It's coming. Are you ready?


PDA






Powderman
December 12, 2006, 03:23 PM
Note well, the gradual sidling up to the plate of our two democratic darlings, Hillary and Obama.

Does anyone NOT think that they will run for office--more than likely as a President/Vice President ticket?

Oh, yes they will.

So, I know that there are a LOT of people who will declare that they will "vote their conscience"--but look at the facts here, people:

What did 8 years of Clinton bring us?

The Assault Weapon Ban
The 1986 Machine Gun Ban
The Importation Ban

So, what else do you want?

Mark my words, if these two--if EITHER one of them makes it into office, we are going to have SERIOUS problems.

Unless another party--or an Independent--draws national conservative support, in SIGNIFICANT numbers, the only thing to do is to swallow the pill and vote Republican.

No, I'm not happy with them either--BUT CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE.

If you enjoyed reading about "It's coming. Are you ready?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
LS
December 12, 2006, 03:28 PM
What does 1986 Machine Gun Ban have to do with Clinton? Same goes for the importation ban.

Erebus
December 12, 2006, 03:30 PM
The 1986 Machine Gun Ban Aroo?

While I agree with most of what you say keep credit where it's due. Regan signed that piece of tripe.

Voting Republican isn't exactly the best solution. It may not be a solution at all. Bush said if a new AWB got to his desk he would sign it. It may not take until 2008 to get a new AWB on the president's desk and he isn't running for reelection so what does he care if he can score brownie points with the dems by signing it?

shaggycat
December 12, 2006, 03:35 PM
I agree completely. Hopefully we will get Romney or some fairly traditional conservative to run, but given the choice between McCain vs Obama or Hilary vs Rudy, I am going to vote Republican, despite the fact that I don't like any of those 4 candidates.

I will vote for the lesser of two evils. That is what I did in 04 as well. Not voting or voting for a Libertarian, whose principles follow mine more closely, is a frivilous waste of a vote. It is like voting for myself as a write-in candidate. If I did that, of course that vote is going to someone with whom I agree, but it accomplishes absolutely nothing. I am unwilling to see what Obama or Hillary would do in office.

bg
December 12, 2006, 03:44 PM
Does anyone NOT think that they will run for office--more than likely as a President/Vice President ticket?

Bingo. Dark days ahead skipper..

The Grand Inquisitor
December 12, 2006, 03:53 PM
I don't know why anyone gets all hot and bothered about stuff like this. Not only has Hillary become one of the most moderate Democratic Senators (if you disagree, prove me wrong---there have even been complaints from the liberal base that she has become too conservative since she was blasted during her Health-care years) but she is a woman, and this nation is just not ready to elect a woman.

That said, Barak Obama is black, and this nation is not yet ready to elect a black man yet.

Everyone bristles when I say this, but everyone knows it is true - most people outside of the major urban areas will not vote for a non-White, non-Christian non-male.


Also, Barak Obama is the star senator for the moment, but he's had no hard times as a national politican. He ran against wet-noodle carpetbagger Alan Keyes in the Illinois Senate election, and since then he was done nothing but speechify about difficult and challenging issues like "hope" and "daring to dream".

Some slower witted people have decided to call him by his middle name "Hussien".....oooooooooo), but that's not worth much. What will be worth plenty though are his drunken incidents as a young man, beating his wife, and other things, that will come up during the election (none of those things are true...but they seem to be the typical "gotcha" issues that get brought up in every presindetial election).

Dan from MI
December 12, 2006, 03:59 PM
Look at what Hitlery and Osama have voted for - last year.

The AWB, gun show ban, and banning all centerfire ammunition which an attorney general says penetrates a vest - with the .30-30 specificaly targeted.

And no, I won't vote for McCain either.

Coronach
December 12, 2006, 04:02 PM
Right now, Obama is an idea. Having said nothing of substance but a lot of glittering generalities, he is appealing to a lot of people merely because he is the most charismatic man on the national stage who does not have an R beside his name (to be fair, he might just be the most charismatic man on the national stage, regardless of D,R or I status). The shine will begin to fade, however, once he has to actually articulate issue positions in detail. The question of how much will come off, however, is up in the air.

The media is portraying him as a true centrist, his issue positions, as given thus far and from his scant voting record, are those of a traditional leftist, and there's really not much that we know about him. I think he appeals to Democrats in much the same way McCain appealed to Republicans the last time around. They sure don't know much about him, but boy can he give a speech. *swoon*

Hillary is much more of a known quantity. She's "become" a centrist, because it advantages her to do so. Once there is no penalty to her being a leftist, I fully expect her to revert to form.

The Republicans must put forward someone of substance, who can communicate, or they will lose this next election. Period. I fully believe that the USA is ready to elected a black man or a woman. I'm just saddened that it might be one of these two. Or both.

Mike

Mornard
December 12, 2006, 04:04 PM
Grand Inquisitor - you're dead on...
"and this nation is just not ready to elect a woman.

That said, Barak Obama is black, and this nation is not yet ready to elect a black man yet."

No prejudice, just reality...

Biker
December 12, 2006, 04:06 PM
Nope, I don't have to vote for the Pubs, and I doubt I will. Time to send out some more IMs.

Biker

General Geoff
December 12, 2006, 04:20 PM
I'll most likely be voting Libertarian, just as I did in the 2004 election.

Thefabulousfink
December 12, 2006, 04:23 PM
I disagree that America is not ready to elect a woman or minority President (although I have heard that opinion from several others). I think it would be a hard fought campaign, and require a charismatic and unifying politician. Fortunately, neither Clinton or Obama seem to fit that bill. Even more fortunately, the Democrats don't seem to realize that fact.

If we are lucky, Clinton and Obama will dominate the Dem party up to the primary. The presense of Clinton and Obama might keep some of the more viable anti-gun candidates from running (so not to steel their thunder). Then two things might happen; 1, a moderate, pro-gun Dem pulls ahead at the primary:rolleyes: , or 2, Clinton or Obama wins the primary and becomes the Dem candidate.

