Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton .. Next President & Gun Control


PDA






Gary H
August 3, 2005, 02:22 PM
Rudy is much more liberal than I, but realistically.. which one would you prefer? Hillary has the big bucks and a great deal of political savvy. Recent polls report that the public is beginning to buy her move to the right. The Republicans haven't run a conservative since the great one. So, they will run a Republicrat once again.

Take a look at this poll.. Rudy, John & Hillary .. I see McCain as a VP for Hillary.. but none the less.. here is the poll..

Gallup Poll H/R/J (http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=17641)

Rudy:

I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons.
Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000

Hillary:

Keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them
We need to stand firm on behalf of sensible gun control legislation. We have to enact laws that will keep guns out of the hand of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced persons. Congress should have acted before our children started going back to school. I realize the NRA is a formidable political group; but I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.
Source: www.hillary2000.org, “Gun Safety” Sep 9, 2000

Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs
We have to make sure that our schools are safe. Our schools need more help from parents and from communities, and we also need more social workers and counselors who are trained to see the early warning signs. No school security system or metal detector can keep out the culture of violence that dominates the lives of so many of our children. We have to address issues of culture, and we have to ensure that young people do not have easy access to weapons; not only firearms but bomb making material.
Source: www.hillary2000.org, “Safe Schools” Sep 9, 2000

License and register all handgun sales
Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her support for a legislative proposal to license hand guns. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, would require anyone who wants to purchase a gun to obtain a state-issued photo gun license. “I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”
Source: CNN.com Jun 2, 2000

Tough gun control keeps guns out of wrong hands
I think it does once again urge us to think hard about what we can do to make sure that we keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced people. I hope we will come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who have no business with them.
Source: Press Release Jul 31, 1999

Gun control protects our children
We will not make progress on a sensible gun control agenda unless the entire American public gets behind it. It is really important for each of you [kids] to make sure you stay away from guns. If you have guns in your home, tell your parents to keep them away from you and your friends and your little brothers and sisters.
Source: Forum at South Side Middle School in Nassau County Jul 15, 1999

Don’t water down sensible gun control legislation
We have to do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of children, and we need to stand firm on behalf of the sensible gun control legislation that passed the Senate and then was watered down in the House. It does not make sense for us at this point in our history to turn our backs on the reality that there are too many guns and too many children have access to those guns-and we have to act to prevent that.
Source: Remarks to NEA in Orlando, Florida Jul 5, 1999

Lock up guns; store ammo separately
If you own a gun... make sure it’s locked up and stored without the ammunition. In fact, make it stored where the ammunition is stored separately. We’ve made some progress in the last several years with the Brady Bill and some of the bans on assault weapons, but we have a lot of work to do.
Source: ABC’s “Good Morning America” Jun 4, 1999

Ban kids’ unsupervised access to guns
Q: What actions can students take to help gun control further? A: Young people, especially teenagers, [should pledge] to not give any child unsupervised access to a firearm; not to go into homes, or let your younger siblings go into homes where you know guns are and are not safely stored and taken care of. You guys are going to a party, make sure there are no guns around. If you own a gun or you know people who do, make sure it’s locked up and stored without the ammunition.
Source: ABC’s “Good Morning America” Jun 4, 1999

Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence.
Vote to pass a bill that would block certain civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition, mainly those lawsuits aimed at making them liable for gun violence. In this bill, trade groups would also be protected The bill would call for the dismissal of pending lawsuits against the gun industry. The exception would be lawsuits regarding a defect in a weapon or ammunition. It also would provide a 10-year reauthorization of the assault weapons ban which is set to expire in September 2004. The bill would increase the penalties for gun-related violent or drug trafficking crimes which have not resulted in death, to a minimum of 15 years imprisonment. The bill calls for criminal background checks on all firearm transactions at gun shows where at least 75 guns are sold. Exemptions would be made available for dealers selling guns from their homes as well as members-only gun swaps and meets carried out by nonprofit hunting clubs.
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S.1805/H.R.1036 ; vote number 2004-30 on Mar 2, 200

Source for Above Quotes (http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm)

If you enjoyed reading about "Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton .. Next President & Gun Control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Rebar
August 3, 2005, 02:42 PM
A NorthEastern RINO like Giuliani will never win the republican primary. He'd be a lot better off running for Hillary's senate seat next year.

McCain, he's dead to the republican party faithful, he'd have a better chance winning the democratic primary.

sumpnz
August 3, 2005, 02:49 PM
Fortunately America isn't dumb enough to elect that Hillary creature.

HankB
August 3, 2005, 03:05 PM
Here's a thought . . . if the GOP maintained control (such as it is) of the Congress, is it conceivable that Hillary might actually be better for us than a left-leaning RINO like Rudy?

Don't get me wrong, the thought of another "President Clinton" makes me ill on a number of levels, but it seems that the only time congressional Republicans actually try to act like Republicans is when there's a democRAT in the White House.

I mean, if a President Giuliani called for additional gun laws, would a GOP congress even consider saying "No?"

Rebar
August 3, 2005, 03:27 PM
is it conceivable that Hillary might actually be better for us than a left-leaning RINO like Rudy?
No. She'll just issue executive orders to really screw us, over the heads of the congress.

Make no mistake, the liberal/left, who once thought us kooks, are going to punish us for making them lose the last two elections. If they ever get power, they will gut the RBKA culture. That includes getting power in the judicial, executive, and/or legislative branches.

Rockstar
August 3, 2005, 03:30 PM
If I HAD to choose between Hitlery and Rudy, I'd go with Rudy. Rudy's a product of a culture that's foreign to those of us fortunate enough to have been born and raised in the generally-unadulterated U.S. (ergo, his feelings/positions on gun control) Hitlery, on the other hand, is evil incarnate. She has no benchmark for morality. She'd make the absolutely worst appointments one might imagine; she'd surround herself with the fringe left of the DimwitoCRAT party; all the U.S. Attorneys would once-again be lesbians.

