# Hillary for President?



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)




----------



## kansas_plainsman (May 9, 2006)

Stalin in drag...

... and I'm not laughing.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

I understand she is going to give all our soldiers :snipe: a raise. Have you heard that? :mrgreen:

:smt1099


----------



## spacedoggy (May 11, 2006)

Give her a break didn't you hear her say she wants to give all baby's born in the US 5000 dollar so when they turn 18 they can go buy gun and ammo.


----------



## K Bob (Sep 17, 2007)

Yes I heard that.She's going to get that 5000 from us who are through having babies so we wont have the money to buy guns


----------



## stormbringerr (May 22, 2007)

wow,what an androgynous horror!:vom:


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

kansas_plainsman said:


> Stalin in drag...
> 
> ... and I'm not laughing.


Stalin wasn't that ugly correction fugly


----------



## spacedoggy (May 11, 2006)

TOF said:


> I understand she is going to give all our soldiers :snipe: a raise. Have you heard that? :mrgreen:
> 
> :smt1099


by raise do you mean more gays in the military?


----------



## tabsr (Jul 22, 2007)

*Next nite*

And Bill thought, I need Monica tonght


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

It's easy to understand why Bill needed Monica. :nutkick:

I'm not quite certain of your association of raise to gay spacedoggy. I figured she would raise their blood to a boil as in angry. :mrgreen:

:smt1099


----------



## JJB (Dec 27, 2006)

tnoisaw said:


>


 H E L P!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I'd slightly prefer her to Senator Obama, but that's about it. The only Democrat candidate in this current crop who is reasonably tolerable seems to be Governor Richardson.

Still, I'm not sure a lot of her positions are wildly different from the pandering, flip-flopping, authoritarian Mr. Giuliani's - especially when you look at what he's _done_ versus what he _says_ - and he's the current GOP front runner. Except that she wants to pull out of Iraq and he wants to stay, a position which will only hurt him in a general election.

Bad picture of her, but it's not like Fred Thompson is supermodel material either. :mrgreen:


----------



## spacedoggy (May 11, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Bad picture of her, but it's not like Fred Thompson is supermodel material either. :mrgreen:


The best picture to use of her is when she was young fighting water gate. If they said this is your face on drugs. We would not have a drug problem.


----------



## Snowman (Jan 2, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> I'd slightly prefer her to Senator Obama, but that's about it. The only Democrat candidate in this current crop who is reasonably tolerable seems to be Governor Richardson.
> 
> Still, I'm not sure a lot of her positions are wildly different from the pandering, flip-flopping, authoritarian Mr. Giuliani's - especially when you look at what he's _done_ versus what he _says_ - and he's the current GOP front runner. Except that she wants to pull out of Iraq and he wants to stay, a position which will only hurt him in a general election.
> 
> Bad picture of her, but it's not like Fred Thompson is supermodel material either. :mrgreen:


I hope it doesn't come down to Giuliani as the nominee. I'd take almost anyone else.


----------



## Alaskan_Viking (Jun 13, 2006)

Vote RON PAUL!:smt1099


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

Alaskan_Viking said:


> Vote RON PAUL!:smt1099


I see Ron Paul stuff all over but have no idea who he is.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Alaskan_Viking said:


> Vote RON PAUL!:smt1099


I just might. While I agree with a lot of his positions, things like this make me uneasy: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/ron_paul_country.html. Note especially his leftist condemnation of profit-seeking industry, pharmaceuticals in this case. Of course, he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination, but I may just say a quick prayer to St. Jude*, hold my nose and and vote for him anyway.

In the general election, after Dr. Paul fails to clinch the GOP nomination, match ups might be:

Clinton vs. Giuliani
Clinton vs. Thompson
Clinton vs. Romney
Clinton vs. McCain

I am not sure I can be persuaded to vote of any of those people, save maybe-possibly Mr. Thompson, so I guess I'll either abstain or vote third party.

* St. Jude is the "Patron Saint of Lost Causes"


----------



## kansas_plainsman (May 9, 2006)

I'm not absolutely sure it's going to be Clinton - her methods are so vindictive and ruthless that it might just turn off the rank and file Democrat - that and some effective campaign responses from Obama.

On the Republican side - Guliani looks bad on taxes and gun rights, but even he would have to pay *some* due to the Republican platform (whistling in the dark). Some strong leadership from a revitalized Republican party would help. Give me the paddles - 'CLEAR!'..

The key is to replace congress. Tough to do, but it happens.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

kansas_plainsman said:


> Some strong leadership from a revitalized Republican party would help. Give me the paddles - 'CLEAR!'..


Amen to that. Good luck with the defibrillator, though.



> The key is to replace congress. Tough to do, but it happens.


Didn't the Democrats just pull that one off? I think it will get worse for the GOP before it gets better, at least if history is any guide.


----------



## spacedoggy (May 11, 2006)

I don't keep up with this stuff. It's like putting out Christmas decorations in May. Whatever they say now means nothing four months before election day.
What I don't understand about Obama is his background. Two years in the Senate? I just don't get it. And the name should be a turn off being or sounding like you know who.

I would like to see two laws passed. The President should only serve for eight years only. No reelection. This way once they are in they can tell their special interest groups to take a hike. Same thing with the house and Senate. Eight years and that's it.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

spacedoggy said:


> Whatever they say now means nothing four months before election day.


Not sure that's true. The primaries and caucuses start in January, which is not too far off. These will decide who will be the candidates in the general election, of course, so I don't think they should be dismissed lightly.



> The President should only serve for eight years only.


Heh, we already have that, it's called the 22nd Amendment. :mrgreen:



> This way once they are in they can tell their special interest groups to take a hike.


