Remember Having a Democrat President?

[tonytulipz]

ok

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonytulipz
Do you work at Walmart?? Or just own stock in them??

Quote:
Originally Posted by RealGun
No. I am self employed and sell an imported version of an item for the same price as it was in 1978.

Our opinions differ for obvious reasons, but that is Ok. I see your point as being valid in your circumstance.

 

[cbsbyte]

Yes, I remember Clinton, and even though he was not pro-gun, he was otherwise a decent president, better than any Republican president in the last fourty years and alot better compared to the current pretender in chief.

 

[roo_ster]

Yep I remember. I voted Libertarian in 92 & 96, for what good it did.

I also voted Libertarian in 2000, though voted for GWB in 2004.

Some of GWB's actions have made me somewhat regretful of that vote. Luckily, for my conscience, Kerry & Gore often open their pie-holes and give me comfort that I voted against them.

I'd like to have the option of two major parties that are both pro-American and can be trusted to do what is necessary to protect America. Unfotunately,only the Republicans qualify...with their warts and shortcomings and all.

 

[Art Eatman]

Er, uh, cbsbyte, have you a problem with history? It was a Republican president whose policies ended our 15% inflation rate and brought interest rates down from over 15%. His rhetoric restored our national faith in ourselves at a very down time in our history. His foreign policy directly contributed to the end of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

I note that several of Clinton's foreign-policy decisions/policies directly contributed to the world situation we face today.

While it's my own opinion that the present administration has made many errors in its policy decisions in many arenas, I'm in accord with those who see it as better than the alternative we had in each of the last two presidential elections. IMO, that's been pretty much the case in many elections in this country for way too long a time.

Art

 

[kbheiner7]

As long as the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans, the nation, and our freedoms, are probaly better served by having a Democratic President, even if he is anti-gun. Political gridlock is our friend.

Bush is very luke-warm on the gun issue, and really has done little to help gun owners. His slightly pro-gun philosophy does not outweigh the fact that he has been very anti-civil liberties in general. The First and Fourth Amendments have been severely compromised by laws Bush has signed.

On the issue of personal freedom, he has done us more harm than good. Now, I realize the Democrats probably would have done worse, but that does not make what Bush has done right.

Its a sad commentary when the best thing we can say about our President is that he hasnt been as bad as a Democrat would have been.

Good info here.

I voted for Bush and regret it, but I do not regret not voting for Kerry. I'd feel better having "wasted" my vote on a 3rd party candidate.

Bush is no friend to freedom. He and his administration are fear mongors hacking away at the U.S. Constitution one line at a time. If you're not concerned about that, you're no patriot.

 

[rem870]

The big lie of the Democrats is that government can protect you from reality

Amen. That is why I won't vote Democrat. They think that they know what is best for you. I think both parties are like that, but the democratic party is much worse on pushing their liberal political correct agenda down your throat. I think they model their party after Orwell's 1984.

 

[RealGun]

Yes, I remember Clinton, and even though he was not pro-gun, he was otherwise a decent president, better than any Republican president in the last fourty years and alot better compared to the current pretender in chief.

I can understand that impression, because Willy was and still is very charming. But you have to look at the details. They aren't good. Certainly in the second term, Republicans ran the country, while Bill Clinton tried to stay out of trouble on many fronts. What if he had not allowed Saddam to shoot at our planes flying over Iraq? Some of the Bush presidency is Bill Clinton's unfinished business. If you don't want someone to confront problems, find another Clinton. I think that's exactly what the Dems have done. We'll see.

 

[cookekdjr]

Sir:
Does anyone really want one of these Dem. canidates running the Country now?

I'd take Gore or Kerry over GWB, even though:

1. I did not vote for Gore. I voted third-party in 2000, because I felt Gore was stupid for distancing himself from Clinton's record, and he and Bush conspired together to keep the third-party candidates out of the debates. Gore was so concerned with image that he didn't show any personality until he conceaded defeat. He did that with real class, but by then it was too late.
2. Kerry is much more liberal than me on a number of issues. Despite that, he would have been better for the country because a) he's alot smarter than Bush; b) he has more experience; and c) he has more credibility with our allies and other foreign governments, and would have strengthened our alliances and relations with other countries. (a,b, and c all apply to Gore as well).
Regarding any anti-gun leanings of either man: Both sides of Congress are Republican-controlled. Given that, I don't think the NRA would have allowed any more anti-gun legislation to pass, especially in light of the state of the law when Clinton left office.
Just my two-cents.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Despite that, he would have been better for the country because a) he's alot smarter than Bush; b) he has more experience; and c) he has more credibility with our allies and other foreign governments, and would have strengthened our alliances and relations with other countries.

