sides of the spectrum.

It has always been my view that the best way to solve the abortion issue, for both sides, especially the pro life side, is to leave it up to the states. That is the most realistic, in my view, way to get the pro life movement more success.

Guliani has also said he will appoint conservative judges, and after that it will be up to them to determine the constitutionality of the laws we have.

I find abortion to be absolutely disgusting and morally reprehensible. But logically, no president is going to ever be able to outlaw abortion, and neither will the senate.

[CzechPrince]

Yeah, it's amazing isn't it? It's akin to arguing that we must vote for the socialist to save us from the communist.

Socialism? That's rich. Did you or your family grow up under Soviet occupation? That's socialism, and it's pure evil.

(Thank God for Ronald Reagan. I cannot wait till the statue in the Czech Republic of him is complete, I want my MySpace, FC, and Facebook photos to be in front of it.:thumb:)


Rudy is anything but a socialist. He has a consistent record of fiscal responsibility and spending. Bush is one of the most socialist (domestically wise) President to hit office in 20 years.

Yeah, Bush cut taxes. Great. But his spending, especially his precious prescription drug bill (do we need a reminder of how much that was again?), and his expansion of the federal government is nauseas. Yeah, the government is far to large, but Bush hasn't helped that case any. I want the government out of my life and out of my wallet, and Guliani is the best candidate in my view for that role.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

CzechPrince:
LP, I respect you a lot, and actually enjoy your posts even though we disagree often,...

:moo: Really? How nice! I had no idea.

:unsmile: But, I never said that Giuliani can't or won't be effective against terrorism. But, in spite of his expertise, I don't think we can win this ourselves.

:unsmile: You don't understand how big of a role my faith plays in this. God is real. We can't hear Him, we can't see Him, but He's there. He's in control of the world situation. And He can make or break our efforts against islamic extremism.

:unsmile: I also believe that the only reasons that God has been patient with us as long as He has are our support for Israël, & the fact that there are still people in this country working to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Remember, He would have spared Sodom & Gomorrah if there had been as few as five righteous men.

:unsmile: But, His patience will eventually run out. Electing Giuliani will destroy any chance we have for overturning Roe. When that happens, I don't see how God can continue grant us His blessings. I strongly disagree with your assessment that we can't overturn Roe. That's just sheer pessimism on your part. It can be done. But not if Giuliani or any demonic rat is elected in 2008.

:unsmile: And yes, I know what Giuliani said about appointing constructionist judges. But his tone was far more empassioned, when he later spoke of his commitment to keep abortion legal. I think he's paying a little lip-service to win over pro-lifers, & doesn't mean a bit of it.

:unsmile: I have no doubt that Rudy has some good ideas for fighting the War on Terror, but they're destined to fail, if we don't rely on God.

:unsmile: One more thing. My beliefs date back to 1980, after an American helicopter crashed in an Iranian desert, in a failed attempt to rescue the hostages in Tehran. The following Sunday, my pastor flatly declared that the mission's failure was God's judgement against the United States for murdering over a million babies every year. You might not agree with that, but I think my former pastor is on to something.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

:unsmile: I also believe that the only reasons that God has been patient with us as long as He has are our support for Israël, & the fact that there are still people in this country working to overturn Roe vs. Wade.


:unsmile: One more thing. My beliefs date back to 1980, after an American helicopter crashed in an Iranian desert, in a failed attempt to rescue the hostages in Tehran. The following Sunday, my pastor flatly declared that the mission's failure was God's judgement against the United States for murdering over a million babies every year. You might not agree with that, but I think my former pastor is on to something.

Careful, Moo, you will be painted with shades of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell when they declared Katrina and other disasters were judgements from God. :smirky:

[Naturalized-Texan]

LP: Further clarification: I think that it will take maybe 20 or 30 years before Roe v. Wade is overturned (I doubt that I'll live long enough to see it end, but that's another story). However, with the right president, the War on Terror can be won in less than 10 years, and possibly less than 5. That's the main reason that I believe that we should ensure that Hitlery or Obama don't become president and that's why I put a higher priority on winning the War on Terror.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: With all due respect, I think your numbers are backward. With the right president to replace W, & a couple of more sound supreme court appointments, we could see Roe vs. Wade overturned within a decade. You could live to see that. But, the terrorists are already indoctrinating the next generation of islamo-wackos. We might deal the terrorists some severe setbacks in the next few years, but as long as moslems pray to Mecca, we're going to have to be continually vigilant. I don't expect that to change in my lifetime.

[Tazeeyore]

Maybe we should abort terrorists instead of babies. WE all win that way.

[The_Elucidator]

The war on terror will never be won, ever! However.com we can slow them way the heck down, but make no mistake about it, this will be fought for generations. That's why I agree with LP's philosophy on putting the abortion and moral issues first. If we make the Lord angry he surely won't protect us from the seed of Ishmael.

ABRAM'S FIRST CHILD WAS TO BE CALLED ISHMAEL

Genesis 16:11 The angel of the LORD also said to her: "You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard of your misery.

