Do you know anyone who supports Giuliani?
- Thread starter cabin pressure
- Start date
Limeyfellow
New member
The sad thing is Clinton is perhaps a little more progun and much more conservative than Giuliani.
I', not happy about Rudy. I would much rather see Fred Thompson get the nomination. However, if it comes down to a Rudy/Thompson VS Hillary/Obama, going with Rudy is the lesser of 2 evils.
With that being said, we will continue to see big government continue to grow under both tickets... Hillary with grow government by creating new healthcare bureaucracies. Rudy will grow government by creating more 'national security' bureaucracies.
It's a damn shame. We the people should be ashamed that we let it get to this point.
With that being said, we will continue to see big government continue to grow under both tickets... Hillary with grow government by creating new healthcare bureaucracies. Rudy will grow government by creating more 'national security' bureaucracies.
It's a damn shame. We the people should be ashamed that we let it get to this point.
People who compromise on their principles end up with... Democrats or Republicans! Neither one of them cares about your gun rights past the notion of how many votes it will get them. Democrats will tell you to your face that they want gun control; Republicans get gun control after they are elected.
Why don't you guys think outside the one party-two faction box? I guess common sense isn't so common. But at least read history. No society has ever gotten more liberty by compromising its principles. But nearly all have lost liberty by compromising their principles.
And don't give me that garbage about wasted votes. The only people wasting their votes are the ones that keep electing the same old politicians and expect different results.
Think about what might happen if you and your friends and your relatives started voting for non-traditional candidates. And if their friends and relatives started voting for non-traditional candidates. And their friends and relatives... you get the picture. Why, it would be a movement! We could call it the "power to the people" movement.
What do you think? Have you got the guts to vote for someone who represents your principles and values, regardless of party affiliation?
Why don't you guys think outside the one party-two faction box? I guess common sense isn't so common. But at least read history. No society has ever gotten more liberty by compromising its principles. But nearly all have lost liberty by compromising their principles.
And don't give me that garbage about wasted votes. The only people wasting their votes are the ones that keep electing the same old politicians and expect different results.
Think about what might happen if you and your friends and your relatives started voting for non-traditional candidates. And if their friends and relatives started voting for non-traditional candidates. And their friends and relatives... you get the picture. Why, it would be a movement! We could call it the "power to the people" movement.
What do you think? Have you got the guts to vote for someone who represents your principles and values, regardless of party affiliation?
Wildalaska
Moderator
I dont know Phil, but I do know that folks who have their locations as the "occupied Confederacy" sure as heck dont share the values of most Americans.
No candidate in the race shares all of my principles and values. In fact, no candidate is going to share EVERYONES principles and values. Thats what it is about, the vote is for the one who BEST meets the entire electorates principles and values.
WildrudysstrengthisalsohisweaknessAlaska TM
Jets2007 said:
You might be right, but that is not what has happened recently. Annual federal government spending grew by almost 400 billion during Bill Clinton's administration, but the current budget projections show it will have grown by one trillion dollars during W's administration, more than twice the growth we saw under Clinton.
Out of that trillion dollars in growth, about 30% has been the result of defense spending growth. The other $700 billion came in other areas of government.
With regard to health care specifically, in 1992, our government spent $90 billion on health spending and another $119 billion on medicare. By 2000, we were spending $154 billion on health and 197 billion on medicare. That's a $64 billion increase in health spending, and a $78 billion increase in medicare.
The 2008 projections are for $253 billion on health and $330 billion on medicare. That's a $100 billion increase in health spending and $133 billion more for medicare.
Here's a fun game: go look at the Economic Report of the President, and try to identify a category of spending which grew more slowly under the Bush administration than the Clinton administration. Good luck with that.
Last edited:
In this Feb 2000 interview on Meet the Press, Rudy said, "...a person who wants to possess a handgun should pass a written test, should be able to pass a physical test in the actual use of the gun, and should have to demonstrate good moral character and a reason to have the gun. That those should be...essentially there should be a uniform law passed by Congress that says that every state has to administer that...."
He went on to say, "...and I've been arguing for that since at least 1980."
My questions are, why should I have to show a reason to have my handguns, or to buy more of them, and where does the Congress get the power to pass such a law?
I think the whole notion that I should have to show a reason for buying a handgun inverts the natural relationship of a citizen and his government. The government should have to show a reason why I should NOT buy a handgun, rather than requiring me to show a reason why I should. A person who holds the opposite conviction just has a fundamentally different view of government from mine, and I can't support that view.
He went on to say, "...and I've been arguing for that since at least 1980."
My questions are, why should I have to show a reason to have my handguns, or to buy more of them, and where does the Congress get the power to pass such a law?
I think the whole notion that I should have to show a reason for buying a handgun inverts the natural relationship of a citizen and his government. The government should have to show a reason why I should NOT buy a handgun, rather than requiring me to show a reason why I should. A person who holds the opposite conviction just has a fundamentally different view of government from mine, and I can't support that view.
applesanity
New member
A gun forum that has lots of people who consider the 2nd one of their priority issues... who woulda thought? Unfortunately or otherwise, most Americans don't.
That about emcompasses 99% of all politicians. Embrace it buddy, because politics has been like that since the game has been played.
