Proof of Guiliani's lies about guns

[frankie_the_yankee]

Ron Paul is the candidate for me, not just for his pretty good stance on gun control:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Pau ... ontrol.htm


But many other stances as well

I like some of what Ron Paul says too, but not his views on foreign policy.

The thing is, there's a better chance that you yourself will be elected president than he will. So VOTING for him in a primary, as opposed to simply "liking" him, is equivalent to voting for the Republican frontrunner.

If he were pulling decent numbers that would be one thing. But he is stuck in the lower single digits where he always has been. And I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[frankie_the_yankee]

My biggest concern is that I do not want to hear the words "Madam Persident" in January 2009...Not that having a woman running this country in the future would be a bad thing...I believe it is inevitable, but Hillary Clinton is not one of those women...

There are a few more things about Rudy that do not endear him to folks outside NYC for the most part...He's a ok guy for the most part, but I will not vote for him in this election...

The trouble with your position is that it is self contradictory. Since we know that only the Republican and Democrat in the race has a chance of winning, (Sorry Libertarians!) if Hillary is the Dem nominee and Rudy the Republican, not voting for him is equivalent to voting for Hillary.

If enough people do that, you'd better learn to get used to hearing "Madam President", because that's what will happen.

[RKirby]

......... Outside NY, he is recognized for what he is -- a Democrat.

Guiliani is a liar pure and simple. He's an anti-gun New Yorker and his attempt to convince us he's not is insulting our intelligence.

Chas.

Those two statements pretty much sum it up in a nutshell in my opinion.

That said, if he were running against Clinton, I'd vote for her.

I really, really hope that it doesn't come down to that. I just can't see voting for Hilary and being able to face myself in the mirror the next day.

[Lodge2004]

"Your right to bear arms is based on a reasonable degree of safety," he said.

Whenever I hear a politician saying they support my "right to bear arms", I also visualize them crossing their fingers and thinking "...while serving in the National Guard or other armed services."

In my opinion, when a politician wants to court gunowners, but does not actually believe the Constitution enumerates a right of the people to keep and bear arms, they will shorten the commonly used phrase to allow some plausable deniability. It sounds like the banner headline used by pro-2A organizations but doesn't have to mean the same thing.

Rudy could have easily said; "Your right to keep and bear arms..." The fact that he did not, causes alarms to go off for me.

[stevie_d_64]

My biggest concern is that I do not want to hear the words "Madam Persident" in January 2009...Not that having a woman running this country in the future would be a bad thing...I believe it is inevitable, but Hillary Clinton is not one of those women...

There are a few more things about Rudy that do not endear him to folks outside NYC for the most part...He's a ok guy for the most part, but I will not vote for him in this election...

The trouble with your position is that it is self contradictory. Since we know that only the Republican and Democrat in the race has a chance of winning, (Sorry Libertarians!) if Hillary is the Dem nominee and Rudy the Republican, not voting for him is equivalent to voting for Hillary.

If enough people do that, you'd better learn to get used to hearing "Madam President", because that's what will happen.

No kidding...Really Frankie???

Geesh, I guess we better hope to knock him off in the primaries huh???

I have never said I am going to sit out and not vote...I have a bit more confidence in our primary system than some people...

He's not going to make the cut...No matter how much money is thrown at it...I'm just extremely impressed at how much money is going to his campaign...And I'll be laughing all the way to election day next year...

[KBCraig]

The majority of those polled have paid scant attention to candidates or issues. It's strictly name recognition at this point (and it's made worse by the mainstream media only covering those candidates they deem "top tier"). Polls at the debates, which reflect those who are politically active, almost always have Ron Paul coming out the winner.

Courtesy of Justin Ptak:
"In early 1975, Carter was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Presidency).

"In early 1987, Dukakis was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Democratic nomination).

"In early 1991, Clinton was at 2% (he went on to win the Presidency).

"In the spring of 1999, John McCain was polling at 3% (he went on to win the NH primary).

"In early 2003, Joe Lieberman was leading the field for the Democratic presidential nomination (he failed to win any primary)."

[stevie_d_64]

BTW, to emphasise mine and some others points here in this discussion...

Actually, the term "shall not be infringed" indicates that it isn't subject to anything...

'Bout sums it up for me...

Safety, is of course paramount in the conducting of this inalienable right, there is no compramise there...

What we do in regards to this activity is obviously inhierently dangerous and potentially deadly...

I do not have any need for "any" politician/elected official/candidate to tell me anything about your's and my right to keep and bear arms...

