[willp58]

Are there any *gun owners* here that can say they hate GWB?
I see several gun guys on the net that proclaim hate towards Bush. They say that herr klinton and reno did NOT in fact come after their guns and in fact did not lose ONE gun right.
So they hate Bush and will vote billery...(they say)

How about it people? Is it going to be another Republican for you or a Democrat??
Remember the assault weapon ban when you choose...Also since the klintoons have gone, the reciprocal CCW permits have GREATLY increased. It's nowhere hear perfect, but it IS getting better.

So easy to say GWB is not good for us gun people...That's because we forget how the dems DID come after us...But it's been awhile so we tend to forget.

I haven't.

[Stauble]

unless the democrat is zell miller then hell effing no
if billery is elected i will do my best to over throw her
that i promise you

[Molon Labe]

Yea. But if you want people to take you seriously, you should at least understand proper punctuation and when to use uppercase letters.

[Standing Wolf]

After Snopes Clinton, there's no way in @#$%^&! I'll ever so much as consider voting for a representative of the Democratic (sic) party.

That said™, the Republicans haven't accomplished much with the majority the nation handed them, and most are indistinguishable from representatives of the Democratic (sic) party.

I can at least tell what the Libertarian party stands for.

[TMAS]

I can't imagine voting for HRC. But I am tired of voting for RINO's too. I'd hate to vote for a third party, because I foresee a repeat of the Perot disaster. But the RINO's are just not giving us a good choice, IMO.

Can't we just put a "none of the above" on the ballot? Then we can throw those first choices out and start over. Oh no, I don't think I could take the months of political comercials all over again.

[Strings]

I made this comment in another thread somewhere, but it bears repeating.

While it is true that the Democrats are NOT our friends, the Republicans aren't "the party of gun owners" as they claim. If we had a law requiring truth in advertising, the Rep's would be called "the party of not raping your rights beyond the status quo".

I've heard since I was old enought to vote (90) about how the Republicans are on "our side". Yet, since 2000, with control of both the White House and the legislature, they've done basically nothing for us. The AWB was gonna sunset anyway, they just had to sit on their hands. They've made no attempt to actually loosen restrictions on our RKBA. Don't even have to be successful at it, just TRY.

We (gun owners) are like that niave young girl, while the Reps are the smooth talking young man. "Honey, I swear I'll still respect you", "I want to get married too, just not yet. We can just live together until (insert timeframe)". The Reps are running on the theory of "why buy the cow if you're gettin' the milk for free?". And, to put it a touch crudely: why should they offer us the ring, when we're so willing to "put out" for them?

I'm through with that. They want my vote, they need to actually do something FOR us...

[Biker]

Well put, Hunter Rose. My vote, as valuable or as insignificant as it may be, is going to the candidate who most mirrors my vision of America, regardless of their chance of winning.
Biker

[Sindawe]

My vote, as valuable or as insignificant as it may be, is going to the candidate who most mirrors my vision of America, regardless of their chance of winning.+1 So far, the ONLY political party that even comes close to my vision of the U.S (which is that described in the founding charter) is the Libertarians.

[Biker]

I agree. My main problem with the Libertarian party has been their open border policy. I strongly suspect that given the growing dislike by the American public in general for the havoc currently being wreaked by unchecked immigration, illegal and otherwise, the LP will alter its position on this. At least I hope so.
Biker

[Lone_Gunman]

Bush has done more harm to our rights in general than Clinton ever did.

If the Democrats ran the right person, I would consider voting for them. After 25 years of voting for nobody but Republicans, I am very disappointed in the sorry performance G.W. Bush has given.

[Strings]

Biker et al:

My only problem with the Libs is their complete inability to work as a successful third party. For a new party to get goin', they should start small: try to put a Lib in EVERY elected position at the local level. As the local positions fil, move up to county, then state. There shouldn't be an attempt made at Pres until we have a couple Lib governors, and a fair number of legiscritters. Unfortunately, it seem the Libs want to build the pyramid by placing the capstone, then adding the structure under it...

[Blue Jays]

Hi All-

I'll never cast my vote for Hillary! regardless of whom might be running against her. We've been in a tough spot with the RINOs lately.

~ Blue Jays ~

[Biker]

Biker et al:

My only problem with the Libs is their complete inability to work as a successful third party. For a new party to get goin', they should start small: try to put a Lib in EVERY elected position at the local level. As the local positions fil, move up to county, then state. There shouldn't be an attempt made at Pres until we have a couple Lib governors, and a fair number of legiscritters. Unfortunately, it seem the Libs want to build the pyramid by placing the capstone, then adding the structure under it...
I agree fully. However, I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. The only Repub candidate that I would consider to be worthy of my vote might be Tancredo, and that's about it. I can think of no Dems, off the top of my head.
Ultimately, it's likely BOHICA.
Biker

[Strings]

I know, Biker. Sad part is, the Repubs COULD tie up the next election, by simply making a serious attempt at repealing NFA or GCA. But they won't, 'cause they think people would freak (which some would, but I have to question how many)...

[The Drew]

The reality is that the ONLY legislation that pertains to the RKBA that was passed under RINO control was the lawful protection of commerce act... and that really is only directly a benefit to the industry... NOT us gunowners...

the R's could've done a lot of small things or at least attempted a lot of small things to win my favor... They did NONE... There are very few R's that are truly pro gun anymore on the national level and they pretty much are powerless considering the rest of the RINO's...

[rick_reno]

I first voted Republican for Nixon - and kept that streak up until President Bush ran in 2004 (I voted for him, campaigned for him in my neighborhood and donated money to his effort in 2000). President Bush, the greatest leader of our time, has been such a magnificant disappointment I doubt I'll ever vote for another Republican.
The advantage of Billery is we KNOW exactly what we're getting.

[CAnnoneer]

After eight years of Grofaz, I fear most people would settle for even a modicum of competence.

Unfortunately, neither party has even a single decent electable leader. We need somebody who is a combination of:

1) Dean's fire
2) Zel's patriotism
3) Hillary's brains
4) Newt's vision
5) Energizer Bunny's stamina
6) Carter's integrity

There is none in the corridors of power that comes even close.

[c_yeager]

The reality is that the ONLY legislation that pertains to the RKBA that was passed under RINO control was the lawful protection of commerce act... and that really is only directly a benefit to the industry... NOT us gunowners...

the R's could've done a lot of small things or at least attempted a lot of small things to win my favor... They did NONE... There are very few R's that are truly pro gun anymore on the national level and they pretty much are powerless considering the rest of the RINO's...

