Quantcast

Rudy, Hillary, Barrack

Discussion in 'Legal' started by littlmak, Mar 18, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. littlmak

    littlmak Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    If the elections were held this week, these may be our choices. Yes there are other candidates but these are the front runners, and the most likely win
    an election held THIS WEEK. Of the three listed is there 1 of these that can be reasoned with on 2A issues, or should we start lining up out of country storage facilities and wait for 2012?
     
  2. Liberal Gun Nut

    Liberal Gun Nut Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    388
    Of those three candidates, the ranking, from bad to worst would be Rudy, Hillary, Barak. But they're all bad. Given those choices, I would vote Libertarian, to send a message of unhappiness. Anyway the state I'm in is so 100% solid for one party that I always vote Libertarian here because my presidential vote is irrelevant otherwise.
     
  3. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,567
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    Rudy and Hillary both are political creatures - and they'll swing whichever way the wind blows. Hillary KNOWS that gun control costs elections. And Rudy, I'm sure, knows that the issue could lose him as many votes as it gained him in New York.

    Obama... As a product of the Illinois political machine, I suspect he's a true "I know what's good for you downstate folks" believer.
     
  4. obxned

    obxned Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,490
    Location:
    OBX, NC
    If these are the best we can find, them my country is indeed doomed!
     
  5. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    What I want to see:

    Bill Richardson vs. Ron Paul. A genuine win-win :).

    Sigh. Won't happen.

    Richardson is a dark horse but not completely out of it. Paul on the other hand...not unless the current administration *completely* melts down and the only GOP choice is somebody completely unassociated with the Dubya regime.

    :scrutiny:

    You know...it could really come down to that...
     
  6. Handyman

    Handyman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    107
    It makes me sick to say this but if I had to choose one of the 3 , it would be Hillary :barf: :barf: :barf:
    But I would'nt actually vote for any of them . If they are the only choices , we are doomed !!!!!
     
  7. Hokkmike

    Hokkmike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,040
    Location:
    Sullivan County PA
    None of the above please!

    PREDICTION (mark this date down) The Democrats will nominate NEITHER Clinton or Obama!

    Besides, Hillary already had her opportunity to run the country!

    As for Rudy, I don't care what Sean says, morals, abortion, and gun control will be his undoing!
     
  8. antsi

    antsi Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    They're all so bad there is hardly any difference between them.

    Hilary is a political creature and yes, she knows gun control can cost her. Still, if the Congress passes something like a new AWB, can you really see her vetoing it? I can't. She is enough a political creature that yes, she will say or do anything to get elected, but I think she's a gun control true believer at heart.

    I agree Obama is a product of the Chicago machine and I'm sure dreams of a full ban and confiscate policy. His only regret signing the McCarthyite AWBII is that for him, it doesn't go far enough.

    Rudy is of the same ilk; it is more a result of their big city, nanny government, social meltdown mindset than a Republican or Democrat issue. Rudy might feel some pressure from his party to moderate his anti-gun crusading, but again, probably not enough to veto the latest McCarthy abomination.

    Usually I reject the notion that there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats on gun control - there is definitely a difference between Bush and Kerry, or Bush and Gore, for instance. Bush isn't all I'd want him to be, but he's nowhere near as bad as Gore or Kerry who are true gun control crusaders.

    However, if Rudy were the nominee, I would for that election agree with the "they're all the same; vote for a whacko fringe party" folks.
     
  9. Satch

    Satch Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    256
    Rudy,Hillary

    If you've noticed,the MSM is not going after,or trashing Rudy.Why should they? They know he's just a RINO, and not much different from Hillary,or Obama.:barf:
     
  10. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    I don't see a three way race with two Democrats in it. I don't see Hillary and Obama on the same ticket either, probably a moderate mid western Democrat (pick one) instead of another socialist.

    What I do see is as most likely today is Hillary vs RG. I would vote for neither and go third party if there was a good candidate out there. Either way I would rather have Hillary as president for many reasons.

    1. Hillary is anti. She is a politician first and she knows that gun control will galvanize opposition against her for all of her little social projects. Better to fight it latter as our rights are removed one at a time.

    2. Rudy is anti. He could go straight out anti with full support of the dems and the rinos. He might even broker deals with them to get his fascist agenda passed to cause more harm than a deadlocked congress who would fight with Hillary to maintain their jobs. If RG is elected I see a New Jersey scenario where the Repub governor presided over the implementation of some of the worst gun laws in the country.

    3. Hillary being elected might get conservatives in this country motivated again. It would certainly draw some clearer lines on why the Constitution is important.
     
  11. Igloodude

    Igloodude Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    750
    Location:
    southern NH
    Of the three, I'd take Barack Obama, based pretty much on one "yes" vote of his:

    http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?vote_id=3872

    He voted yes, and all of our favorite anti-gunners (senators from NY, NJ, CA, MD, MA, and the senior senator from IL) voted no.
     
  12. Steve H

    Steve H Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,335
    Location:
    Southern Utah
    If one of them win then it's time to move to a deserted south Pacific island.
     