a) Where is your evidence that Kerry or Gore are "smarter" than Bush? Neither had better grades in college and Bush went to graduate school, while neither Gore nor Kerry went beyond an undergraduate degree. Do you think they are smarter because of the way they talk? I think both of them "speak down" to people and lecture -- which only tells me they are full of themselves, not "smart". All Gore and Kerry have ever done is politics. At least Bush ran a few businesses and had to MAKE money instead of just re-distributing the taxes on money other people made.

b) Experience doing what? I see a lot of votes against gun rights and for Massachussets pork projects.

c) Why do we want to kowtow to any foreign government? Mortgaging our future by making our soldiers international criminals, signing up for environmental penalties designed to shift $$ out of the U.S. and appeasing tinpot dictators at the U.N. might make "the world" "feel" better about the U.S., but makes us significantly weaker.

Just my $.02.

 

[xd9fan]

Remember Having a Democrat President?

This one spends like a Democrat so whats the diff??

Remember when the GOP was Conservative.......oh wait......

 

[cookekdjr]

At least Bush ran a few businesses and had to MAKE money instead of just re-distributing the taxes on money other people made.
You might want to check W's business history.

 

[Biker]

At least Bush ran a few businesses and had to MAKE money instead of just re-distributing the taxes on money other people made.
You might want to check W's business history.

That short sentance speaks volumes.

Biker

 

[another okie]

Bush was not very successful running businesses, but he was pretty good at brokering deals, which is how he made his money - putting people together.

Despite what was said above, Kerry has a graduate degree - in law.
It's true that his undergraduate grades were lower than Bush's.
Kerry also did in fact run more than one small business - his law firm and a cookie store at the same time. (I'm not making that up. There's a good biography of Kerry by Boston Globe reporters, who certainly don't worship the guy.)

Gore dropped out of both divinity and law schools.

Kerry has the ability to sound fluent when well-prepared, but when speaking spontaneously he says some of the stupidest things I have ever heard, though if you don't listen to the words he sounds fine. (example: the one about how American trooops shouldn't be terrorizing Iraqis - that's the Iraqi's job.)

Bush sounds terrible in terms of syntax and grammar and logic, though people can understand what he means. Neither one ever listens to what his opponents have to say. Presidents tend to become isolated in a bubble and they need a lot of strength of character to really listen to and understand those who disagree with them.

Neither of them has been honest with us about what kind of America they want. Kerry wants a high tax, high regulation America where people (except him) live in apartments, use public transportation, and don't own guns. Bush wants free movement of labor (open borders), low taxes, and little regulation of business - in short, the program of the National Association of Manufacturers. I don't like either one of those visions.

I guess for me the best quote on this thread is the one about "I'm sorry I voted for Bush, but I'm not sorry I didn't vote for Kerry."

Where are the candidates we can be proud to vote for? Is our system just so hostile to quality people that we drive them off before they ever reach that level? I mean, look at the U.S. Senate if you want to see a bunch of narcissistic old windbags.

 

[RealGun]

Kerry ... would have been better for the country because ...


Regarding any anti-gun leanings of either man: Both sides of Congress are Republican-controlled. Given that, I don't think the NRA would have allowed any more anti-gun legislation to pass, especially in light of the state of the law when Clinton left office.

I read this and pictured Kerry vetoing pro-gun legislation or a bill to protect gun manufacturers from frivolous or unreasonable lawsuits. NRA can "allow" or "approve" all they want to, but the President would have to sign it. I think Kerry would just be the ultimate obstructionist.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

At least Bush ran a few businesses and had to MAKE money instead of just re-distributing the taxes on money other people made.
You might want to check W's business history.

My point is that Gore, Kerry and Clinton don't even HAVE a business history.

Unless of course you count Gore's father being owned by the oil industry and the Rose Law Firm.

 

[Hollowdweller]

I would never worry about voting for a Democratic president as long as the GOP controlled at least one house of congress.

I don't think I'd be afraid to vote for Mark Warner for president even if the Democrats had both.

I think that for gun rights only President Bush gets an A or even A+, but a D or E for everything else.

I thought that Clinton got a A+ for putting the country on firm fiscal footing(helped in part by Bush 1's tax increase, but not Reagans tax cuts and increased spending) a B for helping working Americans by the Family Leave Act, Earned Income Tax Credit, and increased minimum wage, and an F for gun rights.

As a Democrat I also fault Clinton for squandering all the good things he did by passing several gun control initiatives that hurt other Democrats and got them tossed out.

