Geez. And pro lifers get all over Guliani for being a fanatical liberal because of his stance on abortion. How is this any better?
Bags - 01:10pm on 10/18/2007
You’re probably right, but that interview is 5 years old so we can’t rule out that his stance has legitamately changed since then. I’m sure you’ve changed stances on some issues in the last 5 years.
Andrew - 02:10pm on 10/18/2007
What can you expect from the man who signed into law a permanent ban on semi-automatic sporting rifles in his state, only to turn around, join the NRA, and claim to be a solid 2A candidate, when it suits his political goals to do so?
Bruce - 03:10pm on 10/18/2007
Yeah, you guys are totally right…
If you ever change your mind, you’re a complete liar.
Who do you believe will overturn Roe...? someone who says he has changed or someone WHO STILL THINKS ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGAL (RUDY!)!?!?!
- Ultimate decision by woman, her conscience & her doctor. (Aug 2007)
- Allowing choice keeps government out of people’s lives. (May 2007)
So when someone changes their mind, do you look at what they DID, or what they promise? Clinton and Gore had EXCELLENT pro-life voting records!
Bill Clinton, in a letter to Arkansas Right to Life, September 26, 1986
“I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong.”
When they ran, they said they were pro-aborts. Hey… anybody know how those guys turned out? Oh, right, they legalized partial birth abortion.
george - 04:10pm on 10/18/2007
Yeah, you’re right will, I’d much rather have a candidate who’s lying and switching to gain conservative votes than have someone who’s actually up front and honest about an important issue.
It’s not like a president has the power to singlehandedly overturn roe anyway. And if Guliani is being honest about a huge conservative issue like abortion, what makes you think he’s not being honest about appointing strict constructionist judges who won’t want to overturn roe?
Bags - 05:10am on 10/19/2007
Yep, Mitt Romney is a flip flop. The photo at this site proves it!
Candidate 1: I want to overturn Roe and be as pro-life as possible.
Candidate 2: I don’t give a shit if Roe is overturned.
Candidate 2 is obviously more pro life.
george - 06:10am on 10/19/2007
I’d much rather have a candidate who’s lying and switching to gain conservative votes than have someone who’s actually up front and honest about an important issue.
translation: I’d much rather somebody say their going to keep killing children instead of someone who says they’ll stop killing children.
I definitely see your logic there buddy.
george - 06:10am on 10/19/2007
K. So you’d still rather have someone who’s lying just to tell you what you want to hear, than have someone who’s honest about being pro-family and wanting to decrease abortions, but doesn’t want to overturn Roe. Even if someone did overturn Roe, it still wouldn’t make abortions universally illegal, it would then be up to the states.
I can’t argue with you since you obviously won’t get behind someone unless they unequivocally tell you they’ll make abortions illegal, even if their previous record suggests otherwise. That’s flawless logic.
what makes you think he’s not being honest about appointing
strict constructionist judges who won’t want to overturn roe?
Oh, so you’re naive enough to think that any given costructionist judge will vote to overturn Roe?
Truth be told, you don’t really care about an unborn who has to go through an abortion. You’re a 1/2 baked conservative, my friend.
Maybe because I actually listen to what he says and does.
Allowing choice keeps government out of people’s lives. (May 2007)
are you reading? THE GUY STILL DOESN’T WANT TO OVERTURN PARTIAL BIRTH!!!!
When a child’s head comes out at delivery, the abortionist sticks a siringe into the skull and sucks the brains out. Are you listening buddy? RUDY WOULD VOTE TO REPEAL THAT LAW.
“No, I have not supported [a ban on partial birth abortions] and I don’t see my position on that changing,”
still reading?
“I would vote to preserve the option [for partial birth abortion] for women,” NBC, Meet the Press, February 6, 2000.
Geez. And pro lifers get all over Guliani for being a fanatical liberal because of his stance on abortion. How is this any better?
You’re probably right, but that interview is 5 years old so we can’t rule out that his stance has legitamately changed since then. I’m sure you’ve changed stances on some issues in the last 5 years.
What can you expect from the man who signed into law a permanent ban on semi-automatic sporting rifles in his state, only to turn around, join the NRA, and claim to be a solid 2A candidate, when it suits his political goals to do so?
Yeah, you guys are totally right…
If you ever change your mind, you’re a complete liar.
Who do you believe will overturn Roe...? someone who says he has changed or someone WHO STILL THINKS ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGAL (RUDY!)!?!?!
http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm
Last I checked, August was a few months ago. Yeah, I can’t imagine why those freaky pro life people wouldn’t like Giuliani.
So when someone changes their mind, do you look at what they DID, or what they promise? Clinton and Gore had EXCELLENT pro-life voting records!
http://www.gargaro.com/lifequotes.html
When they ran, they said they were pro-aborts. Hey… anybody know how those guys turned out? Oh, right, they legalized partial birth abortion.
Yeah, you’re right will, I’d much rather have a candidate who’s lying and switching to gain conservative votes than have someone who’s actually up front and honest about an important issue.
It’s not like a president has the power to singlehandedly overturn roe anyway. And if Guliani is being honest about a huge conservative issue like abortion, what makes you think he’s not being honest about appointing strict constructionist judges who won’t want to overturn roe?
Yep, Mitt Romney is a flip flop. The photo at this site proves it!
Check out
romneyforpresident.townhall.com/
Like Mormonism, the blog isn’t what it seems.
(Funny photos too.)
Candidate 1: I want to overturn Roe and be as pro-life as possible.
Candidate 2: I don’t give a shit if Roe is overturned.
Candidate 2 is obviously more pro life.
translation: I’d much rather somebody say their going to keep killing children instead of someone who says they’ll stop killing children.
I definitely see your logic there buddy.
K. So you’d still rather have someone who’s lying just to tell you what you want to hear, than have someone who’s honest about being pro-family and wanting to decrease abortions, but doesn’t want to overturn Roe. Even if someone did overturn Roe, it still wouldn’t make abortions universally illegal, it would then be up to the states.
I can’t argue with you since you obviously won’t get behind someone unless they unequivocally tell you they’ll make abortions illegal, even if their previous record suggests otherwise. That’s flawless logic.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27508_Murdock-_Its_Wrong_for_the_Right_to_Be_Rudyphobic&only
Oh, so you’re naive enough to think that any given costructionist judge will vote to overturn Roe?
Truth be told, you don’t really care about an unborn who has to go through an abortion. You’re a 1/2 baked conservative, my friend.
Maybe because I actually listen to what he says and does.
are you reading? THE GUY STILL DOESN’T WANT TO OVERTURN PARTIAL BIRTH!!!!
When a child’s head comes out at delivery, the abortionist sticks a siringe into the skull and sucks the brains out. Are you listening buddy? RUDY WOULD VOTE TO REPEAL THAT LAW.
still reading?
Strict