FPrice
Member
Vote for Bush but continue to press the Republicans for meaningful reform of gun control efforts. Allowing the Democrats to return to power as a protest will do anyone one any good.
If Clinton/Clark run, will you vote for Bush?
- Thread starter seeker_two
- Start date
- Status
Ohen Cepel
Member
I would vote for a street whore, with a sewer rat for a VP before I did ANYTHING that would allow Billary back into the White House
Waitone
Member
Lemme see here!
How bad do Democrat statists want control of the gov't? If the current crop doesn't stand a chance the choice becomes 1>accept a skunking in Novmber or run Hillary. The wisdom says Hillary doesn't want to risk a loss in '04 which would kill a run in '08, but if '04 is looking like a complete route then Hillary is the only hope.
So if Hillary runs what are the choices?
Hillary gives us instant end to the war on islamofascist terrorists, one world blissninnies out the ying-yang in the bureaucracy, supreme court nominees no doubt from Europe, BJ Clinton as world president, gun control with a vengence, marxist economics, and the Patriots Act in the hands of Frau Reno's successor.
Dubya gives us a war on islamofascist terrorists and nothing else. No identifiable beliefs, no priorities, no leadership, just a fade into nothingness.
Great choices.
How bad do Democrat statists want control of the gov't? If the current crop doesn't stand a chance the choice becomes 1>accept a skunking in Novmber or run Hillary. The wisdom says Hillary doesn't want to risk a loss in '04 which would kill a run in '08, but if '04 is looking like a complete route then Hillary is the only hope.
So if Hillary runs what are the choices?
Hillary gives us instant end to the war on islamofascist terrorists, one world blissninnies out the ying-yang in the bureaucracy, supreme court nominees no doubt from Europe, BJ Clinton as world president, gun control with a vengence, marxist economics, and the Patriots Act in the hands of Frau Reno's successor.
Dubya gives us a war on islamofascist terrorists and nothing else. No identifiable beliefs, no priorities, no leadership, just a fade into nothingness.
Great choices.
Last edited:
Augustwest
Member
Dianne Feinstein and Sheila Jackson Lee could be on the Dem. ticket and I still wouldn't vote for GWB.
3rd party it is.
3rd party it is.
dog3
Member
After the incredible constitution slaughtering "Patriot Act". I cannot see how
anyone even remotely associated with our federal government could be
trusted to "Uphold and Defend"
Oddly, I don't see Dubya as the bad guy here. I think he is in fact
a good man doing what is in his heart the right thing. He has had
a remarkably tough row to hoe, and he has done a good job. I
support him and will contine to do so.
Rumsfeld and Cheney, hmmm. These fellers have taken the ball
passed to them by the Clintonistas and moved it farther down
towards to goal of totally suspending anything the resembles
authority of constitutional law than I could imagined. I don't think
the Clintons could have undermined the rule of constitutional
law to this degree.
Many of us are sitting back smugly assuming that folks who are common
criminals and now being prosecuted under federal anti-terror
legislation "had it comming". "Who cares what happens to that
scumbag." Well, I care when it involves suspension of protection
under the law, and forfeiture of due process.
Today, it's an idiot playing with pipe bombs. (I've never done
that, have you?) It's a really thin line from there to a 6 round
tube for your 870, REALLY THIN.
When the same government that promised us that they would only
use these really sketchy and arguably illegal rules (read the
definition of legal before attacking my use) to "stop terrorists"
begins conducting seminars for prosecutors to educate them
how to prosecute common crime under the patriot act, they
cross the line, Not just by a shade or two, but in a full force
breach of trust.
Constitutional law is under duress. Deeply under duress. And
NO ONE is doing anything about it. There isn't even any
real discussion.
anyone even remotely associated with our federal government could be
trusted to "Uphold and Defend"
Oddly, I don't see Dubya as the bad guy here. I think he is in fact
a good man doing what is in his heart the right thing. He has had
a remarkably tough row to hoe, and he has done a good job. I
support him and will contine to do so.
Rumsfeld and Cheney, hmmm. These fellers have taken the ball
passed to them by the Clintonistas and moved it farther down
towards to goal of totally suspending anything the resembles
authority of constitutional law than I could imagined. I don't think
the Clintons could have undermined the rule of constitutional
law to this degree.
Many of us are sitting back smugly assuming that folks who are common
criminals and now being prosecuted under federal anti-terror
legislation "had it comming". "Who cares what happens to that
scumbag." Well, I care when it involves suspension of protection
under the law, and forfeiture of due process.
Today, it's an idiot playing with pipe bombs. (I've never done
that, have you?) It's a really thin line from there to a 6 round
tube for your 870, REALLY THIN.
When the same government that promised us that they would only
use these really sketchy and arguably illegal rules (read the
definition of legal before attacking my use) to "stop terrorists"
begins conducting seminars for prosecutors to educate them
how to prosecute common crime under the patriot act, they
cross the line, Not just by a shade or two, but in a full force
breach of trust.
Constitutional law is under duress. Deeply under duress. And
NO ONE is doing anything about it. There isn't even any
real discussion.
Dorrin79
Member
not a big fan of Dubya - big government conservatives are only slightly less bad than big government liberals.
However - compared to Hillary/Clark, votign for Dubya is a no-brainer.
However - compared to Hillary/Clark, votign for Dubya is a no-brainer.
MuzzleBlast
Member
Gotta real problem, seeing that Clark is an Arkie. Unfortunately, a lot of Arkies are idiots. The fact that Bill 
Clinton was governor for many years attests to this fact. They might well vote for Clark simply because he's an Arkie, and the rest of us might have our voices drowned out. Hope I'm wrong.
Clinton was governor for many years attests to this fact. They might well vote for Clark simply because he's an Arkie, and the rest of us might have our voices drowned out. Hope I'm wrong.BerettaNut92
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Messages
- 9,723
Depends on the AW ban.
The AW Ban will never be signed. W gave notice so that the folks in congress would know to not let it near the White House.
Machiavelli's at work here. Bush would sign the original AW ban if it got to the White House, but since he wouldn't be offered the original ... he'd prefer the new version didn't get to the White House and simply die quietly in committee.
I'll vote for Bush. There are enough good people in congress to keep him out of trouble.
Machiavelli's at work here. Bush would sign the original AW ban if it got to the White House, but since he wouldn't be offered the original ... he'd prefer the new version didn't get to the White House and simply die quietly in committee.
I'll vote for Bush. There are enough good people in congress to keep him out of trouble.
G-Raptor
Member
It's not SAFE to vote Democrat. PERIOD.
Putting ANY of those guys in charge now would open the gates of hell. I don't want to go there.
Putting ANY of those guys in charge now would open the gates of hell. I don't want to go there.
Still at war?
As in ... War in Iraq? Bush announced end of major hostilities. There's still fighting, but the "war" is over. Bush administration thinks we'll be in there for at least 10 or 15 years.
War in Afghanistan? Pretty much the same deal.
War on Terror? Will never be over.
Don't know if I'm following you here.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Clark is going to fizzle with the hard-left Democratic faithful who control the nomination process. He's too warlike, inexperienced, started late, and near as I can tell is mentally unstable and downright dangerous. They will either pick a known middle-of-the-road quantity like Lieberman out of caution, or a hard-left lunatic finger like Dean out of enthusiasm. Unless Hillary declares her candidacy, then she'd win by default unless she really screws up somehow in the interim. The Democratic dream ticket would probalby be Hillary-Lieberman, since he'd negate her anti-Israeli aftertaste and would add a pro-war (but still anti-Republican) flavor to the ticket. No reason to run a black VP, since the Democrats will get all the black votes by default.
Bush #2's ability to win is totally dependent on the random variations in the economic situation, and to a lesser extent the situation overseas. The smartest (though unlikely) thing for Republicans to do is to replace Cheney with Rice in 2004 and run Rice for president in 2008. It is the only thing that has a remote chance of breaking the virtual Democratic monopoly on black votes in America.
Bush #2's ability to win is totally dependent on the random variations in the economic situation, and to a lesser extent the situation overseas. The smartest (though unlikely) thing for Republicans to do is to replace Cheney with Rice in 2004 and run Rice for president in 2008. It is the only thing that has a remote chance of breaking the virtual Democratic monopoly on black votes in America.
Waitone
Member
Bush has three domestic issues to exploit:
1>Gain control over our trade policy which encourages US and multi-national companies to pull manufacturing out of the US
2>Gain control over illegal immigration
3>Gain control over a run-a-way judiciary.
Trouble is he is on the wrong side of #1 and #2.
He refuses to fight for #3.
So he now goes into an election with only his war on islamofascist terrorists as a positive.
He is the one who disarmed himself domestically. No sympathy here. He did it to himself. I think he and Rove would be making a huge mistake assuming foreign policy will pull him across the finish line first when 3.5 million people lost their jobs in the last 2 years and of that total 2.5 million jobs reappeared in another country.
Lee Atwater (the last republican campaign manager who knew how to put up a fight) said it best. "The last thing a voter does before casting a vote is to check his wallet."
If Hillary runs for President it is because Democrats are conviced Bush will lose.
1>Gain control over our trade policy which encourages US and multi-national companies to pull manufacturing out of the US
2>Gain control over illegal immigration
3>Gain control over a run-a-way judiciary.
Trouble is he is on the wrong side of #1 and #2.
He refuses to fight for #3.
So he now goes into an election with only his war on islamofascist terrorists as a positive.
He is the one who disarmed himself domestically. No sympathy here. He did it to himself. I think he and Rove would be making a huge mistake assuming foreign policy will pull him across the finish line first when 3.5 million people lost their jobs in the last 2 years and of that total 2.5 million jobs reappeared in another country.
Lee Atwater (the last republican campaign manager who knew how to put up a fight) said it best. "The last thing a voter does before casting a vote is to check his wallet."
If Hillary runs for President it is because Democrats are conviced Bush will lose.
Tamara
Senior Member
Didn't FDR respond to that line during the '32 campaign with "No, it's changing engineers in mid-train wreck."
If you don't vote, then they won't know that you didn't vote for THEM. If all those folks who dislike the political scene here in the USA would go to the polls and write in "Mickey Mouse," I'd bet Disney would have matching funds to run his campaign next election cycle.
What's the difference between them?
Chris Rhines
Member
A write-in for Osama Bin Laden did cross my mind...
- Chris
- Chris
Mike Irwin
Member
"Secretary of State ?
U.S. government candidate for the position of UN Secretary General ?"
Hillary can't appoint bill to a cabinet position, I don't think. Congress took care of that after JFK appointed Bobby Attorney General.
As for US candidate for UN Sec. Gen. sure, he could be put forward, but it's pretty much a lock that NO candidate from any of the Security Council's permanent members will ever be secretary general. None of the other 5 would allow it. That's why the Secretary Generals have been from relatively small nations, Hamarschold (sp?) from Denmark, U Thant from Burma, etc.
U.S. government candidate for the position of UN Secretary General ?"
Hillary can't appoint bill to a cabinet position, I don't think. Congress took care of that after JFK appointed Bobby Attorney General.
As for US candidate for UN Sec. Gen. sure, he could be put forward, but it's pretty much a lock that NO candidate from any of the Security Council's permanent members will ever be secretary general. None of the other 5 would allow it. That's why the Secretary Generals have been from relatively small nations, Hamarschold (sp?) from Denmark, U Thant from Burma, etc.
I agree that you're just as dead whether you die in a police action, terrorist hunting or a full-blown war ... but that isn't what we're talking about.
As long as our boys are policing Iraq, they will be getting shot at and doing some shooting.
Bush thinks we'll be in there for longer than he can serve as President, so we will be changing Presidents while US military forces are in conflict - in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Philippines, and a dozen other places around the globe.
You're going to change horses midstream, you just have to decide how deep you want to go before you make the change.
For the people who would not vote for Bush if he signs an AWB.
I would be Very unhappy to see him sign it . I would have lots of problems with that. But I would also not base the future of the country on an attempt to get back at him. Would any of his opponents be any better on an AWB? No. Would it have already passed? Yes. So I would hold it against him sure but also look at the other major issues that we have in this country. As much as I love firearms, And know that we need them to defend our rights, I understand that we have other rights and I don't want to lose those either, or see this country fall further morally or otherwise. I guess I'm just saying If at that point it had already been passed, why punnish yourself, by punishing Bush?
I would be Very unhappy to see him sign it . I would have lots of problems with that. But I would also not base the future of the country on an attempt to get back at him. Would any of his opponents be any better on an AWB? No. Would it have already passed? Yes. So I would hold it against him sure but also look at the other major issues that we have in this country. As much as I love firearms, And know that we need them to defend our rights, I understand that we have other rights and I don't want to lose those either, or see this country fall further morally or otherwise. I guess I'm just saying If at that point it had already been passed, why punnish yourself, by punishing Bush?
Dilettante
Member
Thanks Ed.
I don't want to lose Seattle or New York either. That's why I'm voting for Bush, unless someone else comes forward who is more serious about remaking Araby from the ground up.
We already know that Clark's not the guy. :banghead:
I don't want to lose Seattle or New York either. That's why I'm voting for Bush, unless someone else comes forward who is more serious about remaking Araby from the ground up.
We already know that Clark's not the guy. :banghead:
- Status