Rudy, we'll take it from here...Thank you very much...Have a nice day...

[frankie_the_yankee]

All I can say is:

1) Support whoever you want in the primaries.

2) In the general election, vote for the Republican no matter who it is.

That is unless you can be happy with the judges and FCC commissioners Hillary/Obama would appoint. (Remember, she wants to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine". And the judges she would appoint would uphold it.)

[CWOOD]

All I can say is:

1) Support whoever you want in the primaries.

2) In the general election, vote for the Republican no matter who it is.

That is unless you can be happy with the judges and FCC commissioners Hillary/Obama would appoint. (Remember, she wants to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine". And the judges she would appoint would uphold it.

)

ABSOLUTELY!!

Frankie has it absolutely right.

Whether it is 2A issues, taxation, fairness doctrine, foreign threats, judicial appointments, the very worst and troubling of the Republican candidates if far and away superior to the BEST of the Demos this year.

[stevie_d_64]

All I can say is:

1) Support whoever you want in the primaries.

2) In the general election, vote for the Republican no matter who it is.

That is unless you can be happy with the judges and FCC commissioners Hillary/Obama would appoint. (Remember, she wants to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine". And the judges she would appoint would uphold it.)

Hey now, there you go...Nothing wrong with that stance at all...

And don't think I (and many others) know all the risks of allowing a Hillary/Obama administration to be anointed either...That almost went unsaid...

Rudy is a RINO, and the more they spend time adjusting and glossing over his campaign to cover up his past opinions and actions that do not reflect very well against the Republican Party platform...So be it...

All I am saying is the primaries are not going to be the slam-dunk for him as so many in the leadership are wanting him to be...

I'm sure we'll all see things clearer when we get closer to that primary election day...

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't want Hillary as President - Period! That's why it is critical to get a Republican (not Democrat Guiliani) nominated to run against whoever is the Democratic candidate.

But Frankie's position of preaching that Guiliani is a Republican, so don't worry too much if he gets the nomination, is dangerous. He is more dangerous than Hillary and the more people acknowledge it the greater the chance someone else will get the Republican nomination. People seem to be underestimating the power and momentum that is generated for any legislation when it can be labeled as bipartisan. If a Democratic President is pushing legislation in a Democratic controlled Congress, it much easier to generate and maintain opposition.

Calling a hurricane a "little storm" may be comforting, but it self-deluding -- this guy is dangerous folks; we cannot let him get the nomination.

Chas.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I don't want Hillary as President - Period!

I fully agree. So no matter who is running against her, they have my vote.

That's why it is critical to get a Republican (not Democrat Guiliani) nominated to run against whoever is the Democratic candidate.

It takes more than simply nominating a Republican. It means nominating a Republican who can WIN. Otherwise, it's "Madam President..." If Ron Paul somehow got nominated, for instance, he'd lose by about 65-35.

But Frankie's position of preaching that Guiliani is a Republican, so don't worry too much if he gets the nomination, is dangerous.

I didn't say don't worry too much. I just maintain that he is less dangerous to our rights than Hillary. We obviously disagree on this particular matter of opinion.

My opinion is based primarily on the types of judges and FCC commissioners Rudy is likely to appoint compared to what Hillary would do.

People seem to be underestimating the power and momentum that is generated for any legislation when it can be labeled as bipartisan. If a Democratic President is pushing legislation in a Democratic controlled Congress, it much easier to generate and maintain opposition.

A Democrat president AND Congress sounds like a big risk to me. I'd worry more about holding 41 weak-kneed Republicans against the Big Media demonization drumbeat that would surely ensue (after talk radio has been silenced) than I would about a Rudy administration and a Republican or split Congress selling us out.

Just my opinion.

[stevie_d_64]

Another aspect of this that provides a little context...

The last election where the Republicans lost the majority in both houses was (in my opinion) not so much what some would want you to believe was due to the Iraq War...

It was more that the contigent of Republican voters either stayed out of the election and didn't vote for the usual RINO's, or shifted to a more Libertarian lean in political philosophy...

Either way that reduces and dilutes the vote for conservative representation, and gives the liberal/socialists a better turnout in the long run...

So what we need to do is do a little studying...See who the real conservatives are, see who are the folks who have a proven track (voting) record in regards to 2nd Amendment issues, and keep them in the fight...Just because we win an election and get a few good laws passed doesn't mean the fight is over...It is never over...There will always be a threat to take (chip) away our rights...

RINO's and moderates are like lukewarm water...Niether refreshing or even tolerable anymore...That is the real lesson of the last election...