Hitlery will probably get the DimwitoCRAT nomination; Rudy won't be the Republican nominee.

RavenVT100
August 3, 2005, 03:34 PM
Hillary Clinton is a socialist, period.

Mongo the Mutterer
August 3, 2005, 03:40 PM
Rebar:Make no mistake, the liberal/left, who once thought us kooks, are going to punish us for making them lose the last two elections. If they ever get power, they will gut the RBKA culture. That includes getting power in the judicial, executive, and/or legislative branches.

+100

Also, the leftist will use the UN or the EU as an excuse to get us. They will bring up globalism. Their ideal is for us to be ruled by unelected bureaucrats and unelected judges where we have no recourse, such as the vote. Buy Ammo. Lots of Ammo. :cuss:

petrel800
August 3, 2005, 03:43 PM
I for one think this leftist organization (Gallup) is putting up who they would like to see. Both of their republican canidates are boarder line liberals. Both are also very media friendly (neither McCain nor Gulliani have ever turned down a chance to be on TV).

Personally, I wouldn't vote for either of those clowns.

I will also point out that Newt Gingrich has been showing his face quite a bit lately. Is he considering a run?

K-Romulus
August 3, 2005, 03:46 PM
fully suports the NYC licensing system and "assault rifle" confiscation (yes, confiscation).

The NYC system has you paying $300 for a three-year license to own a pistol in your own home :what:
but 6 months to 1 year is eaten up just getting the license issued . . .

Edited to add:

And the NYC system only allows you to own FIVE firearms, period. . .

Janitor
August 3, 2005, 03:55 PM
I have NEVER agreed with a word that woman has said, of course, I don't know what kind of names she's called Bill - may agree with some of that. Anyway - in spite of the fact I never agree with her, I've always thought she was well educated, and sounded fairly bright though a bit misguided. (a "bit"? Hehehe - ok. I'm a hopelessly nice guy)

But then, I read something like this:

"Tough gun control keeps guns out of wrong hands"
Huh (while rubbing eyes to see if that helps focus)?

Either that word ("wrong") was a typo, or I have given this person FAR more credit for brain cell count than I should have. Unless what she means is that gun control doesn't work, and that it targets the wrong segment of our society? Yea ... I'm sure that's what she meant.

/J

boofus
August 3, 2005, 04:04 PM
Yay, we get to choose between Atilla the Hun or Vlad the Impaler. :mad:

Henry Bowman
August 3, 2005, 04:09 PM
Here's a thought . . . if the GOP maintained control (such as it is) of the Congress, is it conceivable that Hillary might actually be better for us than a left-leaning RINO like Rudy? A good argument could be made for it. We might be able to survive 4 years of it.

javafiend
August 3, 2005, 04:19 PM
all the U.S. Attorneys would once-again be lesbians.

Oh, the horror of it all!

Lesbian lawyers!





<runs from the room screaming>

Spot77
August 3, 2005, 04:44 PM
Fortunately America isn't dumb enough to elect that Hillary creature.

It's just not the same unless Standing Wolf says it. :(

1 old 0311
August 3, 2005, 04:57 PM
Hillary has more positions than Jenna Jameson..............sadly she is built like a bottle of Jamesons. :neener: :neener:
Thankfully her unfavorable ratings have always been anong the highest of anyone in office.

Kevin

The Real Hawkeye
August 3, 2005, 05:01 PM
Rudy is much more liberal than I, but realistically.. which one would you prefer?That would be a definite third party vote for me. Since I started voting for presidents back in 1980, half the time I vote Republican and half the time I vote either libertarian or US Constitution Party. It depends on if I am able to hold my nose sufficiently to pull the lever for the Republican. In the case you describe, I definitely would not be able to hold my nose and pull the lever for the Republican.

Silver Bullet
August 3, 2005, 05:01 PM
is it conceivable that Hillary might actually be better for us than a left-leaning RINO like Rudy?
1) No way; what happens when she gets to nominate a Supreme Court Justice ?

2) Also, if the general public doesn't perceive that she is screwing up, I think they will be more likely to vote in more Democrats to Congress and the Senate.

3) What happens in 2010 if the Democrats take back Congress and the Senate ? She'll still be in office until 2012.

Justin
August 3, 2005, 05:02 PM
Guliani vs. Clinton would be a sure recipe for me to vote libertarian.

jefnvk
August 3, 2005, 05:16 PM
Guliani vs. Clinton would be a sure recipe for me to vote libertarian.

Me too. Although, I still think Clinton would end up with the win.

Remember, radicals win the primaries, moderated win the election. Don't think that Guiliani would make it through. I have my doubts that Clinton would make it through, there is probably plenty lying around to use against her.

CAnnoneer
August 3, 2005, 05:35 PM
Hillary is pulling a Clinton - tell everyone what they want to hear to establish the necessary electoral majority. Many of you guys are horribly underestimating her. She will kiss OBL on the butt if that gets her elected, but does that make her a jihadist?

The problem with the current state of politics is that politicians more and more rarely say what they really think or they would really do if elected. We know they lie and they know we know. So, it is all an exercise of swinging enough of the gullible plus keeping those who are supposed to be yours.

Hillary knows that she cannot win without the Democrats, but she also knows she cannot win only having the Democrats. She also knows she cannot win without the leftifascists because they are the majority of the most active dems. That's a recipe for a study in hypocrisy and schizophrenia.

Personally, I trust nothing of what she says exactly because of that. But, the problem is I trust very little of anything any other politician says. :evil:

bg
August 3, 2005, 05:45 PM
All I know is when the vote was called for last Friday for yea or nay on
S.397, Clinton voted no. Far as I'm concerned she and the ex-mayor
are not against guns in so many words, but people owning them.

A snake is a snake, is a snake, no matter what front it puts up.

Silver Bullet
August 3, 2005, 06:06 PM
All I know is when the vote was called for last Friday for yea or nay on S.397, Clinton voted no.
Exactly; ignore everything they say and look at the voting record.

