Pros and Cons About Rudy

[Lazarus]

Let's get it out in the open... Most of us have SOME concerns about Rudy Giuliani as the Republican nominee for President...

Maybe it would help clear the air and dispell (or vindicate) some fears if we address the specific issues that bother us... And maybe it will make our ultimate path more clear...

My specific concerns with him fall in three areas...

1) Gun Control vs. 2nd Amendment rights - Giuliani in his crusade against crime has, in the past, demonstrated a disregard for the 2nd Amendment in its original intent... This position scares me the most of my concerns because it shows that he harbors a belief that the Federal Government has sovereignty over our self-evident, God-given rights, as a government by the people...

Rudy has of late, publicly repented of his former actions along these lines, stating that the lawsuits against the Gun Manufacturers that he previously acted in, went down a path that he never intended for them to go... I wonder just to what extent he "expected" the suits to go, and what path he envisioned for them...

I believe he is stating the truth in this, but it still leaves me wondering just to what extent he believes the Federal Government has authority over our lives in this area... Still he has made overtures toward the 2nd Amendment community and promised us to defend the constitution in this question - So I will, for the moment, give him the benefit of the doubt...

2) Illegal Immigration - Rudy has gone on record as being on King George's team with this issue... And he has not really addressed it in the public forum for everyone to have a firm feel for what he intends to do to address the problem if he wins the Whitehouse... Instead he seems to dodging the issue as it is the 3rd rail issue in this election...

I admit, if I discover that he intends to proceed with George Bush's plan to betray the American people in the face of their overwhelming opposition to amnesty, this might end up being a deal breaker for my support... I don't know if I can support another George Bush on this issue... I need to learn more about where he stands on this and what he intends...

3) Homosexuality - Whereas the first two issues I cited are ones that the President can directly affect in his capacity as Chief Executive, this one, I admit, is not... However, I am uncomfortable with a man who is so comfortable with such an evil cultural issue... A homosexual act committed by an individual is a sin, and God has made provision for that as he has for all sin... But Homosexuality as a social concept is institutionalized sexual deviancy, and as such is classified as evil... Unless he begins to propose legitimizing homosexuality as a national policy, this is not a deal breaker for me - But I wish he did not have such a casual attitude toward it...

I also believe that it is only fair to list the Pros that come with Giuliani... In his defense I will admit that Giuliani displays strong leadership characteristics... He's not at all afraid to challenge the far left... He also seems to be committed to defending America against terrorism, although for all the credit he gets in this area, in truth he has done nothing concrete other than to clean up the destruction in New York City... Disaster cleanup does not qualify one as a terrorist fighter, but I believe he is as committed to the war as anyone...

Additionally, I believe that Giuliani is probably more honest that the standard variety of politician we are faced with... In truth I believe he is as honest as Fred Thompson is... He has not tried to falsely sell himself as a Conservative just to win our support... He has honestly stood up and said, This is who I am and what I want to do, and for that at least I respect him...

He may be hiding some policies that will really kill the deal for me, but there comes a point where one has to trust one's feelings about a man, and ON THE WHOLE, I believe him to be honest...

At this point, as much as I am concerned with the issues I have cited above, I am certain that life under any of the Democrats we are faced with will make any concerns I have with Rudy pale to insignificance... Still, there is a lot of time before the election occurs, and Rudy can still LOSE my general support if he reveals a willingness to go too far on any of the issues I have mentioned...

At this point, however, if he is the Republican candidate, I am willing to back him to stop the Leftists from destroying the nationI love...

Now let's here from the rest of you... And please be honest - Pros as well as Cons...

[mkafrica]

Personally, the biggest issues in my book, are 2nd Amendment rights, Illegal Immigration, Homosexuality, and Abortion.

You just nailed the first three. If Rudy can't hold those up, then I couldn't accept him as a viable candidate to vote for, myself.

Now, since I kinda know where he stands on those issues, I never really worried about the other issues, since I knew I wouldn't vote for him anyway... :) From what I've heard (and without research), he's pretty solid on national defense and terrorism.

Of course, I have to wonder on someone who's 'strong' on national defense but not illegal immigration...

The other thing, while this may sound callous, but can we entrust the country to someone who can't even keep his marriages intact?

[PrezLeefun]

My biggest issue with him is Abortion.... but to the best of my knowledge he wants restriction on abortion and I can be ok with that so long as he really pushes for restrictions.




Oh wait...pros too....


Tough on national security issues. I trust him there.

[Rhino]

2nd Amendment rights. No candidate is perfect, but if it weren't for his stand on 2nd Amendment rights, I could probably vote for him against the dem candidate. The others are important too, but 2nd Amendment rights is the straw that breaks the camel's back for me.

[Naturalized-Texan]

The biggest issue, by far, is winning World War IV - the War on Terror. That's why I would vote for Rudy against any Democrat.

[Lazarus]

All of those are legitimate concerns... But we need to honestly differentiate between the ones that the President can directly affect and those he can only be a cheerleader on...

The way I see it, he has a direct effect on Gun Control because the ATF answers directly to him... He has gone on record during this campaign that he does not intend to assault the 2nd Amendment - Can we trust his answer? That, I can't answer... But I believe he realizes that he has earned a bad rep on this issue and if he wants our support he dare not betray us on this...

I don't know for certain what his current attitude is toward gun ownership - I really wish he would make a policy statement on it so the issue would be out on the table... But of course the MSM who inveriably chairs the debates, are not going to press the issue... Maybe we need to try to address the question directly to his campaign...

Also, on the issue of Illegal Immigration, he again has a direct control... He has supreme authority over the INS and the Border Patrol... He has the power to build the fence... He has the power to direct the Border patrol to DO THEIR JOB... IOW, he has the power to continue the farce that Bush has played, or take his oath of office seriously and enforce the Immigration laws that are on the books...

On this one Im gambling that his dedication to Law Enforcement is going to win out at least in the short run... He may indeed try to ask Congress for a new amnesty plan, but I believe until something comes from Congress that he can, in good faith, sign, Im betting he will not play the games that Bush has done... Im hoping he will let the Border patrol do their job...

I believe he knows we have a severe problem along these lines, but unlike Bush, I don't believe he is obsessed with opening our borders up and Latinizing America... So Im going to risk giving him the benefit of the doubt here...

Abortion: Here we need to try to remain objective... Abortion is indeed a hot button issue for most Conservatives, but as Maggie stated on another thread, and as I myself have stated before, in truth NO President has the power to simply declare Abortion null and void... Even if he was a hardcore Pro-Lifer, the best he can do is ask Congress to act on the issue - And even then it would likely have to come in the form of a constitutional amendment before the Supreme court would be compelled to uphold it...

Bottom line, as important as this issue is, I don't think we can honestly judge any presidential candidate on an issue he has little control over... This is an issue for Congress and the Courts... IMO we really must focus our concerns in those two directions... Giuliani has stated that he intends to appoint strict constructionist judges - Im not sure we can ask any more of any presidential candidate... And I see no evidence from his past behavior to indicate that he would be lying to us along these lines...

Keep in mind that this issue is one of personal concience and it is not a given that because he personally adheres to the pro-choice argument that he intends to be a crusader for abortions... Unless someone can convince me that he has a record of actively pushing for abortions, Im going to again, give him the benefit of the doubt here...

For those of you here who are mostly concerned over the question of abortion, stop and ask yourselves, What exactly do you expect a Fred Thompson to be willing and able to achieve that a Rudy Giuliani can or will not...

I don't want to sound insensitive on this issue, but in reference to any Republican presidential candidate, this is, in all honesty, a red herring - The President does not have the power to make this go away... It MUST be addressed in the Congress and in the Courts...

For me, the question of Abortion falls in the same catagory as the question of Homosexuality... Giuliani is soft on those issues but I don't believe he will be a crusader for them either... I believe "hands off" will be his policy and with that, to be honest, he is no better or worse than any of the other candidates...

[Jack_Savage]

I pretty much agree with all the members on Rudy except I don't hold those issues be a deal breaker. And I don't believe his intent on 2nd amendment issues is to let Americans be held hostage by thugs. I do not believe he is willing for me to lose my rights. I also believe his position on abortion is more the political side of him. When he says he is personally against it and that he will not appoint judges who are for choice I beilieve him. Now maybe that is wishful thinking but thats how I priortize it. His homosexual position is the one that bothers me the most because it reveals a lack of depth in him as far as standing up to the PC world we live in. As far as seeing how serious a problem it is. That really concerns me. But when I consider the alternatives I can sure support Rudy. And I can support him over anyone else who is showing they don't have a chance in hell of winning.

I am kind of suprised about the worry of his stand on 2nd amendment issues. I just don't see a problem there when the bitch, Edwards and Barrack would love to herd us all into some cattle pen and force-feed us all the correct and green slop Algore is cooking up, after taking all our rights away.

There is one other aspect to this race which none of us seem to look at. We cannot leave all that we hold dear up to the election and then go home and put the recliner out. If we are going to make any one of them work, we have to organize and stay organized. As a strong segment of society Rudy or anyone else will have to deal with a change in the political climate. I think the effort will go down quicker with a Rudy or Fred in office than with a Hillary or Edwards. But its going to take participation on all our parts. The letting others do it days are over in my opinion. I don't envy what my kids are going to have to do as this mess spreads. Some of us are tired, just don't have the energy to grab the punks by the collar, but I fear that is what is coming.

As far as Rudys positive points, I think he is someone who can be worked with. Someone who is quick on his feet. He can kick in the balls and tap dance all on the same ballroom floor. He will look an evil person in the eye and point out what there risks are and then back it up. If he can find a way that will work, he has the guts to do it. That may be his most important talent or trait in todays changing world.

[mkafrica]

Abortion: Here we need to try to remain objective... Abortion is indeed a hit button issue for most Conservatives, but as Maggie stated on another thread, and as I myself have stated before, in truth NO President has the power to simply declare Abortion null and void... Even if he was a hardcore Pro-Lifer, the best he can do is ask Congress to act on the issue - And even then it would likely have to come in the form of a constitutional amendment before the Supreme court would be compelled to uphold it...

Bottom line, as important as this issue is, I don't think we can honestly judge any presidential candidate on an issue he has little control over... This is an issue for Congress and the Courts... IMO we really must focus our concerns in those two directions... Giuliani has stated that he intends to appoint strict constructionist judges - Im not sure we can ask any more of any presidential candidate... And I see no evidence from his past behavior to indicate that he would be lying to us along these lines...

I know that the person holding the office of President can't just speak it and make it so, but I believe this issue important because it illustrates their character and moral foundation.