I AM concerned that many of the police powers and privacy erosions being made into policy by the GOP at this point would make it easier to round up the guns should it ever come to that.

I think that there is a big call for a populist president. Somebody who will stand up for privacy, for the right to own guns and protecting the individual against unwarranted searches by the gov't or their employers, while at the same time preserving sort of a social safety net such as Social Security, Pensions, a living wage and health care. Also protection agains corporate tyranny such as walking away from pensions, firing whistleblowers, and taking peoples homes by emminent domain.

If either party gets that combination of there will be no stopping them.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Despite what was said above, Kerry has a graduate degree - in law.
It's true that his undergraduate grades were lower than Bush's.
Kerry also did in fact run more than one small business - his law firm and a cookie store at the same time. (I'm not making that up. There's a good biography of Kerry by Boston Globe reporters, who certainly don't worship the guy.)

My mistake. I thought Kerry was a career politician. I still don't think he's any "smarter" than Bush, he just speaks like he's above us all.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

This one spends like a Democrat so whats the diff??

I posted the diff in the first post in this thread. Bill Clinton ran onto the Today Show to pass another gun law every time there was a shooting that fit the mold of "it's for the children." Bush does not. Pretty simple, I know, but a HUGE difference to me.

 

[GoRon]

cookekdjr

Us Republicans are having a hard time dealing with the direction this government has gone with spending. The civil rights concerns are at least at this time a point of argument, where it ends up we will see.

This has made it hard to argue our points against the libertarians, we share many of the same philosophies. They have risen up and said: see see we told ya! And alas they did. I voted for Ron Paul when he ran for President. Many of us R's relate strongly to libertarian principles but we haven't left yet.

But you trying to convince us that the Dems are a legitimate option, wow, that is more than I can compute. Most of the problems with the republicans are areas where they are too much like the dems. The democratic party has been taken over by the extreme left every bit that the republicans have been take over by the "moderates", otherwise known as those with no core values or philosophy.

My task is hard, convince republicans to retake their party. Your task is impossible, convince people the party of Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reed, Durbin is a viable option for freedom loving Americans.

 

[IndianaDean]

As long as the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans, the nation, and our freedoms, are probaly better served by having a Democratic President, even if he is anti-gun. Political gridlock is our friend.

I agree with this. You need to have checks and balances. One of the reasons I'm independent is the Republican's somewhat pro gun stance is just about the only thing I agree with them on.

 

[Hollowdweller]

But you trying to convince us that the Dems are a legitimate option, wow, that is more than I can compute. Most of the problems with the republicans are areas where they are too much like the dems. The democratic party has been taken over by the extreme left every bit that the republicans have been take over by the "moderates", otherwise known as those with no core values or philosophy.
.

You raise a lot of good points. However I see the Democratic party not as being taken over by liberals but by too much Corporate $$ just like the GOP. The Democratic Party of the 60's would have never passed NAFTA. Also the fact that the Democrats do not march lockstep like the GOP DOES give the impression of no clear message, on the other hand I think that in that aspect that the Democrats maybe are reflecting the agenda of their individual constituencies rather than blindly following the party leadership like the GOP has done in the past (that's changing)

However the thing that really concerns me is the redistribution of wealth going on in this country over the last 25 years. It is moving away from those who DO the work and toward the top. I fear we may be on our way back to the Gilded Age.





http://www.osjspm.org/index.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/p60204.html

 

[Hollowdweller]

By the way I haven't posted here much but from what I have been reading it impresses the hell out of me the range of opinions and how convincing the arguments on both sides (and the middle) are. Folks are really thinking about stuff and not just repeating talking points. Very cool!

 

[RealGun]

The democratic party has been taken over by the extreme left every bit that the republicans have been take over by the "moderates", otherwise known as those with no core values or philosophy.

Sorry, but "moderate" means not radical or extreme. I reject the notion that having core values or a philosophy means one is strongly polarized. One's philosophy could in fact be moderation.

 

[GoRon]

One's philosophy could in fact be moderation.

I agree, big fan of Ben Franklin myself thank you.

A moderate in the political arena is usually someone who is afraid to take a position.

 

[RealGun]

I agree, big fan of Ben Franklin myself thank you.

A moderate in the political arena is usually someone who is afraid to take a position.

Or is one who thinks extreme positions are from closed-minded fanatics, more concerned with the cause than practical results. A moderate is more likely to actually participate, while strongly polarized positions are mostly reserved for pseudo-intellectual, anti-establishment types and those with some questionable behavior.