Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him. as edited by Aziraphale (Talk | contribs) at 15:21, 13 July 2007. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Giuliani is a Republican but as for social conservative issues, he is too liberal. He might be the Presidential nominee of our party. I kept asking myself, how could I vote for somebody pro-abortion and pro-gay rights? Then I heard a unique viewpoint I thought I should share. If we do not elect a President strong on defense, strong on national security and strong on foreign policy, there might not be an America left to have abortions. I certainly want my child to grow up in a safe secure America. Giuliani is strong on defense, strong on national security and strong on foreign policy. In a time of war, this nation cannot afford to take chances with a Democrat President.

Giuliani was mayor of New York City, he has no foreign policy experience at all, none. He also has no experience in National security he never served in the military and avoided service during the Vietnam War so he could become a lawyer. He is not fit to be Command in Chief of the US military or lead this country in global affairs. His moral values are none existent, married and divorced several times and having very public affairs. If he is the best 'Republican' for the job, that is a sorry state to be in.--Eljoe2 02:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

What makes you think being the mayor of New York City does not involve foreign policy? Republican leadership maybe in a precarious position, would you trust America to a Democrat leader??? What makes him not fit to Commander-in-chief besides his backwards social issues? He says keep up the fight against terrorists. He believes in a strong military like Reagan. Eljoe, believe me, I am with you, his gun rights stand, his equal rights for gays stand, his abortion stand is terrible, multiple marriages. I am married and do not believe in divorce either. He is the front runner, you have to think of the consequences of letting a Democrat in the White House or a former Democrat, Giuliani. If it comes down to it, an abortion right Democrat versus an abortion rights Republican, we lose no matter what. But, we do not have to lose America as a result of not voting. It must be a Republican in our future. We cannot afford a liberal defeatist the top job in the land. Just my OP --jp 22:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

What would make Giuliani unfit for Commander-in Chief? How about Bernard Kerik for starters?

"Federal prosecutors have told Bernard B. Kerik, whose nomination as homeland security secretary in 2004 ended in scandal, that he is likely to be charged with several felonies, including tax evasion and conspiracy to commit wiretapping.

Kerik's indictment could set the stage for a courtroom battle that would draw attention to Kerik's extensive business and political dealings with former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who personally recommended him to President Bush for the Cabinet. Giuliani, the front-runner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination according to most polls, later called the recommendation a mistake.

Kerik rose from being a warden and police detective to become Giuliani's campaign security adviser, corrections chief, police commissioner and eventual partner in Giuliani-Kerik, a security arm of Giuliani Partners, which Giuliani established after leaving office in 2001. Kerik resigned his positions in Giuliani's firm after he was nominated to the homeland security job."

That was his first big national move for the administration and his contribution to the security of our country, a corrupt crony. He then apologizes and says he didn't really vett him properly, I guess this is how he'd choose his administration too, and what that for our country?! No thanks.

So Giuliani got some media exposure from 9/11 big deal. His so called 'leadership' ended the search for firefighters and victims remains so early that remains are still being found today and remains from victims of the World Trade Center that were carted away early as debris has been used to fill potholes and pave city roads. Real nice, the family's have to sue the city to stop using their deceased loved ones as road filler.

He would be an utter disaster for the U.S.--Eljoe2 02:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Kerik is a non issue the liberals like to wash Giuliani with. Firefighters still love the guy, it's the liberal firefighters union that does not. I can't think of any democrat nominee with any commander-n-chief experience what so ever. Speaking of firefighter rants. Nothing but cheers for Hillary from the union. Even though she did not attend a single funeral, not one firefighter funeral after 9/11. Liberals are just scared of Giuliani, its the same old attack strategy. I still hold to the fact Giuliani says stay on the attack against terror. Thats all I want to hear. I don't want some politically correct, balance the line, foreign policy. I want to add to thee 2000+ days of no attack on the USA.--jp 02:19, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Kerik was a major mistake and it is an example of how Giuliani will operate, he's careless, he's not a competent leader. As for firefighters, there are about 1 million firefighters in the US out of which 250,000 are full time the rest are volunteers the International Association of Fire Fighters has over 280,000 members, they are the major voice for firefighters and they do not support Guiliani, firefighters do not love the guy, not even when he's out on the town wearing a dress and high heels, he is not Presidential material. I agree that staying on the attack against terror is a good strategy but it is not the only method. To suggest that is the sole reason there has been no attacks in the US is ridiculous, by that rational you could claim that after the first attack on the trade center in 1993 that Clinton's plans/policy kept the US safe for 2000+ days too. Giuliani needs to do more than come up with sound bites about how he'll "stay on the attack" policy is more complicated than that.--Eljoe2 02:10, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Eljoe, I realize you are dead against Giuliani, so what, if he's the nominee, vote Clinton, what do I care. You are wrong is how I see it. I guess you speak for all the firefighters, even NYC ones that post good things about him on Do I trust the firefighters union? They were the first union in America to give their backing to Kerry 'o4. Like I said, kerik is a non issue but except to you only. Keep tearing the man down, maybe we will have a better nominee, like your fav senior citizen McCain.--jp 14:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

See this is the problem with the conservative republican voter right now, no attention to the quality of the candidate, they'll turn a blind eye to all the candidate's faults as long as they are a brand name and Guiuliani is a brand name. He's done nothing since he was mayor in 2001 just ride his popularity from 9/11. He wants to spend federal money on big deal, he's all for gay big deal, his major endorsement to head Homeland Security to protect the US turns out to be a big deal, decided to dodge Vietnam and avoid service to his big deal. If thats the candidate you want, then you've already lost.--Eljoe2 01:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If quality is such a big issue for conservative republicans, should we not have voted for Reagan? He did in fact have a marriage and divorce before Nancy. He was at one point of his life, a liberal thinker. Nobody is without sin. I am curious eljoe, so much hate for the man, you must have your reasons but I see you as blind, not me. Hey I am all for Brownback as President. Reality tells me somebody else will have the nomination. If you keep waiting for a true conservative Republican savior, you will be disappointed. If you hope that Republicans will continue to lead the Presidency, you have hope! You and Mountain Dew boycott Republicans because there is no right of center candidate, America loses. --jp 22:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I would consider voting third party to send the Republican Party a message that they can't just nominate any old fool and expect me to vote lockstep for them. MountainDew 02:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Dew, that's exactly the kind of thought process I am trying to prevent. Here is what your actions will dew. By sending a message to Republicans that you don't like it's leaders social positions, you are giving the Presidency to Hillary. Not only will she defend abortion rights, she will load the judicial system with pro-abortion supporters. On top of that, we will go back in time whereby we ignore terror and slash the military. We become laughingstock national security without a strong leader. The message you are sending is- come defeat America, the time is right. I guess your actions will have the desired affect- end abortions. Because nobody will be getting abortions during nuclear war!

I'm with you MountainDew,

I'm tired of voting Against someone, sure would like to Vote For someone someday! I'll vote for our local officials, but if one of the top three declared candidates head the party ticket I'll write in Tom, Fred, or Duncan!

I've had enough of these RINOS! NO MO!

Is it really worth giving this nation a Democrat as leader? If you are a true Republican, you vote Republican, period. If you are a true conservative with conservative values, then you don't vote and give liberals their wish. Lose lose--jp 23:02, 20 April 2007 (EDT)