If our President is ok with abortion, then what laws would he allow past his desk without question?

[Beowulf]

If Rudy gets the GOP nomination, I will NOT vote for him! To vote for him is to support the slaughtering of more unborn children, a major base for us Conservatives. He also wants to curtail gun rights and with his stance on immigration, he scares me.

With his immigration stance, doesn't that kind of blow his National Security ideals all to hell? We have an open border under Bush that terrorists can cross and Rudy supports the same policy.

Sorry, Freecers, I'll vote Constitutionalist before I support Rudy.

[mkafrica]

With his immigration stance, doesn't that kind of blow his National Security ideals all to hell? We have an open border under Bush that terrorists can cross and Rudy supports the same policy.


:claps:

[Lazarus]

...With his immigration stance, doesn't that kind of blow his National Security ideals all to hell? We have an open border under Bush that terrorists can cross and Rudy supports the same policy...Wulf, I donlt know if we can make that leap of logic... I know he supposedly supports the idea of an amnesty for the illegals that are here... But I don't know if that translates into George Bush's open border Latinization of America... I simply dont know what Rudy's stand is on how to handle the border itself...

It could be that he intends to close it but offer amnesty to those who are here... I believe that we have all assumed that he fully backs what Bush is doing, when in truth all I really know is that he supports the idea of amnesty for those who are already here...

I simply don't know... If you have some evidence that he intends to continue to invite the invasion of our nation under King George's mad plan, please do inform me - I want to know...

Does anyone know if he has addressed the border itself?

[Beowulf]

Laz, I have no proof to offer on his border stance. I can only assume it since he pretty much supports the same immigration policies that W does.

[BuckeyeMike]

2nd Amendment rights. No candidate is perfect, but if it weren't for his stand on 2nd Amendment rights, I could probably vote for him against the dem candidate. The others are important too, but 2nd Amendment rights is the straw that breaks the camel's back for me.

Double ditto!!!!!!!! Without gun rights all else is moot!!

[MrSanity]

Hey gang, it's been a while. For some time, I got plenty tired of news, politics, and ranting my brains out, so I took a break.

My feelings on Rudy Giuliani remain fairly negative.

If he were an authentic pro-lifer, I could not only stand to see him as president, but it would be a pleasure. Nowadays, he's softened his blow only to pander to the weaklings on the right who would vote for him because he can win. That's why he's "anti-partial birth abortion" and "for parental notification." I'm not convinced that's where his heart really is.

Abortion, among other issues, such as gun control and illegal immigration, have taken Giuliani to a different platform out of pressure from Republicans to uphold at least some socially conservative aspects of his campaign. Again, his heart is FOR illegal immigration, and once he's in power, he'll do anything to make life as managable as possible for the illegals, much like Bush orchestrated. Gun rights. Right. In NYC, there weren't much of any gun rights his entire tenure as Mayor. He didn't bother to put up a fight. True, he did have a million Democrats to get along with. But still - if he supported the Second Amendment, his tenure in NYC as Mayor would have been a good time to prove it.

[jayson]

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP is Rudy's limited liability partnership law firm (http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/lawyer.profile/attorney/f4d1303d-9dce-43d1-b132-1f858ee82613/Rudolph_W_Giuliani.cfm) that is handling all the legal work for Cintra, the Spanish owned company buying public highways across the country and turning them into toll roads. Cintra's mutli-million dollar (http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/news.release/item/356beb5d-6d61-4761-bec5-387c8ce80a2a/Firm_Advises_Cintra_in_First_Privatization_of_Toll _Road_in_Texas.cfm) deal with Bracewell and Giuliani is a public private partnership that converts state highways into Spanish owned toll roads. Yes this is the NAFTA Super highway which is currently in a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Assessment with scheduled completion by April 2010.

These are the 12 lane, two-way Railroad and transmission line corridors that everyone has been talking about. Rudy represents the company that holds the construction contract. He's taking a check from the North American Union.

Also, Rudy was made a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE) in 2002, violating Article 9 Clause 8 of the US Constitution, which states that citizens holding office (or running for office in his case) cannot hold Title of Heraldry and Order of Precedence for a foreign nation. Also, Rudy never got Congessional consent for his KBE, so despite what your interpretation of Article 9 Clause 8 is. He still violates the Constitution by not having consent of Congress.

The list goes on, and there are probably more cogent arguments against him. But this is why I despise the man.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Also, Rudy was made a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE) in 2002, violating Article 9 Clause 8 of the US Constitution, which states that citizens holding office (or running for office in his case) cannot hold Title of Heraldry and Order of Precedence for a foreign nation. Also, Rudy never got Congessional consent for his KBE, so despite what your interpretation of Article 9 Clause 8 is. He still violates the Constitution by not having consent of Congress.

Link or cite proof, please.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Aha, we have another nutty conspiracy theorist among us. :tinhat:

One small 15 mile stretch of a Texas state highway becomes a massive conspiracy theory that has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called NAFTA Super Highway (I-69), the route of which will pass about 150 miles east of Collin and Denton Counties. Get real!

Moreover, the North American Union is another wacky conspiracy theory that has no factual basis. The NAU does not exist so there is no way that Giuliani could have taken a check from it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Giuliani receives HONORARY knighthood (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1817333.stm)

The former mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, has received an HONORARY knighthood from the Queen for the role he played in the wake of the 11 September attacks. (My emphasis)

There is nothing unconstitutional about an American citizen receiving an HONORARY knighthood.

[jayson]

Link or cite proof, please.
http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/13/ltm.02.html

Unconstitutional or not, the man is clearly unqualified for the position. If 9/11 never occurred, what would Rudy have to his name? Nothing, save for a feeble attempt to commandeer the credit for "cleaning up New York". He is a deceitful fool and I would sooner support a Democrat before I voted for him.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

...the man is clearly unqualified for the position.

Hmmm, unqualified I can't agree with, however I will agree he is not a good representative of Conservatives nor Republicans. RINO's definitely.

As for the request, I wasn't picking a fight, I just wanted to know where you got that assertion from.

[Jack_Savage]

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/13/ltm.02.html

Unconstitutional or not, the man is clearly unqualified for the position. If 9/11 never occurred, what would Rudy have to his name? Nothing, save for a feeble attempt to commandeer the credit for "cleaning up New York". He is a deceitful fool and I would sooner support a Democrat before I voted for him.


He brought a nation together, and your guy brings them apart. Ron Paul is a loon, and a thin one bought and paid for by the hollow left. Soros punks. He makes Dennis Kucinich look more normal,
Who else can do that? :question:

[Lubbock]

. . . feeble attempt to commandeer the credit for "cleaning up New York". . . .

Who should get credit for cleaning up New York City?

Who did it?

Even the Far-Left-Libs give Rudy credit on that score.

[Naturalized-Texan]

It was an HONORARY Knighthood. Many Americans have received HONORARY Knighthoods from Britain, including Dwight Eisenhower (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEEDF143FF932A15756C0A9679582 60&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/S/Schwarzkopf,%20H.%20Norman):

The honorary knighthood is the highest honor Britain can bestow on a foreigner. The knighthood has two ranks. Britain bestowed the top rank, Knight Grand Cross, on Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower and five other American commanders: two generals, George C. Marshall and Douglas MacArthur, and three admirals, Chester W. Nimitz, William D. Leahy and Ernest J. King.

General Schwarzkopf received the second rank, that of knight commander, as did Gens. Mark Clark and Matthew Ridgway before him.

[Elgalad]

To be honest, I don't 'dislike' Giuliani.. at least not enough to say I'd never vote for him.

But the only real issue that he's expressed in the debates that appealed to me was his stance on the WoT. While that is a very important issue, it isn't enough by itself to overcome all the rest of the 'baggage' he brings with him.

Others have mentioned the immigration issue, abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, etc, and those are all big turn offs for me as well.

I've also never really been all that impressed with East Coast Republicans. Aside from one that is.. and that was a century ago. :) Things have changed a great deal since then.


-Elgalad

[jayson]

As for the request, I wasn't picking a fight, I just wanted to know where you got that assertion from.

Sorry about that, I didn't mean to sound coarse in my response.


Who should get credit for cleaning up New York City?

Who did it?

Read Freakonomics. You won't like the answer, though.


He brought a nation together, and your guy brings them apart.

Ask New Yorkers who lived in NY while Rudy was mayor... most honestly hate the man and see him as the opportunist he is.

What's more sickening than using 3,000 American deaths as a catapult to the GOP nomination? Because that is all Giuliani is doing... he's exploiting American corpses for his benefit.

[Lubbock]

. . . Read Freakonomics . . .

No, child. I stay away from Freaks. That's a practice you will also adopt when you grow up.

Someday.

[What's happened to the goofball that was around here the other day telling us that a terrorist-highjacked plane didn't hit the Pentagon? Have we lost him in the shuffle?]

[Jack_Savage]

What's more sickening than using 3,000 American deaths as a catapult to the GOP nomination? Because that is all Giuliani is doing... he's exploiting American corpses for his benefit.
The only thing that is sick are the mental midgets who still can't put it together. the Islamo-freaks hit New York not Rudy. Where was Ron Paul when the nation was being attacked, getting ah-ha's that he could turn it into a campaign for his own ambitions by selling this country out, through a platform of surrender and retreat, while Rudy was focusing on the greatness in America.

Ron Paul is the punk who trys to use it. Not Rudy. Rudy did it. Its the people who have an experience of what Rudy did who bring it up. Not Rudy. Rudy talks about the streets his team cleaned up, and the thugs who he put away. What has Ron Paul ever done.

I think, even at 64 I can take and throw a hard punch. If I overheard someone speak in public like you just did, I would be real tempted to clean their clock.

[jayson]

No, child. I stay away from Freaks. That's a practice you will also adopt when you grow up.

I, too, stay away from freaks... that doesn't mean I can't read a book and enlighten myself on occasion.

[Jack_Savage]

I, too, stay away from freaks... that doesn't mean I can't read a book and enlighten myself on occasion.


So what are you waiting for?

[jayson]

I think, even at 64 I can take and throw a hard punch. If I overheard someone speak in public like you just did, I would be real tempted to clean their clock.

Let me make this clear... I am not here to rile anyone up to the point of wanting to deck me. But I just can't stand idly and listen to Rudy being showered with praise when it's not right.

Have you listened to Rudy talk during the debates? Every single answer he gives, he spouts off something about 9/11. You want to tell me he isn't using 9/11 as a catalyst to the nomination? His only chance is to dupe people into thinking his "leadership" during 9/11 makes him worthy of a nomination.

