I have yet to hear a single good argument for Clinton.

[theseus51]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rudy = Big government nanny state + War + Tyranny

Hillary = Big government nanny state + War + less Tyranny

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but I think I would rather have Rudy than Hillary if it comes down to that.

1) Congress and Presidency divided, so it will be difficult to get things done, and the less government does the better. Dems in both branches would be a free-for-all.

2) Giuliani is somewhat socially liberal. The Robertson endorsement might change that, but we'll see. I feel like we're in danger of Hillary pushing "family values" even more than Rudy because she's more "political" and will pander to whoever she needs to pander to, including evangelicals.

3) National health care ftl.

4) The war(s) oh well - hopefully Congress would keep Giuliani in line.

[/ QUOTE ]


See, the problem is that with the current Democratic Congress, they keep on funding the war, and giving the President more spying powers.

It was under total Republican rule that we had big government programs, like prescription drug and no child left behind. I guess I don't see any diff between any of the media darling candidates, save for minor, minor differences. But their baisc attitudes towards the role of government is basically the same (make it bigger and stronger).

[/ QUOTE ]

Right so we don't want total Democratic rule either as there will be even bigger issues like national health care.

And Hillary isn't even against the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm more afraid of more of a police state, than I am of nationalized health care. I mean they tried hillarycare (the first time around) in 1993 and it failed miserably, even with a democratic congress.