Zundfolge
August 3, 2005, 06:14 PM
The problem with RINOs is that nonRINO Republicans rarely stand up against them.

So a RINO pres with a GOP controlled legislature ends up doing as much if not more legislative damage as a Dem in the whitehouse with a GOP controlled legislature because the GOP controlled legislature will stand and fight against a Dem if nothing else out of partisanship.

So legislatively it could be better (although the Dem will veto anything that gets through the GOP controlled legislature that we like ... if nothing else for the sake of partisanship).


However, once you factor in the power of the Executive Order, plus the appointment of judges (not just SCOTUS), ambassadors, cabinet, etc. we're still slightly better off with a RINO in the whitehouse then a Dem (and especially a hard leftist like Hillary).




The only advantage of a Dem in the whitehouse over a RINO is that it will energize the conservative/libertarian base within the GOP.



But lets think positive ... lets get another Reagan in the whitehouse ... or better yet a Ron Paul type :D

Guliani vs. Clinton would be a sure recipe for me to vote libertarian.
Guliani gets the GOP nomination and I stop participating in politics, move to the hills and start buying up illegal machine guns and as much ANFO as I can get my hands on. :neener:

Rockstar
August 3, 2005, 06:17 PM
"Oh, the horror of it all!

Lesbian lawyers!





<runs from the room screaming>"


I like the alliteration! However, the thought of lying, liberal, litigious, lesbian lawyers leaves me less than deLighted! ;)

Bruce H
August 3, 2005, 06:25 PM
Just the mention of Giuliani, Hillary, McCain or several of the others mentioned gives reason to think about poaching. :evil:

Marshall
August 3, 2005, 06:42 PM
Liberals would vote for the devil if they thought she would beat the Republican.



http://www.dmoma.org/lobby/collection/w_logan_fry/microchips/images/Hillary_Clinton_L.H.O.O.Q.jpeg

Standing Wolf
August 3, 2005, 06:55 PM
Fortunately America isn't dumb enough to elect that Hillary creature.
It's just not the same unless Standing Wolf says it.

Unfortunately, I'm not saying it. It's lately occurred to me the do-nothings of the Republican party may well make it inevitable that Mrs. Snopes Clinton be elected.

At this point, about all she'd have to do would be to stand up and announce, “I'm not like those do-nothing Republicans," and plenty of people would be dumb enough to hand her their votes. Realistically speaking, how much respect is a nation supposed to feel for a party that can't even confirm an ambassador to the U.N.? How enthusiastic is the nation supposed to be about yet another land war in Asia? Where are the real tax cuts? Where's the smaller government?

R.H. Lee
August 3, 2005, 07:01 PM
Realistically speaking, how much respect is a nation supposed to feel for a party that can't even confirm an ambassador to the U.N.? How enthusiastic is the nation supposed to be about yet another land war in Asia? Where are the real tax cuts? Where's the smaller government?
Ditto that and double it. Not to mention the $26 billion in pork congress just ripped us for so they can stay in office. And open borders-WHEN THE HELL ARE THE REPUBLICANS GOING TO CLOSE THE BORDER???

Yeah, I know. Hillary will run against some weak Republican and it will be 'the most important election in our lifetime'. :rolleyes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. No more big government liberal Republicans for me.

I will never never vote Republican again. And I suspect I'm not alone. And they've only got themselves to blame. Let the chips fall where they may.

Rebar
August 3, 2005, 07:24 PM
And open borders-WHEN THE HELL ARE THE REPUBLICANS GOING TO CLOSE THE BORDER???
Who is going to close the border? You think the democrats will? Guess again. Libertarians? Don't make me laugh, they'd roll the red carpet out.

Don't cut your nose off to spite your face.

Mongo the Mutterer
August 3, 2005, 07:27 PM
What do you get when you mate Hillary and Janet Reno? :what:

Chelsea, of course :neener:

R.H. Lee
August 3, 2005, 07:32 PM
Who is going to close the border? You think the democrats will? Guess again. Libertarians? Don't make me laugh, they'd roll the red carpet out.
Exactly right. There's not enough real difference between the parties to make a case for voting for one over the other IMO. I've been voting Republican for the last 37 years, during which time Republicans have occupied the Whitehouse 25 of those years. Yet we're becoming a socialist state with an ever growing federal government. I've had enough, thanks.

If George Bush were accused of being a conservative Republican, would there be enough evidence to convict him?

I think not.

Mongo the Mutterer
August 3, 2005, 07:38 PM
Riley Mc.I will never never vote Republican again. And I suspect I'm not alone. And they've only got themselves to blame. Let the chips fall where they may.

So who are you going to vote for? I assume even though you are from the Peoples Republic of ********** you don't love the Demogogs...

The Libertarians are weak as hell, and really don't have anything. Who do you vote for? NOT voting isn't an option. Do you really want your two b**** senators? If so, in the words of your Senator Feinstein ... "turn them in".

I don't care for the RINOs but they are ALL WE HAVE. This is politics and believe me you will NEVER get all you want. But the President has immense power via executive orders and the executive branch. You want Hillary, vote Libertarian or Green or some other assinine party. Waste your vote...

R.H. Lee
August 3, 2005, 07:50 PM
Well, make your case. Show me where Republicans have repealed restrictive gun laws, or reduced government size and power, or increased individual liberties. Explain why Republicans are not the same pandering vote whores as the Democrats and act only in their own personal interests. Explain why, with majorities in both houses, they can't even get a U.N. ambassador confirmed. What have they done to earn my vote? Not that it makes any difference in a presidential election, California's electoral votes will go to the Democrat. Wasted vote? My 37 years voting Republican qualify IMO.

Mongo the Mutterer
August 3, 2005, 08:15 PM
Explain why Republicans are not the same pandering vote whores as the Democrats They ARE. I FEEL THE SAME WAY. Being a politician makes you a vote whore.

We don't have a choice, we've never had a choice, and we never will have a choice.

