Would Hillary in 2008 be a good thing?


PDA






idakfan
October 17, 2005, 08:37 PM
With the AWB expiration and the Gun Manufacture protection bill going to pass soon....

Seems it would radicalize the gun lobby even more if she were elected. Would she really be able to get anti-gun legislation passed, and IF she did would people follow it?

If a Republican is elected in 2008 are more gun laws are going to be repealed?

The Election of Hillary would give us more militant lesbians in high positions of Law Enforcement, what else?

It would seem to me that her being elected would result in a possibly good radicalization of the true conservative base, and the sidelining of the neo-cons.

Mabye it's just wishful thinking. Buy hey let's stir things up a bit!

First Lady Bill Clinton!

If you enjoyed reading about "Would Hillary in 2008 be a good thing?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Scottmkiv
October 17, 2005, 08:40 PM
I think a democrat president would help focus the Republican message for sure. I'm afraid that Bush has taught the party that religious socialism is the way to victory though...

R.H. Lee
October 17, 2005, 08:44 PM
I'm not sure the the Dems would nominate her or she could win if they did. We do not want her in the Whitehouse, that's for sure. She is a hardcore antigun Marxist/statist without any qualifications to be POTUS.

One thing is for sure. Bush is making it very difficult for the next Republican nominee.

Standing Wolf
October 17, 2005, 08:48 PM
Is Mrs. Snopes Clinton a Republicrat or a Democan? It's so hard to tell the difference any more!

Biker
October 17, 2005, 08:49 PM
In short, yes. Hillary as Pres would be a good, if ugly, thing. Gridlocks at this point in time are desireable and checks and balances are always a good thing.
Biker

longeyes
October 17, 2005, 09:21 PM
A Hillary regime would be a huge question mark, its direction determined by many other factors--but it would be a highly dangerous question mark given the current mental landscape of America and who is influencing it. I prefer not to take that risk, even if I am less than pleased by Bushism.

rick_reno
October 17, 2005, 09:40 PM
She'd be a nightmare, given some of the legislation that has been passed and signed into law over the past 5 years. I don't worry about Bush holding a civil liberty limiting hammer - he and his minions appear to be using it to smash terrorists which is a good thing. Hillary wielding the same hammer would be a very dangerous animal.
On the postive side, remembering that Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" she might be good for the tree of liberty. It could use some refreshing.

RealGun
October 17, 2005, 09:46 PM
I have read many assumptions that Bill Clinton would be part of the package. I wonder about that. I can't remember the last time I saw pictures or mention of them together. Anybody got anything? Obviously she didn't divorce the guy because of her ambitions, but last I heard, he lives in New York. You gotta wonder how all that works and whether they would suddenly merge into the White House, God forbid.

Stauble
October 17, 2005, 09:48 PM
i think that if she ran she would win.
she would certainly win all the states that kerry won, plus ohio which would give her the electoral votes needed to win. she seems to be fooling alot of people as she tries to moderate her positions.
she will not win a single southern or midwestern state. and im sure that would make my neighbors very angry

at which point Thomas Jeffersons saying about the tree of liberty will come into effect

i do hope im wrong about her winning tho

lee n. field
October 17, 2005, 09:53 PM
I think a democrat president would help focus the Republican message for sure.


R. pols do tend to be quite mushy when they're in the majority.

el44vaquero
October 17, 2005, 09:57 PM
Safe to say Bill and Hill haven't "merged" in a long time. I like that quote about the tree of liberty.

WT
October 17, 2005, 09:57 PM
I don't care much about Hillary's sexual preferences. If she and her girlfriend are happy in Washington, well that's great. Bill has a new girlfriend, a Canadian billionaire, to take care of him in Westchester County.

Given the way the USA is going downhill under Republican 'leadership', I think we need a change.

We have a bloated military budget, an ineffective national defense, rising unemployment in the middle class, and higher prices for the essentials.

Silver Bullet
October 17, 2005, 10:00 PM
n short, yes. Hillary as Pres would be a good, if ugly, thing. Gridlocks at this point in time are desireable and checks and balances are always a good thing.
Ridiculous. What happens if the Dems get controls after the 2010 elections, just two years after the 2008 elections ? Do you still have checks and balances, and gridlocks ?

And even if we had gridlock, that's still a bad thing. I don't see bad gun laws being rolled back during gridlock. At least we've made some progress under Bush.

Geno
October 17, 2005, 10:04 PM
If Hillary had a scrap of human dignity left in her "soul" she would have walked out of Willy's life when she had the chance.

Staying the course with a scoundrel like him PROVES fact firm, for me, she'll stay in it with any other low-life politician who will further her cause and her agenda. Frankly, I do not believe that she has either the dignity nor the desire to serve the people in a Democracy.

In fact, she herself stated a few years back, that America is no longer a Democracy and that Government is too complex for the commoner to understand and that it is best left to those in Congress who understand it.

I pray to God she does not run! I pray to God that if she runs she loses. And I pray to God if she wins, that I die before I suffer the humiliation of her fornicating my beloved Constitution. She is just about one notch higher on the pecking pole than the anti-Christ! And that is my opinion if you ask me on a good day.

By the way, it has NOTHING to do with female. I would LOVE to see Condi for President...might even vote for her. Also, it has nothing to do with her being Democratic...I have only voted straight party once. My problem (well I actually have several) :D is that I do not like the Clintons.

With God as my very serious witness, I swear that they are NO friends of America, nor of Americans, nor of the Constitution. Give the two of them to China. That's where their loyalty lies. We live in greater danger today becuase of the Clintons than we EVER have in our nation's history.

Does anyone think China could have pulled off space flight without Willy Boy Billy giving them our nation's most powerful computers?! Made their I.C.B.M. missiles pretty darned accurate too.

Doc2005

Biker
October 17, 2005, 10:07 PM
Ridiculous. What happens if the Dems get controls after the 2010 elections, just two years after the 2008 elections ? Do you still have checks and balances, and gridlocks ?

And even if we had gridlock, that's still a bad thing. I don't see bad gun laws being rolled back during gridlock. At least we've made some progress under Bush.
I don't see 'bad gun laws' being rolled back now. Bush has said very clearly that he supports the 'assault weapons' ban and would sign it if it crossed his desk. The Repubs have had control for a few years now and have not used that power to repeal a single gun law, including the AWB.
Biker

Sam
October 17, 2005, 10:17 PM
Hilarious Clinton as presidenT would be a good thing like having hemmoroids removed with a chainsaw would be a good thing.

Watcha smokin?

Sam :D

bjbarron
October 17, 2005, 10:36 PM
It's not so much who gets voted in...as who they bring with 'em.

I remember a 2000 Time Mag piece putting side by side Gore's and Bushies notional appointees if they got elected. Gores choices were all twentysomething greenies...scary. Bushs' were all experienced government types.

Think about the ideological types she would bring with her, and the types that would win elections by clinging to her (coat?) tails. I don't see any difference between Hill and McCain, but there is a world of difference on who they would bring in with them.

Hillary can win the nomination, but not the national election. McCain cannot win the nomination, but can win the election. It's a truism that you have to play to your base to get the nomination, then try to run to the center to win the election.

I don't think we've seen who the choices will be yet. Whoever it is on the winger side...I hope Condi is the VP.

Boss Spearman
October 17, 2005, 10:40 PM
I don't think Hillary in any public office at any time is a good thing.

Biker
October 17, 2005, 10:41 PM
Hilarious Clinton as presidenT would be a good thing like having hemmoroids removed with a chainsaw would be a good thing.

Watcha smokin?

Sam :D
Nuthin' like Slick Willy was smokin' and I ain't snortin what Dubya was. I like my beer and Beam
:D
Biker

Silver Bullet
October 17, 2005, 11:51 PM
I don't see 'bad gun laws' being rolled back now. Bush has said very clearly that he supports the 'assault weapons' ban and would sign it if it crossed his desk. The Repubs have had control for a few years now and have not used that power to repeal a single gun law, including the AWB.

I'm going to quote Bartholomew Roberts on another site:

PRO:

1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US

2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.

3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".

4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

5. Bush supports and will sign lawsuit preemption bill

6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks

7. Signs bill arming airline pilots. Signs bill closing loophole that prevented cargo pilots from being armed

8. Signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiahrt Amendment that protects gunowner privacy by making item #4 the law of the land.

9. Gets chance to have several things he claims to support (lawsuit preemption, gunshow background checks, semi-auto ban) on a single bill. Sends letter to Congress asking them to consider only lawsuit preemption.

10. Partially repeals Clinton ban on import of some semi-auto firearm parts instituted in Summer of 2000 to allow import of parts for repair purposes. Doesn't repeal any Executive Orders relating to guns instituted by previous Presidents.

And here is the big one:

The Republican party has now gone to bat for us, not once, but THREE times (March, July, and September) to stop any renewal of the ban. This is a ban that polls show having the support of greater than 60% of the public. Admittedly, the public wouldn't support it if they were better informed but that is beside the point... the Republicans bucked the majority to support us.

Anybody catch the horrendous grilling the Republicans took last night? See the horrendous lies being told about the ban and the blame being piled on the Republicans? It would be hard to miss since it was on the nightly news for ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN as well as special coverage on Nightline and World News Tonight. That doesn't even count pro-ban editorials in the NYT, USA Today, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Chicago Sun-Herald and San Fransisco Gate as well as dozens of smaller papers.

Not only did the Republicans do this for us, they did it DURING AN ELECTION YEAR when every single House seat, 1/3 of Senate seats and the White House are up for grabs.

Forget for a moment that most of the pro-RKBA candidates running for office are Republican. Forget that two Republican Senate candidates have declared support for repealing the 1934 NFA during their campaigns. Forget that if a Republican candidate replaces all the GOA F rated Senators retiring this year, we will get 5 Senators who are rated B or better by the GOA.

The Republicans could have saved themselves a major beating in the press by simply selling us down the river. They didn't. They stood by us even when the polls showed it wasn't the popular thing to do and that does not happen too damn often in politics. The Republicans have earned my vote on gun rights

And this doesn't even include letting the AWB expire. He may have snookered by Democrats by promising to sign the bill if it came to his desk, but he did nothing to promote the renewal. Would Hillary have done nothing ? Will Hillary do nothing ?

And now the Republican have passed (in the Senate) a bill to relieve manufacturers from spurious lawsuits.

Can you name any president or administration in the last 100 years who has done more for the cause of AWB ?

A huge thank you to Bartholomew Roberts.

rick_reno
October 18, 2005, 01:46 AM
4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

I continue to see this - does anyone know what the backup schedule and retention period is on the backed up NICS data? I'm guessing they back up at least daily and have a retention period of forever -making this 90 day/1 day policy useless.

Bigfoot
October 18, 2005, 02:03 AM
1 Hill and Bill needed 2 mil to reimburse the Arkansas Education Fund that they illegaly raided for thier presidential run.

2 Accepted 2 Mil from the Indonesian sattalite corp. Lippo Group, who needed our technology to solve the problem that the Chinese had with thier incredibly unreliable launch systems. Which BTW are the same systems that launch ICBMs.

3 Went to all kinds of contortions in order to bypass the agencies that refused to sign off on giving this technology to the communist Chinese.

4 Finally put the technology transfer into the hands of the Commerce Dept, who's role is to sell stuff abroad. So they did, duh.

5 Relaxed the secrecy rules. Bragged about "Declassifing secrets at a record pace".

6 Also allowed the sale of supercomputers to China, who needed them, and had been previously illegal.

Thier goal, and the result they achieved was, Bill and Hill armed our past and future enemy with ICBMs which are pointed at us right now, in order to get elected.


And some here think herself becoming President(again) would be good for America? *** is wrong with you? :cuss:

Edit: Sorry Doc2005, I didn't read your post completly. I'm STILL pissed off about this. And the media went bonkers covering that fat POS that Bill nailed, (because they didn't think that it would lead to empeachment) instead of covering the real scandal. Remember when the hearings were held and NOBODY covered them? The media said America didn't care, and/or it was too complicated for our simple minds. I'm not sure which group of traitors I hate more.

twoblink
October 18, 2005, 02:42 AM
My congressman use to ask the question "What can I do for you?"

I use to reply "If you want to be helpful, DON'T DO ANYTHING." The road to hell is paved by politicians who want to help.

Hitlery is on the top of that list.

I use to say, if I ran, my campaign would say "If you elect me, I will leave you the ef** alone!!"

Boss Spearman
October 18, 2005, 06:08 AM
I hope the declaration by the Attorney General eventually forces cities and states that violate the 2nd Amendment to reverse their decisions.