Some leadership... The man spent more time at baseball games post-9/11 in 2001 than at Ground Zero. (SOURCE: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/18/rudy_yankees/ ).

How this man can look into the cameras and say with a straight face that he was at Ground zero, "as often, if not more" than the rescue workers themselves (who, mind, logged consistent 12-hour shifts) is mind boggling.

Don't take my word for it... listen to what real NYC firefighters have to say about his failures:

http://therealrudy.org/

[Jack_Savage]

Let me make this clear... I am not here to rile anyone up to the point of wanting to deck me. But I just can't stand idly and listen to Rudy being showered with praise when it's not right.

Have you listened to Rudy talk during the debates? Every single answer he gives, he spouts off something about 9/11. You want to tell me he isn't using 9/11 as a catalyst to the nomination? His only chance is to dupe people into thinking his "leadership" during 9/11 makes him worthy of a nomination.

Some leadership... The man spent more time at baseball games post-9/11 in 2001 than at Ground Zero. (SOURCE: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/18/rudy_yankees/ ).

How this man can look into the cameras and say with a straight face that he was at Ground zero, "as often, if not more" than the rescue workers themselves (who, mind, logged consistent 12-hour shifts) is mind boggling.

Don't take my word for it... listen to what real NYC firefighters have to say about his failures:

http://therealrudy.org/

I don't have to listen to some union mentality who voted for Clinton. Maybe the fools for Ron Paul, who has done nothing in his life, have to try and spin nothing into something, but not me, I went through that day. There is no confusion. Only the idiots who desperetly crave some hook to hang their hat on spout it out. Only the hollow ambitions of those with no plan try and fake some emotional narritive but it's really transparent.

Ron Paul's con stinks so bad even blind people know when he enters the room. :shame:


I am not here to rile anyone up to the point of wanting to deck me

Can't you feel it in the air. People are getting fed up with the punk mentality of the whimpy freaks. Sisters of punkology or what ever they go by. Its time to show them the door.

[Venus de Smilo]

From Rudy's website:

"Second Amendment

Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. He understands that every law-abiding American has an individual right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed by the Constitution. To deal with a city where crime was out of control, Mayor Giuliani worked to get guns out of the hands of criminals — resulting in a 66% drop in the murder rate and 72% reduction in criminal related shootings. The best way to deal with gun crime is to prosecute the criminals and enforce the laws already on the books. Rudy Giuliani will make sure that if someone commits a crime with a gun, they will go to prison for the mandatory sentence.
To watch Rudy’s comments on every citizen’s Constitutional right to bear arms, please click here (http://blip.tv/file/356848/)."

[Venus de Smilo]

Let me make this clear... I am not here to rile anyone up to the point of wanting to deck me. But I just can't stand idly and listen to Rudy being showered with praise when it's not right.

Have you listened to Rudy talk during the debates? Every single answer he gives, he spouts off something about 9/11. You want to tell me he isn't using 9/11 as a catalyst to the nomination? His only chance is to dupe people into thinking his "leadership" during 9/11 makes him worthy of a nomination.

Some leadership... The man spent more time at baseball games post-9/11 in 2001 than at Ground Zero. (SOURCE: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/18/rudy_yankees/ ).

How this man can look into the cameras and say with a straight face that he was at Ground zero, "as often, if not more" than the rescue workers themselves (who, mind, logged consistent 12-hour shifts) is mind boggling.

Don't take my word for it... listen to what real NYC firefighters have to say about his failures:

http://therealrudy.org/

Do you think Hillary has more executive experience than Rudy does? If so, please explain to us when, where and how she acquired it.

Thanks.

[Venus de Smilo]

Sorry about that, I didn't mean to sound coarse in my response.




Read Freakonomics. You won't like the answer, though.




Ask New Yorkers who lived in NY while Rudy was mayor... most honestly hate the man and see him as the opportunist he is.

What's more sickening than using 3,000 American deaths as a catapult to the GOP nomination? Because that is all Giuliani is doing... he's exploiting American corpses for his benefit.

I disagree, but even if it was true, better he be elected than one of the two people responsible for the deaths of those 3,000 Americans.

[Venus de Smilo]

Let me make this clear... I am not here to rile anyone up to the point of wanting to deck me. But I just can't stand idly and listen to Rudy being showered with praise when it's not right.

Have you listened to Rudy talk during the debates? Every single answer he gives, he spouts off something about 9/11. You want to tell me he isn't using 9/11 as a catalyst to the nomination? His only chance is to dupe people into thinking his "leadership" during 9/11 makes him worthy of a nomination.

Some leadership... The man spent more time at baseball games post-9/11 in 2001 than at Ground Zero. (SOURCE: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/18/rudy_yankees/ ).

How this man can look into the cameras and say with a straight face that he was at Ground zero, "as often, if not more" than the rescue workers themselves (who, mind, logged consistent 12-hour shifts) is mind boggling.

Don't take my word for it... listen to what real NYC firefighters have to say about his failures:

http://therealrudy.org/

That's a dead horse, Jayson. Giuliani already said it was a wrong statement and apologized for it.

Nice try, though.

By the way, how come you're only beating up on the 'pub front runner?

[Venus de Smilo]

If Rudy gets the GOP nomination, I will NOT vote for him! To vote for him is to support the slaughtering of more unborn children, a major base for us Conservatives. He also wants to curtail gun rights and with his stance on immigration, he scares me.

With his immigration stance, doesn't that kind of blow his National Security ideals all to hell? We have an open border under Bush that terrorists can cross and Rudy supports the same policy.

Sorry, Freecers, I'll vote Constitutionalist before I support Rudy.
How many constitutionalist judges will Hillary appoint? How long after Hillary takes office will NARAL and Planned Parenthood open up their offices in the White House? Voting third party will assure the answers to these questions.

I think you and many others are falling for the DBM's effort to squelch support for the one person who can beat their queen. Why don't you go to the man's site and read what he says on these issues? Or why not write to Fred Thompson and ask him to get his butt in gear?

[Venus de Smilo]

1). http://www.joinrudy2008.com/issues/

2). Also click "Rudy's 12 Commitments" from the above site for his immigration policy.

3). Stop listening to the DBM who are desperate to undermine support for the 'pub front runner. They would do the same to Thompson, Huckabee or any other 'pub front runner. Y'all are allowing them to play on your fears. But hey, leave it to a bunch of 'pubs to allow themselves to get sucker-punched by the DBM........again and again and again.......

[Venus de Smilo]

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP is Rudy's limited liability partnership law firm (http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/lawyer.profile/attorney/f4d1303d-9dce-43d1-b132-1f858ee82613/Rudolph_W_Giuliani.cfm) that is handling all the legal work for Cintra, the Spanish owned company buying public highways across the country and turning them into toll roads. Cintra's mutli-million dollar (http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/news.release/item/356beb5d-6d61-4761-bec5-387c8ce80a2a/Firm_Advises_Cintra_in_First_Privatization_of_Toll _Road_in_Texas.cfm) deal with Bracewell and Giuliani is a public private partnership that converts state highways into Spanish owned toll roads. Yes this is the NAFTA Super highway which is currently in a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Assessment with scheduled completion by April 2010.

These are the 12 lane, two-way Railroad and transmission line corridors that everyone has been talking about. Rudy represents the company that holds the construction contract. He's taking a check from the North American Union.

Also, Rudy was made a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE) in 2002, violating Article 9 Clause 8 of the US Constitution, which states that citizens holding office (or running for office in his case) cannot hold Title of Heraldry and Order of Precedence for a foreign nation. Also, Rudy never got Congessional consent for his KBE, so despite what your interpretation of Article 9 Clause 8 is. He still violates the Constitution by not having consent of Congress.

The list goes on, and there are probably more cogent arguments against him. But this is why I despise the man.
I'll bet he's also a member of the Knights Templar, Skull and Bones, and even the Illuminati!! He's probably also a 2,000th degree Mason, a Grand Moose and horrors only knows what else!!!!:ooo:

"The list goes on, and there are probably more cogent arguments against him."

Yep.:roar:

[Venus de Smilo]

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/13/ltm.02.html

Unconstitutional or not, the man is clearly unqualified for the position. If 9/11 never occurred, what would Rudy have to his name? Nothing, save for a feeble attempt to commandeer the credit for "cleaning up New York". He is a deceitful fool and I would sooner support a Democrat before I voted for him.

Unqualified? Now you're getting desperate. NYC has a larger population and more diverse problems than a number of whole states. Rudy served two terms as mayor of one of the world's most important cities, which gives him more executive experience than any other 'pub or 'rat currently running.

Why don't you harp on Hillary for awhile instead of the 'pubs?

[Venus de Smilo]

So what are you waiting for?
:roar:

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Lazarus:
I believe that Giuliani is probably more honest that the standard variety of politician we are faced with... In truth I believe he is as honest as Fred Thompson is... He has not tried to falsely sell himself as a Conservative just to win our support... He has honestly stood up and said, This is who I am and what I want to do, and for that at least I respect him...

:unsmile: Honest, my ass. Have you heard him describe his pro-abortion position? It goes something like, "I'm not pro-abortion. I hate abortion. It's a bad choice. I wouldn't recommend abortion. Abortion is the Devil. It's yucky. It's icky-poo. Yuck! Ptui! Abortion, I absolutely loathe it. I hateithateithateithateit!! But I think a woman should be able to choose it."

:unsmile: That's not honest. And I couldn't trust any politician who thinks that murder should be legal. In that world view, lying & cheating are also okay. You respect him for that?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

jayson:
What's more sickening than using 3,000 American deaths as a catapult to the GOP nomination? Because that is all Giuliani is doing... he's exploiting American corpses for his benefit.

:unsmile: That's unfair. Just because 9/11 affected him more directly than most doesn't mean he saw it as his opportunity. It could very well be that it motivated him to seek a position to stop future attacks, but your comments are unwarranted & sound mean-spirited. Very mean-spirited. Do you honestly think that his thoughts on 9/11 were "YESSSSSSS!! Now I can be president!!"?

[Naturalized-Texan]

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/13/ltm.02.html

Unconstitutional or not, the man is clearly unqualified for the position.
Firstly, Giuliani is infinitely more qualified to be president than Ron Paul.

No Sword and No Kneeling (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEEDF143FF932A15756C0A9679582 60&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/S/Schwarzkopf,%20H.%20Norman)

In a brief private ceremony in his office at MacDill Air Force Base here, Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf today became the ninth American military officer to receive an honorary knighthood from a King or Queen of England.

Because he is not a British subject, General Schwarzkopf did not have to kneel and be tapped on the shoulder by Queen Elizabeth II when he was knighted. The Queen simply handed him a box containing the cross and silver star of the Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath, British Embassy officials said. The ceremony was closed to the news media and public.