PROPHESY ABOUT ISHMAEL

Genesis 16:12 He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."


Just my 2 centavos...

[Naturalized-Texan]

LP: I hope you are correct about Roe v. Wade, but after the shock to the libs about the SC's PBA ruling, the libs are going to dig in their heels to prevent any strict constructionist from being confirmed to the SC, even if we get right president to replace W in 2008. The libs are going to filibuster any nominee to the SC who is even remotely expected to overturn Roe v. Wade. Until and unless there is a 60-vote conservative majority in the Senate, no strict constructionist will get to the SC. That is what may take at least 20-30 years.

However, if we get the right president in the 2008 elections, it's certainly possible to win the War on Terror in his first term.

[EveningStar]

The war on terror will never be won, ever! However.com we can slow them way the heck down, but make no mistake about it, this will be fought for generations. That's why I agree with LP's philosophy on putting the abortion and moral issues first. If we make the Lord angry he surely won't protect us from the seed of Ishmael.

As the old saying goes, the Lord helps them who help themselves.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Naturalized-Texan:
LP: I hope you are correct about Roe v. Wade, but after the shock to the libs about the SC's PBA ruling, the libs are going to dig in their heels to prevent any strict constructionist from being confirmed to the SC, even if we get right president to replace W in 2008.

:moo: They'll have to filibuster for the eight years of President Thompson's term, & I don't think the American public will tolerate such a lengthy temper tantrum.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

EveningStar:
As the old saying goes, the Lord helps them who help themselves.

:unsmile: I Hezekiah 12:5?

[pRIMrose]

Really interesting thread. <!--StartFragment --><!--StartFragment --><!--StartFragment -->http://www.gopusa.com/forum/images/smilies2/forum.gif

Just my opinion, but if you are more interested in someone who is tough on the WOT, then why not McCain. Don't start throwing things :biggrin: he's not even on my radar screen. But neither is Rudy. If I we can't find a real Republican/Conservative then it matters very little which degree of liberal we elect.

Like LH, I cannot bring myself to support a candidate who is not only pro choice/abortion, but wants to take my tax money to fund it. There just isn't enough lipstick to make this ideology look good.

How is Giuliani going to bring conservatism back to the Republican party? By supporting gun control and making the entire country a sanctuary for illegals? That will solve the problem once and for all. :rolleyes:

I'm with TKC ~ Fred and Newt ~ but neither have declared. Just think of all the money they've already saved. <!--StartFragment -->http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/w/thumbs.gif As for now, I'm supporting Tom Tancredo. If Fred or Newt jumps in, all bets are off. However, IMNSHO, we can do a lot better than risking our hard earned liberty for the illusion of security. It's one thing to respond well to terrorism. It's even more important to recognize it before it happens. There are a lot of people who are good at cleaning up after the fact.

<!--StartFragment -->http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5148/fredpres2kr0.jpg

[Naturalized-Texan]

Just my opinion, but if you are more interested in someone who is tough on the WOT, then why not McCain. Don't start throwing things :biggrin: he's not even on my radar screen. But neither is Rudy. If I we can't find a real Republican/Conservative then it matters very little which degree of liberal we elect.
McCain is to the left of even Giuliani.

[pRIMrose]

McCain is to the left of even Giuliani.

Yep! You may be right NT. But if all one is interested in is being tough on the war, then he's the man. Not the man for me, however. Interesting, McCain has dropped from an ACU rating of 80 in 2005 to 65 in 2006. I would imagine that Rudy is in the same 60's to 70's ball park. You can't be pro choice, pro gun control, pro gay rights and pro illegal immigration and be much better than McCain. :rolleyes:

[Republican_Legion]

McCain is to the left of even Giuliani.

LOL.

McCain is Pro-Life. McCain is not jumping for joy with the Gay Agenda. Those are two issues in which McCain is towards the right of Giuliani.
Like DesertFox has said so many times, credit is due where deserved and McCain is pro-life and not in line with the GayNazis and his voting record on Spending is better than GWB's.

Giuliani is to the left of even McCain. He emotionally is sensitive to the gay lobby and abortionists and gun grabbers.
McCain betrays the party for personal media spotlight and power and Rudy betrays the party because he truly believes in what he stands for.
We may never know where McCains true alliance is with but for one thing the guy is self centered and wants everything for himself.

[Lubbock]

The only thing that I get out of this food fight that erupts everytime Rudy or McVain are mentioned is that we are all on Thompson's bandwagon, and we can all get behind him.

A side note for those of us looking for the pony: FOX had a blurb this morning that came out of the Thompson camp (I presume) stating that FDT is getting closer to making a "yes" decision.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:moo: He can't say "yes" soon enough.

[The_Elucidator]

The only thing that I get out of this food fight that erupts everytime Rudy or McVain are mentioned is that we are all on Thompson's bandwagon, and we can all get behind him.


I agree, but the same cast of characters that rag on anybody left of the Pope will now complain what a "neocon" Thompson is...book it!!! :rolleyes: