If Hillary is elected President....

Both are textbook losers and neither is worth voting for.

 

Reagan didn't sign the assault weapon ban. Clinton did in 1994. Please learn history (or at least Google) before you spout nonsense.


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

 

You are right of course. Reagan supported the Brady Bill publically after he left office We can forgive him for his transgression having dementia at the time. The faaaar right forgives him his transgression because of his disease.

 

Btw, that makes it acceptable to use Wikipedia for a reference. Glad someone finally admitted that the references we used were acceptable.

 

A vote for anyone with the name CLINTON is a vote in favor of a Communist regime and a vote against freedom & liberty.

 

As two gay people, yes one is better. Maybe they both are tied to big money, but one if horrific on gay rights while the other is good. Hillary is better on social issues, so vote for the less evil come November.

 

Since Clinton is dead set against gun rights, I would never vote for her as dog catcher or less.

 

Clinton was nothing more then a DINO.

 

She does not have to do much more than appoint another "progressive" to the supreme court, and its likely she will get several opportunities. Kennedy is 79, replace him with a far left prog and a lot of things will change.

 

First you question the claim and when provided the debt in dollars showing Reagan was not the bad guy, you claim the debt as a % of GDP is the real measure, then when that data shows you are still wrong, you jump to the rumour mill and bias rather than admit you were wrong.

 

I question the claim because you conflate debt with yearly deficit. You do know the difference don't you ?
Not that bad a guy ? Reagan ? What ? Economically or allowing his administration to engage in criminal behavior. Btw, why is it rumor mill ? You have Google. Check it out. It's all on record. Posted it earlier.

There is a difference between debt and deficit. The total debt Obama accumulates is his plus the previous president as he has to live under his 2 unbudgeted for wars and, tax cuts, drug company give away, the TARP bailout came under Bushes administration, and the recession . If you didn't realize it, 700,000 jobs a month were lost because of the Bush recession. Nearly all of the people who lost jobs had to receive unemployment benefits for years. All of this added to most of the Obama deficit.

Now look at the debt under the Carter. There was a recession, but nothing compared to Bush and the economy was under stag- flation but was not accumulating debt. at any substantial rate. Reagan, without help from Carter, took us from the biggest loaner nation in the world to the biggest debtor nation in the world.

This is all historical fact !

You keep talking about total debt which Obama could do little about, because of Bush but his yearly deficit spending is less then Bush at 7% of GDP down to less then 3 %. So, he contributed little himslf budget wise, other then the wars he had to prosecute with Bushes tax cuts. All he can do is improve over the previous administration, he can't eliminate the mess he was given. Deficit wise, Reagan ran at over 6% and increased the debt all by himself.

He did this while supplying an atmosphere that fostered more criminal activity then any other. His admistration sold weapons to Iran and propped up Osama BN Ladin in Afganistan giving him power he never had before. Bush invasion of Iraq gave rise to ISIS. Between the two of them, they have given America enough enemies to last a life time.

The fact still remains. We are four times more likely to have a recession under the GOP then Dems. Job gain is over 200,000 per month under Obama and unemployment is 5 %, less then the 6% Romney claimed he could get it down to by the end of his term if elected during the elections. Thankfully he did not..

 

Then Clinton/Kasich or Clinton/Bush would be dream tickets.

 

You have me confused with someone else.

But you are wrong on one count, the Carter recession was far worse than the Bush recession. The difference between the Carter & Bush recessions is not the recession but the recovery - there was a recovery when Reagan took office, there has not been a recovery after the Bush recession.

 

Reagan had his own recession !!!! The Carter recession was worse then Bush ? Ha ha ha


The only recession worse was the Great Depression of 1929. Does your computer work....? That was a joke wasn't it ? Tell us you were kidding.....the worse the recession the longer and more difficult it is to recover and yet, the economy, growth, stock market are all better now then during Bush. Reagan had a recession of his own
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession

 

Just because you call it the "Great Recession" does not make it so. Compare inflation rates, interest rates, mortgage rates, unemployment rates, between the Carter recession and the Bush recession. Add in the oil/gas crisis on the Carter recession to top it off. Carter was much worse.

Some people want to call the Bush recession the "Great Recession" as cover for Obama's complete economic failure.

 

Yes. She is a big fat lying lizard.

 

Because all the maniacs will be stockpiling for the day they go on a rampage, and shoot up a mall or school.

I always say, "You're okay with semi-automatic and automatic guns being legal? You must be advocating for another Aurora Theater shooting or Columbine or Sandy Hook shooting." While that might sound drastic, no one needs a gun that shoots more 1 round at once. No one individual needs a AK47 in their possession. Handguns and shotguns, fine, but nothing automatic.

 

LMAO! I was talking about Bill Clinton, not hillary.

- - - Updated - - -

LMAO! I was talking about Bill Clinton, not Hillary!

 

**************************************************************************************************

Well we got us another Fresh Fish !!!

- - - Updated - - -

Is there a Difference ???
They are both AI Robots.

 

Dead set seems kind of strong. I've yet to hear a democrats say "take all the guns." Some would like more controls it's true. Given that my nephew's dad was able to legally purchase multiple guns as a bipolar alcoholic with a felony makes me think a few more controls might ok. His conviction was knocked down to a misdemeanor after probation so he passes background checks, but it doesn't change the fact that he committed a felony. And it certainly doesn't change the fact that he's a bipolar alcoholic. Anyway, that's off topic, my point is I don't think Clinton is "dead set" against guns, but maybe not in love with them like the republican candidates.

So this is purely out of curiosity, if it came down to Trump and Clinton, who would you vote for?

 

"So this is purely out of curiosity, if it came down to Trump and Clinton, who would you vote for?"

If it came down to Clinton and X = Stan de Daybel, I would vote for Stan !

Better an unknown Angel than the Daybel you know !

 

What about Cruz vs Clinton? I fear Cruz more than Trump. Trump says crazy s#%* but Cruz means crazy s%#*

 

That might work even better. Of course, Kasich/Kusinich will be unbeatable.

 

Semi auto shoots 1 round at once.

 

The GPO.gov reference is the definitive one. Wiki was used because it's convenient. As long as the subject is verifiable facts, wikipedia is pretty accurate. It's good for dates, etc.