Calling Giuliani on his many lies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
402
Location
Franklin, VA
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54323

Calling Giuliani on his many lies

Posted: February 19, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Directly contradicting his previous position, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, told radio talk-show host Sean Hannity he opposed federal gun control laws, preferring to leave the matter to states and municipalities.

"I've said all along that what's right for New York might not be right for Texas," he said in the interview in which he said he supported the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

But that's not what Giuliani has said all along.

When he presided over the city government of New York, with some of the strictest gun-control measures in the country, Giuliani strongly advocated Washington take the lead on the issue.

"We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions – and really stronger ones – that exist for driving an automobile," he said in 1997.

As mayor, Giuliani participated in a city lawsuit against the gun industry.

"This is an industry that is profiting from the suffering of innocent people," he said in 2000. "What’s worse, its profits rest on a number of illegal and immoral practices. This lawsuit is meant to end the free pass that the gun industry has so long enjoyed."

And that's just the beginning of the way Giuliani has tried to redefine himself in hopes of winning the Republican presidential nomination.

While still touting his "pro-choice" stand on abortion, he is now trying to claim he opposes partial-birth abortions and supports parental consent laws.

Not so in 1999. When he was asked whether he would support a ban on partial-birth abortions, he told CNN: "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position changing." As if to underline his hard-line stand on social issues, he said: "I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights."

Now he tries to take a nuanced stance against same-sex marriage. Yet he steadfastly opposed the "Defense of Marriage Act," saying in 2004 on "Meet the Press": "I certainly wouldn't support (a ban on same-sex marriage) at this time."

You probably won't hear Giuliani make this statement, again, but he did say it in 1996 to the New York Post's Jack Newfield: "Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine."

Won't that be reassuring if he should be the Republican alternative to Hillary Clinton in 2008? And while he's sugar-coating his record and his positions now as he seeks to lead the Republican Party, it's clear that he was telling the truth in 1996 and lying now.

Take a look at his record:

(more)
 
"... and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions – and really stronger ones – that exist for driving an automobile," he said in 1997
.
Wish he really meant that. Then the number of legal guns on the streets in NYC would at least equal the number of vehicles. Maybe he IS pro-gun! :neener:
 
Last edited:
Wow, it's amazing how much he sounds like Kerry now.
Why are republicans so intent on recycling failed Democrat strategies?
 
From my point of view, that is no alternative at all. If we keep the same voting habits that have gotten us to where we're at now, we'll only get more of the same and the evil will grow stronger.
I'll not be part of that anymore. I will give my vote to the person most deserving whether or not the popular consensus gives him a chance to win.

Biker
 
And yet he may be the only viable alternative to Hillary...

The only reason why there are no other viable alternatives is because people who are passionate about issues are not voting their consciences.

Has anyone heard of Gail Parker? No, nobody has.

Remember in November when everything boiled down to Virginia's razor-thin senate race? That one race, which if I remember correctly, came down to something like 8000 votes, handed both houses to the Democrats.

Gail Parker was the third candidate. She got over 26,000 votes. She also ran on a fiscally conservative platform and wanted to (gasp) do something constructive about the psychotic traffic in this area.

Yes, I was one of those 26,000. Blame me if you must, but the bottom line is that if everyone who hates the "lesser of two evils" scenario instead voted their consciences, things would be different in this country.

That number may have been 50,000, or 100,000, or some number great enough to make the news. I don't see why over three times the difference doesn't make the news, but that's the media for you. As soon as the "impartial media" reports that people vote on issues and don't particularly care about haircuts, we may see fewer jokers like Rudy making kissy faces at his opposition.
 
I'd like to think our 2A safety lies ultimately with SCOTUS (and of course We the People), one more reason why this Admin has betrayed us. We need one or two staunch Justices we can count on to protect the Second Amendment.

Biker, you're right; somehow we have to break the mold here. Duncan Hunter?
 
Thus far, I've been very impressed with Hunter. Wonder what his war chest is like at his stage?

Biker
 
Unfortunately, his current comments will got some pro-gun votes. Some folks have short memories and/or are suckers.
 
I hope we are not stuck with having to vote for one or the other NYC burocrat. It amazes me how a candidate can screw up their area, alienate their constituents, abuse the power they have and try for more, yet they can tell people what they want to hear and get elected. Lazy voters are dangerous, if you vote for a pile of S#$t you should at least know why.
 
Wish he really meant that. Then the number of legal guns on the streets in NYC would at least equal the number of vehicles. Maybe he IS pro-gun!

Heh. I love it when the antis trot out the "they should be regulated like cars" routine. Seeing as my MD drivers license works just fine in Washington DC, I'd love to see a law like that, and be able to carry in the nation's capital. By all means, let's treat guns like cars. I'd love to be able to take mine to airports, the District, campuses, etc.
 
And on top of that, all those guns that you DON'T carry on your person, and keep at home and only take out to ranges and private property, would be COMPLETELY unrestricted, and you could build your own without complicated legal papers from the BATFE. There would be no limit to the bore size, mag capacity, or any cosmetic features at all on firearms you own privately and don't wish to register for public (concealed or open carry) use. Just like you can build a hot rod with 4000hp and even a jet engine, should you choose to do so.


Yes, let's regulate guns just like cars. :cool:
 
ha...

...after driving an 18-wheeler up and down and in and out of the east coast, I can truly say, it would be MUCH better to arm EVERYONE and take their damn drivers license away!
...really...:what:

Rudy talks, just like everyone drives, gasbrakegasbrakegaswreckgasbrakegas...until everything's ruined...:scrutiny:
 
How soon we forget.We got Bill Clinton because of Ross Perot.Do you really want Prez.Hillary,First Lady Bill & VP Barrack Husein Obama?
 
I was born and raised in the Bronx and had the good fortune to be able to leave the seat of Liberialism (it is not much different from San Fransisco). There have been Democrat mayors and republican mayors and they were and still are liberials. Mayor Mike, the present mayor switched parties ( dem to rep) to come in on Rudie' s coat tails. Rudy did some fine things for the city but for the most part it was tax the workers and spend on social programs and that will never change. He was a lib when mayor and he will not change no matter what he says or does.
 
We got Bill Clinton because of Ross Perot.Do you really want Prez.Hillary,First Lady Bill & VP Barrack Husein Obama?

I'd honestly rather have HC than America's Gumba as President. HC is a devil I know. And she will try to govern to the center. I don't see her pursuing gun control as a crusade. Giuliani has not only enacted some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation, he created a squad to seek out and destroy anyone they suspected might have a firearm. I would rather have almost anybody at the helm than such a madman. Of all the candidates in the field, he scares me the most. The man has KILLED PEOPLE on suspicion of having firearms. You want such an animal at the controls of DHS, BATF, FBI, Justice and the rest? And since he's ostensibly a Republican, the legislative dynamics favor him signing more gun control laws. Let me explain.

With HC, a Democratic House and a nearly even Democratic Senate, there will be limited need for Hillary to concede points to her left. She will instead be conceding points and making compromises to the right to appeal to the swing voters in the Senate. Gun control may come up, but she will need to be prepared to sacrifice that issue to get her major legislation on health care, judicial nomiations, etc. through.

With Giuliani at the helm of the same government, he will have to concede LEFT, not right, in order to win over the Democratic House. So if he wants X bill through on some foreign policy or security matter, he will need to be prepared to concede a point to the Dems, and given his track record gun control will certainly be a point he's prepared to concede. Esp. since at heart he's on the same page as the most extreme gun grabbers.

That man must never be allowed to get the nomination.
 
"Patience, grasshopper"

It is still early, and the only "front runners" as of now are the darlings of the Mainstream media.

Last i checked nobody gets to vote in a primary until next year.
 
How soon we forget.We got Bill Clinton because of Ross Perot.Do you really want Prez.Hillary,First Lady Bill & VP Barrack Husein Obama?

We got Bill Clinton because GHW Bush and the GOP dropped the ball.

Why does the myth persist that every vote for Perot was from a disgrunted Republican? Of the 15 smallest margins of victory, give all Perot votes to Bush, he picks up +107 Electoral votes:
GA 13, NH 4, OH 21, NJ 15, MT 3, NV 4, KY 8, CO 8, WI 11, LA 9, TN 11
and Bush wins 275-263...
Except Georgia, Ohio, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Louisiana are not traditional Republican strongholds, and losing any ONE of those means a Clinton victory. KY and TN are not a lock either, and again a loss in ONE means a Clinton victory.
10 largest margins? Add MA 12, RI 4, VT 3 and IL 22 (to get NY and MD you'll need all the other third-party votes too, good luck)... +41 to Bush, 316-222, or covers some close losses. Except MA and IL are not strongholds either...Give Bush ALL close races and ALL large margins AND NY and MD and he still pulls in 17% less Electoral votes than 1988 (426-352), so not exactly a stamp of approval for his reign.

Yep, Ross Perot is directly responsible for Bill Clinton, global warming, NAFTA, runaway Federal deficits, Patriot Act I and II, Iraq/Iran/China, the expanding waistline of America, AWB I, attention-deficit syndrome, the Columbia accident, illegal immigration, "sporting purposes" clauses, steroids in baseball, Dale Earnhardt's fatal accident, highways to nowhere, Hurricane Katrina...everything bad in the last 25 years. Also your parking tickets and those darn kids trespassing on your lawn...
 
Last edited:
I don't know about everyone else, but I can barely stand Hannity anymore. It seems he is just an apologist for Giulliani lately. To him, the man can do no wrong.
 
I don't like Rudy, don't trust Rudy and will not vote for Rudy.

No way. Never.

I love it when the antis trot out the "they should be regulated like cars" routine.

Well, hell, felons can drive cars, and no car has ever been outlawed. Maybe guns should be treated like cars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top