Author Topic: Rudy should be president (Read 14674 times)

Din Rodef · « **Reply #25 on:** March 16, 2007, 12:56:25 AM »

Is this thread for real?

Rudy turned NYC into a sanctuary city for illegal aliens.

He is a traitor.

Din Rodef · « **Reply #26 on:** March 16, 2007, 12:59:38 AM »

Quote from: islam_is_for_pedophiles on March 15, 2007, 10:39:51 AM

He is a piece of filth. An adulterous, cross-dressing, abortion-supporting, socially liberal scumbag. Never again will a papist disgrace the Whitehouse. I am a gentile by the way.

....couldn't have said it better myself *thumbs up*

Joe Gutfeld · « **Reply #27 on:** March 16, 2007, 04:57:26 PM »

If Rudy was in charge now, the illeagals will be run out of town.

Joe Gutfeld · « **Reply #28 on:** March 16, 2007, 05:29:03 PM »

That's right

Din Rodef · « **Reply #29 on:** March 16, 2007, 08:51:51 PM »

Sorry Joe...Unfortunately, you're misinformed about Rudy

Rudy stopped the NYC police from enforcing immigration law...That's what is meant by "sanctuary city"

Once an illegal alien makes it to a sanctuary city he knows he can only be apprehended by ICE (Immigrations and customs enforcement)

There are only about 2000 ICE agents dedicated to finding and deporting aliens in the entire United States. To put this in perspective....NYC has about 40,000 policemen

Guiliani supports illegal immigration. He is a traitor.

cjd · « **Reply #30 on:** March 16, 2007, 10:11:58 PM »

Conservatives such as myself are in a real fix with the candidates for the up comming presidential elections. The left on the other hand has everything they might want in the two front runner candidates Hittlery or Osama. This said if Rudy Guiliani were to gain the Republican nomination I would have little choice but to vote for him as president. My main problem with Rudy is his open border and gun control positions. All the other things are bugaboos that are blown out of proportion. A few years back I had the opportunity to chat with a lady of some means who traveled in the same circles the Guiliani people travel in. When she mentioned Rudy I made a remark about him living with the two men. She laughed and said that she wasn't going to get into detail about the the men but Rudy was simply living there temporally and there was nothing more to it than that. Honestly while not the best choice for president Rudy would not be the worse. His management skills are good however his social positions leave quite a bit to be desired. Who knows what the next few months will bring but to be quite honest Rudy may be the best game in town.

Din Rodef · « **Reply #31 on:** March 16, 2007, 10:56:45 PM »

CJD

We CANNOT vote for a pro-open-borders GOP candidate like Guiliani. If we get a president like Rudy that gives amnesty to illegal aliens then they will vote the conservatives out of office all over the country. Example: California used to be a solidly Republican state. Reagan came from California. In 1986 amnesty was given to 6 million illegal aliens and the state turned liberal Democrat. Currently, there is no hope for California to ever be Conservative Republican again.

The exact same disaster that happened in California will happen to the entire country if the GOP doesn't support an immigration enforcement candidate in 2008.

Currently, there are 3 anti-illegal immigration candidates. They are Duncan Hunter of San Diego...Tom Tancredo of Colorado....and Ron Paul of Texas.

Duncan Hunter has voted for massive government spending in the past (like the prescription drug benefit. He is conservative on the immigration issue and on defense, but he is guilty of spending like a liberal.

Ron Paul of Texas has excellent fiscal conservative credentials...BUT...he is old (70s) and he is socially liberal (libertarian)

Tom Tancredo is clearly the best candidate of the bunch. Tancredo is a fiscal and social conservative. He founded the Immigration Reform Caucus in Congress. I happen to know that he is a very devout Christian, solidly pro-Israel and anti-muslim.

Tancredo MUST be the GOP candidate in 2008.

Din Rodef · « **Reply #32 on:** March 16, 2007, 11:01:53 PM »

Do not assume that there will only be 2 major parties in the 2008 election.

