What if Rudy gets the GOP "nod"?

What a ridiculous response. The op is about Rudy Giuliani. This person is pro choice. You make it quite clear you would vote for him over an unnamed democrat. You turn right around and condemn helping elect those who would appoint pro life judges. What is your problem?

The numbers are there. You are scared of them and have no vision. And you are exactly right. I dont answer to you, or anyone else that has not done one thing for this nation. (a form of selling the country out) It will be great to watch you on judgement day explaining your vote based on such reasoning.

 

You refuse to recognize the differences between the 2 party's platforms. I'll not throw away my vote on a loser, if there is a choice between 2 viable candidates. If Ron Paul becomes a viable candidate, as in, could win, I'd support him. I resent your characterization of someone that votes within the 2 party's, as foolish.

 

My specialty sn.

 

In your above quote, it looks as if the whole thing is mine. The second part that disses the 2 party's is Ken.

 

your conscience and your vote, have a ball

 

Jesus isn't running, sport.

 

Now there's a list of anti-American socialists.

 

Work hard Ken. Get him to a point that I could reasonably support him. He's the best out there as of now, since macaca man spoke himself into oblivion.

 

Might this say more about you than me?

Where did I make that clear? I have not said anything about Guiliani, have I? Will you do me a favor: either find a place where I said that, or apologize for saying that I said that when I didn't. Your choice.

No I didn't. My main concern has been clearly stated: pro-life judges. I am in favor of electing those who would appoint them.

People who can't read very well and make stuff up is near the top of the list. In this post, you are 0 for 2 in trying to talk about what I said.

Here is what I said about the two topics you addressed:

Rudy? Who knows. I don't really know enough about him. I doubt he can win the primary becuase of his personal past.

I cannot justify helping elect someone who will appoint clearly prochoice judges

Now, why did you say I said something different? You had to look no farther than page 2 to find both of these quotes. So why were you so frivolous and irresponsible with my words? Is it too much to ask that you read what I say and comment on that?

Numbers of what are where? What does that mean?

I am not scared the least. And I have a great vision: I have a vision of a multi-racial church of first generation Christians in this community and I am working hard towards that goal.

I know

To explain that I valued certain things too much to throw a chance at them away? I don't think that will be a hard explanation. To me, morality and virtue counts. Life counts. Honesty and integrity counts. That's why I am turned off at present by all the politicians I am aware of. I see no politician who upholds these values.

 

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I left the Republican Party in 1996 after the party refused to stand up to Comrade Clinton in the budget battle (and just about everything else).

I vote for the person -- usually A Republican, sometimes third party or write-in, RARELY a Democrat (and only in a local race so far).

Frankly, it's too early to even consider who I'll definitely be supporting for President in November 2008. When I was a kid, campaigning for President didn't begin until the YEAR OF the election. Now, the 24/7 drive-by media have made elections a 24/7/365 thing. It's awful and doesn't serve our national interest.

I can say that there are some I would NEVER vote for. Examples: ANY DEMOCRAT. The Democrats are the allies of Al-Queda, the enemies of the Constitution, the party of death, and they are all around bad guys (and gals).

I COULD NOT vote for Guliani -- though I respect his leadership ability, I simply will not pull the lever for someone who is pro-homosexual unions/marriage, and who has said he'd write a check for his own daughter's abortion. Additionally, he carries far too much personal baggage like 3 marriages, 2 divorces, infidelity, etc.

Same for Newt. If he were to run, I don't mind most of his views -- He's a conservative. But his morals are atrocious. 3 marriages, 2 divorces, infidelity, etc. And I think that was used by the Clintonistas to blackmail him and keep him quiet while he was speaker of the House...

McCain...I respect his service to the country -- but I just don't LIKE the guy. AND, I don't TRUST him. He'll compromise with the Kennedy's in a heartbeat to make himself look good. He has generally been conservative (with NOTABLE exceptions such as McCain-Feingold), and I won't say NO NEVER...But, not so much....

