Ms. Clinton scares me.

[erps]

I don't really fit into either the Republican or Democrat pigeon hole. I also haven't voted "for" a presidential candidate since Regan, I've been pretty much voting against candidates for the past 20 years.

I remember watching the news in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The looting was going on, they were showing the roof top rescues of people caught in their flooded homes and the plight of the people who took refuge in that stadium. I'll also never forget the video of the police wrestling with a little old lady in her home so they could seize her revolver. Apparently the mayor had ordered the police to go out and seize all the guns, including lawfully owned firearms, under a state of emergency. While the meaning of our country's 2nd Amendment is still being debated, Louisiana's state constitution is a lot more clear

"The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. (Art. I, § 11) (1974; previous version 1879)"

After Katrina, there was federal legislation to prevent the guvmint from doing exactly what the city officials of New Orleans did, to go out and seize lawfully owned firearms during states of emergencies. The law passed in the senate by a wide margin 84-16. Hillary Clinton was one of only 16 who voted against it, and that scares the be-jeebers out of me.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyv...2&can_id=55463

[Robby Barlow]

Sounds like bloody politicians to me!

They worry about firearms when 1/2 the city is under 6ft of water.

They will/would do anything to divert from their own incompetence.

[Giulietta]

Don't worry, she scares Bill also....

I heard she actually has a vagina....I bet you didn't know she had one huh??

[AjariBonten]

Strictly a rumor, "G"

[sailaway21]

The US Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments regarding the constitutionality of Washington, DC's firearms ban. While the decision is one that is likely to be a narrowly worded, it is of interest that it it has taken this long for the citizens of DC to realize that they are being denied a right which is explicitly guarunteed under the Constitution. The fact that law enforcement has been unable to ensure the safety of DC's citizenry for quite some time is apparently irrelevant to the writers of such laws.

Hillary Clinton is emblematic of what used to be referred to as "limosine liberals". Such individuals are quite confident in their ability to never experience the set-backs in life that would necessitate their living in such neighborhoods where arming one's self is considered due diligence. That they disdain the right to individuals who do live in such environments is only part and parcel of their overall view of the utility of a ghettoized voting bloc. They exhibit similar lack of concern about the educational opportunities for these self-same peoples. One can see that when we speak of "choice" there is only one real choice we are referring to and that one is of great interest to those young daughters of the aforementioned limo-libs. And, as in the abortion debate, there is truly only one "correct" choice. Thus the banning of firearms, school choice, and the promotion of post conception birth control all reach cognitive coherence in the liberal mind. Which, as erps states, is a very scary place.

[SEMIJim]

Originally Posted by erps

After Katrina, there was federal legislation to prevent the guvmint from doing exactly what the city officials of New Orleans did, to go out and seize lawfully owned firearms during states of emergencies. The law passed in the senate by a wide margin 84-16. Hillary Clinton was one of only 16 who voted against it, and that scares the be-jeebers out of me.

So-called "liberals," scare me only slightly more than so-called "conservatives." They both have their own vision of How Things Ought To Be and, by George, that's damn well they way they are going to be, even if they have to force their vision of Utopia on the unwilling at the point of a gun. (Especially ironic on the part of "liberals.") Both "liberals" and "conservatives" believe that two wrongs do make a right. Both believe that the ends do justify the means. Thus, "liberals" have no problem passing "civil rights" laws that accomplish their end by trampling other civil rights. "Conservatives" have no problem trampling civil rights in the name of "homeland security." (Doesn't that term, "homeland security," scare the hell out of you? It does me. Sounds like a term that might've been coined by a western Europen dictator back in the 1930's or so.)

As long as we keep electing the same kind of people, over and over again, we'll keep getting the same results. Which, in case you handn't noticed it, is a steadily increasingly constricted society.

Jim

[AjariBonten]

I think the overall problem is with groups that are on the extreme of either end of the spectrum. Both conservative and liberal groups have it both right and wrong; depending upon the issue.

[camaraderie]

Actually...I hope Hillary gets nominated...'cause I think she will be easier to defeat than Obama given her really high "negative" impressions and her record of changed positions.
Obama is actually more of a classical liberal in the GeneMcCarthy/George McGovern tradition and has less of a record to attack, fewer "switched" positions and is an engaging campaigner with very strong public speaking skills comparable to Reagan and Kennedy. I think he is a far more dangerous candidate to win the general election.

[AjariBonten]

Cam, they're all dangerous in my opinion. I have been active in both parties over the years. I've worked on Democratic campaigns; I've been a delegate at two Republican conventions. Currently I consider myself a Libertarian.

Never have I seen a slate of candidates, on either side, that I have been more afraid of. It seems that every one of them has one opinion that I kind of agree with, and every one of them has at least two or three stands that make me turn my head and say, "HUH?".

That is, of course, when you can identify any topic on which any of them have an identifiable stand.

This is by far going to be the "election of the one topic voter"; and the election of the "any ANBODY but ____________ Voter".

This is a sad state of affairs no matter what party you subscribe to.

[PBzeer]

As long as the general populace, ie: voters, believe people run for office to do good for their constituents, rather than simply to achieve power, we will continue to get the same shameless panderers that we keep electing.

Rather than people of conviction, we get people of which way is the wind blowing. Rather than people of principle, we get people of which principle will get me elected. Rather than people of vision, we get people of focus groups. Rather than people who want to help us stand on our own two feet, we get people who want to chain us to the nanny state. From both parties.