Hilary Would Love Us!

R

roy reali

New member
I don't know if Ms. Clinton has ever visited our forum here. I doubt it. But if she did, she would be tickled pink. We seem to have a tread aimed at each of the republican canidates. Each of them is bashing one or another of the GOP presidential hopefuls.

Maybe the republicans don't have the greatest field to chose from. But any of them will be better then the alternative.

President Hilary Clinton!:barf:
 
Maybe the republicans don't have the greatest field to chose from. But any of them will be better then the alternative.
Click to expand...

Sorry...fell for that one seven years ago. The result is a super-sized federal government, a Bill of Rights in tatters, and a three quarter trillion dollars run up on the national credit card that my kids and grandkids will have to pay off.

You go ahead and vote for the lesser of two evils, though, if it makes you feel any better. My vote goes to the Libertarian candidate...or Dr. Ron Paul, if by some miracle he comes out on top in the Republicrat primary.

And spare me the crying about "a vote for Libertarians is a vote for Hillary". Truth be told, maybe it wouldn't be so bad if she were to win the election in 2008. Maybe it would galvanize the so-called Conservatives to get off their asses, stop rubber-stamping Big Government legislation, and actually re-discover conservative principles. Four years of gridlock sounds fine to me right about now, and sure as hell better than four more years of what we've had the last four.
 
maybe it wouldn't be so bad if she were to win the election in 2008. Maybe it would galvanize the so-called Conservatives to get off their asses, stop rubber-stamping Big Government legislation, and actually re-discover conservative principles.
Click to expand...

That's what I've been thinking. Not that I was about to vote for Hillary or any dem, but maybe a little suffering might be what it will take for people to wake up and see were the hell we're headed. I hate to be grim, but it's worse than most people are willing to believe.
 
I'm in the same boat.

I will never vote for Rudy, Romney or McCain. Ever. If one of the others gets the Repuplican nod, I will consider them based on their merits.

Otherwise, it's a write in for Paul or some libertarian. Failing that, I'll write in Colbert.

I will not vote "for" a bad candidate. The best thing that ever happened to this country was the government shut-down back in the 90's. We need a year of that.

I'm not too worried personally if Hillary gets in. I've got my guns, and she has a lot of work ahead of her to get any anti-gun laws passed. I'll have lots of heads-up time and plenty of room on the credit cards for that problem. Anything she does will rile up real conservatives, and we might actually strip away some government programs the next time around.
 
Change Of Tune

I wonder what posts will be like here in about a year and a half if Hilary does win. Espically if Congress remains in deomcatic control. I wonder how much belly aching there will be about the reintroduction of the Brady Bill or something even worse.
 
Y'know I remember part of a quote from way back when. Something about "only a Republican can get away with raising taxes". Don't remember where I heard it or when it was said (may have had something to do with Bush 41, can't remember). Anyway, it's got me thinking that it may well be a Republican that could "get away" with shoving the next AWB down our throats. Rudy, Romney, yep, either one would do it. Hell even W said he'd sign it if reauthorized by congress. Thankfully that statement was never put to the test. I voted for Bush both times. Wish I'd had other choices. I'm not impressed much with the field as it's shaping up now. I'm an independent, and may cast my first libertarian vote for pres this time around. We'll see.......

And I agree, that it might take a little democratic governing "pain" to reignite the fires of true conservatism in this country.
 
Californians Rest Easy

If Hilary and the Democrats run every thing, the rest of the country will look familiar to you. Don't even worry about moving. At least you have good weather.
 
And I agree, that it might take a little democratic governing "pain" to reignite the fires of true conservatism in this country
Click to expand...

Lets see. What can Hillary do in 8 years to hurt the RKBA? Scary question. We are really between a rock and a hard place. We know Hillary and Obama are against the 2A. We know Rudy and Romney are against the 2A. Their records prove it. So, who to vote for. I can not vote for anyone that is anti 2A. I also cant vote for anyone that thinks 9/11 was America's fault (meaning any democrat and Ron Paul). The only candidate that appeals to me right now is Mike Huckabee. Sadly, he has the same chance of getting the nomination that RP does.