You wanna change the system? You wanna vote for you-know-who? Get in line; it circles the block several million times and is over 2,000 years old. If Guliani has to change his platform so that he can get more votes, then maybe he's just trying to do what voters want. Isn't that the point of voting?
Yeah, you've really convinced me.
Elitism. I sincerely hope you are not a reflection of those who won't vote for either Guliani or Feinstein.
That about emcompasses 99% of all politicians. Embrace it buddy, because politics has been like that since the game has been played.
Cato the Elder said:
You wanna change the system? You wanna vote for you-know-who? Get in line; it circles the block several million times and is over 2,000 years old. If Guliani has to change his platform so that he can get more votes, then maybe he's just trying to do what voters want. Isn't that the point of voting?
Yeah, you've really convinced me.
Elitism. I sincerely hope you are not a reflection of those who won't vote for either Guliani or Feinstein.
galavanter
Inactive
I'm a libertarian Republican, and I certainly don't see myself voting for Giuliani.
Unregistered
Moderator
To compare Giuliani to Feinstein is silly.
They are both gun banners at heart, but the difference is Giuliani wants to be president more than he wants to ban guns, so he will dance around his views on gun control until after the election.
They are both gun banners at heart, but the difference is Giuliani wants to be president more than he wants to ban guns, so he will dance around his views on gun control until after the election.
As publius42 posted:
Seriously watch it. This man believes you should justify your reason for electing to own a gun he considers distastefull... that would be handguns in THIS PARTICULAR INTERVIEW. Of course he was also mayor of the city that instituted its own AWB that goes even beyond the NY State AWB, still in effect. Even the Ruger 10/22 is banned and every weapon must be logged with the police.
I know he will draw the Fudd vote. The moronic "shooters", using the term loosely, who only care about their deer, duck or trap guns and think that the antis wouldn't actually target them! Nothing but a group of Elmer Fudds willing to sell us all down the river, may they rot in hell. FYI, I hate them far more than antis. Antis are opennly opposed to the 2A while Fudds are traitors who feel it should apply to them as they see fit and expect all of the gun community to fight the battle for them while they torpedo us at every turn.
I don't care if it is Hillary or Obama against Rudy. I will vote Libertarian if we do not get at least a Fred Thompson. I know the libertarians will never win but then the republicans can see that they lost their core voters to a third party rather than cast a vote with their noses pinched shut.
Look at it this way, the last time there was a Dem in the Oval Office it took two years before there was a real republican revolution in congress. The reps need to be shaken up and if there backs were against the wall they may finally go back to the low taxes, fiscally responsible, small government ideals that put them in power in Clinton's first term.
Seriously watch it. This man believes you should justify your reason for electing to own a gun he considers distastefull... that would be handguns in THIS PARTICULAR INTERVIEW. Of course he was also mayor of the city that instituted its own AWB that goes even beyond the NY State AWB, still in effect. Even the Ruger 10/22 is banned and every weapon must be logged with the police.
I know he will draw the Fudd vote. The moronic "shooters", using the term loosely, who only care about their deer, duck or trap guns and think that the antis wouldn't actually target them! Nothing but a group of Elmer Fudds willing to sell us all down the river, may they rot in hell. FYI, I hate them far more than antis. Antis are opennly opposed to the 2A while Fudds are traitors who feel it should apply to them as they see fit and expect all of the gun community to fight the battle for them while they torpedo us at every turn.
I don't care if it is Hillary or Obama against Rudy. I will vote Libertarian if we do not get at least a Fred Thompson. I know the libertarians will never win but then the republicans can see that they lost their core voters to a third party rather than cast a vote with their noses pinched shut.
Look at it this way, the last time there was a Dem in the Oval Office it took two years before there was a real republican revolution in congress. The reps need to be shaken up and if there backs were against the wall they may finally go back to the low taxes, fiscally responsible, small government ideals that put them in power in Clinton's first term.
applesanity
New member
Well that's not a very good way of welcoming them into the fold. Even Zumbo has mended his ways.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Wait, wait - George W. Bush supported the AWB! He increased spending!
George is Hillary!!
If it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary - New York wins! A subway election!
Also, please some folks - go read the thread on whether the 2nd is the only issue and how naive that is as a position.
George is Hillary!!
If it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary - New York wins! A subway election!
Also, please some folks - go read the thread on whether the 2nd is the only issue and how naive that is as a position.
Probably not, but those of us who list our locations as "Occupied Confederacy" sure as heck share the values of constitution-loving and freedom loving Americans.
We can get into the debate of the constitutionality of forcing "sovereign" states to be a part of a union that they don't want to be part of and what a tyrant Lincoln was and how he threw the constitution out the window, but this is not the appropriate forum.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I don't remember the Confederacy being a bastion of freedom for some of the human beings under its domain. Also, the states that were members of the Confederacy had a fairly atrocious record on human rights until forced to change from the 1950's on.
Do we really need a Confederacy apologist discussion that ignores the core problem of the Confederacy, very conveniently? Boring.
Do we really need a Confederacy apologist discussion that ignores the core problem of the Confederacy, very conveniently? Boring.
applesanity
New member
Super-duper big time Grand Canyon straw man. Funny, I think I'm the only one around here that has a pro-confederate quote in his/her signature. But waayyy off topic.
- Guliani is better than Hillary
- Guliani has a viable chance of beating Hillary