In all fairness, the AWB was allowed to sunset, this would almost certainly have NOT happened under a Democrat controlled senate. That alone was probably the biggest victory for gun owners in the last 10 years (if not longer). Sometimes the best thing the government can do is nothing, I wish they would do it more often.

[Strings]

>In all fairness, the AWB was allowed to sunset, this would almost certainly have NOT happened under a Democrat controlled senate. That alone was probably the biggest victory for gun owners in the last 10 years (if not longer). Sometimes the best thing the government can do is nothing, I wish they would do it more often.<

Cool... they sat on their hands, and let a law die (as it was written to). That's it for half a decade of being in power? Colour me less than impressed...

I've voted Republican in every election since I could, and I'm through. Unless there's something major that happens (like an honest attempt to get rid of some bad laws), they can forget my vote. They want me to "put out", they can give me a ring!

[willp58]

Guys keep saying the repubs haven't done anything for us..How about the reciprocal CCW that has been passed.
We can now carry in a bunch of different states and from one state to another..With just one permit.
www.packing.org

There was some arm twisting involved in getting that passed I can assure you..By the repubs.

Mizz fineswine and shumer have been , for the most part, quiet for 6 years..That in itself is a big plus.

I'm no big fan of GWB, as a VN vet, I hate that damn war...It 's all for NOTHING. But for the gun owner I still think this administration hasn't been all that bad..

[AK-NOW]

How many want billery?

:what:Voting for Billery is not a :cuss: option!
http://www.nicksrealm.com/images/hillary_baby.jpg

[Oldtimer]

Vote for Hillary? Surely you jest! She would be like another Jimmy Carter....maybe even worse!

Hillary Rodham (she supposedly didn't take the name of Clinton when they were married) has stated that the AWB should have been either extended or made permanent! She is also STILL sitting on a legislative paper that was authored by the late U.S. Senator Patrick Moynihan that, if submitted and made law, would increase the taxes on ammo by a whopping 10,000%! (Moynihan never submitted that legislative document, but stated that the "profits" from the heavy taxation could be used for a "universal health program"....and if you recall, Hillary turned blue in the face when her health program work was tossed out).

Hey, I'd definitely vote for a Democrat....but only if it's Zell Miller! He's a "DINO", and the Dems absolutely HATE him!

[dracphelan]

1. I would never vot for for Billery.
2. In the last Presidential election, it was the Democrat's election to lose. And they chose the wrong candidate.
3. In the last election, I chose the smallest evil on the ballot (GWB). The Libertarians need to learn that vocal nutjobs will not get elected. The biggest problem that the Libertarian party has is the insistence on ideological purity.

[stevelyn]

I agree. My main problem with the Libertarian party has been their open border policy. I strongly suspect that given the growing dislike by the American public in general for the havoc currently being wreaked by unchecked immigration, illegal and otherwise, the LP will alter its position on this. At least I hope so.
Biker

As if GWB and the Repugnican's open border policy is more palatable.:barf:

Actually Biker, the Libertarian stance on open borders is dependent on getting rid of entitlements and the welfare state before an open border policy is ever put into place.
Those coming to this country will have the opportunity to fail or succeed on their own merit without any sort of .gov safety net. Immigration will be self limiting and only those who can contribute and succeed will stay here for the long term...............or at least that's how it's supposed to work in theory.:scrutiny:

[Lone_Gunman]

Guys keep saying the repubs haven't done anything for us..How about the reciprocal CCW that has been passed.

This discussion was about the presidency. Please review the title. Reciprocal CCW has absolutely nothing to do with the Presidency or any other federal elections.

But now that you bring the issue up, the Republicans in the House and Senate, along with our great President could have made CCW better by requiring states adhere to the Constitution and honor the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which would have immediately given CCW reciprocity throughout all 50 states.

So if you think about it like that, one could argue the Republicans have actually hurt us by blowing their time in power and not enforcing the Constitution.

Hillary Rodham (she supposedly didn't take the name of Clinton when they were married) has stated that the AWB should have been either extended or made permanent!

So did George W. Bush.

[Live Free Or Die]

As much as it would give me the willies if another Clinton were president, I'd take it -- so long as the congress is dominated by (genuine) republicans. At least we'd have gridlock then.

My vote will be cast for the most deserving candidate: a competent person who understands the constitution and why the government should exist only within its bounds. Since the LP is the only party likely to field such a candidate -- even if the candidate is flaky -- that's probably where my vote will go, albeit with some reservation. It really doesn't matter in Maryland anyways since this sad state leans heavily to the left in national elections.

[Mongo the Mutterer]

The advantage of Billery is we KNOW exactly what we're getting. Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Do you REALLY think she is showing her agenda???

If you voted for Nixon you are old enough to know politics. BTW if you have been a Republican your whole life you will view Billary with total revulsion.

Scuze me Rick... your blue skirt is showing...

[The_Shootist]

No waaaaay am I going to vote for her. Not after the execrable behaviour in the White House of Dirty Little Billy and the assault weapons ban.

Face it - whatever you think of GWB or the Republicans in general, they are far more supportive of the 2nd amendment than the Demorats. There is a stated position among some Democrats (Feinstein for one) who would confiscate all handguns and she has been on record as saying it.

Hell, the new SUpreme Court nominee Alito even previously questioned the gov't right to regulate machine guns :evil: . The Dems would make an assault on our 2nd amendment rights like we've never seen.


Oh yeah -and if you vote Librtarian, thats a wasted vote putting the Dems into power.

I personally am curious how the Dems think Hillary is going to remotely carry any of the red states, by the time the election rolls around.

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Oh yeah -and if you vote Librtarian, thats a wasted vote putting the Dems into power.Yep... And I am a Libertarian, but the party has pushed me away with their drug stands.

I will never split my vote between two "conservatives". The 15 to 17% of the vote the Socialist Mainstream Media sucks out of the sheeple for the Demogogs will put them into office.

Conservatives have to suck it up and pull the lever for people they don't like and distrust, so people they hate and don't trust can't be elected.

[PinnedAndRecessed]

I will never vote in another presidential election until a candidate says he/she will close the borders and deport criminal aliens (aka, illegals).

[M-Rex]

I wouldn't piss on Hillary Clinton if she was on fire. I sure as hell am not going to vote for that leftist bitch.

[jacobtowne]

Hillary can't run for the Oval Office. She's already served two terms.:)
JT

[Live Free Or Die]

Oh yeah -and if you vote Librtarian, thats a wasted vote putting the Dems into power.

In many parts of the country, voting (insert your favorite 3rd party here) is a nice way to protest both Democrats and RINO's with one fell swoop. When you live somewhere that routinely gives Democrats landslide victories, IMO it's a huge waste to vote for a RINO.

[RealGun]

How many want billery?

I don't see this as an intelligent question. On THR it would be tongue in cheek at best.

[dpesec]

As much as it would give me the willies if another Clinton were president, I'd take it -- so long as the congress is dominated by (genuine) republicans. At least we'd have gridlock then.

My vote will be cast for the most deserving candidate: a competent person who understands the constitution and why the government should exist only within its bounds. Since the LP is the only party likely to field such a candidate -- even if the candidate is flaky -- that's probably where my vote will go, albeit with some reservation. It really doesn't matter in Maryland anyways since this sad state leans heavily to the left in national elections.
The problem is with the sweeping powers of executive orders, Billery could make our life tourture. Remember the little thing called the Patrior Act.
Enough said.

[Moondoggie]

Here's my position on Hillary...

Bill Clinton:

Liar,

Coward,

Adulterer,

Pervert.

Quoting Mr. Clinton..."Hillary is my moral compass."

'Nuff said?

[Biker]

Ahem..."Pervert" is a state of mind.:evil:
Biker

[Live Free Or Die]

The problem is with the sweeping powers of executive orders, Billery could make our life tourture. Remember the little thing called the Patrior Act.
Enough said.

That's true. But let's not forget who brought us the Patriot Act: RINO's. Besides, any provocative use of executive powers by a leftist Democrat president would hopefully galvanize the true Republicans (or possibly even conservative-leaning Democrats) in congress to fight it tooth and nail.

[Skipper]

Neither party seems to care,or even know much at all about Constitutional liberty. Both seem bent on erasing any vestige of freedom from our lives. The biggest difference is the Dems are doing it at 80 miles an hour while the Reps are cruising at a leisurely 40 mph.
Bush has squandered his time so far as has congress when so much could have been done. Having said that, the sunset of the AWB was a HUGE deal to all of us and would never have happened if any of the Dems had been in power. When that ban returns,it will most likely be under a Dem,and will be draconian and permanent. In fact,has any federal anti-gun legistration been passed under this administration? Can't say that about any of the last several administrations.
While all of this is true,we need to let the Reps know that we're not their puppets,and if they wish to continue to get our votes,they'll have to earn them. Unless they come up with a true constitution candidate (not too likely) I'll most likely vote for the CONSTITUTION PARTY candidate. At least I KNOW they're on our side. Throwing my vote away? I'm not sure it is if it gives the Republicans a reality check.
All of this is probably just vain babble as I think our days as freedom loving Americans is numbered. Stock up with EVERYTHING you think you'll need in guns, ammo,components,and parts......then work hard within the "system" to turn things around. Keep working even when it seems in vain.
And by the way,it won't hurt to pray too.
Regards
SKIP

[carp killer]

I don't know what to do. The Republicans have the House and Senate and White House. And they do NOTHING!:fire: Get rid of the "sporting purposes". Get rid of '86 MG ban. Push for a National CCW. Push those states that unconstitutionally deny a citizens 2nd Amendment rights.

[Chrontius]

Bush has done more harm to our rights in general than Clinton ever did.

If the Democrats ran the right person, I would consider voting for them. After 25 years of voting for nobody but Republicans, I am very disappointed in the sorry performance G.W. Bush has given.

+1, Underrated

I'm leaning toward Libertarian this election, no chance in hell of voting Republican -- two words, "Patriot Act" -- and I have no tastes for simply switching dynasties.

So, which Democrat potential nominees would you guys vote for?

EDIT: Zell Miller, hm? Quoth Wikipedia: In his infamous "Deficit of Decency" speech (which prompted him to eventually author a book of the same name) in 2004 Feb., he attributed American societal malaise to rap music, desecration of the American flag, homosexual marriage and non-Christian government, and insinuated that addressing such "indecency" by law was "of utmost importance" in order to save American civilization from extinction.
Ick. The ACLU is gonna be all over his free-speech position, you know... I don't think he has a snowball's chance in a fusion reactor of making it through the primaries.

Ahem..."Pervert" is a state of mind.:evil:
Biker
You say pervert like it's a bad thing. :evil:

[antsi]

they've done basically nothing for us. The AWB was gonna sunset anyway, they just had to sit on their hands...

So I take it you are saying that with a Democrat congress and a Democrat in the White House, the AWB would still have sunset?

[Strings]

>So I take it you are saying that with a Democrat congress and a Democrat in the White House, the AWB would still have sunset?<

Ya know... I keep hearing that line. What you people fail to see is, that's the best the repubs have done for us, is sit on their hands. No, I'm sure the AWB would still be with us (and in worse form) had the Dems won in 2000 or 2004. However, that doesn't mean the Repubs are "for us", it just means they threw us a bone. They're not completely stupid, they know they have to give us a little attention to keep us faithful. Use the niave young girl again: teh AWB sunset was the Repubs takin' us on a date, because we were gettin' restive...

[saltydog]

Hillary can't run for the Oval Office. She's already served two terms.:)
JT

Very well said. Someone had to run the White House while the husband was "orally occupied":D Bill was always to busy to run the country.

[NorthernExtreme]

Democrats do not considder the Pro-2nd Amendment group as part of their constituancy, and see no positive outcome in supporting us or the 2nd Amendment. They do have the Anti-2nd Amendment crowd on their Christmass (sorry Xmas for all you Democrats out there) list.

Evil has only to hope good people will do nothing. What have the Republicans done?

[longeyes]

Bush has been a disappointment but Hillary would not disappoint. I think we have a pretty good idea what her Presidency would mean to the rights we on this forum value most. I would not rule out civil war as a consequence of her victory. Making sure she does not win should be our first priority.

[KriegHund]

I find myself...un-liking...our president. I find myseld still hating Hillary. Even more so, as time passes.

[willp58]

Hillary would not disappoint. I think we have a pretty good idea what her Presidency would mean to the rights we on this forum value most. I would not rule out civil war as a consequence of her victory. Making sure she does not win should be our first priority.


And this is it in a nutshell...Either a Repub will win OR a Dem....One or the other.
It's nice to vote lib or what ever if that makes you feel good..

HOWEVER : The bottom line is...Repub or Dem.

So given that truth, which do you want???
There's a good chance billery will run for the dems..She is in tight with shumer and mizzfine-swine...So guess what is going to happen to us gun people???

I don't care if you hate Bush and the repubs or not....They are our only chance for a pro-gun atmosphere..

[hillbilly]

Hunter Rose, if you can't see how the lawsuit pre-emption law affects you, a gun owner, then I'd argue you aren't paying enough attention.

hillbilly

[Lone_Gunman]

The lawsuit pre-emption bill is in fact a good thing for gun companies for sure, but maybe not such a good thing for citizens and the Constitution.

First, remember that no gun company has ever gone out of business because of lawsuits that would have been prevented by this law, so the motivation for this law is questionable to me in the first place.

Second, those who would tout this law as beneficial to the citizens will claim that if the gun maker's liability goes down, so does his cost of manufacturing, and this savings will be passed on to consumers in the form of decreased retail prices. Only problem is, the price of guns has not (and will not) go down.

Third, this law increases the power of the federal government, specifically the Congress. Congress has now banned you, the citizen, from seeking redress in the courts. We support this now, because we think it is protecting our guns. But what if Congress decided to entirely ban civil lawsuits? If the gun maker lawsuit ban is judged Constitutional, then any lawsuit ban could be as well. Do we really want to increase the scope of federal control over our lives?

Finally, before you get to gung-ho about this lawsuit ban, you need to reconcile it with the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees a right to a trial by jury for civil matters exceeding $20.

[R.H. Lee]

As long as the bread and circuses continue, what difference does it make? That's all anybody's interested in anyway.............:rolleyes:

[GoRon]

Carter's integrity

Carters integrity:barf:

sorry that was too much to pass up

[Lone_Gunman]

GoRon,

I thought Jimmy Carter was a terrible president, but what did you have a problem with as far as his integrity is concerned?

[Biker]

I find it interesting that many who tout Billary as the anti-Christ simultaneously forgive Jorge Bush many of his sins because "the President has no power on his own".
Ya gotta wonder...
Biker

[NorthernExtreme]

The lawsuit pre-emption bill is in fact a good thing for gun companies for sure, but maybe not such a good thing for citizens and the Constitution.

First, remember that no gun company has ever gone out of business because of lawsuits that would have been prevented by this law, so the motivation for this law is questionable to me in the first place.

Second, those who would tout this law as beneficial to the citizens will claim that if the gun maker's liability goes down, so does his cost of manufacturing, and this savings will be passed on to consumers in the form of decreased retail prices. Only problem is, the price of guns has not (and will not) go down.

Third, this law increases the power of the federal government, specifically the Congress. Congress has now banned you, the citizen, from seeking redress in the courts. We support this now, because we think it is protecting our guns. But what if Congress decided to entirely ban civil lawsuits? If the gun maker lawsuit ban is judged Constitutional, then any lawsuit ban could be as well. Do we really want to increase the scope of federal control over our lives?

Finally, before you get to gung-ho about this lawsuit ban, you need to reconcile it with the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees a right to a trial by jury for civil matters exceeding $20.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the law in question protect the Gun industry from suits where a criminal misused a gun, or when the Gun industry is not directly liable. I believe in issues where the gun industry is directly liable (product liability, direct illegal sales...) they can be sued.

I don't believe the Founding fathers intended Ford to be held liable for the Drunk Drivers of this Country.!!!

[longeyes]

I thought Jimmy Carter was a terrible president, but what did you have a problem with as far as his integrity is concerned?

I watched Carter on Leno the other night, implying that Bush hadn't won the '00 Election even while claiming, in the next breath, the book he was pushing wasn't politically partisan. He would say vicious things in an unctuous tone, something he's clearly perfected over a long and hypocritical life. Carter claimed that his was a Presidency built on peace. I think he meant appeasement but he's never been able to make that distinction. We owe what's going in Iran today to him. Yes, he really shows integrity when he goes abroad and criticizes American policy and our troops while we are at war. For me Carter is part of the Rockefeller -spawned globalism crowd--who do you think put him into politics?

[antsi]

Use the niave young girl again: teh AWB sunset was the Repubs takin' us on a date, because we were gettin' restive...

So the Repubs take us on a date, while the Dems gang-rape us in an alley.

You're making me want to vote Democrat :rolleyes:

Of course no political party is 100% committed to any particular cause. They are in business, only their currency is votes not money. They're not going to support anything unless they gain votes by that support. How much they support any particular cause is based on how many votes they think they'll win by supporting the cause, balanced against how many votes they think they'll lose by offending those who are against that cause.

If gun owners keep turning out support for the party that is more supportive of RKBA, that rewards the party for supporting RKBA. They do pay attention to these things, and if they see that their 40% support for RKBA is winning them votes, they're likely to ramp up to 45% support.

If gun owners quit supporting the Republicans, and the anti's turn out in droves to vote against them, they'll figure there isn't much gain in supporting RKBA and you will see their policies swing away from us.

Voting for goofball third-party magic wand candidates does nothing but elect the party that is LEAST supportive of RKBA.

[Lone_Gunman]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the law in question protect the Gun industry from suits where a criminal misused a gun, or when the Gun industry is not directly liable. I believe in issues where the gun industry is directly liable (product liability, direct illegal sales...) they can be sued.

You are correct.

But if Congress has power to ban junk lawsuits, they also have the power to ban any lawsuits, such as product liability, medical malpractice, wrongful death, etc. Do we really want to increase federal power?


I don't believe the Founding fathers intended Ford to be held liable for the Drunk Drivers of this Country.!!!

I agree. That is why to founding fathers set up the civil court system, instead of banning junk lawsuits back then. It is hard to legislate what is and is not a junk lawsuit. The founders expected a jury to listen to the case and decide if it was worthy. If not, such as the case where Ford is sued for drunk drivers, then the jury should make the appropriate decision, and rule in favor of Ford. According to the 7th, it sounds like they thought any matter of dispute worth more than $20 deserved a jury trial.

Unfortunately, this system of trial-by-jury depends on the jury doing the right thing, and in today's society, where personal responsibility does not exist and it is always somebody elses fault, weak mind juries are manipulated by unscrupulous attorneys.


------
Also, on another topic...

Longeyes, with respect to integrity of Jimmy Carter... The things you cite all occurred after Carter left office. While he was President, what did he do that demonstrated a lack of integrity? (By the way, I don't have an opinion one way or another about his integrity, I was 14 in 1976. So don't flame me, educate me instead.)

[Sheldon J]

:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: Hitlerlery:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:
:what: :what: :what: as president!:what: :what: :what: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[FeebMaster]

Do we really want to increase federal power?

You have to ask?

[CAnnoneer]

GoRon,
I thought Jimmy Carter was a terrible president, but what did you have a problem with as far as his integrity is concerned?

I want to know the answer to that too. Ineffective as president, annoying little globalist leftist? Yes. Crook? AFAIK, no.

[GlenJ]

If you think a Republican wouldn't be a gun banner just remember what GWB said when asked about re-newing the AWB "When congress sends me a bill I'll sign it" Quite frankly with the way the GOP has ran this country they deserve to loose everything.