Your right, Hillary does love us. Since Hillary and the 2 prominent republicans running for Prez are all anti gun, it almost makes the 2A meaningless in 08.
 
It's not our division over the Republican candidates that's helping Hillary, it's the Republican candidates themselves. They've packaged themselves to be status quo candidates during a change election cycle, and the status quo isn't appealing to anybody, not even the conservatives.

The Republican candidates are lambs to the slaughter. That wouldn't change even if Paul never ran in the first place. It's their doing, not his.
It's also the party's doing for refusing to get behind the one candidate who could actually defeat Hillary and actually embodies true conservative principles.
 
I also cant vote for anyone that thinks 9/11 was America's fault (meaning any democrat and Ron Paul).
Click to expand...

I am not a supporter of Ron Paul, but I do hate to see his position on 9/11 repetitively misrepresented by the media. The above quote is not true. He never said he thought it was America's fault. He was paraphrasing comments from the 9-11 Congressional Report, which was supposedly an unbiased look at the reasons behind 9-11. The report states that one of the reasons for Islamic hatred of the US is our presence in the Middle East and the spread of western culture there. No one (Democrats or Ron Paul) has said this is justification for a massive civilian murder, and no one has said its our fault.

In the warped minds of Islamofascists, it is one of the reasons for the attack.
But that is there problem, not ours. A similar analogy would be if I started cussing at you, and you pulled out your gun and shot my family. While I probably should not have cussed you, you still aren't justified in shooting my family.

Ron Paul's views on foreign affairs are naive. He holds basically the same views as the founding fathers... that we should not meddle in the internal affairs of other nations and become entangled in foreign affairs. This was a good policy, but we stopped following that policy around the turn of the 20th Century. Pandora's Box has been opened, and there is no going back at this point.
 
Truth be told, maybe it wouldn't be so bad if she were to win the election in 2008. Maybe it would galvanize the so-called Conservatives to get off their asses, stop rubber-stamping Big Government legislation, and actually re-discover conservative principles. Four years of gridlock sounds fine to me right about now, and sure as hell better than four more years of what we've had the last four.
Click to expand...

You just might be right, Mark; however, having Hillary as Prez also might start a "Clone LHO" project!:D
 
The various threads are based on dissatisfaction with the candidates being offered by the Republicans. Go to DU or any other left-leaning site and you'll see similar threads on the various candidates.

The only difference is that after the primary, all the lefties will form up behind the Dems because their goal is advancing their cause, and that requires winning office. You won't see the same thing on the Republican side.
 
Ron Paul's views on foreign affairs are naive. He holds basically the same views as the founding fathers... that we should not meddle in the internal affairs of other nations and become entangled in foreign affairs. This was a good policy, but we stopped following that policy around the turn of the 20th Century. Pandora's Box has been opened, and there is no going back at this point.
Click to expand...

We've never had such a policy. We accepted the assistance of France and other nations in gaining our independence. We traded with those and other nations after we gained independence (thereby tying our interests to theirs). We adopted the Monroe Doctrine in the 19th Century. We meddled in Mexico's internal affairs over Texas.

Basically, the United States has never avoided foreign entaglements or not meddled in other nations' matters. The isolationist movement of the early 20th Century was about the closest we've come to having such a policy and it lasted for a rather brief period.
 
Basically, the United States has never avoided foreign entaglements or not meddled in other nations' matters.
Click to expand...

While I agree with that, we certainly have increased our number of entanglements in the 20th Century.
 
While I agree with that, we certainly have increased our number of entanglements in the 20th Century.
Click to expand...

Depends on how you look at it. If you consider the Native American tribe s to be sovereign nations (and we did at the time), we definitiely had more involvement back then . . . and more culpability. Add in Mexico and Spain, and the 19th Century was filled with entanglements.

Whoops. Forgot all about the Lousiana Purchase and Alaska. Both rather hefty examples of entanglements (which all treaties and trade arrangements ultimately are).
 
I don't think the founding fathers who advised avoiding foreign entanglements were referring to Indians, but I might be wrong.

The point of what I am saying though is that the Pandora's Box of foreign entanglements is open, and there is no going back at this point, no matter how bad Ron Paul wants to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top