Alex45ACP
October 18, 2005, 06:16 AM
I use to say, if I ran, my campaign would say "If you elect me, I will leave you the ef** alone!!"

You'd get my vote.

RealGun
October 18, 2005, 06:32 AM
I hope the declaration by the Attorney General eventually forces cities and states that violate the 2nd Amendment to reverse their decisions.

Hmm? Even though ratified after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment does not effectively apply to States until the Supreme Court says it does, one article of the BoR at a time.

SCOTUS really means Social Consequence Obfuscation Tribunal of the United States.

There are technical difficulties in even approaching the Court with a case and no reason to expect that they would hear the case. They couldn't be anymore evasive about taking on the 2A squarely. Hearing less than 100 cases a year, the gun question is not on their radar. Clerks to the Court screen these cases. Only John Roberts can really effect what the clerks think is important to recommend for the Court's consideration.

The Court is not required to comment why they deny a hearing for a case. That's the part that really galls me. I think it is an abuse of due process.

Byron Quick
October 18, 2005, 06:57 AM
Does anyone think China could have pulled off space flight without Willy Boy Billy giving them our nation's most powerful computers?! Made their I.C.B.M. missiles pretty darned accurate too.

Doc2005

Doc,

There is a big problem with your conclusion in the quoted question. The Chines purchased the technology for the capsule, the booster, mission control, and even the spacesuits from the Russians. Last I checked, Russian technology was capable of space flight without any of our computers-powerful or weak. You might want to check into the numbers of Chinese ICBM's also. The entire nuclear arsenal of China has exactly one meaning in the context of being used against the US: national suicide. They have the means to hurt us badly in a nuclear attack. Even if they pulled off a first strike, they don't have what it would take to prevent the total annihilation of every Chinese city and military base in the US retaliation. And they are a long, long way from gaining a capability of going head to head with us. They've got a big military. But their force projection capability is severely limited. Technologically, they are yet to reach the level the Soviets reached in the late eighties. Saddam had the best military technology that the Soviets ever produced in 1991. We ran all over it. The Chinese have not reached that level of technology. I wouldn't want to fight them near their borders. If I were Japanese, I'd be damned worried and building up a strong military fast. But they're a long way from an effective blue water navy or a strategic air force. We had a big technological lead over the Soviets. We have an enormous lead over the Chinese.

Hilary for President? Lord, spare your suffering children! That woman is meaner than a snake after a baby bird. I never have been able to blame Slick for running around on her. I'd rather find a rattlesnake in my bed than her.

bg
October 18, 2005, 01:32 PM
I can only recall one top law enforcement officer ever saying that the
2nd Amendment is an individual right not a collective right, and that
was John Ashcroft. Who appointed him ? We all know.

Who do you think the wicked witch from the east would pick if elected ?
How bout Reid, Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Reed, etc. Do you
really want to wake up one day seeing any of these people as Atty Gen ?

http://pic14.picturetrail.com/VOL544/713502/5641765/115513435.jpg

If anything Gonzales should be a wake up call.

RealGun
October 18, 2005, 02:29 PM
Which is worse, President Hillary or AG Chuck Schumer? Yikes!!:eek:

Feinstein is not an attorney.

Derby FALs
October 18, 2005, 03:04 PM
Which is worse, President Hillary or AG Chuck Schumer? Yikes!!:eek:

Feinstein is not an attorney.

John Ashcroft for the GWB Administration.
"While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise. Like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment protects the rights of 'the people,' which the Supreme Court has noted is a term of art that should be interpreted consistently throughout the Bill of Rights. ... Of course, the individual rights view of the Second Amendment does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests ... just as the First Amendment does not prohibit [government from legislating against] shouting 'fire' in a crowded movie theater. "

And Charles Schumer.
"The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms is shared by many Americans, including myself. I'm of the view that you can't take a broad approach to other rights, such as First Amendment rights, and then interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly that it could fit in a thimble. But I'm also of the view that there are limits on those rights. Just as you can't falsely shout fire in a crowded movie theater, you can put restrictions on who can own guns and how, when, and where they may be possessed."

