Democratic Debate - Hillary & Obama on Guns

Cookies

Now Obama is hitting below the bra.:D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080417/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_analysis

Obama wanted to make sure voters remembered some of that baggage, but he also raised it in measured tones. He used sympathetic terms in bringing up the cookie quote that led critics to label Clinton as some sort of ultra-feminist.
Click to expand...

That's just mean & unfair. I can hear it now. Someone calls at 3am and Bill answers the phone because Hillary is in the kitchen making cookies.:D This has got to be the best political year ever...well most entertaining anyway.
 
One thing I definitely did decide on during the excruciating half-hour I mustered for the debate - all of Hillary's faults are due to her saying what she thinks the public wants to hear.......On the other hand, all of Obama's faults are due to him actually believing what he says.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be mean-spirited, but it actually took this debate to help you come to these conclusions on Hillary and Obama?
 
I'm not trying to be mean-spirited, but it actually took this debate to help you come to these conclusions on Hillary and Obama?
Click to expand...

Those weren't conclusions, they were premises leading to a conclusion. Hillary follows the polls, while Obama is always correct - seeing as how he's the Messiah.

2330301126_d0149ffca2.jpg


The thing that I "decided" on was that I'd rather have Hillary than Obama based solely on that difference. The discussions on TFL have never really truly focused on choosing between Hillary and Obama.

The discussions on TFL have usually been which guy to support against Hillary or Obama, or to use the portmanteau, "HillBama." Discussions on how much either of them suck in their own respective ways. Often direct talk about about the Muslim-sounding aspects of Obama's name. Or how SHTF if either becomes president. Very little, if any, based on reality. Bury your guns in the back yard. Ron Paul write-in. Komrade Klinton. Go down fighting. From my cold dead hands. When (insert 1984 reference here) comes to pry that gun from your dead hands, they'll still be warm. It takes several hours to get all cold and stiff and stinky.

I'm putting forth the idea that it might not be so bad if Hillary were to become President. Lowered expectations, yes - but not apocalyptic.

The other conclusion came from observing how I didn't care much for or about the debate; baseball was on my mind. Hence or otherwise, I'm suspecting that much of America was thinking about something else as well. Those girls with the fight video on MySpace. That polygamist church in Texas. (my first thought was that those women were kinda ugly and boring... now why would you want to marry several ugly boring women?). American Idol.

Speaking of, I just checked the Nielsons; American Idol pulled in twice as many viewers as Hillary vs. Obama round 37. It wasn't even the show proper - just the elimation process! You just tune in at the last 5 minutes to see who gets sent packing.

I just tried to watch some the debate, in order to grasp what the next few years will be like, since it's likely one of them will be the next President... if only so I can claim later that I'm not as apathetic as American Idol viewers.

The Red Sox did lose last night. That was cool.
 
Juan Carlos Posted:

just wish the Democratic Party would realize just how much this is costing them elsewhere, though. Run an actual pro-gun candidate, and you'd almost instantly put half a dozen more states in play. And, just like the above, it's not like most anti-gun activists are social conservatives...they're not going to up and vote Republican just because the Democrat isn't anti-gun enough.

I'm not a democrat, but I think their problem is that the national party is too beholden to the upper East Coast, and the big inner cities, which are full of liberals who hate guns.

Here's an example of a Democrat who appears to be a smaller government, pro gun governor of Montana.

http://brianschweitzer.com/access

An avid outdoorsman with and A-Rating from the NRA, Brian Schweitzer has always fought to preserve access to public land, protect our air, water, and land for hunting, fishing, camping, and hiking, and uphold the long held traditions of Montana’s sportsmen.


I'm guessing he would not stand a chance to get the national nomination for President. For cripes sake, the guy put a cap on college tuition increases. Oh the humanity! How dare he attack liberal academia.

Anyway, I don't know that much about him, but on the surface, he appears to be a small government, fiscally conservative, pro gun, democrat. If that's true, he'd possibly be a guy I could support as an independent. I just don't trust voting for moderate democrats because the power structure within their party seems to be dominated by far left liberals who love taxes, hate guns, and hold religion out to be the crutch of the weakminded. I can't side with them on those views. Obama expressed those same views to his San Francisco elites.
 
What concerns me is how many pro-2nd gun owners, who frequent this board are actually going to vote for one of the two aggressively anti-gun democratic candidates.

People that still blindly vote democrat or republican simply because thats how they are registered still amaze me.
 
What concerns me is how many pro-2nd gun owners, who frequent this board are actually going to vote for one of the two aggressively anti-gun democratic candidates.
Click to expand...

Why? Perhaps some folks feel their selected candidates position on other issues is more important than their stance on guns.

WildthebigpictureAlaska TM
 
Here's a statement by the Montana Governor, Brian Schweitzer regarding what guns he owns.

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2008/04/16/top/60st_080416_demoguns.txt

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, never shy about his fondness for guns, captured the sentiment of many in the rural West when asked by a reporter which guns he owns.