There is a distinct possibility that Hillary Clinton will start her own 3rd party that merges "moderate" Democrats with "moderate" Republicans.

Check out this site: www.unity08.com

The plans are already in the works to build a serious 3rd party for 2008. There is precedent for this...KADIMA in Israel merged Labour with Likud....The time is right for a similar thing to happen in America between the Republicans and Democrats.

cjd · « **Reply #33 on:** March 16, 2007, 11:31:15 PM »

Din Rodef, what you say is true about Rudy and hopefully one of the more Conservative candidates will generate enough interest before the primaries. Its funny you mentioned Hittlery starting her own more moderate party. I was thinking that the other day when out of the blue she came out with the statement about leaving troops in Iraq under certain conditions for as long as needed. Very strange for her to be talking like that. This may change the dynamics of the election considerably and with something big like that a lot of different things are possible. Its to soon to tell but I hope and pray we get the right man for the job in 08

genteelgentile · « **Reply #34 on:** March 17, 2007, 03:38:02 AM »

Everybody needs to remember one thing about the federal government: it's not just the President, but the Congress you elect along with it. We need solid right wing conservatives to MAKE the laws. I would like Guiliani to be president, but we need people to keep him in check.

Din Rodef · « **Reply #35 on:** March 17, 2007, 03:34:44 PM »

Quote from: cjd on March 16, 2007, 11:31:15 PM

I was thinking that the other day when out of the blue she came out with the statement about leaving troops in Iraq under certain conditions for as long as needed. Very strange for her to be talking like that. This may change the dynamics of the election considerably and with something big like that a lot of different things are possible.

wow - you are very perceptive

You notice the little things that Hillary does...the tiny triangulations...the itty bitty moves towards a "moderate" center position.

The rise of Obama Hussein's candidacy only makes a 3rd party more likely. He is extremely popular with the radical left. It is the radical left that decides what candidates will win the Democratic primaries. If Hillary Clinton can't beat Obama in the Democratic primaries then she would be forced to run for president as a 3rd party candidate.

Din Rodef · « **Reply #36 on:** March 17, 2007, 03:39:23 PM »

Quote from: genteelgentile on March 17, 2007, 03:38:02 AM

Everybody needs to remember one thing about the federal government: it's not just the President, but the Congress you elect along with it. We need solid right wing conservatives to MAKE the laws. I would like Guiliani to be president, but we need people to keep him in check.

To be honest, I don't think Giuliani will ever survive the GOP primaries next year.

He'd have better luck running for VP on a new 3rd party ticket with Hillary Clinton.

RationalThought110 · « **Reply #37 on:** March 20, 2007, 01:27:26 PM »

Quote from: angryChineseManiac on February 21, 2007, 10:35:10 PM

Quote from: Joe Gutfeld on February 21, 2007, 09:40:38 PM
He kept everyone in line. Like it or not
Ok, he's a left-wing police.

Not to defend Rudy, but I don't think he'd be dumb enough to try and pass a federal gay marriage or gay unions bill. He seems ambiguous about the illegal alien issue. Supposedly before he was a mayor, he was against sanctuary laws but then when he became mayor, he was for those laws.

RationalThought110 · « **Reply #38 on:** March 20, 2007, 01:30:14 PM »

Quote from: Din Rodef on March 16, 2007, 11:01:53 PM

Do not assume that there will only be 2 major parties in the 2008 election.

There is a distinct possibility that Hillary Clinton will start her own 3rd party that merges "moderate" Democrats with "moderate" Republicans.

Check out this site: www.unity08.com

The plans are already in the works to build a serious 3rd party for 2008. There is precedent for this...KADIMA in Israel merged Labour with Likud....The time is right for a similar thing to happen in America between the Republicans and Democrats.

She's forming a backup plan in case she loses the Democratic nomination to Barak?

