I was responding to DD..I am sorry if you can't make the connection.........:roll:
You do realize then that you're talking about a microscopic portion of the Republican party in your definition of "right wing". The problem is you are taking trends amongst a group and deducing it down to the individual level.
I'm an evangelical christian, I'm a conservative, I vote Republican with great frequency, although I'm by no means a fundamentalist christian, I'm closer than most non-religious people would be comfortable with, and so on and so forth. By any reasonable standard, I'm right wing, but your description of these traits as they would be present in individuals, they are taken to the extreme, and there are very VERY few people for whom all of those traits apply.
Now if you define "right wing" in that way, that's fine, by all means, but you have to realize that as a product of that, you're not talking about a section of the party that matters.
What it comes down to is that a lot of people don't understand social conservatism, and as a product of which don't understand social conservatives. There are many different reasons people become social conservatives, some have become social conservatives because Republicans were the only ones who would address their values, some have become social conservatives because they came to the conclusions genuinely, some came because they value tradition, and moving slowly and deliberately, some came because they're genuinely theocrats.
As a product of which, we don't speak as a unit. Navy Pride and I are both firm social conservatives, yet we draw very different conclusions on a wide array of issues. Even though we've seemingly drawn the same conclusion about Giulianni, that he's not the best, but he's good enough considering that he'd beat any Democrat you threw at him, we probably came to this conclusion for completely different reasons.
Giulianni's good enough for some of the social conservatives, others not so much, some will undoubtedly stay home and not vote, others might vote for a third party, but a lot of us would vote for him in a general election, and a lot of us likely will caucus for him because it's better to have him than having a Democrat president.
AHA! A perfect example of accusing someone of being a traitorous liberal simply because he disagrees with your stilted and clouded view of the world!Listen my wannabe Conservative I am fighting the good fight against Liberals like you in about 6 or 7 threads........Don't get your panties in a bind........:roll:
Then you wrote:Originally Posted by ARealConservative
It's pretty self explanatory.
Read the thread subject and my reply. If you still don't get it - color me not surprised.
It is amazing to me the pattern here....shocked? No! Amazed at the idiocy of labeling everyone a "liberal."Listen my wannabe Conservative I am fighting the good fight against Liberals like you in about 6 or 7 threads.
Overall crime was cut in half under Giuliani and murders were reduced by 70% The FBI named New York the Safest Large City in America. Not exactly busting kids with weed, though he did stomp down on that as well, under the theory that allowing small crimes leads the way to larger ones.The only real crime crackdowns were petty crimes. Like for example, when Rudy took office there were 720 arrests for marijuana possession per year, his last year there were 58,000. Really great use of NYC police, busting kids with weed. It would be a good asset to a city like say, Peoria, IL, but NYC had far larger problems - nonetheless, his statistics do look good, so kudos to him.
Indecent said:Yeah, considering:
1) married his second cousin (YUCK!)
2) has admitted mob Ties (through his Dad and Uncle)
3) Cheating, Three-Times-Married Husband
I'm not so sure about the guy at all. I think it's rather sad someone who can't manage his personal life at all is the top GOP contender at the moment.
I didn't realize there was a limit on how many times one can be married and still be elected president. Which article of the Constitution is this under?
I didn't realize there was a limit on how many times one can be married and still be elected president. Which article of the Constitution is this under?
I'm sorry, can you point out where I said there was?
No different from Conservatives complaining Obama smokes. There isn't anything to keep him from becoming president, doesn't mean people aren't going to think its a mark of bad character.
No statue, just a red flag.
This nation is big enough to where if you can't succesfully entire into a stable relationship after two attempts - you aren't presidential material.
The nation is big enough to handle it. If he can do the job it doesn't matter what he does in his personal life.
I think the nation can do much better.
Look at how he managed one of the largest cities in the US, as well as his leadership on 9/11.How do you determine if he can handle it?
The primary is a long ways off, just wait until the debate and learn his stance on the issues. You can change your mind as much as you want until you actually vote.ARealConservative said:There isn't much to go on IMO
Again with the marriages? Why is this an issue to you? Give me one logical reason that connects having a wife and running a country.ARealConservative said:All I know for sure is he creates false flag groups like Firemen for Rudy and has difficulities forming long lasting romantic relationships.
He wants people to be able to prove that they can handle a gun by earning a license, just like you need a license to drive a vehicle.ARealConservative said:And of course he favors gun regulation and alien amnesty.
Sorry, I don't think Brownback will get the Republican nomination. Feel free to vote for Hillary or Obama.ARealConservative said:I think the nation can do much better.
Look at how he managed one of the largest cities in the US, as well as his leadership on 9/11.
Again with the marriages? Why is this an issue to you? Give me one logical reason that connects having a wife and running a country.
As far as immigration, do you really think the government can stop illegal immigration? It's not going to happen. They can try to build a wall, but it's just not going to work. Deporting those illegals that are here is also logistically impossible. Giuliani is a realist, he favors a guest worker program that helps immigrants on the path to getting their green card and citizenship.
Sorry, I don't think Brownback will get the Republican nomination. Feel free to vote for Hillary or Obama.
You honestly think that's what he did? Giuliani spent his time on 9/11 organizing and managing rescue crews, visiting hospitals comforting the injured and their families, as well as providing a single voice for New Yorkers and Americans to cling to when Bush was no where to be found.Leadership is more then running as fast as possible to the next camera to maximize television face time.
:roflARealConservative said:Kudos for his handling of crime. He would make an excellent mayor some day. :mrgreen:
So, a person who gets divorced is a bad person?ARealConservative said:It's not exactly a litmus test, but it does speak of ones character and ability to handle personal relationships well.
What would you rather do, send them all back? Even conservative estimates of illegal aliens makes this option impossible. I would rather have them working and doing something productive for our society rather than sitting on the streets unemployed.ARealConservative said:It has always been easier to break the law than it is to prevent grievances.
That doesn't mean you don't try. Place stricter punishment on corporations that employ illegals.
Blanket amnesty is garbage legislation.
ARealConservative said:The differences between Guliani and those other two aren't big enough for me to be concerned at the moment. Guliani should run against them in the primaries IMO.
You honestly think that's what he did? Giuliani spent his time on 9/11 organizing and managing rescue crews, visiting hospitals comforting the injured and their families, as well as providing a single voice for New Yorkers and Americans to cling to when Bush was no where to be found.
So, a person who gets divorced is a bad person?
What would you rather do, send them all back? Even conservative estimates of illegal aliens makes this option impossible. I would rather have them working and doing something productive for our society rather than sitting on the streets unemployed.
Why? Because he supports gay marriage and abortion? Or because he's had more than one wife? What's your rationale for this?
Heaven forbid journalists go to the man in charge of running the city when they want to know things huh?You honestly believe that?
I was home sick when all this went down. That man was in front of every news camera all day long. He wouldn't of had the time to do those other things.
TIME 2001 Person of the Year: Rudy Giuliani ProfileHe arrived at the World Trade Center just after the second plane hit, watched human beings drop from the sky and--when the south tower imploded--nearly got trapped inside his makeshift command center near the site. Then he led a battered platoon of city officials, reporters and civilians north through the blizzard of ash and smoke, and a detective jimmied open the door to a firehouse so the mayor could revive his government there. Giuliani took to the airwaves to calm and reassure his people, made a few hundred rapid-fire decisions about the security and rescue operations, toured hospitals to comfort the families of the missing and made four more visits to the apocalyptic attack scene.
You didn't say it, I asked you. Hence the question mark.Where did I say that?
Yes, that innocent until proven guilty bullshit...I would love to send them back, but that isn't realistic. As already stated, our nation is designed to give an advantage to the law breaker.
Hardly. Companies will still hire illegals and illegals will keep coming. Being poor and jobless in America is still better than having work in Mexico.I want to apply pressure on companies in a manner which will drain the employability of illegals. This will sufficiently reduce the incentive to gain illegal access.
Gay marriage and abortion aren't real important issues to me. Limited government is important to me. Gun Control is important to me. Amnesty is important to me. On all those, he is running under the wrong ticket. There is nothing about the guy that sticks out as someone I want elected.