[psyopspec]

Of course no political party is 100% committed to any particular cause.

I don't equate 2A with "Save the Whales" or "No Nukes." I'm not asking for much, just a semblence of committment to that Constitution thingy I seem to remember hearing about at one point in time. It's not a cause I want to see supported, but rather a devotion to founding principles. I don't think it's too much to ask for the American government to uphold the rights and laws outlined in founding American documents.

That means I can't vote Republicrat.

[Strings]

>If gun owners keep turning out support for the party that is more supportive of RKBA, that rewards the party for supporting RKBA. They do pay attention to these things, and if they see that their 40% support for RKBA is winning them votes, they're likely to ramp up to 45% support.<

"Why buy the cow when you're gettin' the milk for free?". I swear I'm gonna macro it...

I'll post it yet again: we're the niave young girl. The Republicans swear they'll respect us in the morning, that someday they'll marry us. And we keep "puttin' out" for them. So long as they think we'll keep voting for them because "the Dems are far worse!" (which is true, but beside the point), they won't really do anything for us...

I'm not saying that we should now have no restrictions: that would be too much to expect. But damn: they could TRY and repeal SOMETHING! The 86 MG ban, GCA, NFA... there are LOTS of bad gun laws out there. Heck, just trying to remove certain parts of NFA would count (maybe remove silencers from it?). But they haven't actively done diddly (yes, I know how PLCA benefits us, but it ain't much for 5 years). Not even an attempt...

And yet y'all claim "Republicans are the friends of gun owners!". Heck... the antis ran an add in 2000 showing a member of the NRA saying "if Bush wins, we'll have an office in the White House". What have they used that office for, a place to order pizza?

[willp58]

If you think a Republican wouldn't be a gun banner just remember what GWB said when asked about re-newing the AWB "When congress sends me a bill I'll sign it" Quite frankly with the way the GOP has ran this country they deserve to loose everything.

This sums it up..

When the repubs "lose everything" the DEMS will then be in power.

shumer, mizz fineswine and sarah are awaitin in the wings just for this.

[shaldag]

personally, I would not automatically voter for a particular party.

I do not think that GWB has been a particularly firm supporter of second-amendment rights. I also have other problems with his presidency, espeicially his (lack of) action against illegal immigration. Howver, it doesn't matter, since he can't run again anyway.

Hillary is another matter altogether. Although she is trying to talk the "moderate" talk now, look at her record. She never hid her desire for social engineering- and who here believes that the society that she would like to engineer into existence would include any kind of firearms rights?

Now of course it could be that the repubs could nominate someone who is only marginally better. It is difficult to imagine them nominating anyone worse.

[GoRon]

I want to know the answer to that too. Ineffective as president, annoying little globalist leftist? Yes. Crook? AFAIK, no.

True enough, not a crook.

His rolling over and groveling before every left wing dictator he's met, meddling in foriegn policy undermining the last two presidents and using his stature as a "good" man for partison attacks may not be an indication of his integrity.

I just cannot help but spit every time I hear his name.

[GoRon]

If the GOP loses to Hillary it will be because people like me.

We have supported them in spite of their not holding fast to sound principles of small/less government.

If we stay home on election day then they will lose.

They keep moving the goal post left seeing how much we will put up with. I think it has reached the breaking point, they better move strongly to the right soon or they are history.

[22-rimfire]

The only thing Carter has done that is worth a darn since he left his presidency is build a few houses. His meddelling in world affairs has only hurt.

Hillary Clinton is nearly the last person on earth that I would vote for. She would work to turn this country into a more socialist country, all for the better good of mankind. Taxes, more is better because we liberals know better than you do; Guns forget it; Health care, government only; Supreme Court, very liberal picks; world-lets get along at any cost; China-more technology transfers with the excuse that they would do it anyway. Do we really want Bill as the first Lady? That would suit Hillary's ego.

[Geno]

Will I vote Republican? No. Will I vote Democrat? No. I will either vote for the best independent, or I'll write in a candidate. I've had it with the whole lot of the lying politicians.

If more sheeply became voting people, a collective movement could change politics forever. Face it--NEITHER the Republicans nor the Democrats are our friends!

I am willing to listen to others' opinions. However, at this point, my determination is quite strong. It would require one extraordinary argument to change my intent. Before this coming election, I would NEVER have voted independent.

I am the last hold-out of my entire family to consider independent. My father, a retired professor (33 years) of teaching political science and history has finally demonstrated that his views and intents are truly sound! By the way, guns is not the topic of greatest interest to me...it's our border, and the politicians' lack of adequate support for the troops. For what it's worth, my wife will vote likewise (she says).

Doc2005:)

[Borachon]

You mean...sexually?

:barf:

[bjbarron]

It's too early to worry about it.

I think that Hillary can get nominated, but getting elected would be problematical for her. I also think her popularity is a media manufactured item. She certainly hasn't done much in the Senate except get her name in the papers.

On the other hand, McCain could get elected, but would have a hard time getting nominated....altho he's been sucking up to the right lately...85% of Democrats, 68% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=261)- see McCain as favorable.

BDS - Bush Derangement Syndrome is going bye-bye as he ain't running again. Recent polls show that the non-moonbat Dems don't much like what their party is doing either...and looking toward the center. Americans of all political stripes prefer their parties to stand for something other than 'anti-'.

We are not in the center on 2A. I'm not even sure what the center means for this issue... as it shouldn't even be discussed past 'shall not be infringed'. Both sides will hope to ignore it in the campaign. This is why it is critical to have the right guys and gals on SCOTUS...ballot box, jury box, and you know the rest. We need a real 2A case on the court with the right court....something that calls out an individual right and finds every anti-firearms law since 1934 unconstitutional.

You could very easily see a Hillary/McCain contest. For me that's a no starter. That would be the only matchup that would keep me home or voting 3rd party (like I have before)...any other right of center candidate would get my vote...as center-right is the best I can realistically hope for.

[Stevie-Ray]

If you think a Republican wouldn't be a gun banner just remember what GWB said when asked about re-newing the AWB "When congress sends me a bill I'll sign it" Quite frankly with the way the GOP has ran this country they deserve to loose everything.
Maybe so, but NOT to the democrats. That would be like saying, Nyeah, nyeah, take that! Same goes for throwing your vote away on a third party, and yes, that is what you are doing, most times. Support your third party all you want, but keep an eye on the polls. They are a pretty good gauge of what people are thinking. If, by the time comes, your third party doesn't stand a chance, you are pissing your vote away. Vote instead for the man of the 2 main parties, who thinks most like you. If the polls are close on all 3, then by all means, take a chance.