If we are REALLY lucky, Clinton will win the primary and Obama will rebel and run as an independent. Clinton is too devisive to win a majority of the popular vote and Obama has that "Golden Boy" star power to pull the more liberal dems away from Hillary. If the Dems don't get their act together, split and run 2 anti-gun candidates it will work in our favor.

Now the Republicans: People keep saying "Bush said he would sign the AWB", but forget that it was a republican congress and senate that kept the bill from his desk. Now the republicans are on the ropes, and they can't afford to start alienating their base. If the gun issue comes up, I'd bet money that the Reps will be (nominally) on our side, if just to get votes. One thing the Republican party is good at is focusing the entire party around its platfrom while the Dems are all over the map. Because of this, I doubt that McCain or Rudy will make it through the primary.

Fastlane
December 12, 2006, 04:49 PM
As much as I dislike the Republicans I voted straight Republican in the 2006 election except for Dewine and then I didn't vote for the Dems, I just didn't vote. There is noway I could ever vote for Hillary and Obama. I am really disapointed in my party but you can' throw the baby out with the bath water.

SJG26
December 12, 2006, 04:50 PM
Imagine a Obama/Hillary prez/VP ticket---------------imagine they win------------and imagine in very short order some tragedy will befall the new Prez leaving whom to ascend????:what:

Not as far-fetched as you may think considering many of the mysterious "deaths" of Clinton associates.

EttenBoom
December 12, 2006, 05:08 PM
What everyone should really be concerned about is whether or not the Republicans are ever going to wake up and figure out why they got voted out of the Legislature in 06.

It's either that or the hope it only takes two years for the people to realize
the Dems are also corrupt do-nothings who would rather "lead" than represent.

tellner
December 12, 2006, 05:22 PM
SJG, those "mysterious deaths" turned out to be, not to put too fine a point on it, lies. Complete, knowing fabrications of "The Arkansas Project". No matter how many times the truth was told afterwards the evil work had already been done. And you are one of the victims.

Caimlas
December 12, 2006, 06:05 PM
and this nation is just not ready to elect a woman.

That said, Barak Obama is black, and this nation is not yet ready to elect a black man yet.

Everyone bristles when I say this, but everyone knows it is true - most people outside of the major urban areas will not vote for a non-White, non-Christian non-male.


Not to throw around the "racist" word, but that is one of the most bigoted, ill-informed things I've read outside the realm of liberal blogs and forums in quite a while.

There is no more racism in America as the mainstream media would have you believe - aside from the systemic, institutionalized variety. There is more black on black racism ("Uncle Tom" hating) than there is white racism against blacks. There

This country is capable of electing a black man or a black woman, if they are qualified for the job. Obama is barely a man - he's a purebred politician - and is an amateur one at that. He is barely senatorial material let alone Presidential. You might as well suggest that John Thune run for President - it would be equally humorous to do so.

Caimlas
December 12, 2006, 06:10 PM
Re: the Republican potentials, I comment on that briefly here (http://forums.boiledfrog.us/viewtopic.php?id=626), in context to a poll on preferred Republican candidates, but it's longer than I want to copy here in entirety:


I hope I don't need to explain why electing a morally bankrupt capitalist-Republican, a gun grabbing Manhattan RINO Republican who hates freedom of speech, or a Republican Massachusetts ex-governor who gives away a free college education to 25% of all Massachusetts high school students/graduates. And, being from Massachusetts, wants to steal guns from the citizenry.

As completely ****** as it is, it almost looks like Romney would be the best choice of the three for getting elected as the Rep candidate. But - and this is a big "but" - he is a Masshead, and thus prone to all their idiocy. He's a RINO, as near as I can tell. Still, scary as h***.

Against Obama and and Hillary, I'd say Romney looks like a saint. Heck, he looks like a saint compared to McCain. McCain vs. Hillary? I'd be hard pressed to vote for either; I think I'd have to see a personal financial benefit resulting from my vote to vote at all, were those the choices.

medic_guns
December 12, 2006, 06:22 PM
Obama is for abortion and I could never vote for anyone that is for abortion

Thefabulousfink
December 12, 2006, 06:26 PM
and this nation is just not ready to elect a woman.

That said, Barak Obama is black, and this nation is not yet ready to elect a black man yet.

Everyone bristles when I say this, but everyone knows it is true - most people outside of the major urban areas will not vote for a non-White, non-Christian non-male.
Not to throw around the "racist" word, but that is one of the most bigoted, ill-informed things I've read outside the realm of liberal blogs and forums in quite a while.

It may be racist and bigoted (more against the country as a whole than any minority), but that doesn't mean it might not be true. I have been hearing similar statements from all kinds of people, many of whom I would not consider racist. I also have encountered a minority (small but still present) who outright state that they wouldn't vote for a woman or minority.

You may not see much racism in you everyday life; thanks to Affirmitive Action and civil suits it has been removed from public life, but I promise you it is still in many people's minds.

While I don't entirely believe that America isn't ready to elect a woman/minority Pres, I know that many people would either consiously or sub-consiously vote against one.


P.S. Just because you say "America isn't ready" doesn't mean that you are racist, simply that you are aware of the racism that is there.

mordechaianiliewicz
December 12, 2006, 06:47 PM
I think America is ready to elect a woman. I think America is ready to elect a black man. That doesn't meanit would be easy or close for the Democrats.

The problem with Obama/Hillary (or vice versa) for us is the fact that Obama has a halo he's about to throw into the ring. America will vote for a black man who seems more white than he is black. And that pretty much sums up Obama.

His dad is African, not an American black man. His mother is white, and he is well, light skinned. When he talks, it is with an upper class American English, the type you get from high education, which he has gotten. Basically, I'm saying that Obama is non-threatening to Americans.

There is a difference between skin colour and culture. Obama smells white, and that will get support.

America may be ready to vote for Obama, but they are not, nor will they ever be ready for 50 Cent.

But, can Obama convince enough Americans? Based upon the issues?