Giuliani's past positions on a few issues disqualifies him to be president in the eyes of some conservatives, but receiving an HONORARY knighthood from Britain certainly doesn't disqualify him from being president. He meets ALL the qualifications specified in the Constitution. An HONORARY knighthood is no more disqualifying than an honorary degree fron Oxford.

[Lazarus]

Well all that was very enlightening...:rolleyes: I suppose my initial question was to prove that everyone here is prestty much set in their decisions...

But all this still doesn't answer the ultimate question we may well be faced with... If we are faced with the choice of Hilary vs. Rudy, what will you do?

I fully understand that some here are passionate about the abortion issue and they detest Giuliani's soft stand on it... But along those lines I want everyone to consider these two questions...

1) Regardless of the public positions that all the Pub candidates take on abortion, does anyone here actually believe there is a single candidate running for the nomination who, if he won the Whitehouse, would actually bring about some tangible change in the abortion question? Has a single one of them made stamping out abortion a major plank on their platform?

I don't recall a single one - and the reason is clear... The President has no more power to affect the question of abortion than any of us do... Only Congress can end abortion - Abortion will never be dealt with until the US Congress passes a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw it... Only a Constitutional Amendment compels the Supreme Court to leave the law unmolested...

So what you're saying is you intend to withold your vote from a Republican Candidate because he personally disagrees with you on an issue that he really has no power to affect even if he wins the Whitehouse... Or you would support him if he did agree with you on an issue he can't affect... Neither decision has any relevance in the real world end results on the question of abortion...

2) If Giuliani wins the nomination, what are you prepared to do in the general election? Are you going to withold your vote, or vote for a third party that you know full well has no chance in hell of winning? To what end? What does that achieve?

Does that achieve a result that is so valuable as to outweigh what the Democrats will in fact do to this country if they win?

We've heard all the negatives about Giuliani, and admitted they are concernes for us... But the things that are possible concerns with Giuliani are factual guarantees if the Dems win...
Giuliani might be unfriendly to the 2nd Amendment...
The Dems WILL come after our guns - Frau Reno was a dress rehersal for what Hilary has planned for this nation...
Giuliani might pursue some amnesty agreement for Illegal Immigants...
The Dems WILL not only give them amnesty, they WILL give them voting rights - NON-US Citizens choosing our elected officials...
Giuliani is soft on abortion and Homos...
The Dems WILL actively pursue expanding abortion rights, probably at US Taxpayer expense...
The Dems WILL seek to impose Homosexuality as a government inforced national institution - at the point of a gun they will turn this nation into Sodom...

Friends, we may find ourselves standing in a burning house... There is one hallway, albeit already burning, that leads outside to safety... Will you take that escape route, knowing that there is a chance you might get burned during your escape, but that there is a good chance of escaping alive? Or will you refuse to take the escape route because there is a chance you might be burned, preferring to stay where you are and be burned alive?

One choice holds the possible threat of injury - The other is the absolute promise of destruction of everything you hold dear... Im not trying to create an artificial senario that forces the answer I want - I'm trying to make it absolutely clear to everyone the reality we will be facing if Giuliani wins the nomination...

We no longer enjoy the privilage of multiple choices - The Marxist wolves are at the door... What are you prepared to do?

[Elgalad]

Lazarus, I think the reason a lot of Freecers are uncomfortable (to put it mildly) with Giuliani right now, is that to throw our full support behind him is tantamount to saying that we don't believe a Real Conservative (someone who represents much more of our beliefs) can win in 2008.

I, for one, find that argument patronizing at best. I absolutely refuse to be bullied into supporting 'the top guy' just because the MSM (or some of my fellow Freecers) insist that he's the only 'Republican' who can win.

If he wins the Primary, then and Only then will I consider supporting him.

In the meantime, what he represents is actually contrary to my best interests and I will actively do all that I can to oppose his nomination.


-Elgalad

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Lazarus, I think the reason a lot of Freecers are uncomfortable (to put it mildly) with Giuliani right now, is that to throw our full support behind him is tantamount to saying that we don't believe a Real Conservative (someone who represents much more of our beliefs) can win in 2008.

I, for one, find that argument patronizing at best. I absolutely refuse to be bullied into supporting 'the top guy' just because the MSM (or some of my fellow Freecers) insist that he's the only 'Republican' who can win.

If he wins the Primary, then and Only then will I consider supporting him.

In the meantime, what he represents is actually contrary to my best interests and I will actively do all that I can to oppose his nomination.

-Elgalad


:yeahthat:, Thank you El, for articulating that so well.

[Jack_Savage]

From Rudy's website:

"Second Amendment

Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. He understands that every law-abiding American has an individual right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed by the Constitution. To deal with a city where crime was out of control, Mayor Giuliani worked to get guns out of the hands of criminals — resulting in a 66% drop in the murder rate and 72% reduction in criminal related shootings. The best way to deal with gun crime is to prosecute the criminals and enforce the laws already on the books. Rudy Giuliani will make sure that if someone commits a crime with a gun, they will go to prison for the mandatory sentence.
To watch Rudy’s comments on every citizen’s Constitutional right to bear arms, please click here (http://blip.tv/file/356848/)."


Very good. I was looking for his comment on it. I never thought about 2nd amendment concerns when it came to Rudy. Especially contrasting him to Hillary. With Hillary we do have them especially when you look a bit deeper into her "village" visions for Americas transformation. Rudy always sees a bolder America. He isn't for some "overloard" or bigger government in my opinion. I was closely associated with the States Rights, "Sagebrush Rebellion" for some years and Rudy would be real comfortable sitting at that table as they would be with him.

Anyway excellent string of posts. You do your research. Solid, good work. You should run for Congress. America really needs the kind of depth into the issues and the way your able to explain them. Have you ever thought of it?

[Lazarus]

Lazarus, I think the reason a lot of Freecers are uncomfortable (to put it mildly) with Giuliani right now, is that to throw our full support behind him is tantamount to saying that we don't believe a Real Conservative (someone who represents much more of our beliefs) can win in 2008.

I, for one, find that argument patronizing at best. I absolutely refuse to be bullied into supporting 'the top guy' just because the MSM (or some of my fellow Freecers) insist that he's the only 'Republican' who can win.

If he wins the Primary, then and Only then will I consider supporting him.

In the meantime, what he represents is actually contrary to my best interests and I will actively do all that I can to oppose his nomination.


-ElgaladIf I have given the wrong impression by my questions and comments, I apologize and will attempt to reiterate what I thought I made clear before...

I WILL BE SUPPORTING FRED THOMPSON right up to and including the Primary election... I will preach his name name far and wide - I will pray that God will do all he can to open the door for Fred's ultimate nomination... I am an unrepentant and unashamed Fred-Head! For the duration of the Primary season, THAT is my unwaivering stand... And I hope we will be supporting Fred in the General election against the Dems...

My questions and arguments I have made here are in relation to the distinct possibility that our hopes for Fred do not come to fruition, and we are faced with the choice of Rudy Giuliani or the candidate from the Dark Side...

I'm only trying to get everyone to seriously consider their Plan B...

[Elgalad]

I hear you, Laz :)

I just don't think it's necessary to worry so much about Plan B until the Convention, do you?

-E

[Lazarus]

I hear you, Laz :)

I just don't think it's necessary to worry so much about Plan B until the Convention, do you?

-EWell obviously I do...But maybe I shouldn't... I seem to have stirred all kinds of stinkiness over my questions...:D

Please everyone, disregard this thread entirely... I don't know what I was thinking...:biggrin:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JacobSullum/2007/04/11/the_right_to_hunt_in_montana_rudy_giulianis_narrow _reading_of_the_second_amendment

Giuliani tries to reconcile his support for strict gun control in New York with his newfound commitment to the Second Amendment by saying that different jurisdictions should be able to choose the gun laws that are appropriate for them. As his Web site puts it, "Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn't necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana."

But the right to keep and bear arms has no meaning if politicians are free to impose any kind of gun control they think "works."

[Elgalad]

I guess what I'm trying to say is..

These threads keep starting up, and the usual suspects glom on, wanting to debate everyone about the merits of Rudy G. when most of us really aren't even considering the guy.

No offense meant, D4R, Venus, and other Giuliani supporters.. but while I admire and respect your sincere belief in Rudy's candidacy, there's simply no way that you are ever going to convince me to support him.

I've said already that if I have no other choice than G or H, it's a no-brainer.

But I'm just not going to worry about that when the first Caucus hasn't even happened yet. Still a month and a half away. :biggrin:


-Elgalad

[Jack_Savage]

My questions and arguments I have made here are in relation to the distinct possibility that our hopes for Fred do not come to fruition, and we are faced with the choice of Rudy Giuliani or the candidate from the Dark Side...

I'm only trying to get everyone to seriously consider their Plan B...


I thought your points were real clear. Seasoned. While my passion is against Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, if that unfortunate option raised its ugly head, it is a bit easier for me to go for anyone opposing them.

Yeah, better have a plan "B". Pet it and keep it fed right.

[Kathy30]

If faced with the Janus head of Guliani and Hillary I might vote independent for the first time ever.

Guliani is a liberal and a Republican. The lib democrats will support him, the republicans will support him just cause he's a republican. Hillary is perhaps the best chance for obstructionisim. The republicans will consistently vote against her. Not all democrats like her. Hillary is not the best person to be president, but she may be the best choice given the garbage we've got. It was Ross Perot who showed the democrats how far off base they were, maybe the republicans need just such a wake up call.

I'd rather have a paralyzed government that can't do anything, than a government that consistently does the wrong thing.

[Elgalad]

It was Ross Perot who showed the democrats how far off base they were, maybe the republicans need just such a wake up call.

:question:

You lost me here.

Did Perot or did Perot Not, hand Clinton the Presidency on a silver platter in both 1992 and 1996?

In neither election did Clinton get more than 50% of the vote.

I made the mistake of voting 'independently' for Perot in 1992, thinking he would mean change to the establishment. To my everlasting shame, I was proven incorrect.

I'll Never make that same mistake twice.


-Elgalad

[Jack_Savage]

I'd rather have a paralyzed government that can't do anything, than a government that consistently does the wrong thing.

Well, be happy then thats what you got.