Romney...At least his personal life is "clean." Of course, He's a Mormon. Not that there's anything wrong with that.... Seriously, I find his sudden "change of heart" on abortion too convenient to believed, at least at this point. And, he raised taxes and grew Government in Mass while Governor. Again, I won't say NO NEVER...But, no, not so much here either...

Tancredo...I LOVE his stance on the border issue. Other than that I see him as a grandstander out to promote himself -- even at the expense of the war effort and our CURRENT CIC. He might do as Secy of Interior or even Homeland Security, but President...? Not NO NEVER, but not likely either.

Hunter...LOVE the guy. Been a faithful and strong conservative for a lot of years. Right on life, the border issue, supporting the war, etc. He's from California -- which is an automatic strike against him LOL Too close to Hollywood! I would vote for him and feel comfortable in doing so.

Brownback...generally Conservative -- but dead wrong on the border issue. His home state Kansas is set to benefit big time by buildning that "Trans-American Corridor" which will flood our nation with illegals, terrorists and heaven knows what else. I just don't think I could punch his chad on the election ticket...

Huckabee...Again, I like the guy. Conservative -- right on life and moral issues, ran Arkansas well -- that's saying something after Herr Clinton and his Jezebel left for Washington. On the same token, he raised taxes in the state in compromise with Democrats. That makes me consider putting him in the "Republicans who never learn" category...Still, I might be able to support him.

Fred Thompson is an unknown factor right now. Will he or won't he run? Though he has been divorced and Remarried (as was Reagan) there is no egregious or scandalous history morally. He is generally conservative. He was my Senator when I lived in Tennessee, and the biggest disappointment I had with him was in his failure to vote to convict Herr Clinton on the strongest charge of perjury in the impeachment hearings. I wrote him then and said he needed to return to acting, because I wouldn't vote for him again.... Well, he did return to acting, he didn't run for Senate again. Is he too close to Hollywood? Would he be too quick to compromise with the Democrats?... I MIGHT consider voting for him -- he looks better all around than most other candidates...

I guess we'll see. But, it's STILL too early for all this! I wish they wouldn't bother me til NEXT YEAR!

JDale

 

Is it really that hard to understand? Giuliani is pro choice. He has said it over and over again. He governed NYC like he was pro choice. Now, stay with me, dont wander, if Giuliani is President, what kind of Supreme Court justices do you think he will nominate?

 

1) You refuse to recognize that the platforms don't mean anything for the two major party candidates. When is the last time that a major party candidate actually implemented, or even tried to implement, the vast majority of a major party's platform? One would probably have to go back to FDR in his first term for that.

2) There's no reason for your resentfulness since I didn't say that. I said that is it foolish to limit one's choices to only the two major parties, not that it is foolish to vote for a candidate from one of the two major parties.

 

Not winning an election does not make a person a loser.

 

How is this in the least relevant to my comments? I didn't say Guiliani wasn't pro choice. I did not say anything about the kind of justices he would nominate. Get this loud and clear: I did not even say I would support him or vote for him. The only thing I said about Guiliani is that I do not know enough about him.

Now, here's the fact: Twice, you accused me of saying something I did not say. I gave you the undeniable truth about it. The question is: Will you apologize for making stuff up about me?

 

I think it was on Sean Hannity's radio show, Rudy did say that he would nominate and support a conservative nominee for SCOTUS, because as a Republican he knows his constituency wants that. I don't know whether I believe it or not. That offers at least some hope. No Democrat would even consider it.

 

Never said he was bucko.

 

Are you making the assumption that I am voting for Rudy there, buddy? Or Hillary, buddy? And when did I become your buddy there buddy? The fact that I am not your buddy shows my high standards. Would you like to place a wager on the fact that in 2009 you will be saying president Clinton once again? I, of course, couldnt think of a worse fate for this country, but it just shows how we have been "slouching toward Gomorrah." Rudy's abortion stand rules him out for me as well as the gay marriage issue. But I know Christians on this board who support Obama for no other reason than the fact that he is black even though he is for PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION! As well as gay marriage.

I have to admit one thing. Of all the potential Democratic nominees, Hillary Clinton is a better man than the rest of them.