That is what it really comes down to. Can he? Because if he articulately states why the Communist Manif- I mean the Democratic Party Platform is the way to go, America might say "screw you." He might be totally upfront about his support of gun bans, he might be totally upfront about his desire for greater foreign aid, and he might be totally upfront about his support of abortion under all circumstances. Question is: Will he be honest about the fact he is a liberal Democrat, and not a moderate?

That may well decide the election.

But not his colour. That is more or less irrelevant.

carnaby
December 12, 2006, 06:48 PM
That said, Barak Obama is black, and this nation is not yet ready to elect a black man yet.

I don't think this is true. What is true is that we aren't ready to elect an uber liberal black man yet, thank heavens. I would vote for Condi in a heartbeat, and I think a black man of impeccable conservative/libertarian credentials could get elected.

R.H. Lee
December 12, 2006, 06:50 PM
Barak Hussein Obama is a flash in the pan and will be forgotten after the primaries. Hillary Rodham Clinton is another matter and won't simply disappear that easily. She does not, however, have what it takes to go the distance. She has too much baggage and too little substance. I think she's far less electable than either Gore or Kerry.

longeyes
December 12, 2006, 06:54 PM
And this is precisely why it is critical to prop up SCOTUS with BOR-respecting Justices. And why it is imperative to shore up States' rights. It is all about protecting minority rights in a hard time. In the end we may have to secede. Neither the demographic nor the cultural trends are favorable.

longeyes
December 12, 2006, 06:57 PM
Hillary and Obama may win over a majority of American voters but that won't change how well their policies work either at home or abroady. If Americans want to close their eyes and suck their thumbs while the world burns, so be it. At that point it won't matter who's in the White House.

Builder
December 12, 2006, 07:19 PM
Moderate, you better read this and pray she never gets into real power:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1595230068/bookstorenow57-20

She is probably the shrewdest politician in Washington and the biggest megalomanic in the Senate...

orionengnr
December 12, 2006, 08:33 PM
SJG, those "mysterious deaths" turned out to be, not to put too fine a point on it, lies. Complete, knowing fabrications of "The Arkansas Project". No matter how many times the truth was told afterwards the evil work had already been done. And you are one of the victims.

Oh, really? That has to be the best kept secret I never heard of, and given that the MSM never met a Clinton they didn't like, I'm really surprised this wasn't daily front page news.

Suffice it to say it will take more than one guy and a simple statement "No it didn't" to convince me, but I'll be happy to review whatever you consider evidence...feel free to pm me.

carnaby
December 12, 2006, 08:35 PM
Snopes.com did a nice job debunking the Clinton deaths thing. I was sucked into that at one point. Snopes is a pretty good resource for making sure you don't parrot stuff that's wrong. I got busted for that one :p

Blackfork
December 12, 2006, 08:38 PM
No telling what voting you might have to do in the election but NOW is the time to make the Republicans sweat for their betrayall of conservative values. I'd get in touch with any that are left and bend their ear a bit....or a LOT.

Bush ruined the Republican Party as the home of Conservatism and deserves lots of credit, just like his milktoast, east-coast dad.

Outlaws
December 12, 2006, 08:52 PM
I personally don't want a woman to be President. I am sorry, but I still believe in chivalry, and a womans place is not at the head of the table. She can be anywhere else she wants, but not there.

When it comes down to it, the President is the one who talks the talk with other countries. That requires an alpha male presence.

Standing Wolf
December 12, 2006, 08:57 PM
I'll most likely be voting Libertarian, just as I did in the 2004 election.

I probably will, too: I'd hate to squander my vote on the purported lesser of two evils.

Builder
December 12, 2006, 09:19 PM
Quote: by Blackfork
Bush ruined the Republican Party as the home of Conservatism and deserves lots of credit, just like his milktoast, east-coast dad.
Today 07:35 PM
End Quote...

He had a real opportunity to turn it around before the election and was either too self-absorbed, too stupid; too out of touch with the pulse of America or just plain too arrogant to see that he needed to become a real politician to reverse the momentum against his administration…

I do believe that history will show him ultimately as a pit-bull that had tackled an enormous fight, but was not smart enough to defend his flanks from the hoards of jackals at his heels at home…That is if we have a history after the jihad…

I was in the Philippines earlier this year and it is frightening to understand what potentially can happen to a society that is tolerant of radical religious groups…The outer islands are a death zone for “non-believers”…

Waitone
December 12, 2006, 09:54 PM
Our mainstream media is well known for releasing pigeons with great fanfare only to shotgun'em at a convenient time in the future. Since Obama-mania is entirely a creature of the MSM, I want to know why now would they release Obama knowing he will attract unwanted actions in the future?

Team Clinton has a history of proactively dealing with opposition long before the need becomes evident to us mortals. Has MSM released Obama at Team Clinton's urging? Time will tell, won't it?

Yeah, you can call me cynical. It don't make me wrong; just cynical.

Str8Shooter
December 13, 2006, 12:09 AM
Not long ago I was listening to liberal talk-show host Jay Marvin on Air America, discussing likely 2008 presidential candidates. He said, "I like Hillary, but I don't think she can win."

Durruti
December 13, 2006, 12:47 AM
Snopes.com did a nice job debunking the Clinton deaths thing.

No no no! Clinton really killed all those people. Just like when he went back in time to enact the '86 machine gun ban.

I personally don't want a woman to be President. I am sorry, but I still believe in chivalry, and a womans place is not at the head of the table. She can be anywhere else she wants, but not there.

Yeah, I see how all those X chromosomes could get in the way of running a country. :rolleyes:

wooderson
December 13, 2006, 12:48 AM
Moderate, you better read this and pray she never gets into real power:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...kstorenow57-20
You're kidding, right? Do you learn about all politicians from hit pieces?

I don't believe Hillary can win either (nor would I want her to). She's clearly positioned herself as a hawkish moderate and remains popular in some circles, but for whatever reason there exists a bizarre and irrational distaste, bordering on hatred, for the women among numerous men.