“None of your damn business,” the Democrat said. “That’s the first step in the government coming to get my guns, is telling you what I got.”
Click to expand...

Hey, ya gotta love that. He could really shake up the democratic party, but they won't listen to him at the national level. He's too radical for them, is my guess.
 
I do see that point Wild, but guns are so important. They are ingrained in American culture from day one. I agree that guns should not be the only reason you vote or don't vote for a candidate, but if a candidate is that vehement about taking our guns, what other freedoms would they take just as fast?

Just take a closer look.....
 
but guns are so important.
Click to expand...

Really? To who? Gun owners?

They are ingrained in American culture from day one.
Click to expand...

Bet there are tons of folks who care nothing about them and wouldnt know a cap gun from an M16

My gig is the 1st amendment...thats the one that really counts.

WildfearthegovernmentthatfearsyourpressAlaska ™
 
My gig is the 1st amendment...thats the one that really counts
Click to expand...

As we can observe in Canada, they chip away at all of the rights, a little at a time, whenever they perceive public apathy or when they think they can get away with it. Lets hope we are not seeing our future, but I am afraid we may be seeing the previews from the UK, Canada and Australia.
 
I swear...Which one of those two is the antiChrist?

The NRA is going to need your membership support. This is a good time to join.
 
As we can observe in Canada, they chip away at all of the rights, a little at a time, whenever they perceive public apathy or when they think they can get away with it.
Click to expand...

Its more than a chip up there thats for sure

WildimsurprisedbythelackofinterestinthatthreadmaybeitsbecausethereisalottoreadbeyondpithysoundbitesAlaska ™
 
Many people do not "believe" that either Obama or Clinton will change anything relative to firearms from a governmental perspective. Hogwash.

As far as the primaries go, if I were a Democrat in PA I'd vote for the Democratic candidate that would do the least amount of damage to the country (in the primary added for emphasis). Then I'd vote Liberatarian or Republican in the main election.
 
Why? Perhaps some folks feel their selected candidates position on other issues is more important than their stance on guns.
Click to expand...

Yes, thats obvious, but we are part of a forum that is pro-gun. That does not mean guns are number one, but at least up there on the list of importance......for most members anyway. I think what we are seeing are liberals that are gun owners but they are trying to convince others here that there are other issues besides guns, so It's OK to vote for Obama. IMO, trying to convince gun owners it's OK to vote for an avowed anti-gun candidate is just ridiculous.

What concerns me is how many pro-2nd gun owners, who frequent this board are actually going to vote for one of the two aggressively anti-gun democratic candidates.
Click to expand...

Yes, and as indicated in my comments above, they would like you to do the same. Not having guns as number one is OK, but having guns somewhere at the bottom of the list is not acceptable to me and a lot of other folks.
 
Yes, thats obvious, but we are part of a forum that is pro-gun. That does not mean guns are number one, but at least up there on the list of importance
Click to expand...

Importance as what? A hobby? A livelihood...a tool? Psychological issues? A reason for existence?

Political fact: The complete prohibition of firearms on a national basis will never occur.

Political fact: The Unrestricted possesion of firearms will never occur.

I look at the whole picture. A inexperienced centrist democratic party hack like Hillary could advocate a machine gun in every household and I wouldnt vote for her.

I wouldnt vote for Barack if he was related to John Browning!

Conversely, I refused to support Ron Paul despite his gun loving leanings.

I think what we are seeing are liberals that are gun owners but they are trying to convince others here that there are other issues besides guns, so It's OK to vote for Obama.
Click to expand...

No there are other issues besides guns, but Senator Obama doesnt deserve anyone's votes regardless of his position on guns.

WildtheresmorethangunsheyisaidthatalreadyAlaska TM
 
So Hillary is all for the constitutional right, but local governments can have "restrictions" to keep their citizens safe. So every local government puts a gun ban into effect and that's ok? BS.
Click to expand...

You know what I find kind of interesting? The number of people (not counting you among them), at least philosophically, seem to think that the fourteenth amendment (and the incorporation of rights under it) was a huge encroachment on states' rights...many who have even argued that abolishing slavery was an encroachment on states' rights...yet think that the second amendment is absolute, and inviolable at either the state or local level.
Click to expand...

Well, their little work-around to getting rid of the 2nd amendment, which they "believe" in, is having local restrictions everywhere they feel is necessary. They should just say straight up, "I'm anti-gun." But we all know what they're doing.

And Hillary said, regarding the DC ban, that she supports restrictions. To me, a ban isn't a restriction, it's a ban. It's a total outlaw of guns.
 
Political fact: The complete prohibition of firearms on a national basis will never occur.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but if the rest of the nation were to follow California's lead we'd sure be headed in that direction.
 
If you cannot protest a law, cannot assemble in protest, cannot petition for redress (all 1A rights), then how will you protect the BOR, let alone stop gun confiscations?

It is not the 2A that protects the rest, it is the 1A that is the lynchpin of Liberty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top