As long as we don't show up at their castles with pitchforks and torches the Republicrats will continue to act they way they have in the past. Even if we do, they will be replaced with people of the same ilk. It is politics.

As long as the majority of the people in this nation don't get po'd it will be business as usual.

Use your representatives, show up where they show up. They need your support, and they know for every e-mail you send them, there are 100 or 1,000, or 10,000 people who feel the same way.

Rebar
August 3, 2005, 08:21 PM
Well, make your case.
I agree that the republicans could be more conservative, and be more aggressive with their majority status.

That said, to state there is no difference between the republicans and democrats is clearly incorrect. The national republicans just pushed a big pro-gun bill through the senate, opposed tooth and nail by the democrats, who wanted to sue the US gun industry into extinction. They also let the AWB die, when the democrats would have renewed and expanded it. We also got some solid judges into the system. Who would you rather have, Roberts or Reno in the Supreme Court?

On the state level, they've really made a big difference, going from 10 states with shall-issue to 38 states. Again, with the democrats fighting the whole way. Florida republicans passed the "castle doctrine" bill, no longer will law abiding citizens have a duty to retreat from criminals, to the usual crys of "blood in the streets" from the democrats.

Clearly, there is a difference between the parties. Maybe not as great a difference as some would like, granted, but enough to tell me where my vote should go.

jefnvk
August 3, 2005, 08:23 PM
Here is an idea: let's outlaw the party system. You want elected? Get out and voice your opinions on important matters. No more just getting votes because you are a R or a D or a L or whatever.

Of course, I'd have a hard time finding a congresscritter to author such a bill.

Mongo the Mutterer
August 3, 2005, 08:33 PM
Here is an idea: let's outlaw the party system. You want elected? Get out and voice your opinions on important matters. No more just getting votes because you are a R or a D or a L or whatever.

Of course, I'd have a hard time finding a congresscritter to author such a bill. I like the idea, but as soon as the congresscritters get together they will group together and form parties (or cliques, or groups, or bridge clubs, or poker tables) Human nature.

If you get more than two people together you have politics. Hell, if you get more than one.... ;)

Derby FALs
August 3, 2005, 09:03 PM
Repeal the 17th Amendment. Go back to electing our Washington Senators by the state legislature...

CAnnoneer
August 3, 2005, 09:42 PM
The current system is rapidly exhausting its reserve of vitality as it promotes incompetence and blind obedience. Becoming increasingly inefficient and erroneous, it heads the country to economic and eventually military weakness and decline.

If the resulting shocks are sufficiently strong, a healthy shakedown may revitalize it and give it another lease on life. If not, a slow graceless decay is in order. My money is on scenario #1, as the US is too big and too diverse to follow the path of the UK or France.

The physics analogy is stellar development - the most massive stars burn out quickly and explode as the mass collapses upon itself, while smaller stars gradually expand and then slowly burn out.

Fairlane63
August 3, 2005, 09:42 PM
The Republicans haven't run a conservative since the great one.

The great one-- Barry Goldwater?

gunsmith
August 3, 2005, 10:47 PM
I would never vote for Gulianni,NY'ers love him but he is no Conservative.
Expect an attack on the 2nd amendment if he makes it. No way he gets past Primary and neither will McCain ....thank God! ...
I can't see hillary making it to president either-she is real popular among real libs but thats it.
I wish the Repubs would grow some.

sturmruger
August 3, 2005, 10:58 PM
I would like to See Giuliani run for the senate in NY. I am sure he would get elected by a landslide!!

Derby FALs
August 3, 2005, 11:03 PM
Good thing you won't be voting for him. :neener:

Silver Bullet
August 3, 2005, 11:23 PM
IIRC, he was running for the Senate, and against Hillary. Then, before the election, he quit for "health" reasons. (Maybe he was "sick" and tired of being behind in the polls; I don't remember if he was or not.)

I never did hear anything about his overcoming his "illness." It must be some kind of miracle if he's thinking of running for office again.

SIOP
August 3, 2005, 11:28 PM
I think what all you guys are overlooking is the fact that the last two presidential elections have really been won by razon-thin margins. In fact the first Bush win didn't carry the popular vote. The only reason Bush won both times is because of running against a very weak opponent. Next election will be different. No incumbent advantage for anyone. A dynamic candidate will carry the election, irrespective of political affiliation. Hillary runs, she wins. People are stupid. The Oprah viewers will flock to the polls, along with all the illegal aliens.

What would really be a kicker is if Bill ran as VP and Hillary resigned 2 years into her last term and Bill got to be president again.

Dan

Standing Wolf
August 3, 2005, 11:28 PM
The national republicans just pushed a big pro-gun bill through the senate..

Please excuse me all the way to wherever and back, but a.) that bill is merely a Band-Aid, and b.) it should have been applied five years ago, when the states began to stand up to the leftist extremists who were trying to abuse the courts in their patently obvious scheme to bankrupt the firearms industry.

Where were the Republicans then? Where were they, in fact, last year, when they let the leftist extremists garbage up the bill with more of their insane anti-Second Amendment bigotry?

The Republican party has become the party of big government, big pork, and big talk. All Mrs. Snopes Clinton needs to do is announce she's not part of the Republican party. That's it. Think she's bright enough to figure out the obvious and rise to the challenge?

A pox on both their houses!

ZeroX
August 3, 2005, 11:49 PM
Topics like these make we want to head to the hills and live in a mud hut. :uhoh:

Rebar
August 4, 2005, 12:55 AM
I never did hear anything about his overcoming his "illness."
In fairness, he had prostate cancer:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/spotlighthealth/2002-10-14-giuliani_x.htm
Which in my book is a pretty damn good excuse.
Please excuse me all the way to wherever and back...
That's the talk that kept the republican party in the minority for 38+ years. It's more important to be in the majority, then to be 100% ideologically correct. Progress is being made, if not on your particular timetable.