Obama may yet be the 'real deal' - but his eagerness to assimilate into the corporate machine doesn't point that way, and I don't know why he (or anyone else) would be foolish enough to gamble everything on a run with only three years of national exposure.. Didn't John Edwards teach everyone a lesson?

DRZinn
December 13, 2006, 01:02 AM
She's clearly positioned herself as a hawkish moderate and remains popular in some circles, but for whatever reason there exists a bizarre and irrational distaste, bordering on hatred, for the women among numerous men.Because some of us "numerous men" recognize that she's anything but moderate. It's perfectly rational to have a distaste for a socialist who wants to run the country.

ilcylic
December 13, 2006, 01:08 AM
I find it fantastically depressing that even here, among hardcore gun owners, most people seem to still accept the premise that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to majority opinion and acts of legislation.

I also find it pretty distressing that two years out from the election, the vast majority of y'all are saying, in essence, "Yeah, the Republican candidate will probably suck but I'll vote for him anyway". Instead of simply shrugging and voting for the lesser of two evils, why not make an effort to make sure the guy on the ballot simply isn't evil in the first place?

Normally, I'd expect that role to fall to the Libertarian party, but I would love to be proven wrong. Surely, somewhere within the ranks of the Republican party, there's someone who doesn't suck? And if not, why are you still voting for these people?

tellner
December 13, 2006, 01:17 AM
DocZinn --

I expect you and I believe exactly the same thing for completely opposite reasons. You would say she's a SociaLeftist with some conservative window dressing. I'd say she's a neoConartist with just enough DLC cred to be seen as a moderate. :)

razorburn
December 13, 2006, 01:32 AM
and this nation is just not ready to elect a woman.

That said, Barak Obama is black, and this nation is not yet ready to elect a black man yet.

Everyone bristles when I say this, but everyone knows it is true - most people outside of the major urban areas will not vote for a non-White, non-Christian non-male.

I don't know. I believe you're sort of right.. people in rural or semi-rural areas may be more discriminatory and refuse to vote for them because of race or sex. But those people in rural or semirural areas tend to vote republican anyway, so will it really impact and take away enough from the democratic vote to make any difference? Those urban places in their respective states have a large portion of the states population and often nearly run the state. Most of the most powerful states in terms of electoral votes are liberal as well.

wooderson
December 13, 2006, 01:35 AM
Because some of us "numerous men" recognize that she's anything but moderate. It's perfectly rational to have a distaste for a socialist who wants to run the country.

The most 'radical' piece of Hillary's agenda was universal healthcare - a plan so far from socialized medicine (being a monetary gift to the same HMOs and insurance co's taking their vig today) that the left has been pissed for 13 years. Even if she had proposed legitimate, workable healthcare - that's what Big Business is going to force on you eventually anyway. Wal-Mart (etc.) doesn't want to foot the bill for worker healthcare, pensions and health expenses have crippled American automakers - it's no longer, really, an ideological question, it's an economic issue.

That aside, there's nothing rational about describing anyone to the left of Dubya as a pinko commie Leninist. It's absurd - Hillary went from being a Randroid in college to a neo-liberal yuppie in the '70s and '80s. Remember Whitewater? Shady land deals?

DRZinn
December 13, 2006, 01:58 AM
We're going to take things away from you for your own good.

arthurcw
December 13, 2006, 02:28 AM
When it comes down to it, the President is the one who talks the talk with other countries. That requires an alpha male presence.

*blink* *blink*

I’m telling Maggie Thatcher on you!

Yes, the US would and could elect a woman or black president. Add to that that Hillary goes in with most of the Left and East Coast under her belt and you are only a few Electoral College votes away from a nightmare.

If she is elected with a Dem Senate and House, she will go full bore left as soon as it's poetically feasible. And the laws she gets passed, gun related or not, will NOT have sunsets.

longeyes
December 13, 2006, 03:08 AM
The laws she gets passed that have no sunsets are bound to be un-Constitutional. That will be true whether the sitting SCOTUS says they are or not. Do with this information what you will.

Old Dog
December 13, 2006, 03:16 AM
When it comes down to it, the President is the one who talks the talk with other countries. That requires an alpha male presence.
Eeek!
I'm thinkin' Golda Meir displayed some pretty sizable cojones on many an occasion while leading Israel through some tough years ... As did Mrs. Thatcher in the U.K.

How 'bout a black woman? I've seen Condaleeza Rice in person, and given the paucity of viable candidates in the Republican party, I'd vote for her over many other alpha dogs ...

tellner
December 13, 2006, 05:39 AM
"Alpha males" like Indira Gandhi, Golda Meier, Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel...

Thin Black Line
December 13, 2006, 08:38 AM
No, I'm not happy with them either--BUT CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE.

NWO-gun-banning-gulag-building-under-a-private-government-contract
totalitarians in one generation or two.....

tellner
December 13, 2006, 08:55 AM
NWO-gun-banning-gulag-building-under-a-private-government-contract
totalitarians in one generation or two.....

Under Shrubus Minimus we have all of that except for the gun bans.

NWO? Check. See PNAC which folded up its tent and said "Our work here is done."

Gulag-building? Check. Built by KBR and already staffed for "special projects" at the POTUS' pleasure.

Totalitarians? Check. Yoo, Gonzalez, Cheney and Shrubus Minimus all agree that there can be no curbs on the Unitary Executive's authority and that they have the extra-constitutional power to interpret the law. They have also arrogated to themselves the power to declare anyone a non-person. In fact, if we take Ashcroft's words at face value they can kill any US citizen with impunity since "unlawful enemy combatants" may be killed anywhere and anytime purely on Executive whim and the POTUS can declare anyone an enemy combatant.

Gun banning? Not yet. Gun owners are still useful tools. Trot out a flag once in a while, hold up a gun, and press the flesh with the NRA and they'll vote for whomever you want.

