DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on February 12, 2007, 12:02:01 AM
-
"I used gun control as mayor," he said at a news conference Saturday during a swing through California. But "I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms."
He said what he did as mayor would have no effect on hunting.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070211/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail;_ylt=ApvXUxo_0d2ONQ_WweiOO.5h24cA
[][][][][][][][][][]][][][][][][][][]
I really expected him to last longer than this.
-
his "handlers" are probably popping veins by now... :-\
-
Ouch. That definately's gonna hurt getting the nomination
-
Any mayor of NYC who favors the sort of gun-toting that is strutted about in Montana or Texas would clearly be an utter fool. The space per inhabitant, the social mix, the local customs are too great to apply the same policy to the entire country, urban and rural.
Texas has a higher percentage of its citizens locked up than the USSR in its worst days. They might even execute more as well.
Giulani has no chance of getting the nomination. The GOP demands that a candidate pay his dues, and he hasn't done so. He would need to pay a double share of them , being as he is divorced, Italian-American, a Noo Yawker, not any sort of evangelical, and his name ends in an i.
No chance. They will bring Jebbie forth long before they will nominate Rudy.
-
Any mayor of NYC who favors the sort of gun-toting that is strutted about in Montana or Texas would clearly be an utter fool....Giulani has no chance of getting the nomination. The GOP demands that a candidate pay his dues, and he hasn't done so. He would need to pay a double share of them , being as he is divorced, Italian-American, a Noo Yawker, not any sort of evangelical, and his name ends in an i. No chance.
Good thing we have Xo here to tell us who and who won't be nominated by the GOP ;)
-
Any mayor of NYC who favors the sort of gun-toting that is strutted about in Montana or Texas would clearly be an utter fool....Giulani has no chance of getting the nomination. The GOP demands that a candidate pay his dues, and he hasn't done so. He would need to pay a double share of them , being as he is divorced, Italian-American, a Noo Yawker, not any sort of evangelical, and his name ends in an i. No chance.
Good thing we have Xo here to tell us who and who won't be nominated by the GOP ;)
I think he is right ths time.
Rudy might be a good president if more of us were New Yorkers.
-
Good thing we have Xo here to tell us who and who won't be nominated by the GOP
I think he is right ths time. Rudy might be a good president if more of us were New Yorkers.
THIS time, he might actually be. Even a broken clock is correct 2times a day ;)
-
The president has little to do with gun control, that is a legislative and judicial jurisdiction.
-
The president has little to do with gun control, that is a legislative and judicial jurisdiction.
I don't agree , I think a President ought to be influential in legislation , and ought to veto exactly the sort of mesure that Guliani seems set to push .
A president ought be be enough astute in the principals of the bill of rights to be an an assistant in enforceing them.
-
A president ought be be enough astute in the principals of the bill of rights to be an an assistant in enforceing them.
I think he threaded the needle well.
States and municipalities have far more leeway in regulating firearms than the feds, if i am not mistaken. And he did seem to qualify his position, using what was legal at the local level, but being cognizant of the 2nd amendment at the federal level.
-
A president ought be be enough astute in the principals of the bill of rights to be an an assistant in enforcing them.
I think he threaded the needle well.
States and municipalities have far more leeway in regulating firearms than the feds, if i am not mistaken. And he did seem to qualify his position, using what was legal at the local level, but being cognizant of the 2nd amendment at the federal level.
Is the first or fourteenth amendment abridgeable on the city , county or state level?
-
I think he is right ths time.
Rudy might be a good president if more of us were New Yorkers.
====================================================
Giulani is clearly the best candidate that the GOP could run.
But the GOP is full of ratwing assholes and evangelical lameoids, and that is why he won't get the nomination.
You don't have to believe me... just watch it happen.
-
Speaking as one of these: "ratwing assholes and evangelical lameoids", I WOULDN"T vote for him. The litmus test is abortion; everything else is somewhat negotiable like gun control, immigration position, etc.
-
Has someone been trying to abort you again? :o
This country does not deserve the sort of clowns you would favor.
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one, Jeez.
Other people's reproductive systems are none of your goddamned beeswax.
-
Other people's reproductive systems are none of your goddamned beeswax.
And other people's vaccination choices are none of yours.
-
Other people's reproductive systems are none of your goddamned beeswax.
And other people's vaccination choices are none of yours.
But Ami, hard core leftists & libs think it is :-\
-
I WOULDN"T vote for him. The litmus test is abortion;
But Giuliani has said he would appoint Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. He forcefully defended Roberts and Alito when they were nominated.
-
And other people's vaccination choices are none of yours.
===========================================
Yes, they are, because infectious diseases are EVERYONE's concern.
-
And other people's vaccination choices are none of yours.
===========================================
Yes, they are, because infectious diseases are EVERYONE's concern.
Eradication campaigns get widespread support , lots of people like them.
And that is enough , it is not nesscery to immunise every holdout , the hard to persuede do not need to be forced.
-
Yes, they are, because infectious diseases are EVERYONE's concern.
So are babies. It takes a village, remember?
-
And other people's vaccination choices are none of yours.
===========================================
Yes, they are, because infectious diseases are EVERYONE's concern.
They're only infectious if one CHOOSES to make it so. Otherwise it's controlled withOUT any vaccination. Can't say that about other infectious diseases, such as Smallpox & Measles
So, no, it's not your business
-
They're only infectious if one CHOOSES to make it so. Otherwise it's controlled withOUT any vaccination.
You mean like HIV is controlled?
Let's face it, kids make stupid mistakes. I truly don't understand the problem here. And yes I know the whole libertarian argument over "mandatory" or not. But that surely isn't the underlying issue to this argument. I'd file that up there with whether wearing seatbelts should be "mandatory" or not.
Who cares?
There is something more here. What is the real issue?
-
But that surely isn't the underlying issue to this argument. I'd file that up there with whether wearing seatbelts should be "mandatory" or not.
According to those opposed to mandatory vaccinations, yeah, it is.
There is something more here. What is the real issue?
People want to claim that opposing mandatory vaccinations is the same thing as "wanting women to get cancer." And since the tiny group that is opposed to mandatory vaccinations seems to be mostly conservative, all of a sudden, it's "all Republicans want women to get cancer."
-
They're only infectious if one CHOOSES to make it so. Otherwise it's controlled withOUT any vaccination.
You mean like HIV is controlled? Let's face it, kids make stupid mistakes. I truly don't understand the problem here. And yes I know the whole libertarian argument over "mandatory" or not. But that surely isn't the underlying issue to this argument. I'd file that up there with whether wearing seatbelts should be "mandatory" or not. There is something more here. What is the real issue?
Choice, parental control vs Governmental control. It can't be made much simpler, aside from the demented twist that opposing mandatory vaccinations = pro-cancer. Yea, and it is about it being made mandatory or not. Yea, and it is related to STD, though I've seen nothing that indicates it prevents HIV. Could you share that study with us?
-
OK. Well then I'll politely bow out as this is a bit too banal for my personal taste in debates.
You all have at it :)
-
OK. Well then I'll politely bow out as this is a bit too banal for my personal taste in debates. You all have at it :)
Not going to take a stand on Parental control vs Government control? No studies on how the new vaccine prevents HIV? tsk, tsk, tsk 8)
-
No studies on how the new vaccine prevents HIV?
Never in my life have I made a claim that there exists a vaccine for HIV. I'd appreciate a little honesty.
Not going to take a stand on Parental control vs Government control?
I'm not going to get into an argument that is the equivalent of whether or not wearing one's seat belt should be mandatory. I honestly just do not care enough to be bothered with it. As I said, it is just too banal.
-
No studies on how the new vaccine prevents HIV?
Never in my life have I made a claim that there exists a vaccine for HIV. I'd appreciate a little honesty.
Umm, excuse me, you did bring HIV into this dicussion, as we were debating the vaccine. Thank you very much
Not going to take a stand on Parental control vs Government control?
I'm not going to get into an argument that is the equivalent of whether or not wearing one's seat belt should be mandatory. I honestly just do not care enough to be bothered with it. As I said, it is just too banal.
Government telling you what injection you're going to give to your child is "banal"? OK