(From reading you posts, I don't think you would like what Hillary would bring)

[Rhino]

From Rudy's website:

"Second Amendment

Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. He understands that every law-abiding American has an individual right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed by the Constitution. To deal with a city where crime was out of control, Mayor Giuliani worked to get guns out of the hands of criminals — resulting in a 66% drop in the murder rate and 72% reduction in criminal related shootings. The best way to deal with gun crime is to prosecute the criminals and enforce the laws already on the books. Rudy Giuliani will make sure that if someone commits a crime with a gun, they will go to prison for the mandatory sentence.
To watch Rudy’s comments on every citizen’s Constitutional right to bear arms, please click here (http://blip.tv/file/356848/)."http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/giuliani.htm

I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons.
Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2007/02/rudy-giuliani-has-some-still-to-be.html
http://www.nyc.gov/html/rwg/html/97a/me970302.html
http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO42897
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm

And on, and on.

His rhetoric has indeed flip flopped recently, but I trust actions more than rhetoric.

[Kathy30]

No I don't like what Hillary would bring. No I don't like what Guliani would bring. Here's the question. Answer it and it might make my decision for me. Which would be prevented from doing the worst job?

This is supposing that Hussein Obama doesn't get the nod. He's insane. He believes he can unite the country. If anything, he might force it to split apart the way the Soviet Union fell apart.

[mkafrica]

I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons.
Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000Hmm... As I understand the Constitution, driving a car (or if you want to go back to the days of the Founding Fathers, riding a horse...) isn't a Constitutional Right. A gun is.

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/Glock17a.gif

[Lazarus]

...I'd rather have a paralyzed government that can't do anything, than a government that consistently does the wrong thing.Kathy, you won't have a paralyzed government under Hilary...

Everyone needs to recall that most of the damage we sustained under Bill Clinton did NOT come thru Legistlation that the Congress passed to him... In fact he had a bad relationship with the Congress thru most of his two terms...

The vast amount of the evil that eminated from Bill Clinton's reign of terror came out of the cabinet departments that the President has virtual dictatorial powers over...

The Dept of Interior practically made the Sierra Club a Sub-department by proxy and together they went after individual farms and ranches, one at a time, so that the families targeted stood alone against the power of the Federal government - That same Sierra Club is still alive and waiting to fulfill their pledge to eliminate all cattle west of the Mississippi...

The IRS became a Gestapo, raiding private homes and businesses like Jack-booted thugs...

And need I remind everyone of the nightmare that "Reno's Rangers" became -
Ruby Ridge -
Waco, Texas -
Common citizens jailed and interrogated for months on end for the heinous crime of shouting "You Suck" at the President in a public forum -
Doors kicked in in the middle of the night and Elian Gonzolas taken at the point of a submachinegun and sent as a human present to Fidel Castro...

All of these things and more were all executed on the American people without Congress involved at all - All committed under the Dictatorial authority of President Bill Clinton...

[Jack_Savage]

No I don't like what Hillary would bring. No I don't like what Guliani would bring. Here's the question. Answer it and it might make my decision for me. Which would be prevented from doing the worst job?

This is supposing that Hussein Obama doesn't get the nod. He's insane. He believes he can unite the country. If anything, he might force it to split apart the way the Soviet Union fell apart.

Without an active growing, participating conservative movement it won't get fixed. But I think we have that happening. If Hillary gets in the movement stops. Shrinks up. Ambiguous politically correct administrative rule becomes law, with commissions appointed from team Soros to interpret the true meaning of what the word "is" is. People will not take the time to figure it out. I have first hand experience with it. Take a trip out to Oregon, buy a piece of land outside the urban growth boundry. See what happes to your bundle of rights. Only the elitists have property rights. Nobody is opposing them. To busy watching what Boston Legal minds do to that conservative Denny Crain. They even got him coming out of some closet.

Look at other nations Kathy, the courage to ink up their fingers takes generations and generations, and generations. We do not want this to fail. Somehow we have to take the opportunity we have and stop it now. Letting it all fall down is a lazy mans excuse for not having to get up and particapate. Losing this next election is not an option. Because if we lose, the other side whips up into full-auto mode. They feed off of conservatives. Been doing it for a long time. Look at what they did to New't, who stood up them? They Denny Crained him.

Who gives us the opportunity to join there administration and redirect the course of action. Rudy or Hillary?

[Lubbock]

For the record, and just so there will be no mistake ever: I DO NOT WANT RUDY!!!!!

I am a Fred Woman [and since my now deceased ex-husband's name was Fred, there may be something terribly wrong with that statement, but I haven't stopped to analyze].

I DO NOT WANT RUDY TO BE THE NOMINEE!!!

I have not given up on Fred, and am terribly frustrated and angry that the "Right Stream" media seem to be touting and pushing Rudy; highlighting every perceived misstep that Fred's campaign makes, and every perceived wrong breath he has taken since birth.

BUT . . .

If Rudy is my only choice, then he gets my vote.

I have said adamantly that I WILL NOT VOTE FOR McCAIN. Been saying it for months.

More recently, I have had to backdown, back up, and backtrack, and admit with regret that I just might have to eat those words.

[The_Elucidator]

I completely understand why Laz started this thread. I'm glad he did as he got it rolling much better than I could have. With that being said - the reason he is bringing this up is because while a vast majority on this board prefer FDT over any/all candidates, the idea of keeping plan B on the table though, must be considered. If enough of the American Public sees it the way we do this will be a dead issue next November. Unfortunately while watching one of the most credible pollsters in Rasmussen consistently show that us Conservatives are split between 4 candidates, it is becoming increasingly clear that if it isn't Fred it will be Rudy. On the other side of the ballot waits the biggest scandal that has ever graced politics.

As far as Jayson goes!! Dude, Rudy isn't qualified but Ron Paul is? Some of the other arguments against Rudy are valid, qualification isn't one of them. If you want to go down that road there are really only 3 candidates that have run anything, Rudy (Mayor of NYC), Mitt (Gov of Mass) and Huck (Gov of Ark). The only thing Ron Paul is in charge of is Conspiracy Theories R Us.

[Rhino]

The only thing Ron Paul is in charge of is Conspiracy Theories R Us.http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/doggie.gif

[jayson]

That's a dead horse, Jayson. Giuliani already said it was a wrong statement and apologized for it.

Had no one called him on it, he would have not apologized. The man is a liar, there are no two ways about it.

By the way, how come you're only beating up on the 'pub front runner?

Because if I was beating up on the Democrat front runner, I would be preaching to the choir and wasting my breath. Trust me, I hate Hillary just as much as many of you do... But I can't say anything that hasn't been said before so it's a moot point.

Do you think Hillary has more executive experience than Rudy does?

Nope. She's just as inexperienced as Rudy. But instead of using 9/11 for the nomination, she is still working on the sympathy generated from Bill and Monica's affair.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Worth repeating:

The only thing Ron Paul is in charge of is Conspiracy Theories R Us.

EDIT: And he thinks that's enough to qualify him to be president.

[Timberwolf]

1) Gun Control vs. 2nd Amendment rights - Giuliani in his crusade against crime has, in the past, demonstrated a disregard for the 2nd Amendment in its original intent... This position scares me the most of my concerns because it shows that he harbors a belief that the Federal Government has sovereignty over our self-evident, God-given rights, as a government by the people...

Rudy has of late, publicly repented of his former actions along these lines, stating that the lawsuits against the Gun Manufacturers that he previously acted in, went down a path that he never intended for them to go... I wonder just to what extent he "expected" the suits to go, and what path he envisioned for them...

I believe he is stating the truth in this, but it still leaves me wondering just to what extent he believes the Federal Government has authority over our lives in this area... Still he has made overtures toward the 2nd Amendment community and promised us to defend the constitution in this question - So I will, for the moment, give him the benefit of the doubt...
I won't.

That he's "seen the light" on this issue to me is pandering to the conservative base. I don't trust him on this issue.

2) Illegal Immigration - Rudy has gone on record as being on King George's team with this issue... And he has not really addressed it in the public forum for everyone to have a firm feel for what he intends to do to address the problem if he wins the Whitehouse... Instead he seems to dodging the issue as it is the 3rd rail issue in this election...

I admit, if I discover that he intends to proceed with George Bush's plan to betray the American people in the face of their overwhelming opposition to amnesty, this might end up being a deal breaker for my support... I don't know if I can support another George Bush on this issue... I need to learn more about where he stands on this and what he intends...
Considering he's on the record as saying, "Illegal immigration isn't REALLY a crime, nor should it be" seals the deal for me. He is also a sanctuary city supporter, so scroom, he ain't getting my vote.

3) Homosexuality - Whereas the first two issues I cited are ones that the President can directly affect in his capacity as Chief Executive, this one, I admit, is not... However, I am uncomfortable with a man who is so comfortable with such an evil cultural issue... A homosexual act committed by an individual is a sin, and God has made provision for that as he has for all sin... But Homosexuality as a social concept is institutionalized sexual deviancy, and as such is classified as evil... Unless he begins to propose legitimizing homosexuality as a national policy, this is not a deal breaker for me - But I wish he did not have such a casual attitude toward it...
Casual morals does not a great leader make...'nuf sed.

I also believe that it is only fair to list the Pros that come with Giuliani... In his defense I will admit that Giuliani displays strong leadership characteristics... He's not at all afraid to challenge the far left... He also seems to be committed to defending America against terrorism, although for all the credit he gets in this area, in truth he has done nothing concrete other than to clean up the destruction in New York City... Disaster cleanup does not qualify one as a terrorist fighter, but I believe he is as committed to the war as anyone...
He's a hawkish liberal...doesn't impress me. Especially when there are FAR more qualified CONSERVATIVES FOR WHOM to vote.

Additionally, I believe that Giuliani is probably more honest that the standard variety of politician we are faced with... In truth I believe he is as honest as Fred Thompson is... He has not tried to falsely sell himself as a Conservative just to win our support... He has honestly stood up and said, This is who I am and what I want to do, and for that at least I respect him...

He may be hiding some policies that will really kill the deal for me, but there comes a point where one has to trust one's feelings about a man, and ON THE WHOLE, I believe him to be honest...
I see him as a pandering left-leaning moderate (at best) who's on a power trip.

At this point, as much as I am concerned with the issues I have cited above, I am certain that life under any of the Democrats we are faced with will make any concerns I have with Rudy pale to insignificance... Still, there is a lot of time before the election occurs, and Rudy can still LOSE my general support if he reveals a willingness to go too far on any of the issues I have mentioned...

At this point, however, if he is the Republican candidate, I am willing to back him to stop the Leftists from destroying the nationI love...

Now let's here from the rest of you... And please be honest - Pros as well as Cons...
The ONLY 'pro' I can cite is his stance on the War on Terrorism...the War on the Unborn and the War on our Culture are FAR more important...God will not be mocked and we all know what He has stated about "the hands which spill innocent blood" and "abominable acts".

