The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Giulliani's Judicial Intentions

Original intent to just what the Founders wanted is quite unrealistic. The Fourteenth Amendment has changed the Constitution drastically, and you'll also have to take into account all the 'original intents' to all the amendments and how they may conflict with the original intent of the Founders.

Giuliani isn't president nor is elected to anything and he's an absolute moron without merit or a chance of becoming POTUS (I hope...). Any further mental exertion regarding what he thinks or claims isn't time well spent, imo, and would best be served being directed to those that actually are in office. His intentions of his judicial choices are about as relevant as who he is going to choose for ambassador to Singapore.
Good post. The man has to get endorsed as the Presidential canidate for the Republicans, THEN elected as the President of the U.S. before it becomes relevant. Who here seriously think this will happen in the current political climate? :confused:
 
the facts are still this

his words and intentions need to be considered so that he wont even get the nomination

i cant imagine what mummified dinosaur the pugs are going to put up there

none of the ones running so far have a chance at it though
 
In the late 50s or early 60s, Harry Truman amdmonished Nelson Rockafeller 'you'd could be president if you became a Democrat.' Rocky would have done well to to heed that advice: we wouldn't remember him primarily for expiring in his mistress's apartment in bra and panties ;)

This advice might apply to Guiliani as well. I don't like Rudoph Guiliani as a person. As an article in 'The Nation' recently pointed out 'where Clinton embarassed his family, Rudolph Guiliani seemd to go out of his way to humiliate his'. He is, in a word, a louse.

However, like that other famous, homicidal louse, Edward 'Ted' Kennedy, he is just on the right side of many issues near and dear to my heart. Guiliani would protect a woman's right to choose; he would continue to advance (or at least not get in the way of) gay and lesbian rights; he would be fiscally responsible while not being inhumane. And he would pick his battles wisely: he would not have invaded Iraq.

I would vastly prefer to see Barak Obama or John Edwards in the oval office to Hizzoner; and I would prefer Bill Richardson or Mayor Mike even more. However, after what we've just endured, a Guiliani administration wouldn't be tragic.

Of course the question that begs to be asked (and which seems to have been forgotten) is the state of his health. Seven years ago, Guiliani was diagnosed with prostate cancers, a disease which killed his father. 'Early onset' (prior to 60) prostate cancers tend to be particularly aggressive. Guiliani opted for an experimental 'braciotherapy' (radioactive seeding), in order to avoid the potential comorbidities of impotence and incontinence attendent upon a radical prostatectomy, the current the standard of care. It seems oddly consistant with Hizzoner's egoist/anti-social personality construction that he would hold both his life and his civic responsibilities less dear than the prospect of shooting blanks, much less wearing Depends to Yankee Stadium.

John Kerry, too, was diagnosed with prostate CA prior to 60, and his father, too, had succumbed to the disease. Senetor Kerry elected to have a radical prostatectomy, a definitive procedure. My decision to vote for him was not influenced by any caveats regarding the state of his health. I don't think I can say as much for Guiliani.
 
Hiya PS! Don't believe I've had the pleasure!
Anyway, great post. Only part I question is this:

However, like that other famous, homicidal louse, Edward 'Ted' Kennedy, he is just on the right side of many issues near and dear to my heart. Guiliani would protect a woman's right to choose; he would continue to advance (or at least not get in the way of) gay and lesbian rights; he would be fiscally responsible while not being inhumane. And he would pick his battles wisely: he would not have invaded Iraq.

I haven't heard any of that from Rudy. When I heard him being asked some of those questions during the debates, he seemed to toe the party-line. Were all of that true, I could almost find my way clear to vote for a Republican (I've got some deap seated "trust issues," donchaknow).
 
Hiya PS! Don't believe I've had the pleasure!
Anyway, great post.

Guiliani is first and foremost a New Yorker. The only Repubicans who can survive there are ones who share the progressive social positions that most of the residents of that city, Republican or Democrat, share. Fiorello LaGuardia was a beloved Repubican mayor, and at the height of the depression, no less. Guiliani seems to being trying to tone down some of his earlier positions to sell himself to the Christian right wing of the party, but all politicians do that. I would contrast him with Mitt Romney, who has done a complete 180 both on gay and lesbian rights and on reproductive choice.

Another Northeastern Republican in this mode is former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld. Weld may be one of the last WASP patrician policians, that have contributed many of our greatest statesmen (i.e. the Roosevelts). Weld, too, should consider crossing party lines -- that is if he chooses to return to public life. After his little run-in with neanderthal Jesse Helms, I suspect he has little taste for it anymore.
 
Back
Top