RationalThought110 · « **Reply #39 on:** March 20, 2007, 01:35:12 PM »

Quote from: Din Rodef on March 16, 2007, 10:56:45 PM

CJD

We CANNOT vote for a pro-open-borders GOP candidate like Guiliani. If we get a president like Rudy that gives amnesty to illegal aliens then they will vote the conservatives out of office all over the country. Example: California used to be a solidly Republican state. Reagan came from California. In 1986 amnesty was given to 6 million illegal aliens and the state turned liberal Democrat. Currently, there is no hope for California to ever be Conservative Republican again.

The exact same disaster that happened in California will happen to the entire country if the GOP doesn't support an immigration enforcement candidate in 2008.

Currently, there are 3 anti-illegal immigration candidates. They are Duncan Hunter of San Diego...Tom Tancredo of Colorado....and Ron Paul of Texas.

Duncan Hunter has voted for massive government spending in the past (like the prescription drug benefit. He is conservative on the immigration issue and on defense, but he is guilty of spending like a liberal.

Ron Paul of Texas has excellent fiscal conservative credentials...BUT...he is old (70s) and he is socially liberal (libertarian)

Tom Tancredo is clearly the best candidate of the bunch. Tancredo is a fiscal and social conservative. He founded the Immigration Reform Caucus in Congress. I happen to know that he is a very devout Christian, solidly pro-Israel and anti-muslim.

Tancredo MUST be the GOP candidate in 2008.

Why did Reagan enforce amnesty? Was it foolish compromise he made with the Democrat controlled congress because he thought it would enhance his legacy?

What these presidents don't realize is that they shouldn't attempt foolish policies just because they think their legacy would be improved. Bill Clinton, could pay off a historian to write a book that praises his presidency and then there will be some people who will think he was a great president. So presidents could try and get themselves a positive legacy buy just buying off someone to write a positive book about them. I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton hasn't already done this.

Din Rodef · « **Reply #40 on:** March 20, 2007, 04:52:59 PM »

Quote from: RationalThought110 on March 20, 2007, 01:30:14 PM

She's forming a backup plan in case she loses the Democratic nomination to Barak?

Check out this site: www.unity08.com

The same money and people that are supporting Obama are also supporting UNITY08

Din Rodef · « **Reply #41 on:** March 20, 2007, 04:57:26 PM »

Quote from: RationalThought110 on March 20, 2007, 01:35:12 PM

Why did Reagan enforce amnesty? Was it foolish compromise he made with the Democrat controlled congress because he thought it would enhance his legacy?

Reagan was not a perfect president. He was very good at understanding the Soviet Union...but unfortunately he didn't understand other things (like the Islamic threat or the Hispanic demographic threat)

From what I understand, Reagan agreed to an amnesty believing that Congress would start enforcing immigration law so the problem would never happen again.

I've heard radio interviews with men who were close to Reagan ...and they all seem to agree the Reagan seriously regretted the amnesty.

Reagan grew up in a different time and era in America. I truly don't believe that he understood the threat that non-white immigration (legal and illegal) posed to the US.

New Yorker · « **Reply #42 on:** March 20, 2007, 05:11:46 PM »

Rudy is good, he cleaned up New York City when he was Mayor. He inherited a wrecked city, a cesspool from that moronic Dinkins, Guliani cleared the city of the dregs that were in our streets. He cleaned up Times Square, Times Square used to be the gutter, it was awash in prostitutes, sex shops, drug dealers and other crimminals; Today, thanks to Rudy Guliani, Times Square is the ornament of the city and you can feel safe taking your family there for dinner and a wonderful time. If Guliani does half for America what he did for New York city, he'll enter the history books as one of the greatest Presidents of all time.

cjd · « **Reply #43 on:** March 20, 2007, 05:48:38 PM »

Quote from: Din Rodef on March 20, 2007, 04:57:26 PM

Quote from: RationalThought110 on March 20, 2007, 01:35:12 PM
Why did Reagan enforce amnesty? Was it foolish compromise he made with the Democrat controlled congress because he thought it would enhance his legacy?