Thin Black Line
December 13, 2006, 08:59 AM
When the US military has been broken by our domestic leaders in accordance
with bringing them under the global banner, the use for American gun-owners
ceases. From that point on the screws get tightened.

xd9fan
December 13, 2006, 01:10 PM
Both of the two main parties are intellectually constipated and there picks for pres are badly outdated.

Monkeyleg
December 13, 2006, 07:46 PM
Those who think that America won't elect a black man are forgetting Colin Powell's flirtation with running for president. His poll numbers were very, very good.

But Obama isn't the one, simply because he has no experience.

As for a woman running and winning, that is also very possible. 52% of the population is female, and there are a lot of women I know who would vote for a female candidate simply because the candidate is female.

Remember, too, that Hillary has probably the best political advisor a candidate could want: her husband.

Given the list of Republican hopefuls, it almost seems like the Republican party has already conceded the 2008 race. Or, more probably, the party has given up any pretense of conservativism, figuring that squishy moderates like McCain or Guiliani are their best bet.

I still have my "Rice '08" sticker on my car, though. ;)

hoji
December 13, 2006, 08:58 PM
Powderman,
You really should check your facts before making incorrect statements as fact.
1986 Machine Gun Ban was Reagan and the 1989 Importation Ban was Bush.
By making statements like this you are doing a disservice to the precepts of truth that we as a community try to adhere to.

tellner
December 13, 2006, 10:07 PM
Monkeyleg, there is a fair number of Presidents who didn't have much experience. Minimus, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Kennedy and Eisenhower all had similarly brief careers in public service before catching the greased pig in the field game of American politics. Maximus and Lyin' Be Johnson were no great shakes even with extensive resumes.

LkWinnipesaukee
December 13, 2006, 10:08 PM
Teddy Kennedy Might run for Pres....:banghead:

Lonestar
December 13, 2006, 10:30 PM
Barak Hussein Obama...Come on, what do you think the democrats are smoking. The debates would last 2 second. "Mr Obama, I'm a practicing catholic, what religion do you worship?" "No Comment"

The poor guy has 3 strikes against him. He would be the first Black presidential candidate. He is the first Muslim candidate, while we are at war with radical Islam. Finally his middle and last names are pretty close to two of the biggest enemies of the US. And you thought Kerry was a poor choice in 04.

The Republicans are moving closer to center and their prime candidates will be McCain and Rudy. The democrats need to do the same and maybe to dig up Wesley Clark and sway back Lieberman. Kerry could not beat Bush, and Clinton and Obama will not beat McCain and Rudy.

Either way it going to be a bumpy road for gun owners after 08.

tellner
December 13, 2006, 10:34 PM
Uh, Lonestar, he's not a Muslim. He's a Christian. The middle name comes from his paternal grandfather. And while I may agree with H.L. Mencken when he said "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" I'm pretty sure that we're smart enough to realize that Barrack Obama isn't related to Saddam Hussein. If we aren't there really isn't any hope for us as a country or a species.

tellner
December 13, 2006, 10:47 PM
LkWinni,

The time for him to do that has passed. The last time it was brought up Senator Kennedy replied that there was no way he would run because "They'd shoot my ass."

Monkeyleg
December 13, 2006, 11:40 PM
tellner, presidential elections tend to favor candidates who have prior executive experience, as in being a governor or at least VP.

FDR, Bush, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton all had that experience.

Bush 41 had the experience of being VP, as did Nixon and LBJ.

Eisenhower had the famous name recognition following WWII.

The only candidate to go directly from the congress to the White House in nearly a century was JFK.

The only candidate who won the presidency without any prior elective experience was Hoover.

There's a pattern.

repo
December 13, 2006, 11:46 PM
Personally I'd like to see Condie Rice as President. I trust a person who gets up at 5am every day to workout :)

Waitone
December 13, 2006, 11:59 PM
Condi would make a great president . . . . . just as soon as she runs a smashmouth campaign for governor then engage in hand to hand combat with a state legislature for a term or two. Boot camp for a chief executive is learning how to impose your will on unaffiliated, hostile, and arrogant bureaucrats. She is showing a real weakness in that area now that she is running the state department.

Lonestar
December 14, 2006, 10:21 AM
Tellner your sort of right, sort of wrong. Obama as switched back and forth between Islam and Christianity throughout his life. He did go to a Muslim school for at least 2 years, and a Catholic school for 2 years. His Mom is a White catholic from Kansas and his Dad is a Kenyan Muslim, they met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was 6, His parents seperated and his mom remarried. Her new husband was an Indonesian oil company manager, and the new family moved to Jakarta. So Obama went to a Mulsim school in one of the largest Mulsim countries in the world.

Seems odd that someone who has bounce between two religions pushes the fact that he is a catholic when it is politically helpful. If he becomes president and visits the Middle East, will he worship at a mosque?? Will he visit Mecca to get the Saudis support??? Is the US public ready for that???

Politicians at times do things with religion that help them politically. Remember Bill Clinton's getting communion at a Catholic Church. He thought it would drum up Catholic support, without realizing that there are religious steps a catholic person needs to take before receiving communion and as a non-catholic, Christian he has a different set of beliefs that made the whole gesture sacrilegious and disingenuous. If it was politically helpful for Obama to be Muslim, he might at least temporarily flip beliefs.

JFK was an Irish American, yet when visiting Germany he gave the famous line spoken in their native tongue...I am a Berliner...what would Obama, who is already young and inexperienced, do if he was president or VP to stop the war on terror??? Makes you think.


http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/cover031006.htm

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/03/30/obama/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14961215/site/newsweek/

GEM
December 14, 2006, 10:35 AM
The famous line from Kennedy announced that he was a jelly doughnut.

It would be like someone from Franfurt announcing he was a Weiner

Or a a president who thinks he is a 'decider'.

