Hillary Clinton losing support of Demosocialists

As sad as it is, I agree with cuate here.
I will not vote for Hillary. And it's not her politics, it's her lack of substance. Her overarching ambition to become president with no real agenda beyond acquisition of authority.
And that's what I think the hard-core 'Demosocialists' over at Kos seem to be balking at as well. She's an empty suit IMO. Devoid of any beliefs.
So she's right out for me. Beyond consideration.

However...
This does not necessarily mean that I will vote Republican.
 
How could anyone disagree Goslash????? Beats the hell out of me. instead of bashing we need to be looking under the rugs for a real patriotic constitutionalist, regardless of the party. But unfortunately the radicals on either side will not allow it and we will get just anothe term of politics as usual, either right or left.

As a conservative I really question how anyone could consider the present administration as "conservative right", more like hoodlum, touchable, underground.
 
BigJack,
Remember that the true conservatives still outnumber the neo-cons that currently control the Republican party. I fully expect that as people start abandoning the sinking ship that is the Bush administration, the Republican party will reinvent itself in the mold of it's constituency, coming back to the core values of it's supporters.
Even if we're presented with Hillary vs. Rudy (shudder), the public discontent with the status quo may be enough to make a 3rd party viable this year.
Here's to hopin'...
 
What about when you voted for him the second time, after he had already wiped his a$$ with the bill of rights? You know, because you saw Demo-Socialists like Kerry as such a threat to your civil liberties?
Click to expand...
You got me, Go Slash - I did vote for Bush in '04.:D I commend you on your post research. You are probably wondering why I voted for Bush the second time around. Well, I'll tell you why:

1: There was massive opposition to the provisions of the so-called Patriot Act:barf: from both "Ds" and "Rs." The provisions that were the source of the opposition were, as best as I could discern, the result of fear resulting from the 9-11 attacks and not some sinister plan to destroy the Bill of Rights by the Bush administration. Remember that both "Rs" and "Ds" voted to pass the so called Patriot Act. Given the opposition, my thought was that it would be retooled by Congress and the most onerous provisions would be removed, or at least brought into compliance with the Bill of Rights.

2: As far as Kerry himself, he abundantly demonstrated to every voter that he was - and is - a person who cannot be trusted. You say that Bush "wiped his @ss with the Bill of Rights." In retrospect, maybe he did and it seems that he is now paying for it.

HOWEVER, Kerry spent every day of his 20 year Senate career - the days he showed up for work, that is - working like a fiend to dismantle and destroy the Second Amendment and the right of We The People to own firearms. In EVERY vote concerning the Second Amendment, he stabbed gunowners in the back. EVERY TIME since 1985. That is a voting record that I cannot and will not ignore. It is a voting record that no gun owner should ignore. Why would gun owners vote for a person who has stabbed them in the back at every opportunity since 1985?? My answer is, "They should not vote for that person - EVER."

3: Lastly, like many gun owners and other Americans, I voted for the candidate that I believed to have the most viable chance of beating the candidate that was "the greater of two evils" presented to us. This translates into voting for the lesser of two evils. It is a sad commentary on American politics that We The People are forced to make such a choice, but it is what it is.

Voting for an "ideologically pure" candidate that has not a snowflake's chance in Hell does nothing other than guarantee the victory of the greater of two evils. Like many other gun owners, I found this out in 1992 when I voted for Perot.

So you see Go Slash, I am not a wild-eyed, Bible thumping, gay and anyone from the middle east hating, Planned Parenthood bombing, Jerry Falwell watching, Bush-can-do-no-wrong nut job. I'm just a guy who is serious about preserving the Second Amendment and what other few rights we have left that haven't yet been destroyed or legislated out of exsistence by our so-called "leaders."
 
pg,
Never said you were any of those things, and whatever criteria you vote by are your own. I'm just always disconcerted when someone villifies one party but does not recognize the threat presented by the other.
See, we American citizens have precious few friends in Washington. The left wants the government to play nanny for us and the right wants the government to play stern father. Or so they say, because what they really want above all else is to be in charge.
I think if you ask around, most of us can agree that we really just want the government to leave us alone except within the purview of their job as outlined in the Constitution.
To that end, you perceive your greatest threat to be from the left and the 2nd Amendment to be the most important right you have. Fair 'nuff. I perceive threats from both sides and hold all of my rights dear. You conclude the lesser of 2 evils to be one guy, I conclude the other.
That'd make us Americans who disagree, not 'so-called gun owners'.
Just sayin'...
 
I perceive threats from both sides and hold all of my rights dear.
Click to expand...
So do I. If you say to every politician breathing, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," there will be damn few rocks flying.

I will freely admit that our Second Amendment rights are my first and main concern - but that is not to say that all our other rights are any less important. The reason for my concern regarding the Second Amendment is, it seems that the Second Amendment secures all our other rights.

If we allow ourselves to be stripped of our firearms, the politicians can do whatever they want and sneer, "What are you going to do about it?" They are waaay too close to displaying that kind of arrogance today. For this reason, no matter what the cost, we must never allow our firearms to be taken. Never.

We both seem to want the same thing, which is -
we really just want the government to leave us alone except within the purview of their job as outlined in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Being the eternal optimist, I will say that hopefully we will some day have a return to honest-to-God Constitutional governing - what a concept!
 
Last edited:
I'll drink to that.

So back to my first first question:
Why don't you guys run McCain? He's the only one you've got that polls better than Hillary.
 
Ok, I have to ask...

>registering guns(if u don;t believe it go buy one)<

Umm... you refering to the 4473? Or has something new started in the last month or so (bought my last handgun about that long ago)...
 
iF YOU JUST RECENTLY BOUGHT A GUN YOU FILLED OUT PAPERS, YOUR DRIVERS LICENSE WAS COPIED AND A PHONE CALL WAS MADE TO CHECK YOUR CRIMINAL RECORD: if YOU THINK THAT INFO IS DISCARDED AFTER A FEW WEEKS YOU ARE STUPID.
 
BIGJACK said:
iF YOU JUST RECENTLY BOUGHT A GUN YOU FILLED OUT PAPERS, YOUR DRIVERS LICENSE WAS COPIED AND A PHONE CALL WAS MADE TO CHECK YOUR CRIMINAL RECORD: if YOU THINK THAT INFO IS DISCARDED AFTER A FEW WEEKS YOU ARE STUPID.
Click to expand...
I'm not stupid. But, we all do what we must to procure our firearms. If they have to have it on record, then that's the way it has to be. If that means they'll know whose door to knock on if the unthinkable does happen and they ban all guns, then that's the way it has to be. And if I have to die defending my constitutional rights from a government that no longer recognizes the principles on which it was founded, then my friends, that's the way it has to be.
 
A vote for Clinton is a vote for gun confiscation
Click to expand...

Yes, and a vote for Wes Clark is likewise a vote for confiscation - he is extremely anti-gun as well. Why oh why oh why can't the Democrat party go back to it's roots as a party of the people and put up someone who is strongly pro-freedom? Howard Dean is as close as they got, and he was even sorta just milquetoast on gun rights. The national leadership of that party has led a once-respectable party into the ground - you know, the usual suspects. The Dem party could *easily* pick up hundreds of thousands of registered voters who actually vote if they would just stop trying to destroy the one right that preserves all others.
 
A vote for Clinton is a vote for gun confiscation
Click to expand...

Yes, and a vote for Wes Clark is likewise a vote for confiscation - he is extremely anti-gun as well. Why oh why oh why can't the Democrat party go back to it's roots as a party of the people and put up someone who is strongly pro-freedom? Howard Dean is as close as they got, and he was even sorta just milquetoast on gun rights. The national leadership of that party has led a once-respectable party into the ground - you know, the usual suspects. The Dem party could *easily* pick up hundreds of thousands of registered voters who actually vote if they would just stop trying to destroy the one right that preserves all others.
 
FirstFreedom,
a vote for Wes Clark is likewise a vote for confiscation
Click to expand...
I'm callin' shenanigans on that claim. Please back it up or retract it.
Although I disagree with most of his positions re. guns I have never seen any quotes from him supporting confiscation.
 
Quote:
a vote for Wes Clark is likewise a vote for confiscation

/quote/ I'm callin' shenanigans on that claim. Please back it up or retract it.
Although I disagree with most of his positions re. guns I have never seen any quotes from him supporting confiscation. /end quote/

have you seen any quote from a dem saying this(besides the nut jobs-I.e. the ann coulters of the dem party).
 
noone,
Not really, but keep in mind that those 'left-coulters' do have a say in who gets past the primaries.
What's really revealing is the lack of contrast between Republican policy and Democrat policy on gun control.
I will start a new thread on this subject.
 
"The Government" is making a list and checking it twice...

iF YOU JUST RECENTLY BOUGHT A GUN YOU FILLED OUT PAPERS, YOUR DRIVERS LICENSE WAS COPIED AND A PHONE CALL WAS MADE TO CHECK YOUR CRIMINAL RECORD: if YOU THINK THAT INFO IS DISCARDED AFTER A FEW WEEKS YOU ARE STUPID.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt that "The Government" is compiling a database of who owns what guns. Gun dealers have to keep 4473s on file for 20 years and send them all in to the BATF if they close down the gun store, or face going to prison. Too bad there aren't more "unfortunate fires" in the gun store paperwork storage rooms.:D

The only way to avoid being on "The Government's" hit list is to only buy guns from garage sales and friends or acquaintences who will let you buy without heading down to the gun shop to fill out a 4473. I know alot of gun owners, and I don't know a one who has bought by this method 100%. Also, if you want to stay off the list, forget about a CCW, target or hunting license.

Personally, I refuse to be cowered into not exercising my 2nd Amendment rights because "The Government" is compiling a hit list of gun owners. A friend of mine said it quite nicely: "They can pass all the laws they want. If they show up at my house to try and take my guns - game on."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top