Whereas Hillary will have the car in overdrive on our joyride to hell, Rudy will keep us in 2nd gear...we'll still be goin' to hell, we'll just get there a bit more slowly.

[Jack_Savage]

Had no one called him on it, he would have not apologized. The man is a liar, there are no two ways about it.

The only other thing Ron Paul is good for is making really disgusting people look better than him.

Think about what you found appealing. I'll bet the first time you heard him speak, you knew you found someone to follow. It must be fascinating to sit in a room full of people who have no idea where there going. Wild eh?

[jayson]

The only other thing Ron Paul is good for is making really disgusting people look better than him.

Can someone tell me why Ron Paul keeps popping up in a thread about Rudy? I haven't even mentioned the man, yet several here insist on continually bringing him up.

D4R, you are more than welcome to represent your candidate, but, personally, the guy is a phony. He's a wolf in a sheep's clothing, and he is exploiting the the attacks of 9/11 and using them to get votes. It's as simple as that.

[Jack_Savage]

Can someone tell me why Ron Paul keeps popping up in a thread about Rudy? I haven't even mentioned the man, yet several here insist on continually bringing him up.

D4R, you are more than welcome to represent your candidate, but, personally, the guy is a phony. He's a wolf in a sheep's clothing, and he is exploiting the the attacks of 9/11 and using them to get votes. It's as simple as that.


Coming from someone who wants Ron Paul slobbering all over our White House, thats a compliment. Really, think about it Jason Ron Paul has done nothing in his life but embarrass this country. Nobody likes him. The exception proves the rule. A bunch of idiots at his Rally cheering on his pleas to surrender. His call for retreat. An audience of fools, calling America's Mayor a phony is probably one of Rudys strong points.

I can't think of one candidate who would be fond of a Ron Paul endorsment. It would be like the kiss of death. He even looks like death warmed over. What on earth does his audience look like. The biggest Ron Paul sign I ever saw was out in Death Vally. But keep thumping his tub, it defines you more and more. Jot down his plans for tomorrow when he gets one.

[jayson]

An audience of fools, calling America's Mayor a phony is probably one of Rudys strong points.

He isn't my mayor. Giving Rudy the title of "America's Mayor" is terribly misappropriate.

[Beowulf]

I, for one, find that argument patronizing at best. I absolutely refuse to be bullied into supporting 'the top guy' just because the MSM (or some of my fellow Freecers) insist that he's the only 'Republican' who can win.

Exactly, Elgalad! I've been bashed many times because I won't vote for someone whom I don't like "just to keep Hitlery out of office." I personally could give a damn what they think either!

[Jack_Savage]

He isn't my mayor. Giving Rudy the title of "America's Mayor" is terribly misappropriate.


I didn't give Rudy that title, the people who Ron Paul is courting gave him that title. Think of it this way, Ron Paul stands on the stage looking like some twisted, hollow freak, screaming for America to give up, looking like a whining left-wing anti-war idiot, only makes the rest on that stage look like supermen.

He makes those who campaign for him look like cowards. Deviants. Freaks. He attracts those who are scared of Al-Quida. The whimps who want to surrender to Irans demands. If you look at him, instantly you know he has no plan or set of ideals, only fear. He has no magnatism drawing people to him just a craving to follow. Who else would let them shuffle the paperwork in their campaign? Look Jason, how many times have you
been asked to outline some plan? There isn't one. Just a craving to be part of his campaign. For what?
What are the results his campaign offers that lures you to follow him off of this political cliff? Maybe its just that his followers have allready hit bottom so they don't care anymore?

His campaign is more about the sorry hopeless segment of American society, than Ron Paul himself. He serves as a big flashing avoid sign for people and business to get out of that district. Stay away, we are idiots!

Its better than having Dennis Kucinich and his tongue studded wife on the stage to show what the alternative to Rudy or Fred is. In that regard, he serves a purpose.

[Venus de Smilo]

I guess what I'm trying to say is..

These threads keep starting up, and the usual suspects glom on, wanting to debate everyone about the merits of Rudy G. when most of us really aren't even considering the guy.

No offense meant, D4R, Venus, and other Giuliani supporters.. but while I admire and respect your sincere belief in Rudy's candidacy, there's simply no way that you are ever going to convince me to support him.

I've said already that if I have no other choice than G or H, it's a no-brainer.

But I'm just not going to worry about that when the first Caucus hasn't even happened yet. Still a month and a half away. :biggrin:


-Elgalad

Elg, I'm not a Rudy supporter. Duncan Hunter is my guy, but he has no chance. My next choice is Thompson, who would have a good chance if he would but seize it. How I vote in the primary will depend on how well Romney is doing. If Romney is close to Rudy, I will have to vote for Rudy. If Romney isn't close to Rudy, I will vote for Thompson. I think either man has the ability to beat Hillary, but right now, based on Thompson's poor performance thus far, I don't feel confident that he will put into the general campaign what it will take to beat her. So far, he shows no signs of being a fighter, and it's going to take a fighter - a real street fighter - to beat Hillary and her machine. Rudy shows those characteristics; Thompson doesn't. We can have a wonderful, sharp conservative candidate that we admire and look up to, someone whom we happily accept as a leader, but if that candidate won't fight, he can't win, and then we're left with a nightmare in the White House who will do so much serious damage to this country we won't recover from it. For one thing, she will pull out all the stops to give voting rights to illegals which will assure 'rat political supremacy for generations. We won't have another bite at the apple if she wins.

The reason why I speak positively about Rudy is because I don't want my fellow 'pubs and freecers to stay home or vote third party and deliver a win to Hillary because, in my opinion, Hillary in the White House will be the end of our country and culture. I also think we play into the hands of our enemies by doing so. Rudy is not your enemy; Hillary Clinton is.

We have to do what is best for the country.

[Venus de Smilo]

If faced with the Janus head of Guliani and Hillary I might vote independent for the first time ever.

Guliani is a liberal and a Republican. The lib democrats will support him, the republicans will support him just cause he's a republican. Hillary is perhaps the best chance for obstructionisim. The republicans will consistently vote against her. Not all democrats like her. Hillary is not the best person to be president, but she may be the best choice given the garbage we've got. It was Ross Perot who showed the democrats how far off base they were, maybe the republicans need just such a wake up call.

I'd rather have a paralyzed government that can't do anything, than a government that consistently does the wrong thing.
It won't be paralyzed, though. Wrap your mind around the thought of a 'rat controlled senate, a 'rat controlled House, and Hillary in the White House. Just focus on THAT instead of worrying about wake-up calls to the 'pubs. If Hillary becomes the next president, even more illegals will be imported in droves like herds of cattle and they will be registered to vote, thus assuring 'rat control of the entire federal government for years and years to come. She will stop ICE from taking any action against illegals. That was the order to the INS during Bubba's two terms. This time they will be even more brazen because she can only serve two terms so she won't have to worry about backlash affecting her future aspirations. Taxes will be in the 50% to 60% range for the middle class. We will have socialized medicine (except for the leftwing elite). We will fund abortions, which will be performed, in part, through outreach programs. The Second Amendment will be completely neutered. All of the various legislation that incrementally robs us of our right to keep and bear arms will flourish and Hillary is champing at the bit to sign it. Our military will be underfunded and treated like shit, just the way they were during Bubba's administration, only Hillary unleashed will be even worse, and our intelligence-gathering processes will be driven back to the stone age where the Clintons made sure it stayed throughout their reign.

Yeah, go ahead and vote third party, Kath. Keep letting the DBM rattle your focus. While you're whining about Rudy, they're stuffing Hillary into the White House through the back door.

[Venus de Smilo]

http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/giuliani.htm

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2007/02/rudy-giuliani-has-some-still-to-be.html
http://www.nyc.gov/html/rwg/html/97a/me970302.html
http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO42897
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm

And on, and on.

His rhetoric has indeed flip flopped recently, but I trust actions more than rhetoric.
I'm not thrilled with his position either, Rhino. I simply posted it for informational purposes because you and I think someone else didn't seem to know exactly what his position is.

[Venus de Smilo]

Kathy, you won't have a paralyzed government under Hilary...

Everyone needs to recall that most of the damage we sustained under Bill Clinton did NOT come thru Legistlation that the Congress passed to him... In fact he had a bad relationship with the Congress thru most of his two terms...

The vast amount of the evil that eminated from Bill Clinton's reign of terror came out of the cabinet departments that the President has virtual dictatorial powers over...

The Dept of Interior practically made the Sierra Club a Sub-department by proxy and together they went after individual farms and ranches, one at a time, so that the families targeted stood alone against the power of the Federal government - That same Sierra Club is still alive and waiting to fulfill their pledge to eliminate all cattle west of the Mississippi...

The IRS became a Gestapo, raiding private homes and businesses like Jack-booted thugs...

And need I remind everyone of the nightmare that "Reno's Rangers" became -
Ruby Ridge -
Waco, Texas -
Common citizens jailed and interrogated for months on end for the heinous crime of shouting "You Suck" at the President in a public forum -
Doors kicked in in the middle of the night and Elian Gonzolas taken at the point of a submachinegun and sent as a human present to Fidel Castro...

All of these things and more were all executed on the American people without Congress involved at all - All committed under the Dictatorial authority of President Bill Clinton...
Laz, some of the people here are just hopelessly wedded to one of two themes: 1). If they can't have whom they want which would be any solid social conservative, then by God they're going to make sure we're all punished for it and learn our lesson........even if it ruins the country and gives the 'rats control for the next fifty years. They're staying home "by God!" or voting third party "by God!" as though they're some great paragon of virtue. If it wasn't so dangerous, it'd be funny. 2). The short-sighted thought that a "not conservative enough" candidate sends the slippery slope message that the 'pub party is drifting too far to the left such that they're staying home or voting third party, even though the slippery slope message is totally moot when you consider the decimation Hillary will wreak on the 'pub party through legislation handed to her by the 'rat controlled legislature and the federal and SCOTUS judges she will appoint.

There will be no "mulligans" (do-overs, second bite at the apple, whatever you want to call it) if that demon is elected. If Hillary is elected, you can just stick a fork in the 'pub party because we're done. Game, set, and match. Checkmate. Adios.

[Venus de Smilo]

For the record, and just so there will be no mistake ever: I DO NOT WANT RUDY!!!!!

I am a Fred Woman [and since my now deceased ex-husband's name was Fred, there may be something terribly wrong with that statement, but I haven't stopped to analyze].

I DO NOT WANT RUDY TO BE THE NOMINEE!!!