BTW, please not McCain! Even so, I would prefer him to Hillary. But not over Miller or Dingell. And this from a registered Republican.

[Mad Chemist]

Anyone who honestly believes that GW & Co. have been good for our country needs to lay off the booze.

Would I vote for Hillary?

Hell NO!

Have I ever voted for a presidential candidate that wasn't the lesser of two evils? Absolutely not!

You gotta love the two party system.:rolleyes:

[Biker]

Maybe so, but NOT to the democrats. That would be like saying, Nyeah, nyeah, take that! Same goes for throwing your vote away on a third party, and yes, that is what you are doing, most times. Support your third party all you want, but keep an eye on the polls. They are a pretty good gauge of what people are thinking. If, by the time comes, your third party doesn't stand a chance, you are pissing your vote away. Vote instead for the man of the 2 main parties, who thinks most like you. If the polls are close on all 3, then by all means, take a chance.

BTW, please not McCain! Even so, I would prefer him to Hillary. But not over Miller or Dingell. And this from a registered Republican.
Seems to me that the only vote pissed or thrown away is the one that wasn't cast.
Then again, maybe a bunch of dead Americans that fought for this country's independance a couple of centuries were wrong.
I hope not.
I believe that I'll put my faith in their vision, but thanks for your input.
Biker

[RealGun]

Anyone who honestly believes that GW & Co. have been good for our country needs to lay off the booze.

Have you checked the stock market indices lately? That's where the rubber meets the road.

[cz75bdneos22]

i think hillary will win if she runs...who else can the dems rally for?:rolleyes:
i don't see any candidates that stand out in particular when you mention presidential primaries...who? gore, kerry, :scrutiny:
if it isn't hillary then probably an independent-colin powell, jesse ventura, etc:eek:

[Silver Bullet]

Of course I'm not going to vote for Hillary. Look at her voting record on RKBA issues.

Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

[Lone_Gunman]

Have you checked the stock market indices lately? That's where the rubber meets the road.

Three months ago, stock market indices were at their low for the last year or two.

They have rebounded nicely. They may fall again at any time, and you know that.

If Bush gets the credit for the recent rebound, does he also get the credit next time it falls?

Also, the stock market did much better under Clinton than it has under Bush. Does that mean you like Clinton better than Bush?

[Malone LaVeigh]

Rest assured, a centrist corporate Democrat will be the next presedent. I knew that when I saw Bush completely boch the FTAA. The concensus of the big money sources that finance our political process will be that they need a Dem to get the global trade agenda on track, just as they did in '92. You can whine all you want on your web boards, but you're not calling the shots.

Unfortunately, right now Hillary is the best positioned centrist corporate Dem.

Heck, I'm so peed at the Bushies that I'd vote for any Democrat who isn't a senator from Mass or NY.

[ravinraven]

...It's about the needs of society." So says Hitlary, so says Lenin, Stalin...in fact any tyrant or would-be tyrant says the same thing. It's a great way to get the masses on board and lead them to slavery as they cheer. So, if you fear liberty, she's your man.

rr

[Henry Bowman]

Unfortunately, right now Hillary is the best positioned centrist corporate Dem.:what: It appears that the "center" has been moved so far left that we need binos to see it!

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Yep the center is now located in .... Bejing!!

[afasano]

We still haven't recovered from the 1994 ban, no I don't want hillery. :barf:

[Lone_Gunman]

What about the 1986 ban (which is still in effect)?

Or the sporting purposes/import ban?

Recovered from those?

[Strings]

>What about the 1986 ban (which is still in effect)?

Or the sporting purposes/import ban?

Recovered from those?<

Nope...

Quick question for the more knowledgable here: is there any way GWB can repeal Clintoon's Executive orders?

[antsi]

You two have been sniping at the Republicans, with some points well taken and others less so, but I'm still trying to get at what your point is. It seems to be one of the following:

1) President Hillary and a Congressful of Democrats would give gun owners the same outcomes as continued Republican control.

If you're really saying this, you're just wrong and I sincerely hope the circumstances that definitively prove it will not arise.

2) The Republicans are better than the Democrats for gun owners, but not as much better as I would like them to be.

If you're saying this, I agree with you, but I fail to see how rejecting the Republicans and letting the Democrats take control helps us.

It's easy to criticize. Let's see what constructive and realistic program you are championing as an alternative to electing the Republicans.

[Lone_Gunman]

Yes, a president can rescind a previous President's executive orders. It takes nothing more than the stroke of the pen. Bush could undo every previous presidential executive order tonight if he wanted to. He won't do that, of course.

Neither of the things I mentioned was Clinton's doing. I think they belong to Reagan and Bush I.

Antsi,

I fall into category #2. I am not in favor of giving anything to the Democrats, and unless a truly pro-gun Democrat was running (if that person even exists), I would most likely not vote for him.

The point I am trying to make is simple. The neo-conservatives that have hi-jacked the Republican party are pushing the party to the left. They are not true friends of freedom or the 2nd Amendment. Real conservatives need to take the party back, and steer it back into the correct direction. I am advocating changing the Republican party from within, not voting in a Democrat instead. People like Bush, McCain, Giuliani, Warner, and a variety of other Neo-Cons needed to be voted out, and replaced by real conservatives. Unfortunately, there seem to be a paucity of real conservatives right now.

The answer to our problem is not simply electing Republicans. We have done that now for several years and it is getting us no where. The answer is electing the right Republicans.

[dpesec]

That's true. But let's not forget who brought us the Patriot Act: RINO's. Besides, any provocative use of executive powers by a leftist Democrat president would hopefully galvanize the true Republicans (or possibly even conservative-leaning Democrats) in congress to fight it tooth and nail.
You're 100% correct, but imagine what Billery could do with that much power.

[dpesec]

>So I take it you are saying that with a Democrat congress and a Democrat in the White House, the AWB would still have sunset?<
.
Sure it would have sunset, when a certain place freezes over. :evil:

[antsi]

The point I am trying to make is simple. The neo-conservatives that have hi-jacked the Republican party are pushing the party to the left. They are not true friends of freedom or the 2nd Amendment. Real conservatives need to take the party back, and steer it back into the correct direction. I am advocating changing the Republican party from within, not voting in a Democrat instead.

I'm with you then.

[Strings]

It's a quandry, to be sure. My main point is that the Republicans are NOT (as is often touted) "the Party of gun owners". They're the party of "not raping your rights beyond the status quo". However, the Democrats ARE the party of the anti-gun crowd...

So how to fix things. I keep using the young girl analogy, because it is SO apt: the Republicans pay lip service to being on "our side", but talk is cheap. How the heck do we get them to ACT on what they claim. I like the idea of working from the inside... but how long will that take? With the way things are going, it seems that we'll be talking about the proper power setting on a terrawatt laser by the time some of the gun control get's pushed out of the way...