Two things are for certain - voting libertarian is asking to lose, and voting democrat is going backwards.

rick_reno
August 4, 2005, 01:01 AM
I'd vote 3rd party.

bg
August 4, 2005, 02:22 AM
I kinda think it works like this. One of the parties gets a run for either
4 yrs or 8 yrs, then the mass gets tired of the same old line. The mass
decides it's time for a change. Not because it may be good for the Nation,
but the fact is the mass gets tired of things pretty quick. I wouldn't
be too surprised to see a change in Congress come 2006.

You can bet there will be a change in 08, and none for the better as far
as us pro-gun folks agenda is concerned..

Hope for the best and expect the worse.

Far as the GOP right now, it sure didn't help that 14 Marines were killed
yesterday and 6 right before. I saw where a total of 39 troops have
been killed since 7-24. I HATE to see this, and sure enough it's
going to come right back on the Pres' lap. The mass will forgive alot
of things, but the Iraq Campaign is gonna come back to haunt those
in power now..

Anyway you see it..God bless our troops !

Just my 0.02 along with a cup of bad coffee.

fallingblock
August 4, 2005, 02:24 AM
It's taken five years just for the last one to slide into a comfortable gray memory oblivion. :barf:

Rebar is correct here:
*********************************************************
"Two things are for certain - voting libertarian is asking to lose, and voting democrat is going backwards."
*********************************************************

All this posturing and anguish :rolleyes:

What the Republicans DIDN"T do is nothing -
compared to what Hitlery WOULD do to us! :eek:

We need a conservative Republican who can win in '08. ;)

Big Bad Wolf
August 4, 2005, 03:48 AM
I am sick of the 2 party system but I am really sick of these family dynasty Presidencies, ala Clinton and Bush.

The GOP run the show and have for some time now and the borders remain wide open, bloated Government and the welfare programs continue on unimpeded, civil liberties and states rights continue to be squashed, the deficit has reached asinine proportions with nothing on the GOP's agenda to curb it from getting worse let alone moving us back into the black, and for added kicks a war that is becoming increasingly unpopular with no end in sight or signs it will get better.

Forget this voting for the lesser of 2 evils crap, it does not work!!

only1asterisk
August 4, 2005, 04:00 AM
Unfortunately, I'm not saying it.

We're $%^#&@!

David

swampsniper
August 4, 2005, 04:47 AM
They dance us to the left, then they dance us to the right, and after the dance, same old thing. We have not sufficiently defended the Constitution, and it may be too late, now, but I never wanted to die in a hospital bed anyway. All we can do is keep on saying "Molon Labe".

This is what will happen if we let it. These poor blokes are just about defeated.

http://www.australianhunting.net/phpBB2/index.php

Mongo the Mutterer
August 4, 2005, 06:49 AM
It's more important to be in the majority, then to be 100% ideologically correct. ABSO FN LOOTLY ;)

Silver Bullet
August 4, 2005, 07:41 AM
Thanks for that link. My recollection was clearly faulty on a couple key points: 1) He really was ill, and 2) he really did recover.

I was thinking he was claiming heart disease or something, but I agree that prostate cancer deserves more attention than a Senate race.

Rebar
August 4, 2005, 09:51 AM
Thanks for that link.
Sure thing. I'm not a big fan of the guy, but his cancer battle is quite inspiring. I'd like him to knock Clinton out of her senate seat, he's the only one who could do it, and it would hurt her going into '08.

Anyway, as I stated before, Giuliani nor any other northeastern RINO like Romney or Pataki, will ever win the primary. I think Frist will be the candidate, if we're lucky he'll get Rice as VP, that'd be a nice ticket.

Mongo the Mutterer
August 4, 2005, 10:01 AM
Rebar -- +1

Frist is positioning right now... the Stem Cell issue differentiates him from the pack. He'll be moving.

Pilot
August 4, 2005, 10:19 AM
I'd vote 3rd party.

If we (mostly Republicans) vote for a third party in 2008, Hillary will certainly become President which is the most dangerous thing that could happen to the U.S. Let's get a real conservative Republican to win the primary instead of Guliani. And I don't think Bill Frist has what it takes either.

Rebar
August 4, 2005, 10:24 AM
And I don't think Bill Frist has what it takes either.
Well, then who? Frist is the most conservative of those who seemingly are in the running for '08, at least that I know of.

RealGun
August 4, 2005, 10:51 AM
This isn't that difficult. The Dems have become so radical that all one has to do is their part to keep them from winning elections. It would be nice to have some real benefits, but first things first. You hope for the best candidate possible to keep the socialists at bay. This insistence that Republicans be classic conservatives is nonsense. They are what they are and may indeed be the lesser of two evils.

Fundamental change will not come from Presidential elections. The winner is very likely to be either near the middle or pretending to be so. If the Dems want to present another ultra liberal like a Kerry, they will lose again.

CAnnoneer
August 4, 2005, 10:52 AM
It is amazing to me that so many of you guys are so okay with eight more years of rep leadership and of their same impotence, incompetence, religious bigotry, failure, idiocy, and sycophantry. Please compare the list of their electoral promises with what they actually did, or did not do. Some follow, but please add more of your own:

1) small government :rolleyes:
2) uniter rather than divider :rolleyes:
3) change for the better :rolleyes:

If they failed so badly (especially when controlling pres, sen, con), why do you want to give them another lease on life? In my mind, it is like paroling a repeated offender over and over again. Oh, wait, I guess that does happen... :evil:

Finally, it seems to me some of you guys are so focused on the gun issues that seem willing to support virtually anybody, who among other things, is even marginally pro-gun, and then defend him with claws and teeth no matter what kind of other pooh he produces on a regular basis. Do you guys really believe guns is the SINGLE most important issue of our times? That reminds of the old lady I heard about who vehemently hated Bush but voted for him because she hates gay marriage even more.

My personal position: I am pro-gun and absolutely hate the idea of gun-grabbers, bans, sideway attacks, serialization, leftifascists, etc. Personally, I'd like to have AK47 and MP5 at home, and regard a restriction on that as a violation of my rights. BUT, I also think that how many guns I have on our communal ship will not save me from drowning if the ship is heading straight for a reef...

Silver Bullet
August 4, 2005, 11:00 AM
If you don't feel mediocrity is preferred over accelerated socialism, who do you suggest we vote for ?

Marshall
August 4, 2005, 11:13 AM
OK, lets compare to Clintons promises and broken promises:

"List of Bill Clinton's
Campaign Promises"





1. "Vote for me and we'll produce more natural gas in Texas."

2. "The West should establish a $6 billion fund to stabilize the Russian ruble."

3. "I will streamline the federal government and change the way it works, cut 100,000 bureaucrats and put 100,000 new police officers on your streets of American cities."

4. "I promise you I will never bash public employees."

5. "I would want the first judge I appointed to believe in the right to privacy and the right to choose."

6. "What would work is to raise the top tax rate on people with gross incomes above $200,000 to 35% or 36% and put a surtax on people with incomes of $1 million of more a year."

7. "We should pay up--and pay now--the past dues we owe to the U.N."

8. "If I become president, we will keep a kosher kitchen in the White House."

9. "Under our health care system, all Americans will have access to quality and affordable health care through coverage from their employer, or if they're unemployed through the government."

10. "I want a leaner bureaucracy and more investment."

11. "A national apprenticeship program for non-college-bound young people so they can get good jobs, fully fund Head Start--those things are not terribly expensive."

12. "To the fathers who have chosen to abandon their children by neglecting child support. Take responsibility for your children or we will force you to do so."

13. "U.S. troop levels can be safely reduced to a force in the range of 75,000 - 100,000."

14. "As soon as the Pentagon issued a study which said there was no basis in national security for disciminating based on sexual orientation of Americans who wish to serve in the military, I said I would act on the study."

15. "I am going to send Al Gore to Capitol Hill to take the lead in passing our program in the first 100 days of the new administration."

16. "I would bring in all the players within the first 60 days and tell them to develop a national health care plan."

17. "The Clinton-Gore Administration will view the support of generic industrial technologies as a priority mission."

18. "My first priority would be to pass a jobs program to introduce it on the first day I was inaugurated."

19. "My plan offers $50 billion in new investments over the next four years--new incentives for the private sector, and investment tax credit, urban enterprise zones, new business tax incentives, research and development incentives and others."

20. "At the very least, 10 % of the $76 billion that the government now spends each year on research should be redirected from the Pentagon's research effort to civil efforts."

21. "We can give you a country again where we are pro-growth and pro-environment. Where we are pro-business and pro-labor. Where we are pro-civil rights and pro-civil order. Where we are pro-family and pro-choice."

22. "When it comes to AIDS, there should be a Manhattan Project."

23. "We can pledge right now that for every dollar we reduce the defense budget on research and development, we'll increase the civilian research and development budget by the same amount."

24. "I want to increase federal funding for research, prevention and treatment for AIDS."

25. "I support a strong American role in the UN and with the EC to end Serbian aggression. I have supported the use of multilateral military force if necessary."

26. "My administration will stand up for democracy and buttress democratic forces in Haiti, Pru and throughout the Western Hemisphere."

27. "We need not just a new generation of leadership, but a new gender of leadership. This is the minority I enjoy being in."

28. "Those who can [after two years on welfare] will have to go back to work, either by taking a job in the private sector or through community service."

29. "The United States should lead the fight to slow global warming, instead of dragging our feet and ignoring important scientific data."

30. "I want to appoint one person, man or woman, to oversee and coordinate all federal efforts related to this issue, AIDS."

31. "A Clinton-Gore Administration will not permit American firms again to sell key technologies to outlaw states like Iraq."

32. "I certainly will give every consideration to Hispanic candidates for the Supreme Court."

33. "The old addage 'mi casa, su casa' will be true when my house is the White House"

34. "All the money by which we reduce defense research and development I would put immediately into domestic, commercial research and development."

35. "I will elevate economics; create an Economic Security Council similar to the National Security Council"

36. "My administration will reduce our forces, but maintain a credible presence in Europe and Asia."

37. "I want people like some of you in this audience to be a part of a Clinton Administration, not because of or in spite of your sexual orientation, but because American needs you."

38. "You live in a country that makes it harder to raise children than any other country in the world. You vote for me and I'll give you family values."

39. "If I become president, I will continue to reach out to the American people. I'll get back on a bus when I'm president. I'll go back and have town meetings and let ordinary people ask me questions. I will not hide behind the walls of the White House."

40. "After this election is over, I will continue to reach out to the American (whoops)."

41. "If I become president, I will have a cabinet that looks like America."

42. "My strategy puts people first by investing more than $50 billion each year for the next four years to put America back to work--the most dramatic economic growth package since WWII."

43. "With the dwindling Soviet threat, we can cut defense spending by more than a third by 1997."

44. "I propose that the US must take the lead in putting together a bridge loan to help Russia make the transition from its old system to its new economy."

45. "Middle-class taxpayers will have the choice between a children's tax credit or a significant reduction in their income tax rate."

46. "Vote for me and we'll conserve more energy all over America."

47. "We'll restore the dignity of blue-collar work by guaranteeing an apprenticeship program to every non-college-bound student in the USA."

48. "We will link China's trading privileges to its human rights record and its conduct on trade and weapons sales."

49. "We'll seek to raise the average goal for automakers to 45 miles per gallon."

50. "We'll pass a national bottle bill to encourage recycling by creating small deposits on all glass and plastic bottles."

51. "I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs."



****Broke Promise Link**** (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7416/broken.html)



And someone wants his wife? :what:






:barf:

Rebar
August 4, 2005, 11:37 AM
It is amazing to me that so many of you guys are so okay with eight more years of rep leadership and of their same impotence, incompetence, religious bigotry, failure, idiocy, and sycophantry.
I sure am, when the alternative is all of the above, PLUS gun grabbing, higher taxes, and socialism.

You're great at carping, complaining, and Bush/republican bashing, but not so great at solutions or alternatives, I've noticed. Who are you going to vote for, Hillary? That's your right, but if you think you're going to convince anyone who cares about RKBA to do the same, you're nuts.

R.H. Lee
August 4, 2005, 12:07 PM
Face it, we’re in a minority. The whole country is moving left and has been for the last 40 years. Today’s Republicans are the Democrats of the 50’s and 60’s. Today’s Democrats are the hardcore socialist/statist/Leninist/Marxists of the 60’s. People like us who believe in independence, individual liberty, the RKBA, smaller government and a constructionist view of the Constitution have been marginalized. We don’t represent enough of a constituency that is worth more than lip service pandering by the so-called ‘conservatives’.

The point is, we have lost the culture war, and politics will follow the culture of the society. I don’t see anything we can do to turn it around. Sure, we can continue to compromise and vote the ‘lesser of two evils’ and slowly but surely watch our liberties erode. Then what?

CAnnoneer
August 4, 2005, 12:14 PM
Just like yourselves, I am sorry to see my options so limited between Lucifer and Mephisto.

But, my study of history has revealed to me that no great power ever survived for long when their economy was undercut and gradually destroyed by excessive spending, idiotic decisions, flawed ideology etc. Economic decline was always followed by political unrest and military weakness, followed by inevitable cataclysmic collapse or slow quiet death.

Thus I submit to you that if there is a SINGLE most important issue of our times, that by far is keeping the US ECONOMY as strong as possible and investing in the future by building new industries and producing new technologies, here at home, not in Costa Rica or in China.

Thus I would vote for the side that has the most sensible plan how to control and eventually eliminate both the federal deficit and the trade imbalance, while nurturing the future of this country.

RealGun
August 4, 2005, 12:40 PM
It is amazing to me that so many of you guys are so okay with eight more years of rep leadership and of their same impotence, incompetence, religious bigotry, failure, idiocy, and sycophantry.

I reject your premise. Bush is a quite competent President who has an excellent administration. When I listen to the likes of Jeff Sessions among other good ones speak in the Senate, I am quite comfortable being and remaining a Republican like him. Are there policies and initiatives with which I disagree? You betcha, but you have to consider the alternatives. Again, whatever I wanted to see accomplished would not result from a Presidential election.

If you actually were confronted with a Guiliani vs. a Clinton, well pick your poison, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Dan from MI
August 4, 2005, 01:57 PM
I like Rudy as a person and as an administrator, but there's no way I'll vote for him in a primary. In the general election, I'm not sure what I would do(depends on the democrat), but if I vote for him, it's despite his extremely poor record on gun issues. I probably won't be able to do it - and I live in a close state.

Even McCain is better than Rudy on guns - and McCain I would never ever vote for.

And I'm speaking here as a GOP party member.

Rebar
August 4, 2005, 02:01 PM
Thus I would vote for the side that has the most sensible plan how to control and eventually eliminate both the federal deficit and the trade imbalance, while nurturing the future of this country.
So you'll be voting republican after all.

Dan from MI
August 4, 2005, 02:02 PM
What I'd like to see is an outside away from the Big Spending jokers in Washington. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford would be a good pick.

He stood up to RINOS AND DEMS.

Rebar
August 4, 2005, 02:08 PM
Hmmm... Mark Sanford does look pretty good from the little I've read about him. Plus he's a governor and a Southerner.

Has he expressed any interest in running?

R.H. Lee
August 4, 2005, 02:12 PM
So you'll be voting republican after all.
When you vote Republican, you get big government liberals. That's the problem.

Rebar
August 4, 2005, 02:23 PM
When you vote Republican, you get big government liberals. That's the problem.
IMO, the American people are not ready for a true conservative small government administration, and will not vote for one.

So here are your choices:

Big government liberals who don't take your guns

or

Even bigger government socialists who will take your guns

I know how I'll be voting.

USSR
August 4, 2005, 02:35 PM
No way that a liberal Republican like Rudi can make it thru the primaries and be the Republican nominee, so start thinking (gag) McCain.

Don

CAnnoneer
August 4, 2005, 02:38 PM
Quote:So you'll be voting republican after all.

Only if the shoe fits. Many things can happens in the next 1-3 years. If nothing changes and no new leaders emerge, I will have to vote based on record and favor the side that produced a record surplus over the side that produced a record deficit.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's a$$ what new rhetoric the ideologues on any side come up with. We all know they are just whoring for votes. Accomplishments on the other hand always speak louder than any words.

Silver Bullet
August 4, 2005, 03:01 PM
I will have to vote based on record and favor the side that produced a record surplus over the side that produced a record deficit.

Sounds great, except ...

1. Some sides produced record surpluses by turning a blind eye to work that needed to be done, and some sides produced record deficits from having to clean up the messes produced by the side that left the work for the next administration.

2. Some sides inherited an economy on an upswing, and some sides inherited an economy on the downswing.

3. Economic imbalances are easier to rectify than rolling back accumulated bad gun laws.

Rebar
August 4, 2005, 03:18 PM
Accomplishments on the other hand always speak louder than any words.
You mean, like passing the AWB vs. Gun Manufacturer liability protection?

CAnnoneer
August 4, 2005, 04:02 PM
I think we all should look inwards and ask ourselves what our highest priorities are. For example, what and how much we are willing to sacrifice in exchange for what and how much. Once we consciously recognize that, I think we will have a better understanding of ourselves and the motivations behind the positions we hold.

As regards myself, I think the prosperity and freedom of the nation is the most important issue. IMO they go hand-in-hand, because no pauper is free. If you are an economic slave, there is no chance that you would be politically free (at least not for long) (e.g. all poor countries in the world), and if you are a political slave, you most certainly are also an economic one (e.g. USSR and co).

From that perspective, policies that throw millions of Americans into poverty and destroy the middle class are just as dangerous as policies that endanger our political freedoms through statism and big government. And I don't give a damn if that is done by incompetence, malice, or best intentions, because the result is the same and history is a compilation of results.

