Nelsa, at 7:57 you issued your silly little challenge:

I have not heard Rudy mention a single policy or postion that he would promote as POTUS. What are his policy proposals? Social Security-Taxes-Securuity and the Armed Forces. The War on terror. Education..
Name one.
Nelsa on November 24, 2007 at 7:57 PM

It was silly, because Rudy has for moths had very detailed policy position papers freely accessible on his web site. Not only had he made 11 commitments, each commitment was backed up with a lengthy page explaining how he intends to go about accomplishing the policy. I responded to your snarky challenge here at 8:56 P.M., providing links not only to his list of commitments but also to several of the in depth pages that thoroughly explain his policy.
Then a few minutes later you posted this at Politico.com:

I was posting on another Blog tonight and I realized I had a question about Rudy Giuliani and his campaign. No one could answer my question. My question was simple. Give me one policy or proposal that Giuliani has promoted during his candidcacy. What Proposals or Policies does he intent to make as POTUS? Still not answer.
Posted By: Nelsa | November 24, 2007 at 09:09 PM

Then a few minutes later you are back at Hot Air, posting again, evidently without having read my response and the detailed links provided:

A Group of “Promises”? He cant promise anything. He has to tell us HOW he is going to do it and PAY for it.
Nelsa on November 24, 2007 at 9:29 PM

Then a few minutes later you are finally responding to my post answering your challenge, but in such a manner that proves you only followed the first link and didn’t bother to understand it:

Tommylotto: Just listen to the great video you led me to. To Quote Rudy, “We are laying out a declaration of 12 commitments to the American people. It’s a group of PROMISES…” Which is it? A commitment or a promise
The first dozen words out of his mouth are a flip flop…..
Nelsa on November 24, 2007 at 10:06 PM

I still do not understand the distinction you make between a commitment and a promise in this context. Then after I scolded you for ignoring my post and links that answered your challenge, you “corrected” me by pointing out that you had thanked me (which you never did):

I did not ignore you- I thanked you for the video.
Nelsa on November 24, 2007 at 10:54 PM

Maybe I missed the post where you thanked me for the links. Was it at politico or some other site where you issued your silly propaganda-like challenge to prove that Rudy has, shock of shocks, taken a position on an issue.

Let me give you some advice. Read more. Post less. The only point you are making is your own ignorance.

tommylotto on November 25, 2007 at 2:16 AM

As George Will has said, Rudy’s record of conservative governance is superlative. How I wish more on our side could see past the small things and get that big picture.

Halley on November 25, 2007 at 2:23 AM

Dang Tommy. I followed your link to Politico to read this there:

I was posting on another Blog tonight and I realized I had a question about Rudy Giuliani and his campaign. No one could answer my question. My question was simple. Give me one policy or proposal that Giuliani has promoted during his candidcacy. What Proposals or Policies does he intent to make as POTUS? Still not answer.
Posted By: Nelsa | November 24, 2007 at 09:09 PM

I’m disappointed honestly. I thought a fair question deserved a fair answer, but what’s the proverb? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Thanks for pointing that out, you have certainly illustrated what is and what is not worth effort.

Spirit of 1776 on November 25, 2007 at 2:28 AM

Boy, nothing like a good Rudy riposte to a rival whose campaign is on life support to bring out all the virulent Rudy Haters, eh.

Hey, Thacker, maybe you should limit your self to 4 “I REALLY REALLY REALLY HATE RUDY AND WILL NEVER EVER EVER VOTE FOR HIM” posts per thread..

otherwise your blood pressure is likely to skyrocket, your heart may go into palpitations, and you wont be able to get proper help under the socialized medicine plan of your preferred-to-Rudy choice for Potus, Hillary RC.

Always Right on November 25, 2007 at 7:57 AM

I like Rudy.. I like Fred.. I like Mitt.

I’ll be happy no matter who gets the nomination.

The rest of you whiney bitches should too.