Guess I'm just bitter about the whole deal, and disgusted with national politics. I know the Dems, upon victory, will start pulling every trick they can to erode our nation into a socialist nightmare. But I can't find it in me to believe in Republicans anymore...

Like I said, a quandry...

[dirtbos]

The last time I posted something about “billary” the moderator deleted it. Since I can’t say how I really feel about her as President, I can only pray that there are not enough people out there stupid enough to vote for her. Just watching how she is manipulating the “sheeple” with her new found moderate positions (for her anyway), a hawk on the war, etc. makes me want to puke. :barf:

[Peet]

Well, *I* for one want her. I want her down on her hands and knees with a scrub brush and a bucket of soapy water. Cleaning my floors.

[looks stage right] What?

[looks back into camera] OHHHhhhhhhhh...you mean in politics...



NEVER MIND.

[PCGS65]

...But it's been awhile so we tend to forget.
I don't either. Without getting in deep here. Republicans for me!!

[Stevie-Ray]

Seems to me that the only vote pissed or thrown away is the one that wasn't cast.
Then again, maybe a bunch of dead Americans that fought for this country's independance a couple of centuries were wrong.
I hope not.
I believe that I'll put my faith in their vision, but thanks for your input.
BikerOh, you're quite welcome!:rolleyes:

[one eyed fatman]

Hitler Rodham Cliton for president... Never.

[Mad Chemist]

Rest assured, a centrist corporate Democrat will be the next presedent. I knew that when I saw Bush completely boch the FTAA. The concensus of the big money sources that finance our political process will be that they need a Dem to get the global trade agenda on track, just as they did in '92. You can whine all you want on your web boards, but you're not calling the shots.

Unfortunately, right now Hillary is the best positioned centrist corporate Dem.

Heck, I'm so peed at the Bushies that I'd vote for any Democrat who isn't a senator from Mass or NY.


A centrist Democrat named John McCain.:neener::evil:

[R.H. Lee]

The Republicans may not actively seek to curtail your gun rights, but you can bet they'd roll over for antigun legislation if/when it becomes politically expedient/advantageous for them.

Both parties are anti liberty and pro big government, and there are far more issues than just legal gun ownership. If you're a single issue voter seeking a safe haven from antigun legislation by voting Republican, you need to take a look at the erosion of the rest of yours rights by way of big government expansionism and global corporatism. You might end up with the legal right to possess firearms, and not much else.

[RealGun]

If you're a single issue voter seeking a safe haven from antigun legislation by voting Republican, you need to take a look at the erosion of the rest of yours rights by way of big government expansionism and global corporatism. You might end up with the legal right to possess firearms, and not much else.

What are they going to do...vote for the Democrat...maybe some 1% third party?

[Biker]

What are they going to do...vote for the Democrat...maybe some 1% third party?
Yes.
Biker

[Silver Bullet]

What are they going to do...vote for the Democrat...maybe some 1% third party?
If you're going to do that, vote third party.

A vote for a third party is a lost vote for the Republican. A vote for the Democrat is a lost vote for the Republican PLUS a gained vote for the Democrat.

Do the math.

[R.H. Lee]

Originally Posted by RealGun
What are they going to do...vote for the Democrat...maybe some 1% third party? That's what Republicans count on every election cycle. They know we have 'nowhere else to go' and although we're unhappy, the Democrats are much worse. "The most important election of our lifetime........" etc., et yada. always brings us out to vote Republican yet again.......then to be ignored until the next election. We're to the Republican party like the blacks are to the Democrat party-a 'constituency' to be pandered to and used when it's convenient. No, I won't vote Democrat, but I'm done helping elect Republicans until they get the message.

[RealGun]

That's what Republicans count on every election cycle. They know we have 'nowhere else to go' and although we're unhappy, the Democrats are much worse. "The most important election of our lifetime........" etc., et yada. always brings us out to vote Republican yet again.......then to be ignored until the next election. We're to the Republican party like the blacks are to the Democrat party-a 'constituency' to be pandered to and used when it's convenient. No, I won't vote Democrat, but I'm done helping elect Republicans until they get the message.

That sounds good except that we are not "being neglected". You should watch CSPAN during debates on gun bills and see who your friends are, or not.

As far as voting logic, you could just be more direct and vote for Hillary. The math is the same.

[Silver Bullet]

As far as voting logic, you could just be more direct and vote for Hillary. The math is the same.

You didn’t do the math, did you ? Tsk, tsk.

Take the following scenario.

One hundred voters, 40 immediately vote for Dem, and 45 immediately vote Repub. The last 15 are thinking it over.

Case R:

The last 15 decide to vote Repub. Results:

Repub: 60
Dem: 40
Lib: 0

Case L:

The last 15 decide to vote Lib. Results:

Repub: 45
Dem: 40
Lib: 15

Case D:

The last 15 decide to vote Dem. Results:

Dem: 55
Repub: 45
Lib: 0

It’s not the same.

[RealGun]

You didn’t do the math, did you ? Tsk, tsk.

Take the following scenario.

One hundred voters, 40 immediately vote for Dem, and 45 immediately vote Repub. The last 15 are thinking it over.

Case R:

The last 15 decide to vote Repub. Results:

Repub: 60
Dem: 40
Lib: 0

Case L:

The last 15 decide to vote Lib. Results:

Repub: 45
Dem: 40
Lib: 15

Case D:

The last 15 decide to vote Dem. Results:

Dem: 55
Repub: 45
Lib: 0

It’s not the same.


Rep 3
Dem 1

Rep wins

Rep 1
Dem 3

Dem wins

Rep 2
Dem 2
Other 0

A draw

Rep 1
Dem 1
Other 2

Other wins, assuming no more than one "other". A draw otherwise.

Rep 1
Dem 2
Other 1

Dem wins. This is the problem scenario, because Rep and Dem are very close in number of votes. Dem wins...uh oh!

Rep 2
Dem 1
Other 1

Rep wins

[Biker]

Well then RealGun, I guess that the Reps should've listened to their base. Hmmm?
Maybe they will next time.;)
Biker

[R.H. Lee]

As far as voting logic, you could just be more direct and vote for Hillary. The math is the same.
Same old hissyfit logic- a vote for a third party is a vote for a Democrat. If the Republicans want my vote again, they'll have to begin earning it. And it will take a lot more than just beating back some antigun legislation. I want them reducing the size of government and increasing individual liberties, not the other way around as this administration and Republican controlled congress have done. They've got it exactly backwards. They need to understand that in order to retain power, they have to represent those who put them in power.

