Even More Reason to fear Hilbama

That's right, WA, keep flogging for Rudy Ghouliani. After all, that's the only mature, responsible vote. :rolleyes:

If you keep ordering the same old . . . crapola from the local diner, don't be surprised when crapola is all that's on the menu. Here, pax said it:

Not a dime's difference between the two front runners in either main party this time around, and I have no stomach for helping to put either one of these evil people into the highest office in our fair land.
Click to expand...
 
That's right, WA, keep flogging for Rudy Ghouliani. After all, that's the only mature, responsible vote.
Click to expand...

I would much prefer Fred (at this point) by the way but he is falling down on the job.

Anyway, I suppose each person has to vote or not his conscience. I make mine based on realistic politics. YMMV

WildineedafriendinseattleAlaska TM
 
Mr. Dobson and the rest of your ilk, make sure you run home if Rudy wins to protest and protect your right to guns and womb control...of course with Hillbama, there wont be an America left for wombs or guns anyway
Click to expand...

There is not one shred of effective difference between Rudy Giuliani's position on gun control and Hillary Clinton's.

According to the news reports and past statements, they both want:

-Repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment
-Closing of the so called "gun show loophole"
-A new, permanent, and vastly expanded "Assault Weapon" ban
-A ban on centerfire ammo that can penetrate a bullet resistant vest
-A ban on .50 cal (BMG) rifles
-Magazine capacity limitations on semi auto rifles
-Microstamping
-etc.

Hillary Clinton has actually done LESS damage to the Second Amendment than Giuliani. For example, Clinton was not a participant in the lawsuit that resulted in the notorious Smith and Wesson agreement.

There is absolutely NO good reason to vote for Giuliani as opposed to a third party candidate in a three way matchup with Clinton. None.
 
There is absolutely NO good reason to vote for Giuliani as opposed to a third party candidate in a three way matchup with Clinton. None.
Click to expand...

Except a vote for someone other than Guliani (assuming he is the nominee) is a vote FOR Hillbama.

Its your right to vote for her.

WildsothesnakeisnoweatingitstailAlaska TM
 
I think we could have a solution if Fred were to win then switch to the Libertarian party upon getting into office. Power of incumbency usually wins a president a second term...and then it would be a clear case of having people choose man vs. party with man winning.
 
I would much prefer Fred (at this point) by the way but he is falling down on the job.
Click to expand...

Fred kept everyone waiting for him to jump in, and then...[crickets chirping].
So far, he just seems like a lazy campaigner. Where's the fired-up, red-blooded, patriotic conservatism that had been implied earlier?
 
What's wrong with being less hell bent on burning himself out and making a jackass of himself than the other people? Thompson doesn't have to be busting it trying to outdo everyone to impress me or anyone else. Being the better person IS the issue. At least I hope it is. Whatever happened to that? How about NOT voting on someone because they took loads of dollars out of the useful economy and wasted it on grabbing power for themselves? How about NOT voting on someone because they most obviously want the job, which effectively makes them a megalomaniac? How about NOT voting for someone because they spend endless amounts of effort trying to wiggle into the mold that exactly 50.00000000000000001% of people want?
 
Except a vote for someone other than Guliani (assuming he is the nominee) is a vote FOR Hillbama.

Its your right to vote for her.
Click to expand...

No, you have it backwards. A vote for Rudy Giuliani is a vote for Hillary Clinton because they have exactly the same effective position on most issues.

A choice between Rudy, Hillary, or a third-party candidate isnt a choice between A, B, or C. It's a choice between A, A, and C.

There is no point to worrying about who is worse, Hillary or Rudy. They are equally as bad.
 
Or equally as good. Compared to the last eight years it is safe to say that Hillary and Guiliani are both more competent and better able to construct a cabinet. Gun control will not come from the oval office in any case, much bigger fish to fry, it's a campaign issue for those who care about such things, but not really a presidential issue in the real world.

Having said that my lady friend, a republican and felony prosecuter is a staunch supporter of Fred. Oh well, nobody's perfect. That's right, I have a republican lady friend, go figure.
 
There are plenty of countries for Hillary's supporters. Pick one: North Korea, Venezuela, South Africa, or even France. Can't you leave one country for the normal people? Must they all go down the toilet?
 
There is no point to worrying about who is worse, Hillary or Rudy. They are equally as bad.
Click to expand...
Based on their known public record, Rudy Giuliani is significantly worse that Hillary Clinton.
 
The worst aspect of a President Hillary would be judicial appointments at all levels. Bush did better than I expected in that regard, nominating two individuals to the Supreme Court who were able to correctly identify something that is not interstate commerce (an indigenous California toad in the case of Roberts, and a machine gun in the case of Alito).

How would President Rudy do, given that he believes Congress has the power to pass a law saying we must prove we need it before owning a handgun? Not much better than Hillary, would be my guess. Is there anything that man believes is not a federal matter?