If a politician won't support his/her core constituency, why should they help him/her get elected at all? NRA, GOA, SAF and JPFO are all "special interest groups." The vilified special interest groups are just assemblies of citizens who have banded together around a cause they all support, so their voices can more clearly be heard. I think that's a good thing, not some horrible impediment to democracy.



> Same thing with the house and Senate. Eight years and that's it.


I know that term limits have some good practical effects, but I remain unsure about them. I mean, what if I think my senator has done an absolutely outstanding job, and I _really, really_ want to vote for him again? Why shouldn't I be able to? (This is of course very much a hypothetical since my senator is John McCain, who should be run out of Arizona on a rail, and into the Mexico he apparently loves so much.)


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> If a politician won't support his/her core constituency, why should they help him/her get elected at all? NRA, GOA, SAF and JPFO are all "special interest groups." The vilified special interest groups are just assemblies of citizens who have banded together around a cause they all support, so their voices can more clearly be heard. I think that's a good thing, not some horrible impediment to democracy.


I can understand your distaste for McCain-Feingold then. I don't have any issue with groups banding together to advance or oppose an issue, it's a great idea, but I'm concerned that the method for doing so usually involves significant contributions to the politician's election/reelection fund rather than voting as a bloc. It's very simply bribery.

I have a larger issue with corporations as SIGs (oil, pharmacuticals, etc). They don't represent voters as much as their company interests. Groups such as NRA, Greenpeace, and the like do, but they still leverage money to promote the interests of (usually) a minority.


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> ...
> I am not sure I can be persuaded to vote of any of those people, save maybe-possibly Mr. Thompson, so I guess I'll either abstain or vote third party.
> 
> * St. Jude is the "Patron Saint of Lost Causes"


To abstain or vote for a third party candidate is to give your vote to Clinton.:smt076


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

tnoisaw said:


> To abstain or vote for a third party candidate is to give your vote to Clinton.:smt076


Or, alternately, to Giuliani, which I am also unwilling to do.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I am tired of the candidates the GOP presents. They get worse and worse with every election cycle, at least since President Reagan. Look at the slate we have now - half of them would only be considered Republicans in New England and California. If we keep buying garbage, they will keep selling garbage.

I'm done with buying garbage. I'll vote my conscience. If there's no one who has earned my vote, then no one will get it. I'm not giving it to someone merely because they suck just a tiny bit less than Senator Clinton.


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

So if it is between Clinton or Giuliani then you don't vote? 

Voting for the lesser evil is better than not voting and giving a your vote to evil.

I don't like our choices either and was really hoping Newt would get in but having a choice between a Democrat or Reublican you can be damn sure I'll will NOT ever vote for any Democrat for any office. I enjoy sleeping at night.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

MLB said:


> I can understand your distaste for McCain-Feingold then. I don't have any issue with groups banding together to advance or oppose an issue, it's a great idea, but I'm concerned that the method for doing so usually involves significant contributions to the politician's election/reelection fund rather than voting as a bloc. It's very simply bribery.


I don't think it's bribery. Candidates need money to get out their message (the message with which the "special interests" agree). Campaign ads cost money.



> I have a larger issue with corporations as SIGs (oil, pharmacuticals, etc). They don't represent voters as much as their company interests. Groups such as NRA, Greenpeace, and the like do, but they still leverage money to promote the interests of (usually) a minority.


I agree that corporations enjoy too much legal protection. I think the same of labor unions, however.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2007)

tnoisaw said:


> I don't like our choices either and was really hoping Newt would get in but having a choice between a Democrat or Reublican you can be damn sure I'll will NOT ever vote for any Democrat for any office. I enjoy sleeping at night.


I can't make a differentiation between Giuliani and a liberal democrat. I would vote for Richardson before I would vote for him. The key is to prevent having to choose from two gun grabbing libs. Right now Thompson is running 4th in NH and I'm debating voting for Romney just to keep Giuliani from winning. If those two start splitting the center to left of the Republican party then maybe the conservative wing can unite behind Thompson and start pulling off some wins in more conservative states.


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

Three subjects sure to start a fight... politics, religion, and the ass on a short guy's girlfriend...


----------



## spacedoggy (May 11, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Not sure that's true. The primaries and caucuses start in January, which is not too far off. These will decide who will be the candidates in the general election, of course, so I don't think they should be dismissed lightly.
> 
> They started talking about this stuff right after Bush got elected. I'm just sick of hearing lie after lie.
> 
> ...


Same argument can be had for the president why shouldn't you be able to vote for him over and over and over? Take a close look at who is in office and how long.
I would say most of them just go unchallenged and the more time their in, the more power they have. They should work for you but they believe you should work for them. Your the one paying them.

I'm just throwing out idea's. When you see Byrd from W. VA being wheeled in on a dolly somethings wrong. I don't have the answers but I'm so sick of the two party system and the power game. It's all about the power and nothing for what's best for America. Even when you young and want to go in to make a difference you are put in your place. I support the NRA but I don't think any of that money should go to a campaign. You have AARP and the Unions and if you want to benefit from them your money goes to a party you don't like. There has to be a better way.

I don't know how this will show up I'm not use to breaking down each line so for give me if this comes out not making sense. If it did you would not think it came from me.


----------



## spacedoggy (May 11, 2006)

I have a rule and I have broken it. I tell my friends I'm sorry I don't discuss politics. I consider all of you my handgunforum friends. I'll only discuss it when it deals with firearms anyways I just got my ass handed to me by my wife. It's a rule in the house also.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Well, yeah, that's kind of my point. Why _shouldn't_ we be able to vote for the same president over and over? I mean, the Founders didn't object to it, obviously, since the 22nd Amendment didn't come along until FDR.

Like I said, I think term limits have some good practical effects. I'm just not sure it is worth removing the option to vote for the person who might be the best possible candidate.


----------