I have not given up on Fred, and am terribly frustrated and angry that the "Right Stream" media seem to be touting and pushing Rudy; highlighting every perceived misstep that Fred's campaign makes, and every perceived wrong breath he has taken since birth.

BUT . . .

If Rudy is my only choice, then he gets my vote.

I have said adamantly that I WILL NOT VOTE FOR McCAIN. Been saying it for months.

More recently, I have had to backdown, back up, and backtrack, and admit with regret that I just might have to eat those words.
I know how you feel because that's the way I feel about Romney. I don't see that pantywaist beating Hillary. It'd be like sending a toddler to a gunfight with a knife and both hands tied, but if he gets the nomination I will be forced to vote for him because we just CANNOT let that demon get the WH. Frankly, I'm terrified at the thought of that happening.

[Elgalad]

Well stated Venus, and my apologies for misreading your support for Giuliani. I happen to admire Duncan Hunter too, and in a different field, he might very easily be my candidate as well.

I agree that Keeping Clinton out of the White House is important, and if/when the circumstance arises that there is no alternative but to pick the Republican candidate (whoever it might be), I will also do what I consider best for this country.

Now all that being said, I still believe that the real Primary Process hasn't even begun yet and it's far too early to start making arrangements for 'what if I have to go with number two.' Heck, just these past two weeks there has been plenty of 'surprising news tidbits' and controversy on the other side of the fence (all since the last debate). Hillary's nomination is most certainly Not even a given at this point. :biggrin:

Now it's quite possible that our different perspectives and approaches for the coming election might be a result of you viewing the end result strategically while I am addressing it tactically. You are planning for all scenarios now, while I am limiting my concern only for the next step in the process (the Republican Nominee).

That may seem short-sighted to you, but I simply refuse to consider secondary options while my primary ones are still valid. I've always felt that those who prepare for defeat end up making it happen ~ self-fulfilling prophecy and all that.

So I will continue to support my candidate and try to ensure that he achieves victory over the others, but especially the leader right now, whose platform issues I have major problems with. I do not view it as shooting myself in the foot to discourage Giuliani's nomination in any way, even if it may appear so to you.

Lastly, it appears that while you express interest in Fred Thompson, you've already made up your mind that he is unelectable. That's of course your prerogative, but I strongly disagree with your assessment of him. I've known 'fighters' all of my life and after having met the man in person, I will testify first hand that I believe he is for real.

Not all 'warriors' go around looking for a fight, or brag about their prowess in an attempt to intimidate their opponents. Some choose instead, to conceal their true strength until the exact moment that it's needed. After the smoke clears though, those are usually the last ones left standing. :smirky:


-Elgalad

[Venus de Smilo]

The only thing Ron Paul is in charge of is Conspiracy Theories R Us.
:roar::rotflmbo:

[Venus de Smilo]

Well stated Venus, and my apologies for misreading your support for Giuliani. I happen to admire Duncan Hunter too, and in a different field, he might very easily be my candidate as well.

I agree that Keeping Clinton out of the White House is important, and if/when the circumstance arises that there is no alternative but to pick the Republican candidate (whoever it might be), I will also do what I consider best for this country.

Now all that being said, I still believe that the real Primary Process hasn't even begun yet and it's far too early to start making arrangements for 'what if I have to go with number two.' Heck, just these past two weeks there has been plenty of 'surprising news tidbits' and controversy on the other side of the fence (all since the last debate). Hillary's nomination is most certainly Not even a given at this point. :biggrin:

Now it's quite possible that our different perspectives and approaches for the coming election might be a result of you viewing the end result strategically while I am addressing it tactically. You are planning for all scenarios now, while I am limiting my concern only for the next step in the process (the Republican Nominee).

That may seem short-sighted to you, but I simply refuse to consider secondary options while my primary ones are still valid. I've always felt that those who prepare for defeat end up making it happen ~ self-fulfilling prophecy and all that.

So I will continue to support my candidate and try to ensure that he achieves victory over the others, but especially the leader right now, whose platform issues I have major problems with. I do not view it as shooting myself in the foot to discourage Giuliani's nomination in any way, even if it may appear so to you.

Lastly, it appears that while you express interest in Fred Thompson, you've already made up your mind that he is unelectable. That's of course your prerogative, but I strongly disagree with your assessment of him. I've known 'fighters' all of my life and after having met the man in person, I will testify first hand that I believe he is for real.

Not all 'warriors' go around looking for a fight, or brag about their prowess in an attempt to intimidate their opponents. Some choose instead, to conceal their true strength until the exact moment that it's needed. After the smoke clears though, those are usually the last ones left standing. :smirky:


-Elgalad

Thanks for a great reply, Elg.

I think when you throw your hat into a campaign, you've already stepped into the fight. You're there.

One correction, though: I don't think Thompson is unelectable at all. I think he's very electable and is a very attractive candidate. But, unlike you, I need to see a display of what he has to offer in terms of throwing punches and fighting Hillary's machine when the rubber meets the road next November. What can he bring to bear in that campaign? That's what I need to know. I've always liked Thompson a lot and was sorry when he left the senate. He didn't show a lot of force or fire when he was in the senate, either, which is fine for that venue but not for a presidential campaign. As I said, I will be voting for Thompson unless Romney is too close to Rudy for comfort and Thompson is way down in the polls. At that point, I wouldn't be voting for Rudy as much as I would be voting against Romney. If Thompson is also within striking distance, he gets my vote, but I don't think he will be within striking distance of Rudy unless and until he shows more campaign strength.

[Elgalad]

At the risk of sounding 'too forward thinking'.. ;)

I believe South Carolina is going to be the key.

New Hampshire and Iowa are both important, but SC's got a ton of conservatives and money.

I just can't seem Romney sticking it out long after a loss in Carolina.

edit: thought SC had more electoral votes than it did.. just rechecked. Still think it's gonna be key though.


-E

[Jack_Savage]

One correction, though: I don't think Thompson is unelectable at all. I think he's very electable and is a very attractive candidate. But, unlike you, I need to see a display of what he has to offer in terms of throwing punches and fighting Hillary's machine when the rubber meets the road next November. What can he bring to bear in that campaign? That's what I need to know.

Good. One thought, I seem to pick up from reading some of the posts here, not yours but many, that getting up and out of the chair to vote, is about all some people are prepared to do. Voting for or objecting to someone is their final shot at it.

To the degree we participate after the election, America will be healther and more alive to face what confronts us. Who will encourage that participation, Hillary? No. No-no. Her entire agenda is about her wants. Bill's whole career was about being interesting, not interested in what was good for the people.

We saw what he did with the fresh young innocence interning at the White House. No more of that kind of participation please. So keeping all of those who sign up to take Hillary on, Healthy and strong, is in all our best interest.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I agree that Keeping Clinton out of the White House is important, and if/when the circumstance arises that there is no alternative but to pick the Republican candidate (whoever it might be), I will also do what I consider best for this country.

Now all that being said, I still believe that the real Primary Process hasn't even begun yet and it's far too early to start making arrangements for 'what if I have to go with number two.' Heck, just these past two weeks there has been plenty of 'surprising news tidbits' and controversy on the other side of the fence (all since the last debate). Hillary's nomination is most certainly Not even a given at this point. :biggrin:

Now it's quite possible that our different perspectives and approaches for the coming election might be a result of you viewing the end result strategically while I am addressing it tactically. You are planning for all scenarios now, while I am limiting my concern only for the next step in the process (the Republican Nominee).

That may seem short-sighted to you, but I simply refuse to consider secondary options while my primary ones are still valid. I've always felt that those who prepare for defeat end up making it happen ~ self-fulfilling prophecy and all that.

So I will continue to support my candidate and try to ensure that he achieves victory over the others, but especially the leader right now, whose platform issues I have major problems with. I do not view it as shooting myself in the foot to discourage Giuliani's nomination in any way, even if it may appear so to you.

Lastly, it appears that while you express interest in Fred Thompson, you've already made up your mind that he is unelectable. That's of course your prerogative, but I strongly disagree with your assessment of him. I've known 'fighters' all of my life and after having met the man in person, I will testify first hand that I believe he is for real.

Not all 'warriors' go around looking for a fight, or brag about their prowess in an attempt to intimidate their opponents. Some choose instead, to conceal their true strength until the exact moment that it's needed. After the smoke clears though, those are usually the last ones left standing. :smirky:


-Elgalad

:claps: Simply stated; simply brilliant. :claps:

Just in case I am not here around the 30th of November, can I please have an absentee ballot so I may cast my vote NOW for Poster of the Month?

Please record my vote for Elgalad! :claps::claps::claps::claps::claps:

[Maggie_T]

(shrug) I'll state what I said in another thread. I simply could not live with myself if I thought I had, even in the most remote way, contributed to putting The Bitch in the WH. Do you guys really want another 8 (or even 4 would be too many) years of Clintonism?

As for Ron Paul, he's such a nut I simply cannot believe anyone - except maybe his mother - would take him seriously. You might as well vote for Popo the Clown. Ron makes Ross Perot look like George Washington.

If Hillary is elected, you can just stick a fork in the 'pub party because we're done. Game, set, and match. Checkmate. Adios.--Venus

I'll go one further and say "... stick a fork in the country because we (Americans) are done ..." and that scares the holy sugar out of me.

I want someone who will defeat Hillary. Badly and for good. (__________________) put that person's name in there and I will certainly vote for him/her/it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

As for Ron Paul, he's such a nut I simply cannot believe anyone - except maybe his mother - would take him seriously. You might as well vote for Popo the Clown. Ron makes Ross Perot look like George Washington.

Ron makes Ross Perot look sane.

[Venus de Smilo]

No I don't like what Hillary would bring. No I don't like what Guliani would bring. Here's the question. Answer it and it might make my decision for me. Which would be prevented from doing the worst job?

This is supposing that Hussein Obama doesn't get the nod. He's insane. He believes he can unite the country. If anything, he might force it to split apart the way the Soviet Union fell apart.

A Hillary administration will have the benefit of a 'rat congress who will confirm the very worst possible judges. Those appointments will work against all remaining conservative and traditional values. Further, the 'rat congress will provide her with the kind of socialized legislation she wants to implement to convert this country into a European socialist country or worse. The damage will last for two generations, if not forever. Rudy, on the other hand, will not have an obliging congress. The 'rats fought him every step of the way in NYC, and they'll fight him in DC as well.

Does that answer your question?

[Venus de Smilo]

At the risk of sounding 'too forward thinking'.. ;)

I believe South Carolina is going to be the key.

New Hampshire and Iowa are both important, but SC's got a ton of conservatives and money.

I just can't seem Romney sticking it out long after a loss in Carolina.

edit: thought SC had more electoral votes than it did.. just rechecked. Still think it's gonna be key though.