Reagan was not a perfect president. He was very good at understanding the Soviet Union...but unfortunately he didn't understand other things (like the Islamic threat or the Hispanic demographic threat)

From what I understand, Reagan agreed to an amnesty believing that Congress would start enforcing immigration law so the problem would never happen again.

I've heard radio interviews with men who were close to Reagan ...and they all seem to agree the Reagan seriously regretted the amnesty.

Reagan grew up in a different time and era in America. I truly don't believe that he understood the threat that non-white immigration (legal and illegal) posed to the US.

Reagan was often forced to compromise on issues he wanted to get done since he had to deal with a democrat majority in both house and senate. Reagan often had to do things that he would under different conditions never do in order to get other more pressing things passed in congress. I think in Reagan's wildest dreams did he ever think that the illegal immigration problem would get to the proportion we have today. He had a bad experience at the hands of the Muslims with the attack on the marine barracks in Bayreuth however there again he could not comprehend that people like that could ever threathen the territories of the United States in any real way. The one thing I liked about Ronald Reagan is that he believed in America and the American people if he had his way I think he would have done a few things differently. All said and done he did a good job with what he had to work with.

Din Rodef · « **Reply #44 on:** March 20, 2007, 06:46:38 PM »

Yeah CJD..I think you're right

I do like Reagan...he wasn't perfect but he must be understood according to the times that he lived in.

Din Rodef · « **Reply #45 on:** March 20, 2007, 06:51:15 PM »

Quote from: NewYorker on March 20, 2007, 05:11:46 PM

Rudy is good, he cleaned up New York City when he was Mayor. He inherited a wrecked city, a cesspool from that moronic Dinkins, Guliani cleared the city of the dregs that were in our streets. He cleaned up Times Square, Times Square used to be the gutter, it was awash in prostitutes, sex shops, drug dealers and other crimminals; Today, thanks to Rudy Guliani, Times Square is the ornament of the city and you can feel safe taking your family there for dinner and a wonderful time. If Guliani does half for America what he did for New York city, he'll enter the history books as one of the greatest Presidents of all time.

Hahahaha

Giuliani kicked the prostitutes, sex shops and drug dealers out of NY just to make more room for the Mexican/ Muslims/Chinese takeover

Joe Gutfeld · « **Reply #46 on:** March 20, 2007, 09:05:33 PM »

He did that to clean up the city. Not for any group to take over.

cjd · « **Reply #47 on:** March 20, 2007, 09:26:21 PM »

Quote from: Joe Gutfeld on March 20, 2007, 09:05:33 PM

He did that to clean up the city. Not for any group to take over.

Rudy's first term as Mayor was a great success because he was a law and order man. When he came into power after Dinkins he was just what the city needed. The big problem with Rudy is that he is a Liberal on all other issues other than the law. In as much as he was tough on crime and he had good organizational skills in running the cities agencies his liberal bent got him into trouble in social issues. A Rudy Giuliani presidency would be the same scenario. Honestly he'd make a better Democrat than Republican.

trekmate · « **Reply #48 on:** March 20, 2007, 10:39:25 PM »

an added plus is the way rudy was abled to do what he could to help the city heal from the attacks on 9/11. in my opinion, rudy did heck of a lot better job of making sure his constituents were kept as safe as possible during and after the attacks just by communicating to the city and its citizens as quickly as possible just by going on tv and the radio. i could still see and remember images of rudy walking up church street and tell new yorkers to get as far away as possible from lower manhattan via ny1 news. he also stepped up by locking down the city as early as 10:00am on 9/11. rudy took action. all bozo bush did was sit in a classroom of kids like a dumb bump on log. rudy showed that he is smarter than bush, as well as quicker, just by getting on tv and radio with regular and timely reports of what was going on and calming down the people of new york city. rudy showed more concern for his fellow new yorkers than bush showed to entire country. thank you, rudy guiliani.