He does not consider illegals who sneak in through the desert and work illegally to be criminals.

You can’t call it anything but amnesty with a full pardon to boot. Rudi lets employers off the hook by placing fault on the feds for letting them in.

His idea that it is not the ‘job’ of municipalities, or employers to deal with illegal workers is arrogant and fake. He is passing the buck so the gravy train can continue on my back while my country sinks under cultural displacement

I wish MB4 had not mentioned Zell Miller. Now there is the type of candidate I would love to see. Put Zell Miller into a debate with either the DEM candidates or the GOP candidates and he would outshine them all with his decency truthfulness and common sense

I will not vote for a guy who will not enforce laws on the books to stop illegal immigration and punish illegal aliens.

paulsur on October 30, 2007 at 9:27 PM

Don’t blame ya. Now Rudy’s making it clear that he has no plans to enact workplace enforcement either.

Comically, he thinks that he can use his super-duper 9/11 NYC magic powers to completely stop illegal immigration… with a virtual fence. Once they’re here? Amnesty for illegals and the businesses that hire him.

You realize you’re arguing with someone who claims that NYC wasn’t a sanctuary city, right?

Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 7:37 PM

I think that you have solved the case Watson!
He believes Rudy rather than his “lying eyes”.

I think that he may be Rudy’s mom.

But then that is expanding the definition to the same unreasonable lengths that MB4 seems to want to take the definition of draft dodger. You both are being disingenuous in an effort to slander Rudy. I, on the otherhand, can back up all the sordid allegations that I level at Fred, because they are all true.

P.S. The professional help comment was a humorous ode to weasles and ferrets.

For him not to be a draft dodger there would have to be no such thing as a draft dodger!

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 6:05 PM

You realize you’re arguing with someone who claims that NYC wasn’t a sanctuary city, right?

Your obsession with Rudy is not natural and I am really concerned about you. You really ought to seek some professional help.

tommylotto on October 30, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Oh the sweet, sweet irony.

For him not to be a draft dodger there would have to be no such thing as a draft dodger!

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 6:05 PM

Obviously, I am mistaken (NOT).

In your world anyone who didn’t volunteer was a draft dodger. You really should seek some help. You have some deep seated resentments that you need to get over. Just because someone did not serve, or served in a different way from you does not make them unworthy, or worse, a draft dodger.

There was a system set up for people to get deferments, if you wanted one and did not get it or did not even want one and had to beg to be permitted to serve — it doesn’t matter. If someone else received a deferment for a legitimate reason they did not dodge. In Rudy’s case: A judge wanted Rudy’s help in his courtroom. As future events would clearly prove, Rudy was a brilliant lawyer. It is not unreasonable that the Judge would want Rudy’s services. The judge duely requested a deferrment for Rudy. A draftboard reviewed the application and granted it for good cause. You cannot go back in time and substitute your judgment for that of the draft board.

Your obsession with Rudy is not natural and I am really concerned about you. You really ought to seek some professional help.

We’ll do nothing but change BDS… for RDS (Rudi Derangement Syndrome).

I certainly hope you don’t think for a moment that the derangement of the Left is suddenly going to clear up over night, like a slight rash, once Bush leaves office. BDS is something of a misnomer at best; it should be called Everyone Who Disagrees With Me Is Not Wrong But Evil Syndrome, and it’s been metastasizing on the Left at least since Reagan, and probably (in a slightly less debilitating form, maybe) since Goldwater.

And I say again: voting for a liberal candidate has never, ever resulted in a conservative taking office.

tommylotto on October 30, 2007 at 3:03 PM

You do not even seem to know what a draft dodger is.

Neither did Rudy. He received educational deferrments just like every other college kid, he recieved a one year defferment while serving his country as part of the justice system. After that, he stood for the draft lottery like anyone else, but was not drafted.

tommylotto on October 30, 2007 at 3:03 PM

There you go again.

So here I have to go again.

“He (Rudy) applied for a deferment but was rejected (first attempt to dodge the draft). In 1969, MacMahon (low friends in high places) wrote a letter to Giuliani’s draft board, asking (using and abusing his influence) that he (Rudy) be reclassified as 2-A, civilian occupation deferment, because Giuliani, who was a law clerk for MacMahon, was an essential employee (It would be hard to think of anything LESS essential. Even DOD employees seldom got 2-A’s. Even at a “top secret” Army installation in Utah, civilian Army employees did not get deferments.). The deferment was granted.(second attempt to dodge the draft successful)”
*
He was clearly a draft dodger. Very arguably times two. Text book case in plain fact.

For him not to be a draft dodger there would have to be no such thing as a draft dodger!

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Non-responsive, but informative nonetheless.

You change the topic again. The question was Rudy v. Hillary, not Rudy v. Other Republican.

JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 1:25 PM

You dance to your music, I’ll dance to mine.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Question… and one I’ve asked before, but no Rudi supporter has been able to answer…
For Rudi to get elected President, he is going to have to go after both the Clinton legacy and name… thus a very bitter negative election. He won’t have Conservative support, and MUST run as the anti Hillary.
Now… IF he wins… with both houses of Congress probably in control of the Dems, just how does this move the Conservative Agenda forward?
He will have contributed to the fracture of Politics here in America, and will have so polarized and angered the Left, that he will be the new Bush (as in BDS)….
He won’t get the Judges HE wants (they would never get out of commitee). He won’t get legislation passed. He will be given Liberal Social agenda Items, which he will then sign….
We’ll do nothing but change BDS… for RDS (Rudi Derangement Syndrome).
Romeo13 on October 30, 2007 at 11:51 AM

I think you are completely wrong. BDS arose, because there was no common ground and the idealogical differences were too great. And Bush does not help things by sitting there like a punching bag (his infrequent counter punches like this morning excepted). Rudy has significant experience dealing with a liberal legislature. He can either find common ground with them or he can brow-beat them into submission. It would certainly be entertaining to watch him take on Washington!!! As far as judges, the party is over. The Dems will never allow another anti-abortion judge so long as they still have at least 41 votes in the Senate. Any appointment by Mitt or Freddie will immediately be fillibustered to death. Rudy on the other hand with his pro-choice background will not be stigmatized by the abortion debate in the eyes of the Dems. The Dems will consider Rudy’s nominee, whereas they would reflexively resist another President’s nominee. Rudy would select a strict constructionalist jurist (as he has promised) because that is his legal philiosophy (not because it will lead to a certain result in a certain case), and his selection will be without a litmus test on abortion. That is the only way we are ever going to get another judge on the court willing to overturn Roe.

It is not me who voted for George McGovern!

How far are you going to go back. I hear he was a trouble maker in High School too!!!

It is not me who is pro partial birth abortion!

Neither is Rudy!

It is not me who is anti gun!

Neither is Rudy. He is anti-criminal with gun.

It is not me who is pro illegal!

Neither is Rudy. Close the boarder, deport the criminals.

It is not me who marches in gay parades!

Okay, you got me there. He has also been seen in drag getting gropped by the Donald. I guess he is guilty of not being a homophobe and having a sense of humor. However, he has always been against gay marriage and is even in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if activist judges in too many states start forcing this down the throats (sorry for the pun) of an unwilling populace.

It is not me who dodged the draft!
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Neither did Rudy. He received educational deferrments just like every other college kid, he recieved a one year defferment while serving his country as part of the justice system. After that, he stood for the draft lottery like anyone else, but was not drafted. He has spent his life in public service trying to make the world a better place. He freed NYC from the clutches of the mob. He fought corruption on Wall Street. He saved a city and made the daily lives of 8 million people better. He has truely given over the larger part of his life to public service (destroying his marriages and family in the process). For you you throw out false allegations of draft dodges is very low. I know you’ll claim that making any effort to obtain a deferrment is draft dodging but you are wrong. Draft dodging is doing something illegal or dishonest to obtain a deferrment or avoiding the draft when selected. Rudy did not do any thing of the sort.

You are very misinformed about Rudy and your opposition is very irrational. You need to realize that he’s the friend you haven’t met yet.

To quote:”What if Rudy’s the nominee and the GOP loses? The party would have compromised on life and lost anyway.”

Not just life, but guns, marraige, etc…..

This “conundrum” could so easily be avoided if Republicans just don’t betray conservatives by making Rudolf their nominee. Such a simple solution.

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 1:23 PM

You change the topic again. The question was Rudy v. Hillary, not Rudy v. Other Republican.

JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 1:02 PM

This “conundrum” could so easily be avoided if Republicans just don’t betray conservatives by making Rudolf their nominee. Such a simple solution.

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Ah, don’t like things as they are, just as they should be. Me too. Too bad life doesn’t work that way. Anyway, like me, you will solve this conundrum in the voting booth.

Can anyone even imagine democrats being crazy enough to have conservative Zell Miller as the leader in the polls for their Presidential nomination? Making all manner and length of rationalizations for him. Oh, he is really a liberal like us, not really a conservative. He had to run in a conservative state so he had to act conservative, but if we elect him he will really put liberals on the court. He really isn’t anti choice, he just had to say that. He really hates gun rights, he just had to pretend to support them, but we just know that once elected he will take everyones guns away. Zell also really supports gay marriage we just know it.

I am not even sure that I want to call myself a Republican anymore, but I have every right to call myself a conservative, FAR more right than Rudolf.

Wasn’t the point. The point is that Rudy is FAR more right than Hillary– although I understand you do not agree with that. I never said Rudy was a conservative.