If you want to know what America will look like with Hillary as president...

[SundownRider]

Look no further than Illinois. The Democrats have controlled Chicago for year beyond counting. Chicago has the highest taxes around and they still cry for more money. The county of Cook has the Democrats in charge, and the county president, after saying he wants to control spending, is giving a 27% raise for offices to the county commissioners. He is also proposing the highest tax increase for the county in years, effectively driving out businesses and people, yet he still doesn't get it. The Democrats control both houses of the Illinois legislature, and they haven't yet passed a budget, which should have been done July 1, 2007. The governor is a Democrat, yet instead of finding a solution to the problem, proposes more spending for programs that don't even exist. He has even sued the speaker of the house (a democrat) for specail sesssion violations.

The Democrats have been in charge for a long time in Illinois, and the situation is only getting worse.
I just wish the Republicans would actually grow some stones and DO something. I guess I may have to run for office myself. Nothing to lose and it can't get worse.
Brace yourselves America. I live in your future and it is bleak if you don't do something about it soon.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I imagine that every jurisdiction that has been under Republican rule for as long is a well oiled-machine of efficiency and capitalism. No problems at all.

Or it could be possible that the system benefits from having two parties that are actually competitive, and from having relatively frequent changes of power between those parties...as well as having power over different portions of the government shared between them.

I don't think single-party Republican rule, especially in the long term, would wind up much better than single-party Democratic rule; just bad in different ways (and probably some of the same ones, too).

Not that a two-party system is in and of itself the best option anyway...but blindly supporting only one of the two is generally even worse.

EDIT: Also, while not a poli-sci buff, I imagine that at least some of the issues that might plague a local or state government might be less pronounced at the national level. Though obviously some new problems arise as well. Good times.

 

[UGH]

Let me first say that I am a Republican. That said, I once heard on TFL that the difference between Republican and Democrat was that Dem's tax and spend and Republicans borrow and spend. From what I have seen that statement is pretty much the truth.With either one we are screwed or future generations are. Personal freedoms ? Forget about it if we stay with any mainstream candidates,Especially Hillary. We have the power to make a change if we want to. As far as I'm concerned, There is only one way I will be voting. This next election is so critical for America. I would say as if not more than when we to England to take a flying leap. I could be wrong as I have been a few times in my life. We will see.

 

[Yellowfin]

Or it could be possible that the system benefits from having two parties that are actually competitive, and from having relatively frequent changes of power between those parties...as well as having power over different portions of the government shared between them.

I don't think single-party Republican rule, especially in the long term, would wind up much better than single-party Democratic rule; just bad in different ways (and probably some of the same ones, too).

Not that a two-party system is in and of itself the best option anyway...but blindly supporting only one of the two is generally even worse.

The problem is we don't have two distinct parties which move in different directions. We are getting screwed by product convergence AND public apathy. We don't get much of a choice at all in the end. What is needed more than anything is a massive surge in recalls, telling both parties that if they don't do what we want, we won't let them get away with it then and wait around and forget about it. Every time there's something on the TV about celebrity scandals, it instantly makes me think of what Congress must be doing for the media to be de-emphasizing it.

 

[JuanCarlos]

The problem is we don't have two distinct parties which move in different directions. We are getting screwed by product convergence AND public apathy. We don't get much of a choice at all in the end. What is needed more than anything is a massive surge in recalls, telling both parties that if they don't do what we want, we won't let them get away with it then and wait around and forget about it. Every time there's something on the TV about celebrity scandals, it instantly makes me think of what Congress must be doing for the media to be de-emphasizing it.

I think electoral reform to make third-party/independent candidates at least a bit more viable would help. Even if the two main parties still dominate, it would at least put pressure on them to differentiate a bit more, and I think it would force them to address issues that otherwise they can ignore.

I think this is in some way the value of having Ron Paul and (yes, I hate to say this) Dennis Kucinich at the pre-primary debates. I don't support either (and I'll freely admit that the latter is a certified whackjob) but both do, in varying frequency, force their fellow candidates to address issues or positions that could otherwise be easily ignored.

Unfortunately, once the primary is chosen and the two mainstream candidates go at it, most of these issues will likely again be ignored. *shrug*


So yeah, that covers a bit of the product convergence. And public apathy? You betcha. Sometimes it scares me the kind of random entertainment/celebrity trivia people will know, yet they'll still be ignorant of basic civics and current events. ***, people? I mean, I'm not one of those people who self-righteously avoids pop culture; I'm a consumer whore like most of my generation. But I never forgo "real" information or issues in favor of it, and when I find myself knowing about the latest celebrity scandal but not the latest high-profile bill passed in Congress, I have the decency to be deeply ashamed.

 

[gmhippie]

Politics...hhmmm, I wont vote for anyone running for Pres that wants to take my guns...That rules out everyone "running" as a DEM although they arnt, they are left wing loons! Most dems are more centered then that as are most republicans. Far as the Rep go...Guli is a leftest in disguise, McCain is never gonna stand a chance his day for being Pres has come and gone, not many people can get past the fact that a Mormon is running so it aint gonna happen for Romey.....Ron Paul is a fanatic!(but I like his stand for guns) ...Thompson is more of a no show then any of them, thinks this is a cake walk.....that pretty much leaves Huck,...who...?. If Huckabee keeps closing the distance as he has everyweek...he's my man.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=18

 

[mountainclmbr]

It would be like this:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010882

Oklahoma's Most Wanted
The latest thing in political felonies: a petition drive.

Monday, November 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

A veteran political activist is facing 10 years in prison and a hefty fine for attempting to petition government for redress of grievances. The latest news from Pakistan? No, this is happening in Oklahoma.

Last month Paul Jacob, the former head of U.S. Term Limits and current head of Citizens in Charge, was led out of an Oklahoma City courtroom in handcuffs after pleading not guilty to charges that he conspired to defraud the state. Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who's overseeing this bizarre prosecution, has accused Mr. Jacob and two fellow petition organizers--Rick Carpenter of Oklahomans in Action and Susan Johnson of National Voter Outreach--of bringing out-of-state petition gatherers to Oklahoma to collect signatures.

In 2005 Mr. Carpenter, a Tulsan, launched a signature campaign to get a state-wide vote on a Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Tabor, as it is known, would cap the rate at which state government spending could increase. Mr. Jacob and Ms. Johnson were later brought on board to assist the effort. Not surprisingly, politicians and interest groups that favor big government have developed an intense dislike for Tabor spending limits, even though, like lawmaker term limits, they tend to be popular with voters.

This certainly proved to be the case in Oklahoma. Despite strong opposition from organized labor especially, Tabor petition advocates managed to gather some 300,000 signatures from registered voters, far more than the 219,000 needed to get the measure on the state ballot. Following a court challenge, however, the signatures were invalidated, not because the signers weren't legitimate but because the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined that nonresidents of the state had collected signatures.





Ironically, it is perfectly legal for opponents of a petition to solicit money and manpower from out-of-state. And sure enough, public sector unions opposed to the Tabor initiative recruited people from outfits like the Oregon-based Voter Education Project, an offshoot of the AFL-CIO that specializes in countering signature drives. They also set up Web sites that advertised the location of signature-gathers and urged their members to harass them.

In the previous Clinton Administration Hillary's best friend from law school was appointed to head the IRS. The "Political IRS Audit" was then invented to destroy enemies of the Clintons. Why don't those on the left scream about the loss of privacy of those whose FBI background checks were turned over to the Clintons in an act that is widely believed to be ordered by Hillary?

 

[WeedWacker]

OMG I actually agree w/JC on somthing. The world must be ending. Dems and republicans will see eye to eye. Hillary will make a fool of herself... oh wait...

Edit: I was thinking about the huckmeister. Have seen absolutly NOTHING about him unless it's a rep. debate, but I think he is a more rational Ron Paul. RP has some good doctrine, but he brings it on too hard and not all of it is as feasable as he wants. But Huckabee would be my vote for sure if he managed to get some more mainstream attention and get on the ballot paper.

 

[cold dead hands]

The idea of Huck for pres kinda makes me a little queezy since I have lived under his style of management for years. Some of his doctrine is in absolute opposition to mine, yet he has done or attempted do some good in the state from time. That said, if it is him or Clinton Part 2: The even worse years, then I will go with Huck. I will truly feel as though I have sold out on my kids future regardless of who gets my vote.

If this is the best America gets, politician wise, then I may need to find a better place to go. If I can't find a better country then I will attempt to find a better planet. Please don't let our so called leaders bring us down to their level!!!

 

[sw_florida]

Hillary and the commie pack will screw America over so badly that every one, including their commie supporters, will suffer incontinence for years after. Buy your diapers today! Family pack.

 

[longeyes]

I hope Hillary enjoys being President of Clintonia. She will never be President of any America I am aware of.

Her possible Election will catalyze both dreams and nightmares. Sometimes you just can't avoid upheaval, and that appears to be what the Hillary true believers secretly long for.

 

[erik the bold]

Want to see what America would be like under Hillary? Look no further than Michigan.... :barf:

Our Governess has taxed the state into oblivion, and still wants to increase gov'mint spending. We have the highest unemployment in the nation, 7.7% as of October. We have lost 77k jobs in the last year alone.

Sign me, "Still waitin' to be blown away, Jenny!"

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

The "Political IRS Audit" was then invented to destroy enemies of the Clintons.

Substitute "the Kennedys" or "Nixon" for "the Clintons"

 

[RDak]

There are definite similarities between Democrats and Republicans, however, there is one MAJOR difference: Democrats tend to be rabidly anti-gun and Republicans tend to be pro-gun.

 

[Crosshair]

Go lurk on Democratic Underground RDak. You will be surprised. There is quite a large number of pro-gun democrats on that forum. benEzra is a VERY pro-gun user on DU and has wrote many excellent pro-gun articles.

I too was surprised at the number of pro-gunners on that forum.

 

[rgates]

Go lurk on Democratic Underground RDak. You will be surprised. There is quite a large number of pro-gun democrats on that forum. benEzra is a VERY pro-gun user on DU and has wrote many excellent pro-gun articles.

Unfortunately, not enough of them in the party leadership positions.
Although, Rudy is not pro gun. His history proves this as does his comments supporting another AW ban. Romney has also voiced support for the AW ban.
McCain states that "cheap" guns should be illegal. What does that mean?

Looks to me like if any of the current leaders in the race get elected, we could be in trouble if the House and Senate get any anti-gun bills to their desk.

 

[Crosshair]

McCain states that "cheap" guns should be illegal. What does that mean?

It means that they think poor people don't have any rights.

 

[Acujeff]

THE LEFT WING’S PLAN FOR GUNS
Easy to forget after six years of Republican rule


by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
October 16, 2006


It’s time to remember what the Democrat party generally seeks regarding guns and gun rights. The list below was widely circulated by Alan Korwin from Handgun Control Inc. (now called the Brady Campaign) which was inadvertently leaked during the Clinton Years.