[swampsniper]

Just imagine waking up some morning to find Diane Feinstein as Attorney General!
I won't live long enough to ever trust the dems again.

[Strings]

Instead of belittling each-other, we should be trying to figure out how to either a)change the Republicans from within or b)how to get a viable third party in there. ANY other for of discussion is silly...

[Silver Bullet]

The answer to (a) and (b) is the same. Get the Libertarians to infiltrate and influence the Republican Party. That way they can leverage off the Republicans' money, election machine, and public recognition.

It worked for the socialists infiltrating the Democrats.

[FeebMaster]

The answer to (a) and (b) is the same. Get the Libertarians to infiltrate and influence the Republican Party. That way they can leverage off the Republicans' money, election machine, and public recognition.

Yes and conveniently for the Republicans it keeps people voting for them.

[GoRon]

Yes and conveniently for the Republicans it keeps people voting for them.

Whats your plan?

I would love to have a viable alternative to the RINO's that keep getting served up.

[FeebMaster]

Whats your plan?

I would love to have a viable alternative to the RINO's that keep getting served up.

Who said I have a plan?

Hmm. Let me come up with one real quick.

1. Get rich.
2. Retire early.
3. Find someplace quiet to relax.
4. Ignore the government at every opportunity.
5. Don't vote.

[CAnnoneer]

I would love to have a viable alternative to the RINO's that keep getting served up.

Tell them to buzz off until they put up somebody you might want to vote for. But, they've got you by the good old "vote for us or else you get ...".

[Silver Bullet]

The answer to (a) and (b) is the same. Get the Libertarians to infiltrate and influence the Republican Party. That way they can leverage off the Republicans' money, election machine, and public recognition.

It worked for the socialists infiltrating the Democrats.

I keep suggesting this, and nobody gives me a valid reason it doesn’t happen.

Ron Paul is an example of a Lib running as a Republican, but as far as I know he is doing it as an individual, not as part of a scheme from the Libs.

The question is, why can’t the Libs as a party or as a collective group with the same philosophy jump in and influence the Republicans to the extent that the socialists have done with the Democrats ? Reflecting on it a bit, I suspect the reason the Libs can’t do it is they don’t have the money behind them. That is, no George Soros benefactor to infuse enough money to establish a goal, devise a plan to achieve that goal, and then to oversee the implementation of that plan, hiring stooges and buying liberal media as needed to implement the plan.

Just a guess.

[RealGun]

I keep suggesting this, and nobody gives me a valid reason it doesn’t happen.

Ron Paul is an example of a Lib running as a Republican, but as far as I know he is doing it as an individual, not as part of a scheme from the Libs.

The question is, why can’t the Libs as a party or as a collective group with the same philosophy jump in and influence the Republicans to the extent that the socialists have done with the Democrats ? Reflecting on it a bit, I suspect the reason the Libs can’t do it is they don’t have the money behind them. That is, no George Soros benefactor to infuse enough money to establish a goal, devise a plan to achieve that goal, and then to oversee the implementation of that plan, hiring stooges and buying liberal media as needed to implement the plan.

Just a guess.


Because it is more fun to criticize freely rather than to join anything, be accountable, and be somewhat restricted in departing from some party line. Ron Paul would need a lot more company before his message would make any difference. I doubt if he is taken seriously by colleagues at this point.

[kfranz]

I keep suggesting this, and nobody gives me a valid reason it doesn’t happen.

Ron Paul is an example of a Lib running as a Republican, but as far as I know he is doing it as an individual, not as part of a scheme from the Libs.

The question is, why can’t the Libs as a party or as a collective group with the same philosophy jump in and influence the Republicans to the extent that the socialists have done with the Democrats ? Reflecting on it a bit, I suspect the reason the Libs can’t do it is they don’t have the money behind them. That is, no George Soros benefactor to infuse enough money to establish a goal, devise a plan to achieve that goal, and then to oversee the implementation of that plan, hiring stooges and buying liberal media as needed to implement the plan.

Just a guess.

Perhaps your reason. Perhaps it's because libs are often freedom loving individualists and don't much care for "joining" a group and following the group think...

[Malone LaVeigh]

Perhaps your reason. Perhaps it's because libs are often freedom loving individualists and don't much care for "joining" a group and following the group think...
Or perhaps because it would put them in league with such neo-con statists as Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice.

[GoRon]

Originally Posted by kfranz
Perhaps your reason. Perhaps it's because libs are often freedom loving individualists and don't much care for "joining" a group and following the group think...

Or perhaps they are caught in their own group think that doesn't allow them to co-operate or compromise with those that have differing opinions in some areas but simular goals in others.

[cropcirclewalker]

Neither of the things I mentioned was Clinton's doing. I think they belong to Reagan and Bush I.
Let's not forget how we got the Brady Law.

Bob Dole, pure and simple.

Nope, you can keep your republicans and your democrats. I will vote for a striped a$$ed ape before I ever vote for another of them for President (except maybe Ron Paul, which is a fantasy).

http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9402.htm

<snip> It should also be noted that a determination to filibuster could have stopped the semi-auto ban from being attached to the Omnibus Crime Bill in the Senate, and could have slowed -- and maybe even stopped -- the Brady bill.

At the most difficult point of all to filibuster -- on the motion to send the Senate -- passed Brady bill over to the House-two unsuccessful efforts were made to end the filibuster. This makes it clear that a filibuster could have succeeded had the Republicans (and a handful of Democrats) wanted to fight. As we have seen earlier, they decided that it would be unlikely that there would be consequences for deserting the gun owners.

Then, with three senators on the floor, Senator Dole allowed the Brady bill to become law. Had he -- or any other Senator who had decided to stay around -- objected, the Senate would have been unable to act. The Senate needs a quorum to conduct business, and a single objection would have collapsed the charade of three Senators acting for the whole body. <snip>Read it and weep.

[Silver Bullet]

From my point of view, it is irrelevant what politicians were in office when gun restricting laws were made.

What I care about is which of today's politicians are more likely to add more laws, which are less likely, and which are the most likely to remove gun laws.

I'm certainly not going to vote for Hillary just because some of the gun laws were added during Reagan's watch.

[KriegHund]

Please, Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please!

Dont vote for hillary!

She's the one who co-sponsored that bill to ban violent video games!

A new front in the political wars over sex and violence in video games opened Tuesday when Senators Hillary Clinton and Joseph Lieberman called for a new crackdown on the industry by the federal government. Sex and violence in video games has spiraled out of control, the two Democratic senators claimed, pointing to a recent flap over whether Rockstar Games embedded a sex-themed scene in its popular Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas video game.