VinceP1974 on November 24, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Here here, my thoughts exactly.

I have no doubt that Rudy has the experience to be the chief executive of the nation. His politics on matters such as 2nd amendment, abortion and immigration do give me pause and keep me from backing him at this juncture. If he gets the nomination though, I am a Rudy man!

conservnut on November 25, 2007 at 8:28 AM

strengthening the international system the terrorists seek to destroy, and extending the system’s benefits.

and I hope he doesn’t mean giving more money to the UN. It is in NYC isn’t it? How about the Law of the Sea treaty? Does this comment mean that he would be willing to give up US sovereignty for ‘the international system’?

I know NYC has more foreign nationals than any other area in the world. But here again, I personally would prefer that America not look or act like NYC over the past 20 years. I would like to see preference given to America and her citizens.

ThackerAgency on November 25, 2007 at 9:36 AM

I understand that. I am quite familar with how rude other posters can be to each other. But you didn’t really fire back, you used it to make a point (where valid or not) on another blog to create an impression about Rudy. It is disappointing to see as I’m sure you understand.

Spirit of 1776 on November 25, 2007 at 9:39 AM

Point taken Spirit. It was just frustrating that no one would just say, Rudy supports XYZ.

AP’s original premise on this particular thread was that Rudy was saying that Fred has no record.

I am Fred supporter 100% and will be unless he gives me a reason to change my mind.

At politico I was looking for the same response. ie Rudy supports XYZ.

Thanks for your response-I’ll try to make my points a little clearer in the future.

Nelsa on November 25, 2007 at 9:51 AM

At least Fred’s isn’t a broken record.

right2bright on November 25, 2007 at 10:57 AM

ThackerAgency on November 25, 2007 at 9:36 AM

Thacker, I have a problem deciding whether to respond to you, because you are so prolific. I doubt I can keep up, because I’m not as devoted. The problem is that you are constantly attributing positions to Rudy to make your point that are not Rudy’s positions.

For example, Rudy on the Law of the Sea Treaty:

“I oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. I believe the treaty is well intentioned, and I appreciate the hard work of U.S. negotiators who sought to resolve problems in the treaty first identified by President Reagan. I also understand the arguments of those — particularly in our military — who claim that this treaty will enhance America’s ability to guarantee freedom of the seas for all peace-loving nations.

“But I believe that the treaty is fundamentally flawed. I cannot support the creation of yet another unaccountable international bureaucracy that might infringe on American sovereignty and curtail America’s freedoms. I oppose ratification of this treaty as long as it fails to address these concerns.”

Then you link to a smear job from Slate.com on socialized medicine. Which completely distorts what Rudy did — because it is a smear. Rudy was the mayor of NYC. There were federal programs set up to afford poor people with health care. There was talk of expanding those programs. Rudy stated that instead of expanding the programs, let’s fully implement the ones that we already have. He started a drive to enroll all in NYC that were eligible. He did not expand socialize medicine. He picked up all the $$$ for NYC thrown around by the federal government. That is being a good mayor. If you want to know what Rudy’s position is on health care, look here, not the Village Voice. You will see that Rudy wants nothing to do with socialize medicine as POTUS, but if the fed is giving away money, as mayor, he wants his share.

tommylotto on November 25, 2007 at 12:18 PM

tommy and I are cut from the same cloth. We’ll just have to agree to disagree about Rudy. As I said, I like Rudy as a person. . . it’s just that his positions would be railed against if he had a ‘D’ in front of his name instead of an R. That’s my only point concerning Rudy.

He’s a good campaigner, but he won’t beat Hillary when/if she wins the nomination and her spin/hit machine gets a hold of Rudy’s record.

For the record, I’m not actively supporting anyone. Of all of the R candidates, I probably like McCain the best (and I really dislike him for many of his backward positions).

I have no problems with New Yorkers, or Italians, or Catholics if their stances on the issues are similar to mine. I just can not get past his gun confiscation policy in NYC to consider him as a conservative. And I don’t even own a gun. . . but I want the right to have one because the police won’t always be there to protect me if I need them.