Builder
December 14, 2006, 12:43 PM
Quote: wooderson
You're kidding, right? Do you learn about all politicians from hit pieces? End Quote}

Actually, a lot of what was in the book is factual, the author did take liberties in some respects, but overall he was attempting to expose her for what she really is…She is no moderate or even close to center…Her marriage to the biggest criminal that walked the corridors of the White House made a mockery of the entire party as well as the entire country…

Never forget that the Clintons are lawyers and really good politicians that not only manipulate the laws but are masters at it…She built her self from the ground up and learned from every mistake she and her idiot husband made while on the climb…

Now, I ask you point blank, is this kind of person we want in the highest elected office in this world? Regardless of her gender her ideology, her platform? Think and re-think and then post…

Builder
December 14, 2006, 01:11 PM
[Quote: ilcylic]
I find it fantastically depressing that even here, among hardcore gun owners, most people seem to still accept the premise that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to majority opinion and acts of legislation.

I also find it pretty distressing that two years out from the election, the vast majority of y'all are saying, in essence, "Yeah, the Republican candidate will probably suck but I'll vote for him anyway". Instead of simply shrugging and voting for the lesser of two evils, why not make an effort to make sure the guy on the ballot simply isn't evil in the first place?

Normally, I'd expect that role to fall to the Libertarian party, but I would love to be proven wrong. Surely, somewhere within the ranks of the Republican Party, there's someone who doesn't suck? And if not, why are you still voting for these people?
[End Quote]

TRTKABA is indeed subject to opinion and acts of legislation even though it should never be…Because we have politicians that also happen to be lawyers they do and will continue to interpret the laws and more importantly the Constitution…We as American people have very little say in who actually runs for the Presidency since it is a party and money game…The very wealthy offer up what they feel is palatable to the electorate and we have what we have…Crap candidates that have the agendas of those that put them there, the wealthy and the elite…

If gun owners were to come up with an acceptable candidate, that person would have to be Squeaky Clean! And us gun owners would have to foot an enormous bill to keep this person buoyant while they endured the worst onslaught the left could heap on them, in addition to the outrageously priced campaign…

The more plausible thing to do is get educating everyone we can about the dangers of loosing our gun rights and the possible aftermath of what could happen if we are no longer allowed TRTKABA…Civil wars, unchecked criminals, abuses by a government that no longer has to be concerned about citizens taking up arms against it because those very citizens don’t have the tools to do so…

It boils down to the two parties; The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy
Democrats say we are a democracy, we are not, they lean left because they fear a Republic, it requires work and strength to maintain a Republic, something the left is afraid to do

armedpolak
December 14, 2006, 02:03 PM
yea, i'm ready,
AMEX with 15K limit just waiting for that .50BMG ban in FL/US or any other AWB.
:evil:

EDIT: and my local gun shop has that Berett .50BMG rifle for a bit over 3K, and bunch of AW... and they know me by my first name :)

Thin Black Line
December 14, 2006, 03:42 PM
Uh, Lonestar, he's not a Muslim. He's a Christian.

There's an old saying at the Unitarian Church about the UCC (where Barak
attends): "Unitarians Considering Christ." This is not a slam against either
and if you ask both UC and UCC ministers/theologians about this saying,
you will find neither are really offended by it.

Lonestar
December 15, 2006, 03:03 PM
TBL...I think the guy is not really religious to begin with, but he has had alot of various religious influences in his life. Is he going to show some loyality to the Pope, is he going to show some loyality to Islam, is he going to show loyality to the head of the UCC, or is he a closet atheist?? Who knows. Honestly even if some of his views were similar to mine, his is too young, too green, I'd give him another 5 to 10 years.

longeyes
December 15, 2006, 03:31 PM
Condi would make a great president . . . . . just as soon as she runs a smashmouth campaign for governor then engage in hand to hand combat with a state legislature for a term or two. Boot camp for a chief executive is learning how to impose your will on unaffiliated, hostile, and arrogant bureaucrats. She is showing a real weakness in that area now that she is running the state department.

But she herself is a bureaucrat par excellence.

longeyes
December 15, 2006, 03:33 PM
I find it fantastically depressing that even here, among hardcore gun owners, most people seem to still accept the premise that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to majority opinion and acts of legislation.

+1

That way lies eternal serfdom.

wooderson
December 15, 2006, 06:45 PM
Actually, a lot of what was in the book is factual, the author did take liberties in some respects, but overall he was attempting to expose her for what she really is…
So it's a hit piece that's 'mostly' factual, but 'liberties were taken' (read:outright fictions)... all with the author predisposed to "exposing" the individual in question.

Um, yeah. Why would you read such trash, much less use it to form an opinion on the subject?

Builder
December 15, 2006, 07:26 PM
would be rejected by you as trash...


[Quote wooderson:
So it's a hit piece that's 'mostly' factual, but 'liberties were taken' (read utright fictions)... all with the author predisposed to "exposing" the individual in question.

Um, yeah. Why would you read such trash, much less use it to form an opinion on the subject? End Quote]


Specifically, what are you calling outright fictions? Why would you want to defend either one of the Clintons with the things they did while in office? Have you even read the book? If so, on what exactly do you take issue with…Yes I read a lot, especially about the people that think themselves worthy of the highest office in the world…

Bill and Hillary Clinton have been caught up in numerous lies as well as questionable dealings, why would we want to go through 4-8 years of those clowns? More specifically I ask you how exactly you see gun owners faring well under any Clintonista regime.

Please convince me and other members of this board on how we could benefit under her leadership…

Clinton had the dubious distinction of being one of two Presidents to be impeached…

Wesson Smith
December 15, 2006, 07:43 PM
I'm new here, and I do not wish to overstep my boundaries.

Three soloutions to the 2nd Amendment debate:

1. If you have the means, get a lifetime NRA membership.

2. Check the "receive e-mail updates" thing within the membership signup process. The NRA will "target" you geographically (at your request), and always keep you posted on local, as well as national issues.

3. You have to make your voice heard. Contact your local, state or national legislators. It works. Not always, but it does have an impact. The NRA is very good at providing you with phone/e-mail contact info.

Panthera Tigris
December 28, 2006, 05:37 AM
There is no more racism in America as the mainstream media would have you believe - aside from the systemic, institutionalized variety. There is more black on black racism ("Uncle Tom" hating) than there is white racism against blacks.

If you honestly believe that, I feel sorry for you. That has not been my experience at all, ESPECIALLY from white gun owners. I've seen more racism in the last few years that I've gotten involved in firearms from white gun owners in gun shops and ranges and gun shows than at any other point in my life, and that's one of the main reasons many blacks won't ever join the NRA.

And no, this country is not ready to elect a black man yet. At least not in the Midwest or the South.

evan price
December 28, 2006, 06:28 AM
No, I'm not a racist. But I know a lot of people who are. As a matter of fact I was at a friend's jobsite and we all ate lunch at the tailgates of our trucks, and talk turned to politics. Now these are mostly union contractors so the Democratic vote is somewhat heavy there. Talk was brought up as to who would be running in '08 since nobody looks good in either party.
Hilary & Obama were brought up. One guy takes a sip of coffee and spits it out in the gravel and says, "Ain't no skirt and no N***** gonna tell me what to do."
There were a lot of nods & "Umm-HMM!"s

(apologies for the coarse comment but it was a quote)

So don't think that America is universally ready to elect Hilary/Obama. I can certainly guarantee there are those out there who would never accept that combination for a variety of reasons.

razorburn
December 28, 2006, 06:41 AM
If you honestly believe that, I feel sorry for you. That has not been my experience at all, ESPECIALLY from white gun owners. I've seen more racism in the last few years that I've gotten involved in firearms from white gun owners in gun shops and ranges and gun shows than at any other point in my life, and that's one of the main reasons many blacks won't ever join the NRA.

And no, this country is not ready to elect a black man yet. At least not in the Midwest or the South.

Yep, me too. Something about firearms seems to draw those types out. I used to believe pretty much the same thing as the guy you quoted, living in liberal, minority-heavy urban areas. Seattle, San-Francisco, didn't encounter many racists at all and never really noticed it. Then going into more rural areas, the midwest, and the gun culture, I found racists and racism much more prevalent.

RealGun
December 28, 2006, 09:37 AM
I can't help wondering how many threads we need to express hand wringing over Democratic candidates for '08. Do we need to do this for the next two years?

It seems to me that the only thing noteworthy would be a Democrat who is demonstrably pro-RKBA and somehow still had a prayer of getting genuine support from the Democratic Party. There would need to be a total displacement of the senior leftists before the Democratic Party had any credibility re support of RKBA in its true, intended form.

What would be more productive in my opinion is discussion of the quest for a pro-RKBA candidate with a real chance of winning. To me, that would be a Republican, and frankly I don't yet see a good GOP candidate who has clearly indicated any intention of running. Personally, I would be most interested in Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, but discussing that would be another thread. Actually it has already been discussed repeatedly.

I think what we will see is a sort of standing back, while McCain's candle burns in the early going.

DRZinn
December 28, 2006, 11:17 AM
Well, I grew up in the South, and I didn't see much racism. certainly not to he extent popular culture, the media and the left would have us believe.

tellner
December 28, 2006, 11:22 AM
When I was a tadpole I didn't notice water. It was only when I grew legs and hopped up on land that it became apparent.

DRZinn
December 28, 2006, 11:36 AM
Yeah, you're right, I just didn't notice. :rolleyes:

xd9fan
December 29, 2006, 05:23 PM
I find it fantastically depressing that even here, among hardcore gun owners, most people seem to still accept the premise that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to majority opinion and acts of legislation.

Individual liberty is so 1700's.... Central planning....now thats progressive!!!:mad:

yup We truely in that arkward stage that Claire Wolfe so wonderfully states:

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
by Claire Wolfe.

This stage will last for years.
IMHO It is impossible to de-centralize WashingtonDC or control the size of the Fed Govt in any real serious serious way....it will NEVER HAPPEN.
What is really depressing is that there are not enough citizens that even know about the stage at all. Not even the anti-authority X-ers will change this one.

denfoote
December 29, 2006, 05:56 PM
Billary's gunna run, that's for sure.
Also, I think and agree with several political pundents I've heard, that she is setting up Obama for a big political fall!!
She's a political snake and he's to naive to see what's coming!!

Zero_DgZ
December 29, 2006, 10:33 PM
None of them are on our side. At least the Democrats are up front about their agenda; The Republicans just lie.

RealGun
December 29, 2006, 10:57 PM
None of them are on our side. At least the Democrats are up front about their agenda; The Republicans just lie.

Democrats are NOT up front about their agenda, and there is no basis for referring to all Republicans as liars.

cbsbyte
December 30, 2006, 12:29 AM
It looks like I won't be voting Nov 2008. There is no Republican worth voting for unless one want to further erode our rights. The only Rep I would vote for is one that is completely against the war. There are a few Democrats but they will not make it through the primary. In the end it looks like we all loose.

Autolycus
December 30, 2006, 02:02 AM
CBSByte: Then vote libertarian. This way at least they get more votes and more recognition. And then when they gain enough votes they become a recognized party.

Dionysusigma
December 30, 2006, 03:48 AM
I also find it pretty distressing that two years out from the election, the vast majority of y'all are saying, in essence, "Yeah, the Republican candidate will probably suck but I'll vote for him anyway". Instead of simply shrugging and voting for the lesser of two evils, why not make an effort to make sure the guy on the ballot simply isn't evil in the first place?

Because we have no choice who runs.

Autolycus
December 30, 2006, 04:15 AM
Yes you do. Just got to get up and do something about it.

How about instead of voting Republican you vote Libertarian?

xd9fan
December 30, 2006, 05:59 AM
Yes you do. Just got to get up and do something about it.

How about instead of voting Republican you vote Libertarian?

I dont understand it but for some, this is one of the hardest things to do.
Like domestic abuse, these voters come back for more abuse. I just dont get it.:banghead:

Dionysusigma
December 30, 2006, 06:21 AM
Not in this state. We have a choice of either D or R. No slot for write-in, no areas for third party candidates. Maybe next time I'll vote Democratic just to toss some gasoline on a flame that's already out of control. :banghead:

Good thing about America? Anyone can become the President.
Bad thing about America? Not everyone does.
Worst thing about America? Anyone can become the President.

Deavis
December 30, 2006, 08:10 AM
That said, Barak Obama is black, and this nation is not yet ready to elect a black man yet."

What about a black woman? Say Janice Rogers Brown or Rice? I know quite a few non-urban gun toters that would like to see JRB be somewhere where she can do something good for the country.

DRZinn
December 30, 2006, 11:22 AM
Janice Rogers Brown I'm in.

gezzer
December 30, 2006, 09:29 PM
Romney


From MA BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cough, choke..........ack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope you are kidding He is as anti-gun as a MA democrat in fact that is the only thing MA dems and repubs agree on.

lamazza
December 30, 2006, 09:58 PM
SJG, those "mysterious deaths" turned out to be, not to put too fine a point on it, lies.
I'd like to hear more about that.
I looked up every name on that list in the Social Security death index and they were all there.

cbsbyte
December 30, 2006, 11:21 PM
I hope you are kidding He is as anti-gun as a MA democrat in fact that is the only thing MA dems and repubs agree on.


Actually, there are more pro gun Dems in this state than Republicans. Republicans in this state are of the rich, elitist, blue blood, statist Rockefeller type. Romney is a classic Rockefeller Republican; he is rich, intelligent, charismatic, comes from good stock, and well educated. Romney is not a violent anti like some but he is in favor of very restricted gun ownership. Romney does what is best from Romney. If that means looking progun for the moment to gain votes, so be it. But at heart he is a classic statis who wants to control Government to best suit his needs.

rmmoore
December 31, 2006, 05:37 PM
Hmmm, not ready for a woman or a black man? Well, I would ABSOLUTELY agree we're not ready and pray to GOD we will NEVER be "ready" for Hillary or Obama. As has been mentioned before, how about a black woman? I grew up in the South, don't consider myself a racist, but honestly never thought I'd even consider this. Given the current crop of disgraceful candidates, Condoleeza would get my vote in a heartbeat. She is well educated, seemingly honest and has character that seems to be lacking in most these days. Her experience might be questionable, but let's not kid ourselves here.

What is Obama's experience in Presidential or Congressional affairs, and Hillary? Well, she has all kinds of experience in Presidential affairs. Other than being someone who was along for the 8 year ride, what experience did she have to offer New York as a Senator? Yet, she was elected! What does she offer now? A bunch of trumped up malarkey she's peddling as a "moderate" Demoncrat? Give me a break :cuss: .

Our Republican choices? Unfortunately, not very many who are worth very much. Independents? Maybe I'll go there this time. It will a long and pathetic ride to and through 2008. We shall see who rises to the top. Maybe we'll get lucky, but don't count on it :( .

Erinyes
January 1, 2007, 07:58 AM
As a white, Southern male, I have to say that Janice Rogers Brown or Condoleeza Rice would get my vote in a heartbeat. And the best part would is, I'd actually be voting FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone.

Glockfan.45
January 1, 2007, 09:31 AM
Then vote libertarian. This way at least they get more votes and more recognition. And then when they gain enough votes they become a recognized party.

+1000

Everybody who whines about lack of choice and dammed if you do dammed if you dont canidates has little right to complain as I see it. If you gripe about McCain in October and then pull his lever in November because "at least hes not Clinton" what have you really accomplished? I hate hearing people claim they want to see a Libretarian in office but it would be a waste of a vote :banghead: . If you want to see them in office you have to start voting for them some time. As far as the poor foolish people out there that still think Republicans are a friend to the 2nd WAKE UP! Republican presidents have signed the following laws into effect.

The GCA of 1968

The FOPA of 1986

The import ban of 1989

And remember Bush would have been more than happy to sign a renewed AWB if it made to his desk

Republicans use gun owners like cheap prostitutes every election only to leave us high and dry once we have served our purpose. Democrats are by far more anti gun in policy but at least they spit in our face rather than stab us in the back.

RealGun
January 1, 2007, 11:37 AM
Now we're off topic. I don't see why every attempt to discuss a political party has to become a libertarian rant. Start your own thread.:banghead:

PistolPackin'Papa
January 1, 2007, 02:04 PM
I think folks are ready for Condi and Janice.
I am not slamming anyone, but the reason the libertarians will never get anywhere is that many, many conservatives consider them nothing but disgruntiled Republicans with no morals. Get off the sex, drugs, abortion, and open border tirade, :barf: and watch just how fast folks join you. :)

Condi in 08.

ppp

Brass Fetcher
January 1, 2007, 03:37 PM
And in so doing, basically become a Republican. Great idea. The difference between Republicans and Libertarians is mainly in philosophy, although the issues that both parties support can sometimes look similar in execution of a solution.

But. That is like a person who supports 2A supporting the ACLU, because they are seemingly pro-freedom on the other amendments. Different philosophies, sometimes the same goals.

CDignition
January 1, 2007, 03:42 PM
Losertarians will never be a force to be reckoned with in this country...All they do is Divert the vote from Promising candidates and let in the real bad candidates.. Just look at the effect Perot had on that Election...if he weren't there, Bush 41 Would likely have won a 2nd term...

Glockfan.45
January 1, 2007, 10:47 PM
Just look at the effect Perot had on that Election...if he weren't there, Bush 41 Would likely have won a 2nd term...

:confused: And we would have been better off for that how? BTW if Perot would have stayed in the whole time he very well may have won which would have opened the door to more third party canidates. Honestly I find myself confounded by how some people desperately cling to the Republican party expecting something great to slither out of their ranks. Vote for change or dont whine about the same old slop being served up election after election. Just remember vote for McCain or Rudy McLiberal this next time around because hes the lesser of two evils and dont be suprised if the reps take that as a indication that you want to see more McCains and Rudys in the future.

If you enjoyed reading about "It's coming. Are you ready?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!