There are some up sides to a Hillary Presidency, though. Fringe libertarians would no longer be the only ones skeptical of government power grabs, especially by the executive branch, and Republicans in Congress might re-learn how to oppose profligate spending. We need someone who knows the word "no" in Washington DC, and if it is not Dr. No in the White House, maybe it wouldn't be so bad to once again have it be Republicans in Congress.
 
Of course they are not equally bad.

Hillary has said she would confiscate profits from oil companies and nationalize healthcare. Furthermore, the democrats tend to think the whole family gets elected. Bill, maybe since he did such a great job with foreign policy when al quada decared war on us in 1998,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2184177,00.html
would get to be some kind of new Ubersecretary of State. As bad as Rudy would be, he doesn't seem as eager to accelerate the decline of the republic as the Clinton royal family.
 
It would be a very hard sell to convince people that Clinton was a bad president after eight years of having a truely bad presidency to compare. I doubt very many political advisors will suggest that whichever republican wins the nomination should run against Bill Clinton's presidency. It would be pretty hard to convince people that what they saw and experienced was actually bad, you know all that peace and prosperity. The average voter simply won't believe you if you tell them all the Bush presidencies problems were caused by Clinton.

BTW, I believe that Hillary wanted to nationalize health insurance not healthcare, like Canada not like England. Most americans have become so fed up with our current health insurance mess that they are ready for that. Face it, people look at those with medicare and realise it is a damn sight better health coverage than the rest of us get, yet it's administered by the govt. When faced with the reality vs the ideology reality usually wins.
 
BTW, I believe that Hillary wanted to nationalize health insurance not healthcare, like Canada not like England. Most americans have become so fed up with our current health insurance mess that they are ready for that. Face it, people look at those with medicare and realise it is a damn sight better health coverage than the rest of us get, yet it's administered by the govt. When faced with the reality vs the ideology reality usually wins.
Click to expand...

Medical Professional: "What if I want to live here, not where I am assigned to go".

Hillary: "Get a new profession".

Providing care outside the government system = felony even if charity.

I am quoting from my memory. But, that is not taking over medical insurance except by voluntary suspension of disbelief!

Google "Robert Treuhaft" to see who's law firm Hillary interned for while in college. Hint: Former chief lawyer for Communist Party USA.

Here is one link:

http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/15.html
 
Last edited:
Furthermore, the democrats tend to think the whole family gets elected
Click to expand...
In case you have forgotten I believe King George's father King George senior was president for four years after being vice president for another four.
 
In case you have forgotten I believe King George's father King George senior was president for four years after being vice president for another four.
Click to expand...

I thought there was a difference between between GHW and GW being elected a decade apart, and Clintons creating new positions for their unelected spouses, as in healthcare czar and ubersecretary of state. My mistake. If the constitution says the president can create positions for their relatives whenever they like, show me the cite.

As for being more like Canada, a Canadian recently gave birth to quintuplets in Montana - no room at the hospital in Calgary, a member of the Canadian parliament went on vacation to Florida for cancer treatment. It's going to be just as good as social security. Turn 65 and retire comfortably. No worries.
 
When Hillary developed her health care plan in secret during Bill's presidency and then released it with that stupid tour, it was a flop on the scale of New Coke. What has changed?

At least if President Hillary proposes more government involvement in medicine, we'll probably get some protests from Republicans. Let's review what has happened to government health spending under Clinton and then under Bush.

Federal "Health" spending 1992: $89.5 billion
Federal "Health" spending 2000: $154.5 billion

Federal "Health" spending 2000: $154.5 billion
Federal "Health" spending 2008: $280.8 billion (projected)

When Bush wanted to expand Medicare, Republicans in Congress went along. Would they go along with President Hillary on something like the prescription drug thing?

Federal Medicare spending 1992: $119 billion
Federal Medicare spending 2000: $197.1 billion

Federal Medicare spending 2000: $197.1 billion
Federal Medicare spending 2008: $391.5 billion (projected)

A smaller, less expensive federal government which is less involved in our lives is still a message with some popularity in America. It's a message that mainstream Republicans have dropped.
 
There are some up sides to a Hillary Presidency, though.
Click to expand...

Rather than mindlessly keyboard clicking {the sky is falling!!!:eek:} if Hillary is elected, perhaps we should explore the up side factors that publius alludes to?

1. NRA membership growth.

2. Profit opportunities. AWB2 with grandfather clause will hike prices on pre-ban articles. Black market options for those so inclined.

Any others? Happyhappyjoyjoy!;)
 
A smaller, less expensive federal government which is less involved in our lives is still a message with some popularity in America. It's a message that mainstream Republicans have dropped.
Click to expand...

You will get no arguements from me on that one!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top