-E
I hope Romney doesn't stay high in the running past SC. He isn't going to get SC, and that may be Fred's opportunity to make his move if he's ever going to. I think Romney is a disastrous candidate. He can't beat Hillary because he's a wimp - a complete lightweight. Sheesh, the man caved in to NBC when he ran the Olympics and then hid behind his secretary. It was disgusting. If he can't stand up to a media outlet, how's he going to stand up to the Clinton machine in the campaign or for our country when we're attacked? Oh, yeah, that's right. He said he'd call in the lawyers if we're attacked. Good God. Then he can hide behind them. The man is a gutless, empty suit.

[Beowulf]

I'll go one further and say "... stick a fork in the country because we (Americans) are done ..." and that scares the holy sugar out of me.

Sad but true, Sis. The country I defended is but a memory.
Laz, some of the people here are just hopelessly wedded to one of two themes: 1). If they can't have whom they want which would be any solid social conservative, then by God they're going to make sure we're all punished for it and learn our lesson........even if it ruins the country and gives the 'rats control for the next fifty years. They're staying home "by God!" or voting third party "by God!" as though they're some great paragon of virtue. If it wasn't so dangerous, it'd be funny. 2). The short-sighted thought that a "not conservative enough" candidate sends the slippery slope message that the 'pub party is drifting too far to the left such that they're staying home or voting third party, even though the slippery slope message is totally moot when you consider the decimation Hillary will wreak on the 'pub party through legislation handed to her by the 'rat controlled legislature and the federal and SCOTUS judges she will appoint.

And so this is aimed at me I'm sure because I refuse to back Guiliani if for no other reason to keep Hitlery out of office. Either way, the country is doomed.

I get the impression that Venus is saying that I have to scrap my pro-life, pro-gun, anti-amnesty and anti-Socialism values in the next election.

[Jack_Savage]

Sad but true, Sis. The country I defended is but a memory.

And so this is aimed at me I'm sure because I refuse to back Guiliani if for no other reason to keep Hitlery out of office. Either way, the country is doomed.

I get the impression that Venus is saying that I have to scrap my pro-life, pro-gun, anti-amnesty and anti-Socialism values in the next election.

I don't agree. I don't see how you have to scrap anything. The ideals you hold deep are genuine. There important. But its not about you, except in the sense of playing the hand your delt, the most effective way you can. If you have two cards to play, play the best one. Not voting, or not playing any card, wins nothing. Unless, you really don't care who wins. Thats what the rest of the country has been doing for far too long. I would bet thats not you though, given the amount of resolve you post on this forum.

I wish John Wayne was one of the choices. I think he would take it too them the way it needs to be done. But he isn't here. I can't pack up my marbles and go home. I was put here to keep cutting the cake. Making judgment calls. Working to become better at it. When that stops the game is over. It may suck, but thats the way God set it up. Pull the lever as if the election fell on your vote, with all your might.

In that respect you just may get others out of their chair to do the same.

[Beowulf]

I don't agree. I don't see how you have to scrap anything.

Oh but according to Venus, not in so many words, I do. She's not the only one either. According to them, I'm supposed to pick the lesser of two evils. I am supposed to pick "the other candidate" just to keep Hitlery out of office. This two party system has ruined this country and I just won't stand for anymore of it.

As I've said before, I only agree with Rudy on one issue and that's his stance on terrorism. THAT'S IT!! That being said, I've been lectured before how even if a candidate isn't perfectly suited to my liking that I need to support them. Now I've been reduced to a candidate that I have no likings of whatsoever. What kind of choice is that when they both support abortion rights, gun control, more taxes for social spending and blanket amnesty amongst other things. I don't agree with any of it. Either way, this country is destroyed by either of them and I won't vote for either to support it.

Now, if people would finally have enough and do something about this two party system instead of whining about how there will never be a viable third party then maybe we can fix this. Since no one will step up to the plate, I'll do it and vote Constitutionalist if Fred Thompson isn't the nominee.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Beowulf:
Oh but according to Venus, not in so many words, I do.

What kind of choice is that when they both support abortion rights, gun control, more taxes for social spending and blanket amnesty amongst other things.

:sulk: According to VENUS, you're gullible for knowing how these two clowns stand on the issues. You're supposed to criticize Swillary for these things, while looking the other way & voting for Venus's hand-picked choice for president.

[Jack_Savage]

Oh but according to Venus, not in so many words, I do. She's not the only one either. According to them, I'm supposed to pick the lesser of two evils. I am supposed to pick "the other candidate" just to keep Hitlery out of office. This two party system has ruined this country and I just won't stand for anymore of it.



Thats not how I heard Venus. In the context she was talking from the focus was on Hillary.

As far as a third party, if you are prepared to do all that which goes with building one, and its not just some "finger" to the world, then that would be a viable choice. A meaningful endeavor. But most who vote independent do it out of trying to show how "right" they are and how "wrong" everyone else is. That they are one of the few people with all the answers. There prime candidates for Team Soros.

I don't see you in that role. Far better if there is one shot in a hundred to vote for the person which will listen, will adjust his course of action when discovered it can work. Someone who is honest, even if he opposes you, because we can work with that, unlike Hillary who's goal is to not make this system work as evidenced in her College thesis and time she spent with that commie mentor she idiolized.

The key is the level of participation required to turn this ship of state around. We are headed over the fall's right now. But don't blame the candidate, its the people who have their heads in the shopping bags and butts in the recliner who have let it happen. Its going to take some work on all our parts.

I don't see any easy way of doing it. Its not so much the lesser of two evils, rather which one offers the most opportunity for success after putting our head, hands and feet into it.

[Aaron]

Rudy is a damn liberal and any conservative candidate running could do just as good a job protecting our country that Rudy could. Who the hell is Rudy anyway? Only experience he has is mayor of New York, and he comes off as the perfect politician, not leader.

Any conservative who is voting for this abortion-gay loving monster is no conservative in my book. Why are we already compromising on this ghoul? What the hell has he done that has been so spectacular and why does everyone think he is our only option?

Ridiculous, purely ridiculous. Romney would make a better candidate, even with his flip-flopping. If you think you will carry the bible belt with Guilani, then you are sadly mistaken. True conservatives who carry the republican party will never vote for this guy. He can take his family values and shove them up his pro-abortion, pro-illegal immigration ass.

[Jack_Savage]

Rudy is a damn liberal and any conservative candidate running could do just as good a job protecting our country that Rudy could. Who the hell is Rudy anyway? Only experience he has is mayor of New York, and he comes off as the perfect politician, not leader.

Any conservative who is voting for this abortion-gay loving monster is no conservative in my book. Why are we already compromising on this ghoul? What the hell has he done that has been so spectacular and why does everyone think he is our only option?

Ridiculous, purely ridiculous. Romney would make a better candidate, even with his flip-flopping. If you think you will carry the bible belt with Guilani, then you are sadly mistaken. True conservatives who carry the republican party will never vote for this guy. He can take his family values and shove them up his pro-abortion, pro-illegal immigration ass.

Maybe if you could figure out a way for Thompson to take the lead, instead of just indignation, that would solve your problem, eh?

[Aaron]

Maybe if you could figure out a way for Thompson to take the lead, instead of just indignation, that would solve your problem, eh?


Perhaps by me voting for him, instead of watching the polls? Polls, as seen time and time again, mean jack-shit in todays politics.

[Jack_Savage]

Perhaps by me voting for him, instead of watching the polls? Polls, as seen time and time again, mean jack-shit in todays politics.


If your going to shreak out like that the least you can do is donate to this forum. As a courtesy to the others. That would be a way to communicate your the kind of person who walks the walk, not just talk.
:thumb:

[Venus de Smilo]

Oh but according to Venus, not in so many words, I do. She's not the only one either. According to them, I'm supposed to pick the lesser of two evils. I am supposed to pick "the other candidate" just to keep Hitlery out of office. This two party system has ruined this country and I just won't stand for anymore of it.

As I've said before, I only agree with Rudy on one issue and that's his stance on terrorism. THAT'S IT!! That being said, I've been lectured before how even if a candidate isn't perfectly suited to my liking that I need to support them. Now I've been reduced to a candidate that I have no likings of whatsoever. What kind of choice is that when they both support abortion rights, gun control, more taxes for social spending and blanket amnesty amongst other things. I don't agree with any of it. Either way, this country is destroyed by either of them and I won't vote for either to support it.

Now, if people would finally have enough and do something about this two party system instead of whining about how there will never be a viable third party then maybe we can fix this. Since no one will step up to the plate, I'll do it and vote Constitutionalist if Fred Thompson isn't the nominee.
Beo, I'm talking about the general election, not the primary, and I have been all along. The next general election is the end of the line for the 'pub party. Let me say this clearly: If Hillary Clinton wins the next election, there will not be a 'pub or constitutionalist or anything else but 'rat presidents for at least two generations, if not forever. If you don't like two-party rule, how well will you like one-party rule, especially when that one party is the 'rat party controlled by the far left?

The next general election is not about you or even about the luxury of having principles; it is about the survival of this country.

[Etaoin]

When Rudy talks, he sounds almost like a conservative, but that ignores his entire history. He did do a good job in N.Y. but that is a TOWN, that is decidedly left. If Rudy is the candidate, AND ELECTED he will destroy any remains of conservatism remaining in the "UNITED" states.

I've said this in other threads, but no one takes it seriously, "If Hillary wins the nomination and is smart enough to choose Obama as her running mate, she will be elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012! (hope she will have too much pride to take Obama!) as she would then lose! After the Constitution is amended, when Obama's turn comes around, there will be no more elections. There is nothing but dynamite or C4 that will move the Clintons out of the White House if they get their sorry asses in it again!

Political correctness will have so enervated the populace that they won't give a damn! By then, REVOLUTION will be for more benefits, not for freedom! Damn it is depressing to be so negative in prognostication!

[Jack_Savage]

I've said this in other threads, but no one takes it seriously, "If Hillary wins the nomination and is smart enough to choose Obama as her running mate, she will be elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012! (hope she will have too much pride to take Obama!) as she would then lose!

Please, don't do anything to further that possibility just to be right. This is more important than how you appear, please.

The only way that could happen is if the country eats, sleeps and drinks stupid till the election. I believe America is smarter than that.

If you personally don't like the choices we have, you and the others, who feel the same way, should have started sooner, organized harder. Don't blame the candidates who are putting their hat, ass and overcoats, on the fireing line for you. Look at what has happened to Bush, who the heck would want the job, except someone who is committed to making some contribution. We are lucky to have all of them.