UN Misfires; US protects its gun rights

[Values...@msn.com]

wow, here is a good one. Bob Barr always has a nice turn of phrase.
Love him calling the UN the fudge factory. LOL But god bless John
Bolton and his minions in following the Presidents orders and not
allowing the UN to cancel out our 2nd Amendment rights.

http://www.conservative.org/columnists/barr/060712bb.asp

If the link doesn't work would someone please tell me how it does?

[crusader]

Let's just hope against all hopelessness that, without Bolton, we
don't get a
liberal pantywaist as our next ambassador.

Gun control is one of a few hot issues that will keep me away from
Gulianni in '08.

[DeAnne1233]

Damn, you mean Gulianni is soft on gun control as well as being pro-
choice (even partial birth abortions) and pro-gay rights (marriage)?
On what issues is he Conservative on other than national defense? I'm
seeing less and less that I agree with him on concerning issues. Are
we Conservatives supposed to ignore his stance on those important
issues just because he may try to be tough on terrorists? At what
cost? Don't get me wrong I want someone in the white house that will
be strong on defense as well as offense but I do not like the trade
off of having that same man be a Liberal on the other important issues
concerning Conservatives.

[crusader]

Yeah, he thinks it was gun control that cleaned up New York.
Let's face it, he is a RINO.

[Woody]

I heard Rudy talking to Hannity today. I would still prefer Newt, but
we all know he is not saleable. Rudy is not only friends with Scalia,
Roberts and Alito but he says he would appoint more of the same to the
bench if elected. Say what you will about his social stances...one
thing Rudy does not do is back away from positions.

Rudy?
Or Hillary?
Think
Think about what you're trying to do to me,
You better think...

Um, sorry...sometimes I just wanna sing LOL.

[crusader]

You are NOT allowed to sing!

I realize what you are saying, but for a Christain to hold the nose
and
vote for abortion on demand is not an easy choice.
The gun control issue just makes him look really ignorant.
And gay marriage?
If it comes down to Rudy and Hillary, I will not pull the lever for
either one. The dems win.

[Woody]

I will vote for Rudy simply because he will kick terrorists' asses.
The rest will take care of itself. And if he gets only one SCOTUS
nominee, he will have sealed the court with a Constructionist
majority. So no gay marriage and most likely a ban on partial birth
abortion.

[crusader]

Not going to kiss any ass if we don't retake Congress.,
I fully understand the need for solidarity on a good candidate, but
these are huge issues. It's not like there is a small fracture within
the republican
ranks. Rudy is not a conservative. Rudy is not going to get the
support of the
conservative base.
I respect him for not flipping on these issues, but then again, if he
wants to win with conservatives
he will need to do more than promise to support conservative judges
to get Christians to the polls. They will simply stay home. Not being
able to
justify a vote for the lesser evil.

[Values...@msn.com]

I am for Rudy because he is strong on defense and will not back down
in the face of any attack.

Yes he used gun control in NYC to help clean up the city. That I can
understand. And the crime rate dropped accordingly. He also said that
he is against a national gun control. He stated that he is strongly in
favor of the second amendment, but with the extremely high crime rate
in NYC when he took over he had to use everything at this disposal to
bring it down. And he did.

Yes he is more liberal on some social issues. But you know there is
not a thing that a President can do about either abortion or gay
marriage. Besides putting conservative judges on the bench, which he
will. I saw him on H&C and I was impressed with his answers. Yes I
like Gingrich as well, but I doubt he is going to run and he cannot
get elected. Too much bad political baggage from the 90s. Would you
rather have McCain? I wouldn't he is a far worse choice than Rudy.

crusader: you are, just like the libs, misreading the evangelical
vote. I saw a poll a few days ago that showed that they will indeed
support Rudy. Why? National Defense. It is always the number one issue
in times like these. Even my brother who is of that group is
supporting Rudy. That stunned me to be sure. But they have become much
more pragmatic since 9/11. Why do you think that Rudy is still number
one in all the polls for the Republican candidate?

And staying home is one the dumbest things any voter can do. It not
only gives a boost to the opposition but also wastes the one thing
that is the most important right we have. I have voted for people
before that I don't particularly like so that I could honestly say
that I didn't help a worse person get in. It gives one the right to
complain and opine about what we get. If you don't vote you cannot
complain. It is as simple as that. The most vocal complainers always
seem to be those who haven't voted.