Rebar
August 4, 2005, 04:06 PM
As regards myself, I think the prosperity and freedom of the nation is the most important issue.
So you will be voting republican!

Mr. James
August 4, 2005, 04:20 PM
Today’s Republicans are the Democrats of the 50’s and 60’s. Today’s Democrats are the hardcore socialist/statist/Leninist/Marxists of the 60’s.

Boy, howdy, ain't THAT the truth. Just yesterday a friend and I were waxing nostalgic, thinking wouldn't JFK make a fine Republican candidate... :eek:

I'd love to see George Allen of Virginia take a run, but I don't believe he's ready. Appears he's going to try to keep his Senate seat, where at least he can countermand all the damage done by the worthless RINO shill, John Warner.

Silver Bullet
August 4, 2005, 05:11 PM
I have a different set of guidelines. I am essentially a small ‘l’ libertarian. I want much less government than what we now have, especially much less centralized government. In a Presidential election I have to evaluate which candidate I should vote for to achieve that end. Is it the Democrat, Republican, or Third Party ?

Note that achieving that objective is not necessarily the same as voting for the candidate who most exemplifies those ideals. For example, in 2004 I looked at the candidates and decided that the election of Bush would be better than the election of Kerry insofar as the Republicans are pushing us towards socialism more slowly than the Democrats. The Third Party in 2004 did not have a realistic chance of winning, so the effect of voting Third Party was to take a vote away from Bush, and thus help Kerry. Accordingly, voting for Bush was the best way to slow the trend towards socialism, even though a Third Party candidate might have been a better choice if elected.

But this creates a quandary of sorts, a catch-22. Third Party can’t get votes because it can’t get elected; it can’t get elected because it can’t get votes.

I see two possible ways around this.

One is to do what the socialists did with the Democrat party: infiltrate and take control of the Republican Party. Libertarians could join the Republican Party and leverage off its funds, political organization, and public acceptance. I think this is what Ron Paul did, and I don’t see a downside other than being so outnumbered that “taking control” is difficult.

Another idea is to vote Third Party at every pre-election poll you can find. This would be a way of assessing the real Third Party candidate strength; with nothing to lose you could test the waters. If there are enough polls, it would seem that more and more voters would be emboldened by the previous poll to venture into Third Party voting if they were truly dissatisfied with the Rs and Ds. If the polls just before the election showed your Third Party choice running at, say, 30%, you have a good shot of winning. If the polls still show your guy at 5%, it would probably be time to regroup and hope for a better result in four years.

GunGoBoom
August 4, 2005, 05:13 PM
Hitlery, on the other hand, is evil incarnate

+1. If ever there were an epitome of the "lesser of two evils" - lol. Now why did you have to go and give my subconsious fodder for more nightmares?

Hillary would never ever be elected - too many people can't stand her, for whatever reasons - even otherwise slightly liberal folks I know strangely enough. But, it will be interesting to see whether the Dems are dumb enough to nominate her and hand the white house over again in 08. Now, put someone like Zell Miller vs. Rudy Guliani and I'd vote Miller. Heck, I'd probably vote for Howard Dean over Guliani - He said leave gun control issues to the states; not the fedgov's business; makes sense to me.

Marshall
August 4, 2005, 05:46 PM
Howard Dean...there's a stable mind. :what:

swampsniper
August 4, 2005, 05:59 PM
"Finally, it seems to me some of you guys are so focused on the gun issues that seem willing to support virtually anybody, who among other things, is even marginally pro-gun, and then defend him with claws and teeth no matter what kind of other pooh he produces on a regular basis. Do you guys really believe guns is the SINGLE most important issue of our times? That reminds of the old lady I heard about who vehemently hated Bush but voted for him because she hates gay marriage even more".

================================================
I figure that people like DiFi must know that they will have to kill a lot of people, to collect all the guns, and I assume that they are comfortable with the idea. I don't want that kind of people in power, at any level.
You don't believe that everyone would just walk in, hand over Grampa's shotgun, with no more than a whimper, do you? :what:

CAnnoneer
August 4, 2005, 07:22 PM
Nah, my expectation is that if it comes to that, suddenly there will be a mysterious wave of "lost" and "stolen" registered firearms :evil:

bjbarron
August 4, 2005, 07:32 PM
No one is more distressed than I how the country has moved to the left over the past 40 years....but

Conservatives never had much of a voice until lately. Until very few years ago books were all we had. The media was and is hard left. Now with radio and the internet we see that there really are other conservatives out there. The silent majority speaks.

I believe it is possible to reverse the trends of the past few decades.

Some comments....

Newt said on Hannity this afternoon that he was headed to Iowa (Hmmmm...Iowa).

Very few senators have ever been elected President...mostly it's governors. McCain cannot win the primaries and Hillary cannot lose. McCain could grab the Presidency, and Hillary cannot win it. As much respect as I have for Rudy, he would make a lousy President.

The only reason BJ Clinton was elected (with 41%) was because too many guys like me voted for Perot....never again will I make that mistake. It's only the Republicans that get hammered by third parties. It will be a cold day in hell before the Libertarians actually run someone electable.

There would be little difference between a Hillary and a McCain Presidency.

You can complain about Bush (and I do), you can dispair about the Stupid party (and I have), and you can wish on a star for judges that respect the constitution, or a party to control immigration. But, think about the alternatives....

Gore
Kerry
Hillary

Did you really want those guys to be in control....or their friends?

Schumer
Kennedy
Boxer
Fienstein

I figure that people like DiFi must know that they will have to kill a lot of people, to collect all the guns, and I assume that they are comfortable with the idea. I don't want that kind of people in power, at any level.
You don't believe that everyone would just walk in, hand over Grampa's shotgun, with no more than a whimper, do you?

People handed over their dogs in Denver. Women cried and the men just stood there. Would guns be any different. Any one who resists would be a nut...or so the paper would say.

If you enjoyed reading about "Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton .. Next President & Gun Control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!