Silver Bullet
October 18, 2005, 03:36 PM
Interesting pair of quotes, Derby. If the Schumer quote is accurate, I have to give him a lot more credit than some of his peers (Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry).

The difference between the two quotes is not so much what they say as what they don’t say. What do they consider reasonable limits ?

Registration ? .22 caliber or smaller ? No semi-automatics of any sort ? Possession of 50 rounds of ammo or less ? Guns and ammo have to be stored locked and 30 yards apart ?

If one of the above says “yes” and the other says “no” to all of the above, then they’re saying two very different things between the lines.

CAnnoneer
October 18, 2005, 11:04 PM
Hillary is just about one thing - sustained unbridled infernal psychotic ambition. Everything else is subject to that obsession. Thus she is nobody's puppet, but also nobody's keeper.

I predict she will run, win, and rule the country with an iron fist, like a mad self-styled emperor. If she feels benevolent, she may do something positive about a few issues; if not, all shall loathe her and dispair...

Ave Hillary, morituri te salutant!

:barf:

magsnubby
October 20, 2005, 07:10 PM
I (i pray) doubt it will happen. Especially after Ted Kennedy stated publicly that he would not back her as a candidate in '08.

dpesec
October 20, 2005, 07:31 PM
Magsnuby,
Actually that could be a good thing for her. That would indicate she's not liberal, and had become the "muddle of the road" person needed to become POTUS.:barf:

Personally, remember that even if the Congress doesn't become Anti-2A, the POTUS can, via executive orders, impact things. Remember BATF's ban on parts imports? She can still impact all of our rights, not to mention bank accounts.

All I can say is that the prospects scare the daylights out of me, and I'm fearless:what:

magsnubby
October 20, 2005, 08:09 PM
All I can say is that the prospects scare the daylights out of me, and I'm fearless:what:

Amen brother.

DeseoUnTaco
October 20, 2005, 08:15 PM
One thing is for sure. Bush is making it very difficult for the next Republican nominee.
Yes he is. Bush and DeLay. They are such screw-ups. Bush seems to have lost it somewhere along the way. I think he really believes he's on some kind of jihad, woops, I mean crusade.

Sam
October 20, 2005, 10:08 PM
Imagine Hilarious appointing Lawrence Tribe to the Supreme Court:barf:

Sam

thorn726
October 20, 2005, 10:13 PM
Hillary is just about one thing - sustained unbridled infernal psychotic ambition. Everything else is subject to that obsession. Thus she is nobody's puppet, but also nobody's keeper.

I predict she will run, win, and rule the country with an iron fist, like a mad self-styled emperor. If she feels benevolent, she may do something positive about a few issues; if not, all shall loathe her and dispair...

sounds about right unfortunately. it would be interesting to see if there was any noticable differnce with a woman in charge, but Hillary? i dont want to see htat experiment through.

my mom got to meet Hillary, she WAS a supporter, but after meeting her, well, the above quote isnt that far from her description

Farnham
October 20, 2005, 10:33 PM
twoblink, you have given me a new sig!

As for Hillary...she might be a good thing, because everyone that votes for her in 2008 will vote staunch conservative in 2012 to get rid of the witch...unless they're in the camps with the rest of us. :uhoh:

S/F

Farnham

TimH
October 20, 2005, 10:56 PM
I didn't read all the posts but remember the President can issue an Executiive Order. Don't put it past Hillary to just bypass congress all together

KriegHund
October 20, 2005, 11:00 PM
I believe we are screwed either way. Seems like this nation is running on inertia from the past century, stopping about the 80's.

Its only a matter of time before that inertia catches up to us. Very few large nations last more than a few hundred years before burning out, after that the country has a massive change. The larger the nation the fewer years before change.

Doesnt seem like ittl matter in the long term if we get a republican or a democrat. More likely than not i believe we shall have a democrat next term, like it matters...

kikilee
October 20, 2005, 11:22 PM
This has got to be a JOKE! Hillary for POTUS? Come on. As one of the many who suffered 12 years of the Clintons in the great state of Arkansas. (before 8 years of POTUS) I can tell you she won't carry her home state. Arkansas I meant, Since she is carpet bagging in NY now. By the way you New Yorker's never cease to amaze me. If this woman is elected POTUS it will be a sad day for this country!

If you enjoyed reading about "Would Hillary in 2008 be a good thing?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!