Can you honestly say that Rudy is worse than Hillary, Edwards or Obama
or Levin or Kucinich? Not hardly. He is a Republican. He doesn't
compromise on the core Republican principles -- Defense, Economy,
Health care and smaller government. McCain is the RINO in the race not
Rudy.

[Woody]

Well put, VW.
And let's remember, it was not Rudy who implemented gun control in
NYC, that was in place when he took over. Which speaks volumes about
Dinkins' inability as Mayor to accomplish anything of value.
We must ensure a Republican president who will take on terror, even if
it means some dispute over social issues.

McCain will be almost as bad as any Dem, so he is out. I still have
doubts about Giuliani's chances based on history, which has never seen
a Mayor elected president and only two Senators (I think), but if he
makes it through the primaries, he will get my vote. If nothing else,
I know that what comes out of his mouth will come out of his pen.

Anyone who would slam the door on Arafat despite political pressure
has my attention.

[crusader]

VW, The Christian vote will not go for a pro-abortion candidate.
Those who can, are compromising with evil. Evil wins.

I don't think the libs are concerned about the Christian vote, they
are
concerned about their own ranks liking Rudy.

I don't care what Rudy did in NYC with gun control. He used it to
fight crime,
he will use it again. Gun control is not what dropped the crime rate.
Law enforcement
is what dropped the crime rate. No new laws were necessary in NYC,
where a BB
gun is illegal. Putting those who use them illegally behind bars is
necessary.
And unfortunately, many law abiding citizens lost their second
amendment rights
to a failed logic.

The gay issue. Need I say more.

He might be tough on terror, but that is not enough. He will not be
able to do anything about it
with a dem Congress that opposes our current "tough on terror"
administration. What he will be able to do is vote with them on...
Abortion, Gay marriage, and Gun Control. Even though he has nominated
numerous rejected conservative judges, the outcome is predictable. He
will not veto
anything from the libs concerning these other issues. He will be
another voice
crying in the wilderness over terror.

[DeAnne1233]

I have to point out that I love the fact that we can disagree with
civility. I see the points made by both sides and they are valid
points (terrorism and Christian values). Rudy's stance on major issues
has managed to split the four of us (Republicans) in deciding votes
for the Presidential bid in '08. At the very least, him being in the
race will make it interesting for both Republicans and Democrats
alike. According to the VoteMatch quiz, Rudy falls in line with a more
Libertarian viewpoint so he may very well pick up their vote too. Jan
and Woody, even with the valid points you've made regarding Rudy being
tough on terrorism and that being a priority over all, I still fall in
line closer with Crusader because of the Social issues that I strongly
disagree with. I'm not in any way saying that terrorism takes a back
seat to social issues but I am saying that those specific social
issues are important to me as well and I will be voting for the person
who best falls in line with all of my concerns on issues not just one.

[Dave39]

Rudy would make a good Homeland Security Sec or Sec of State, not
president, and wil not vote for him, would have to vote Constitution
Party, I heard Sam Brownback is very conservative, and may be the
front runner for conservatives.

[crusader]

Granted, Rudy has great name recognition, but the rubber just does not
meet the road.
If we have a brownbeck out there, let him introduce himself and we'll
all get to know him a little better.
We need new ideas and anyone who can articulate them and why they are
important will make
a huge impact.
We need to change the fundamental way our government does business. We
need to revert back to a time before a powerful centralized
government. The Fed needs to cede power back to the states and let
this beautiful republic stand again.

Articulate that message correctly and you'll be living at 1600
Pennsylvania Ave.

[Woody]

Again we get back to basics...A social conservative Dem who is weak on
defense does nothing for any cause. We have all at one point agreed
that social justice counts for squat if we're beheaded.

Rudy is thus far the strongest candidate as regards terrorism, and I
think VW will have to agree that that is the jumping off point in '08.
I understand the concerns of principle where Rudy is concerned, but we
have to first live in order to further social agendae.

And DeAnne is right...if only the libbie beans could see us debating:)

[crusader]

Social justice means nothing if we are beheaded. But we are all going
to die sooner or later. My mission is to do so with my soul firmly
intact.
Do not take the mark of the beast.

[Values...@msn.com]

Rudy inherited the gun law in NYC and again, he said and quite clearly
that he would never use it nationally. He is firmly behind the second
amendment. That said, the issues of abortion and gay marriage are both
important, but they cannot be changed by a president. Only congress
and/or the supreme court has the power to do that. [Rudy has stated
firmly that he would select only conservative and strict
constructionists for the bench. His hero is Ronald Reagan and a lot of
what he stands for is a bit like the former president.] One way is a
Constitutional amendment and I am firmly against tampering any further
with that document. There again it is a Congressional and State issue.
I have my beliefs firmly in hand and no president Dem or Repub,
Liberal or Conservative can change that.