Well, then why did you bring it up? And when did smokers become the non-smoking party?
So, a person who gets divorced is a bad person?
Heaven forbid journalists go to the man in charge of running the city when they want to know things huh?
TIME 2001 Person of the Year: Rudy Giuliani Profile
Sure looks like he had the time, huh?
Yes, that innocent until proven guilty bullshit...
Hardly. Companies will still hire illegals and illegals will keep coming. Being poor and jobless in America is still better than having work in Mexico.
How is Giuliani not for limited government? He wants to keep government out of business by letting them hire cheap unskilled labor, and you want to legislate it. And please do forget his stances on defense and the economy while your looking for things you like in a candidate. Just keep worrying about all those damn wetbacks.
I have mentioned his ridiculous Firefighters for Rudy stunt several times and you have conveniently ignored it. Why?
Fluff piece? It told you what Giuliani was doing on 9/11, and yet for some reason you take issue with the fact that New Yorks highest elected official was on tv when it has been attacked.Nice fluff piece.
I know what I saw - and it was too much of Rudy in front of a camera. this event was tramatic for all of us. He didn't have a monopoly on lack of sleep. I was zipping all over the stations, seemingly to catch the latest Rudy face time.p
I ignore it because it's entirely meaningless bit of smear.You can annoint him as America's mayor with the rest of 'em. I feel differently. I have mentioned his ridiculous Firefighters for Rudy stunt several times and you have conveniently ignored it. Why?
There is no flaw in the law, it just isn't enforced because there are so many companies that hire illegals it is entirely impossible to crack down on them all while retaining the small government you say you care about.I sincerely hope that is sarcasm. My point is I'm not advocating a proactive roundup of illegals. The current flaw is the way we look the other way regarding the practice of hiring illegal's.
My platform is realism, not racism.I get it. You're platform is "We've tried nothing and are all out of idea's".
How is it a financial decision for the immigrants? They have no money in Mexico, they at least have a chance at money here.I disagree of course. The act of hiring illegals is based on a financial decision. A substantial penalty would have a major impact on that decision. A big enough impact to alter the other financial decision to uproot and come here illegally.
We can't send them back and we can't stop them from coming in. What would you suggest we do? Send everyone with the surname Rodriguez, Lopez, or Gonzales to Mexico?Nobody is going to completely end the problem, but Guliani (and your) position of throwing your hands in the air and granting blanket amnesty is ridiculous.
His shining example is keeping government out of people's business, something you don't seem to care for.So his shining example of limited government is a failure to protect our borders. :shock:
Well, if you aren't racist, then what do you have against Mexicans moving somewhere where they can have a decent quality of life?Nice attempt at trying to paint me as a racist for not backing "your guy" BTW.
There is no flaw in the law, it just isn't enforced because there are so many companies that hire illegals it is entirely impossible to crack down on them all while retaining the small government you say you care about.
My platform is realism, not racism.
How is it a financial decision for the immigrants? They have no money in Mexico, they at least have a chance at money here.
We can't send them back and we can't stop them from coming in.
What would you suggest we do? Send everyone with the surname Rodriguez, Lopez, or Gonzales to Mexico?
Well, if you aren't racist, then what do you have against Mexicans moving somewhere where they can have a decent quality of life?
I'd say first and foremost your reason for believing that the "right wing" as you define it is large to the point of being significant is mistaken. After the 2000 election, Karl Rove was a major proponent of the strategy of playing to the base, and using turnout to offset the losses in the center (which the Republicans didn't really effectively lose until 2006, as the Democrats responded by playing to their base, just less effectively).
And what is the base? It is the loyal Republican voters who respond, as an aggregate, to certain policies. This does not mean that every, or any single member of the base actually cares about each individual policy. The trends are significant if you look at the group as an aggregate, but as there are different people within the group, and not clones, they believe different things, and value different things, and the group trends don't apply to the individual.
The mistake you are making is this:
"There is a group. By and large they respond positively towards pro life, pro tax cut, anti gay, pro hawkish international policy, pro hunting, anti gun control, anti separation church and state, pro death penalty, pro mandatory minimums, and so on." and equating with "There is a group. Everyone in the group is pro life, pro tax cut, anti gay, pro hawkish international policy, pro hunting, anti gun control, anti separation of church and state, pro death penalty, pro mandatory minimums, and so on."
It's a mistake, because it views people as all exactly like the groups of which they are members. I know a lot of republicans, and I am yet to meet a single one who agrees with everything that the Republicans support.
And politicians play to extremes, as if you act extreme no one's going to question if you're genuine. That also must be taken into account.
I am a Libertarian, a socially conservative Libertarian. I believe in the importance of tradition, of intimations over revolutions, I believe in the importance of a strong military and peace through strength, I believe war isn't pretty, and thus sometimes **** like torture is going to be necessary. I am morally opposed to abortion, although I think it should be legal. I believe in intelligent design, and I think that schools should have to at least acknowledge "We don't know anything scientificly about God, Gods, or the creation of existance, if existance was ever created. As a product of this, in what we teach, it is always possible that it could be a product of some sort of deity, just as it could be possible that it's just a product of natural forces." I support faith based charities, and governmental funding of said charities as long as a clear pluralistic standard is held to and followed. I oppose gun control almost entirely when it comes to actions made to prevent law abiding citizens from gun ownership (or even making it less convenient for law abiding citizens to get guns, as this is a disincentive to gun ownership), although I believe in gun control as far as holding people responsible for any act of irresponsible gun ownership, basically it's your gun, and you're responsible for where the bullets fired from that gun end up. I'd say most gun owners wouldn't have a huge problem with this approach, as most have a firm grip on the importance of responsible gun ownership.
Now I do differ from your perceived social conservatives in certain ways. For one, I smoke a lot of weed, and support the legalization of weed, along with coke, heroin, and so on. That being said, I support legalization in a controlled matter, and shifting the war on drugs funding into rehabilitation, education, job training and job placement. I am opposed to mandatory minimums, although not as much when we're dealing with child molestors, because if you molest a child, there's a significant risk that that'll **** that kid up enough that he'll become a child molestor, and if we catch you, we cannot risk you doing that to anyone more, and as much as it sucks, considering all the reasons why people feel sorry for child molestors (as most of them were likewise molested as children), that's too bad, we're gonna lock you away and throw away the key.
I'm also what I call conservatively progressive, which is to say I'm supportive of the advancement of equal and equitable treatment for minorities, women, and homosexuals, but I also believe that for any true progress to be made, it must be intimated to our social traditions, instead of simply trying to change how things are done entirely. For example, I'm opposed to legislatively changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, as I see it as an empty gesture, in that it doesn't fufill the intended purpose, which is to get society to view homosexual relationships as being legitimate adult relationships.
I absolutely want them to close the border to any form of illegal immigration, but I differ from your perceptions in that I am not sure as to what to do with the ones who are already here, because no alternative seems at all sufficient (amnesty just says "**** it, break our laws, we don't care!", guest worker programs would still leave a lot of room for illegal immigration, as it would allow them to not ever get sent back, kicking them all out would be inhumane, so the best I can think of is a process of attonement and contribution to America which eventually leads to amnesty, and any criminality leads to immidiate deportation and being catelogued in a database with fingerprints and DNA.
I also differ from your perceptions of social conservatism in that I am supportive of full observance of the first amendment, including both the establishment and free exercise clauses.
There is variation within any group. If you think about a plane, a group is not a point, a group is a circle around a point, and its members are points that fall within the circle. I'd be closer to the edge of the circle than most, but I most certainly fall within the Republican base.
I believe there are a lot of ways in which Giulianni would promote the ideas of social conservatism, and I think he'd in fact be more effective than most in a lot of ways. For instance, he's pro choice, but he is also a Republican, and so he must not alienate the pro life crowd, and as a product of this, he's in a politically unique position that would lead him to attempt to chart a realisticly middle course which would advance the pro life cause more than any of the jackasses who just stand around and act indignant while trying to pass laws to make getting an abortion more of a hassle. He has a good Republican stance on national security and the war on terror, he's good and tough on law and order, he's acting strong on immigration, and all and all he's good enough.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?