The democrat-backed Brady group and similar outfits have been quiet about guns because they want to win the election, and get to impose their goals on your rights --

THE FIVE YEAR PLAN:

1. National Licensing of all handgun purchases.

2. Licenses for Rifle and Shotgun owners.

3. State Licenses for ownership of firearms.

4. Arsenal Licenses (5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition).

5. Arsenal License Fees (at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00).

6. Limits on Arsenal Licensing (None in counties with populations of more than 200,000).

7. Requirement of Federally Approved Storage Safes for all guns.

8. Inspection License. (Gun safe licenses, yearly fee for spot inspections).

9. Ban on Manufacturing in counties with a population of more than 200,000.

10. Banning all military style firearms.

11. Banning Machine Gun Parts or parts which can be used in a Machine gun.

12. Banning the carrying a firearm anywhere but home or target range or in transit from one to the other.

13. Banning replacement parts (manufacturing, sale, possession, transfer, installation) except barrel, trigger group.

14. Elimination of the Curio Relic list.

15. Control of Ammunition belonging to Certain Surplus Firearms. (7.62x54R and .303).

16. Eventual Ban of Handgun Possession..

17. Banning of Any ammo that fits military guns (post 1945).

18. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which would constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.

19. Ban the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kg. at any one time.

20. Banning of High Powered Ammo or Wounding ammo.

21. A National License for Ammunition.

22. Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.

23. National Registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.

24. Requirements of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.

25. Restricting Gun Ranges to counties with populations less than 200,000.

26. Special Licensing of ranges.

27. Special Range Tax to visitors. ($85.00 per visit per person).

28. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.

29. Banning Gun Shows.

30. Banning of military reenactments.

PLUS:

Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.

Elimination of the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship.

Ban on all realistic replica and toy guns (including "air soft" and paintball).

The right of gun-violence victims to sue, with financial assistance from government programs, the gun manufacturers.

Taxes on ammo, dealers, guns, licenses to offset medical costs to society.

The eventual ban on all semi-automatics regardless of when made or caliber.



Hillary and Guns
by Tom Fitton
http://acuf.org/issues/issue65/060809pol.asp

What kind of President will Hillary Clinton make? I realize this is a disturbing thought, but we must consider it as Senator Clinton remains the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. The way I figure it, with the Clintons, past is prologue.

That’s why Judicial Watch’s investigations team has been inspecting the newly released Clinton Presidential Library records. (We don’t endorse or oppose candidates, but it is part of educational and corruption-fighting mission to see the Clintons held accountable.)
Recently, our investigations team uncovered documents that provide some interesting, and troubling, details about the Clintons’ plan to destroy the gun industry, a la “Big Tobacco.” Here’s just a sample of what we discovered.

A memorandum from former Clinton Advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Bruce Reed, Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, dated November 9, 1998, which reads: "I've enclosed an article and a press release about the new effort to file class action suits against gun manufacturers. I think this is a very promising idea. Let's talk about it soon." The press release, from the Office of the Mayor of New Orleans, was in draft form, suggesting the Mayor coordinated the strategy with the Clinton White House.

The "promising idea" identified by Blumenthal involved filing massive product liability and negligence lawsuits against major handgun makers, "the opening salvo in a campaign against the gun industry by an alliance of anti-tobacco attorneys and local governments," wrote the Los Angeles Times. According to one of the lawyers involved in the lawsuits: "We are going to do to [the gun industry] what we did to tobacco. It's going to be a very large war."

Our investigators also uncovered a March 6, 2000 letter from New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer with a handwritten note at the top from Bill Clinton to then-White House Deputy Counsel Bruce Lindsey, which reads: "Bruce, See me re: this…has some good ideas for future." Among the "good ideas" -- denying gun manufacturers the right to sell guns to the military and law enforcement unless they sign an anti-gun "code of conduct" that would cripple the industry.

Hillary Clinton and the anti-gun rights crowd used this extortive litigation strategy to strong-arm gun manufacturer Smith and Wesson into adopting some of their policies. President Bush put an end to the federal abuse of the gun industry in 2000. Will a “President Hillary” revert back to government extortion of the gun industry?

Tom Fitton is the president of Judicial Watch.

 

[Limeyfellow]

If I wanted to see what things will be like under Hillary Clinton, I would look at the current administration. Though Clinton is a little more conservative on a number of issues.