If Rudy does not for some reason get the nomination (and Crusader, the
conservative/evangelical right is supporting him at this point), then
I will probably vote for the GOP candidate, like him or not. And there
are only a couple of people whom I would support with enthusiasm.
Brownback is way to far right for me and he is against the continuing
war. He is supporting the Dems in the Sen. on this. Huckabee has no
gravitas for me. Not presidential material. Hagel as well is now
against the war and that could mean he and Brownback are both against
the further war on terror as well. Not my idea of a person I would
want. Rep. Duncan Hunter is nice but there again not whom I would want
for pres. Nor is Tancredo. No sitting member of the House has been
elected since 1840. Not to forget that sitting senators don't get
elected either. I do like Gingrich and Romney. Don't care for Pataki
but he doesn't have a chance anyway. And Mike Savage is way to radical
and polarizing to even be considered. Jeb Bush is also a good choice
but that is too soon for another Bush. He is much younger and can wait
a few years.

For now I am supporting Giuliani and hope he does gain the spot. But
consider that the entire population is already getting election
fatigue and the election is still 23 months away. This is way too
early, but the media started this whole thing way back in 2004 about 5
minutes after the election was over. I am bored with it already
myself.

[Values...@msn.com]

Here is a piece that all conservatives should read. Michael Reagan has
hit the nail on the head. The way Ronald Reagan voted is exactly the
way I do. I, too, don't go sniffing around to find some little thing
that offends me.

The GOP Should Dump Its Litmus Test
By Michael Reagan
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 16, 2007

The philosopher Diogenes is said to have wandered around ancient
Greece holding a lantern and seeking to find an honest man.

My fellow Republicans, sans lanterns, are now wandering around the
political landscape seeking to find the perfect Republican
presidential candidate.

I don't know if Diogenes ever found that honest man, but I do know
that those Republicans are never going to find the perfect candidate,
simply because he does not exist.

Some Republicans insist that the only perfect candidate would be a
clone of my Dad, Ronald Reagan. Aside from the fact that there is no
such thing, it's important to recognize that Ronald Reagan, as he
often admitted, was anything but perfect.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26986

> > Do not take the mark of the beast.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dave39]

Reagan was not perfect, he also gave amnesty to illegals, but it was
on a smaller scale than today, my biggest complaint is the amnesty
issue for felon immigrants, they have already committed 3 felonies and
are being rewarded by Bush, besides the fact it will turn the U.S.
into a third world nation in 50 years from now. I doubt Rudy would
enforce border control, let alone kick illegals out, that is my number
one issue, it is also a national security issue, we have been invaded
by 20 million people who we don't know their criminal background.

On Feb 16, 3:50 am, ValuesWarr...@msn.com wrote:
> Here is a piece that all conservatives should read. Michael Reagan has
> hit the nail on the head. The way Ronald Reagan voted is exactly the
> way I do. I, too, don't go sniffing around to find some little thing
> that offends me.
>
> The GOP Should Dump Its Litmus Test
> By Michael Reagan
> FrontPageMagazine.com | February 16, 2007
>
> The philosopher Diogenes is said to have wandered around ancient
> Greece holding a lantern and seeking to find an honest man.
>
> My fellow Republicans, sans lanterns, are now wandering around the
> political landscape seeking to find the perfect Republican
> presidential candidate.
>
> I don't know if Diogenes ever found that honest man, but I do know
> that those Republicans are never going to find the perfect candidate,
> simply because he does not exist.
>
> Some Republicans insist that the only perfect candidate would be a
> clone of my Dad, Ronald Reagan. Aside from the fact that there is no
> such thing, it's important to recognize that Ronald Reagan, as he

> often admitted, was anything but perfect.http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26986

[Woody]

OK, just for shits and giggles...
Let's assume that Rudy and the Shrew make it to the top of their
respective heaps. It's Election Day, and you get either Rudy or The
Shrew...
You guys STILL wouldn't vote for Rudy?!? Just curious, because I think
we'll need every vote we can muster to keep her Commie Keister out of
the Oval Office.

[crusader]

As dumb as it sounds, and I know VW has already pointed this out, a
Christian
can not vote for either. And remain true to the faith. I could cast a
vote against,
if it were possible.