ThackerAgency on November 25, 2007 at 12:52 PM

Once again, do not confuse Rudy the zealous advocate for NYC with the RUDY candidate for POTUS. Rudy is results oriented. The objective was to reduce crime in the murder/crime capital in a densely populated urban area. He did what was necessary to get the guns outn of criminal’s hands. However as POTUS the objective is different. See here.
He believes in an individual right and reasonable restrictions based on locale. He might even be to the right of the SCOTUS.

Same with sancuarty cities. As mayor he did what he had to do to hold a city with 400,000 illegals together. His policy as POTUS is different because the job description, powers and objective is different.

tommylotto on November 25, 2007 at 4:41 PM

The suit against the gun manufactureres had nothing to do with the second amendment. I assume you know that and are being obtuse.

We have run the second to death. I will tell you again what the SCOTUS is going to do with the issue, and it will be very similar to Rudy’s position. The Second IS an individual right, not a state right, but just like any individual right protected by the bill of rights can be restricted by the state if the restriction is narrowly crafted to protect a “compelling state interest.” What is reasonable, sufficiently narrow restriction and what is a compelling state interest will depend on the locale. What is constitutional in NYC will not be constitutional in Texas, because local circumstances create different state interests. A state could not completely ban firearms, but depending on the totality of the circumstances, there could be limits on the type of firearms permissible, limits on cealed firearms, limits on assualt weapons, maybe limits on hand guns, registration requirements, owner certification requirements, licenses, etc. Not all these restrictions will be required in all locales. In some places none will be enacted. In other places like DC, the state will go too far and the law will be struck down by the courts as too restrictive, or not narrow enough, or not associated with a compelling state interest.

Neither the right nor the left will get a win. The debate will go on, but the perameters of the debate will be defined.

tommylotto on November 25, 2007 at 7:37 PM

but just like any individual right protected by the bill of rights can be restricted by the state if the restriction is narrowly crafted to protect a “compelling state interest.” What is reasonable, sufficiently narrow restriction and what is a compelling state interest will depend on the locale.

I could not disagree more. There is no ‘compelling state interest’ other than a ‘police state’ to take guns away from law abiding citizens. AGAIN. . . GUNS don’t commit crimes, PEOPLE commit crimes. If you want to keep CONVICTED FELONS from owning firearms, that’s completely different from keeping a law abiding citizen from owning a gun, any gun.

A state could not completely ban firearms, but depending on the totality of the circumstances, there could be limits on the type of firearms permissible, limits on cealed firearms, limits on assualt weapons, maybe limits on hand guns, registration requirements, owner certification requirements, licenses, etc.

AGAIN, this is a DEMOCRATIC position. It is a valid argument that is made all the time by the Rosie O’Donnell’s and HILLARY CLINTON’S of the world. Yes, the SCOTUS will decide a case about this soon. THIS IS WHY THE BELIEF OF THE GUY RUNNING FOR THE POSITION TO APPOINT THE JUSTICES IS IMPORTANT! I don’t expect Rudy to differ from Hillary on this issue. I wouldn’t vote for Hillary because of it, and I won’t vote for Rudy because of it (I don’t care if they have a D or a R next to their name, they are wrong).

I hate I didn’t come back to this thread earlier because nobody will see this. But the bottom line is that the 2nd amendment is a right for ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS in ALL LOCALES. The government does NOT have a right to restrict my gun ownership AT ALL if I am a law abiding citizen (according to the Constitution - and I’ll bet the SCOTUS will decide this way too).

Guns do not commit crimes. People commit crimes. Paste that on your brain when you discuss the issues about restricting gun rights of American citizens. You will force law abiding citizens to defer to incompetent and often unavailable government police forces to protect them . . . hello Hurricane Katrina.

ThackerAgency on November 27, 2007 at 12:54 AM