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

[JuntMonkey]

[ 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.

[PLOlover]

I think OP is on to something, rather than have a campaign slogans and sstuff (remeber bush was saying he was gonna "restore honor to whitehouse in 2000), hillary mihgt just shut up and say nothing .

[Ineedaride2]

[One Outer]

[ QUOTE ]
War on Terror: This is mostly about surrounding yourself with the right advisers. I suspect that a Cabinet formed by Sen. Clinton will contain many of the figures we saw in her Husband's Administration, which fought terrorism the right way IMO

Is the same group that let Osama Bin Laden slip through their hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fwiw, I can't stand Bill Clinton. I believe he ruined the Democratic Party by moving the party to the right. However, it's either willfully deceptive or purely ignorant to say things like this about the Clinton record on terrorism.

[theseus51]

[ 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).

[JuntMonkey]

[ 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.

[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.

[honest1]

Really, I'm being deceptive or ignorant when asking the question " Is the same group that let Osama Bin Laden slip through their hands?".

It seems to be a popular chat by the left (and judging from your comment I can only presume you are left of center) that Clinton ruined to Democrat Party, however they always seem to appear to defend him even when there is justified criticism leveled at him.

Incidentally there may well be evidence that Clinton did in fact let Bin Laden "slip through his hand"

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have one?

[/ QUOTE ]

She represents the last best hope for a conservative Republican party 5 years from now. If the Republicans insist on building their house founded upon Rudy then I say burn it down, vote for Hillary.

[One Outer]

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally there may well be evidence that Clinton did in fact let Bin Laden "slip through his hand"


[/ QUOTE ]

"May". That's the best you can do? All the real, you know, actually verifiable, evidence is completely to the contrary.

I leap to anyone's defense when the mouthbreathers criticizing them are wrong. Terrorism was, ironically, about the only thing he did right.

And it's called the Democratic Party. Do you think it would look stupid if someone were running around saying Republic Party? Yeah, thought so. That's how you look.