Question for the politically minded
 

I'd like to open for debate the following issue.

Assuming that Senator Clinton gets elected into office in 2008, do you think she will give back of all the rights that Bush & company have taken away?

e.g. eavesdropping, guantanamo imprisonment, search & seizure infringements, airport profiling, and the like (add to this list if you like, this is just what comes to mind right away).

i always thought of Bill C as an expert of grabing Rep popular issues, seeing them through, and taking credit for the hole thing.

it worked for Bill and i expect Hillary to follow the same playbook. Her Presidency will be about following popular opinion.

So you think nothing is going to change?

Re: Question for the politically minded
 

You have the right to not be profiled in the airport? Interesting. You have the right to not be imprisoned for acting like a terrorist? Also interesting.

I reckon you probably also think you have the "right" to vote, huh?

I think Hillary is right up your alley...

Re: Question for the politically minded
 

I cannot think of a single right that I have lost...

You're missing the point. The point is not whether those things are legal or illegal, whether they are or are not your rights.

The point is, many people are ranting and screaming about our rights being taken away, that Bush=Hitler, etc.

My question is, Do you think Hillary would rewind to pre-911 and undo what Bush has done?

Wait until the terrorists hit here after her election. She will piddle in her panties and someone will have to take over and run the country.

There is a reason why the general population constantly states that they trust the conservatives over libs when it comes to safety and security, and its that the libs do not have the balls nor backbone needed to stand up to our enemies.

Well kids, Hilary will let our enemies come onto our home soil to continue the war on terror and then I hope that "YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE AT WAR" and have been for years.

Re: Question for the politically minded
 

No, I do not think she will be interested in signing any legislation removing rights denial by government. If anything, she'll use the laws to go after the internet in a major way, and other rights access. She's a hardcore sociofascist and will do anything to get her way.

She has no morals of any kind that I've been able to detect, in that way, she's just like Bush II.

What has Bush done (regarding rights) that was not done pre-911?

Have you not watched TV for the past 5 years?

i think some of you were brainwashed shortly after 9/11.

Yes, but I thought you meant something that Bush actually did to took away rights that were not taken pre-911...not something from TV.

Remember guys, fintstone supports all these new anti-rights laws, in fact would have myself and numerous others on this forum arrested had he the power to do so.

fintstone wants concentration camps in America, so he's unlikely to recognize any rights in the first place, and if he doesn't recognize rights, he doesn't recognize they're being taken away.

Ahhh, just when were you appointed Fintstone's spokesman?

Lying about people AGAIN on the BBS huh? It never ceases and someday you will get your just rewards for these posts.

Look, I know what I think on the matter, I simply wanted to know what all of you thought on the matter. I am trying to keep the question impartial to get everyone's view. Popular opinion, both in the general public (at least here in LA) and among some of the members here is that Bush is an evil profiteering warmonger, intent on taking away our rights.

Now if we can all agree on the premise that Some people think Bush is doing that, then we can postulate that Should Hillary get into office, she would either do Nothing, or so Something.

Now if you happen to think that Bush has not taken away any rights, then there is Nothing for her to do. If on the other hand, you think the inverse, then My hypothetical question was simply which one do you think it would be, Something or Nothing?

You get it?

Homeland Security will definitely be out. The whole idea of that is a joke, particularly when you consider our porous borders and how anything can sneak over and into the U.S.

I have really thought hard about your question and cannot think of a single right I have lost. I am just waiting for one of the LA folks you mentioned to tell me which one of the rights I have lost.

Regarding what Hillary would do after an attack VS Bush. First off, I very much would think that Hillary would not piss her self. I would be much more concerned of the opposite problem. There seems to be a general impression Bush actually did something on 9/11. My recollection was refreshed recently watching a news program review the events of 9/11. Cheney is show giving the order to allow the military to shoot down the civilian planes if necessary. In fact he had at one point during the confusion thought that two planes were shot down. Its strange to me that the VP was giving orders to the military. That is the president's line of authority unless he is declared incapacitated.

It was Cheney who actually made the first "presidential" address to the nation on 9/11. No statement was made by Bush until at least 9/12 or even later.

At the time the white house told us that Bush was not in communication because he was flying. Now, anyone who has even the remotest idea of the AF one communications system knows that it is not technical issue, nor a security issue for communications to occur while in-flight. So the question is, why did Bush not address the nation instead of Cheney?

I contend that he had both pissed his pants and soiled himself badly and was in no condition to give the country reassurance.

I don't really care for Hillary at all. You can call her a lot of things, but a coward is not what comes to mind first. Aside from that, I think she would make a very poor president.

So that would put you in the Nothing for her to do camp. Ok with me.

As far as rights, sure, I expect Hillary and a Democratic Congress to roll back EVERYTHING Bush has done. But not out of some notion of "right vs. might," but partisan humiliation.

The Democratic Party - when they win - will seek to shame Republicans, particularly the NeoCons born from Bush's presidency.

Unfortunately, that's the B.S. that goes along with having a self-concerned two-party political system.

She could STFU. That would help a lot.

So you think in essence she would disban / disarm / make impotent Homeland Security?

It's all relative what rights you have or have not lost. If you wanted to talk to your cousin Habib in Saudi Arabia who plans to strap on a C-4 vest and blow up LAX, yeah, you've lost that right. And with good reason.

I am not really sure that is a right...unless you are talking about freedom of speech. I imagine that you could not be prevented from speaking to Habib...but you sure had better be careful what you say.

Yes, but not out of it being ineffectual (which to a high degree, it is). Hillary hates The Right. Congress hates The Right. And the Democrats are just stupid enough to bend into their hatred of The Right, when what has happened to The Right is not entirely its fault. It is the fault of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., who demanded that they represent The Right.

The fact is Reagan was the last great conservative the U.S. has.

Another fact is had Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld been Democrats, the story wouldn't change - only protagonists and antagonists.

EDIT: In short, that hatred will blind-side the Dems into making decisions simply out of spite, not out of reasonable deduction of any issue.

That was Barry Goldwater, Reagan was in the grip of the neocons for most of his presidency, particularly the last 6 years of it. That's when Bush I held sway at the White House. The funding of Hussein by the US government really increased during those years, because Hussein was a Bush family retainer.

But Reagan was more in tune with what a conservative is than Bush II. Sorry, I don't remember much about Barry Goldwater.

Relatively speaking, you are correct. That reenforces the state of the Republicans today, when Reagan is seen as a genuine conservative it's pretty pathetic.

I'd suggest reading up on the old right, those who opposed Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and his ginning up to force America into World War Two. Many on this forum have no idea about them.

Re: Question for the politically minded
 

No because she is a fascist

[/B][/QUOTE]e.g. eavesdropping, guantanamo imprisonment, search & seizure infringements, airport profiling, and the like (add to this list if you like, this is just what comes to mind right away).[/B][/QUOTE]

Call me a hypocrite, but I would hope she would do more airport / border profiling. It is a fundamental way to begin sorting out the bad guys among us from the good guys – no matter what they look like or whre they are from. On all of the above, in the name of security, I think Bush is right.

Hopefully she will not become president.

Re: Re: Question for the politically minded
 

e.g. eavesdropping, guantanamo imprisonment, search & seizure infringements, airport profiling, and the like (add to this list if you like, this is just what comes to mind right away).[/B][/QUOTE]

Call me a hypocrite, but I would hope she would do more airport / border profiling. It is a fundamental way to begin sorting out the bad guys among us from the good guys – no matter what they look like or whre they are from. On all of the above, in the name of security, I think Bush is right.

[/B][/QUOTE]
Didja' see how Bush is doing nothing for the two border patrol agents who were convicted for chasing down and shooting a drug smuggler. The agents received eleven and twelve year sentences, and so far, Bush refuses to pardon the agents.

So much for securing our borders when in fact he won't back up our patrol agents.

Re: Re: Re: Question for the politically minded
 

[/B][/QUOTE]
Didja' see how Bush is doing nothing for the two border patrol agents who were convicted for chasing down and shooting a drug smuggler. The agents received eleven and twelve year sentences, and so far, Bush refuses to pardon the agents.

So much for securing our borders when in fact he won't back up our patrol agents. [/B][/QUOTE]

I am not suggesting that I think the whole thing is/was successfully executed. However, given the scope, there will be mistakes and tragedy. To do none of the above, in my opinion, is a bigger mistake and bigger potential tragedy.

With Hillary in office, at least we'll have someone in control that understands what it takes to fix our healthcare system. A very impressive track-record, no?

Lots of fun to look forward to under her leadership!

She is an enemy of free markets and free trade and will try to destroy small business thus trying to destroy the country. She will be a bigger mistake than either Bush or her husband.

The federal government has no authority to "fix the healthcare system" nor can it do so. What Hillarycare would have done is make a few health insurance companies more rich than they already are, and put others out of business.

If you want one of the finest healthcare systems on the planet, at least in the top ten or better, ruined beyond repair, let government get more involved than it already is.

Probably so, but the Republicans have been "Dem-lites" so long, none appear to be much better.

Want more scary thoughts? Hillary will take office with a Dem majority in both houses, giving her everything she wants for at least two years.

It's no wonder why the Dems like the Iraq War, it's delivering them back into power.