  13. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,484
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    That's a choice between ebola, hanta virus and pneumonic plague. They are all 100% equal in their fanatical hatred of 2nd Amendment rights. In descending order of hatred for the rest of the Bill of Rights, it's Giuliani => Clinton => Obama. Giuliani's the most obviously dangerous in that regard, since he actually had a police force under his statutory command. Louima, Diallo, Dorismond; yep, I sure want to see Rudy in charge of the BATFE and the FBI-HRT. Another Waco? Another Waco A WEEK.

    If you vote for any one of those tinhorn fascists, you deserve EXACTLY what you get.
     
  14. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,484
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Three things will be his undoing;

    Louima
    Diallo
    Dorismond

    If he got the nomination, any Democratic campaign manager who could find his butt with both hands could torpedo Rudy with ONE commercial. They just need to have the families of the NYPD's victims on camera saying, "Rudy Giuliani's NYPD did 'x' to my father/son/husband. Do you want the FBI and BATFE to do these things?" No anger, no wailing, just deadpan, with pictures of the victims. It'd be to Giuliani what the "daisy" ad was to Goldwater.
     
  15. littlmak

    littlmak Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Titan6 I guess I should have explained my question a little more. I didn't mean H&B would be on the same ticket or that it would be a 3 way race. I only included the 2 Dems because they seem to be fairly close in the polls so it could be either one a year from now. Rudi on the other hand seems to have a sizeable lead on the other Republicans at this moment. So if the election were held this week, one of the three would get the big chair for a while. And which one would be more inclined to listen to and side with a pro 2A argument
     
  16. 1 old 0311

    1 old 0311 member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,672
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    In 37 years of voting I have NEVER voted Democratic. Of the three? Hillary.:mad:
     
  17. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,513
    Location:
    Winter Haven, FL
  18. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    littlmak

    Normally I would say none of the above. So far as siding 2A based partly on Igloodude's post and my own personal op I would say Obama, Clinton, Rudy. Clinton and Rudy are much more militant about wanting to get rid of guns. Rudy would sell us down river in a heart beat.
     
  19. Professor K

    Professor K Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    358
    Location:
    The Streetz of Compton
    I simply wouldnt vote if those were the only 3 candidates.
     
  20. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,567
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    Remember too that the election hasn't really ramped up into what I tend to call the "slingbleep" segment...

    It is quite possible that Hillary and Obama will take each other out, or just appear so repugnant overall... What other Democrats are running? Would it be wise for folks to vote Dem in a primary to support a moderate?

    Likewise with some of the Republican candidates. At least the party is getting a few strategists who can think - I mean, I can't BELIEVE that anyone thought that Quayle had a snowball's chance in a foundary... But some of the crowd seemed to think so...
     
  21. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,484
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Bingo. You got it in one.

    If three essentially identical great white sharks are circling me, my motivation for diving into the mouth of any particular one escapes me...
     
  22. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,484
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Hillary simply cannot NOT be Hillary. She will NOT tolerate any challenge to her will. That means that she CANNOT hold back from doing literally ANYTHING to crush Obama [or anyone else] if he gets between her and the White House.

    Obama is a Chicago politician. I GUARANTEE you that he has more skeletons in his closet than Jeffrey Dahmer, Ed Gein and John Wayne Gacy combined. Hillary simply CANNOT hold herself back from using ANYTHING, real or imagined, against her enemy, in this case Obama.

    She will destroy Obama personally, with ANYTHING she can get on him. At the same time, she will be so crude and ham-handed that even though she knocks Obama out of the race, she will alienate a huge portion of the Black vote. NO Democrat can win without the Black vote, ESPECIALLY Hillary.

    This will make the election one for the Republicans to lose. If Giuliani is the Republican candidate, this is a VERY bad thing for the United States.

    I don't know who's going to win this election, but if it's a race between Clinton or Obama, and Giuliani, we ALL lose.
     
  23. Elza

    Elza Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    692
    Location:
    North Texas
    It’s a shame that Ron Paul doesn’t stand a chance. He would be the one candidate that the anti-Hillary Dem’s might cross party lines for. The way it is now I wouldn’t vote for Rudy and I’m a registered Republican. I certainly can’t see any Dem’s jumping ship in the polling booth. On top of that a fair number of Republican women will vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman. It saddens me to say that I believe that she will be our next President.

    But, since Dr. Paul had a falling-out with the RNC and beat their opposition for his seat in the House they will cut his throat at the first opportunity. Unfortunately they’re too pig-headed to realize (or care as the case may be) that the same knife will cut their own throats as well.
     
  24. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,567
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    Frankly, let's look at reality - there are a LOT of men, and women, who are not going to vote for a woman. Why? Just because - that's just the way they think. AARP's gonna have its hands full if Hillary gets the nomination.

    There are also a lot of folks who aren't going to vote for someone named Obama. Just because of his name. Remember that being on the left-side of the intelligence bell curve is not a qualification for voting - breathing is.

    Of course, a lot of these folks are the same folks - that's why I'm guessing we're gonna have a #3 Democrat go past 'em.
     
  25. Freedspeak

    Freedspeak Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    235
    Location:
    W. Central Fla.
    Based on these, how about a write in!

    If Ron Paul dosen't get the repub. nod, how about we all write him in, and ask as many others that we can to do the same.

    Isn't that what that option is for?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice