Why is Hillary so bad?
- Thread starter TargetTerror
- Start date
Why is Hillary so bad?
She is a SOCIALEST!
America fought:
WW-II
Joseph Stalin, killed more Russians than Hitler killed Russians.
The Korean War
The Cold War
Vietnam War
against SOCIALISM.
Remember George Orwell said in his book "1984" that Russia would become a democracy and that if America was not careful we would become a Communist/Socialest country.
She is a SOCIALEST!
America fought:
WW-II
Joseph Stalin, killed more Russians than Hitler killed Russians.
The Korean War
The Cold War
Vietnam War
against SOCIALISM.
Remember George Orwell said in his book "1984" that Russia would become a democracy and that if America was not careful we would become a Communist/Socialest country.
I'm certainly not going to vote for Hillary.But,I suspect if she were president she would be similar to Bill.What specifically happened in his presidency that was so bad?I'm talking about policies not Monica.No war,reduced deficits,pretty good economy,I bought whatever guns I wanted,concealed carry came to pass here.
In my view,Bush has not done a very good job on fiscal policy.The government has mushroomed under Bush.
Prescription drug benefits are a bigger entitlement than everything Clinton ever did put together.No Child Left Behind is more meddling in state affairs than Clinton ever did.
I saw no catastrophe in the Clinton years.
In my view,Bush has not done a very good job on fiscal policy.The government has mushroomed under Bush.
Prescription drug benefits are a bigger entitlement than everything Clinton ever did put together.No Child Left Behind is more meddling in state affairs than Clinton ever did.
I saw no catastrophe in the Clinton years.
Here is the person that some people want as their president:
She sees dead people. Or at least channels their spirits, for example Eleanor Roosevelt's.
On the other hand, she is literally the last person on this planet to see the obvious. Remember when the world found out her hubby, Bill, had fed his weanie to Monica Lewinksy? Across the globe, in every country that gets any kind of news whatsoever about the U.S., with one exception everyone believed Bill had done it. He had done that kind of thing before. The one non-believer was the woman who had slept next to him at night for decades, who had been with him nearly every day for decades, and who had endured his past daliances. Did she see that obvious thing that everyone else saw? No, she saw a vast "Right-wing conspiracy," blamed other people as making up lies about it, and stoutly claimed it never happened. Then when she finally got a clue - and as the very last person on Earth to do so, mind you - she said she was shocked. What she didn't say was that she was sorry for her accusations.
In short, the person some people want as their president is a person who sees things that don't exist, is the last person to see what really does exist and which billions of other people see, then blames others for it, and remains shocked when an entirely predictable chain of events that has happened numerous times happens yet again right in front of her face. And that is the person some voters trust to run the country and their lives.
I don't believe Hillary would be similar to Bill if she was in office. He was much more of a moderate than she is. She's attempting to be more moderate (to get elected) and for that matter is going with the polls and trying to be whatever will get her elected. I She's much more of a liberal than her husband ever was, believes government should correct all social woes and direct what all citizens need and do.
i'm not in love with either party, i want a statesmen, not a politician, one interested in his or her party, not the people...in a nutshell, my take on the Clintons...yes, they are a package, always have been, is that the liberal dems believe that they can take care of us little people better then we can, so the goverment can control things, more goverment is better to them. Socialists and communists love this idea, it consentrates power to a handful and everyone else will be equal...everyone believes the goverment owes them something, so all the goverment wants to do is make you afraid enough to give up your freedoms. expect more taxs to pay for this impossible to support medical plan, (life liberty persuit of happiness...what next, health care, food? free car?) and yes, your guns would be on the hit list. We little people are to simple minded to have guns, we might hurt ourselfs.
and the sad thing is the far right republican party isn't much better, just different dance steps to the "screw American citizens waltz"
and the sad thing is the far right republican party isn't much better, just different dance steps to the "screw American citizens waltz"
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Allow me to make a feeble attempt to answer your question coming from a simple average Joe...
The reason why you really know anything about her position, herself, or things she has done in the past is because there isn't hardly ANYTHING she has done to begin with. Let me explain my thoughts...
1. What has she REALLY got accomplished for the better of the citizens of NY since becoming junior senator? The answer will have to come from a NY resident for I haven't heard anything.
2. What office has SHE, not Bill, held before being elected as senator? NONE
3. What are her viewpoints on issues? Easy. The current hot button issue in the news that the moderate/liberal left democrats favor, she favors. Bigger government, fewer personal rights...
It's amazing that people would even consider voting for her or any inexperienced politician that isn't for the people.
I don't think that Hillary Clinton is bad. But I do think that she'd be a poor choice for President. David Broder recently gave an interesting reason to be wary of her: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111402030.html
If she gets nominated the GOP candidate will have the unique ability to run against Clinton and Bush, simply because America is sick of both families.
If she gets nominated the GOP candidate will have the unique ability to run against Clinton and Bush, simply because America is sick of both families.
orionengnr
New member
"...I suspect if she were president she would be similar to Bill. What specifically happened in his presidency that was so bad?"
Clearly you did not serve in the military during the Clinton years. If you had you would have seen about a 50% cut in manpower, equipment, bases closing, and a plunge in operational readiness.
Nuclear weapons technology handed over to China.
Top Secret documents disppearing with Sandy Berger.
Oh, and that AWB...what year was that, anyway? Oh yeah, 1996. Who was in the White House then? Oh, yeah, I remember now.
Nah, she won't be so bad... :barf:
Clearly you did not serve in the military during the Clinton years. If you had you would have seen about a 50% cut in manpower, equipment, bases closing, and a plunge in operational readiness.
Nuclear weapons technology handed over to China.
Top Secret documents disppearing with Sandy Berger.
Oh, and that AWB...what year was that, anyway? Oh yeah, 1996. Who was in the White House then? Oh, yeah, I remember now.
Nah, she won't be so bad... :barf:
As Mentioned...
Senator Clinton esposes views and goals on issues I find contrary to the best interests of the United States and U. S. citizens. Socialized health care, increased taxes, more government programs, less freedom. Is she any worse than any other Democrat? I see her about on a par with Senator Edwards, Senator Obama, and that ilk.
I don't really have any vitriol toward her personally. She has displayed numerous instances of limited moral standing and fibre. She seems to be deeply involved in all the skullduggery of the Clinton administration. She has a record of questionable business practises. The mentioned issues of Chinese involvement touches my ire. I am not a fan and I do not think highly of Senator Clinton, but I don't 'hate' her - not in the same sense and tone President Bush is 'hated' by the left.
I think she gets most of the attention because she's the Democrat front runner. If by some odd chance, Senator Obama gets the Democrat nomination, I think Senator Clinton will be largely ignored. For example, Dennis Kucinich is probably goofier than Senator Clinton; but he's so goofy, most people think of him as amusement rather than threat.
Senator Clinton esposes views and goals on issues I find contrary to the best interests of the United States and U. S. citizens. Socialized health care, increased taxes, more government programs, less freedom. Is she any worse than any other Democrat? I see her about on a par with Senator Edwards, Senator Obama, and that ilk.
I don't really have any vitriol toward her personally. She has displayed numerous instances of limited moral standing and fibre. She seems to be deeply involved in all the skullduggery of the Clinton administration. She has a record of questionable business practises. The mentioned issues of Chinese involvement touches my ire. I am not a fan and I do not think highly of Senator Clinton, but I don't 'hate' her - not in the same sense and tone President Bush is 'hated' by the left.
I think she gets most of the attention because she's the Democrat front runner. If by some odd chance, Senator Obama gets the Democrat nomination, I think Senator Clinton will be largely ignored. For example, Dennis Kucinich is probably goofier than Senator Clinton; but he's so goofy, most people think of him as amusement rather than threat.
Redneck with a 40
New member
I actually do fear the leftist, socialist, democrats obtaining 60 seats in the Senate next year and here's why. Next year there are 34 senate seats up for grabs, 22 of those held by Republicans, 12 of those Republican seats are considered in danger. Right now, the Dem's are sitting on 51 senate seats, so add 12 to that, you get 63. If this comes to fruition and Hillary gets elected, America is finished! It will take a few years, but we are finished!
What policy will be part of Hillary's socialist power grab?? The answer is easy, CITIZEN DISARMAMENT! If the Dem's gain those seats in the Senate and Hillary is elected, the end of our gun rights will be upon us. Hillary and the Dem's cannot manipulate and control and armed citizenry, they cannot force an armed citizenry into socialism, therefore they will dis-arm us.
The only saving grace in this whole deal would be the supreme court ruling the Second Ammendment and "individual right", that would certainly curtail their ambitions. However, depending on how the Supreme's word their decision, restrictions such as licensing and registration, waiting periods, one gun a month, ect, could remain constitutional.:barf:
What policy will be part of Hillary's socialist power grab?? The answer is easy, CITIZEN DISARMAMENT! If the Dem's gain those seats in the Senate and Hillary is elected, the end of our gun rights will be upon us. Hillary and the Dem's cannot manipulate and control and armed citizenry, they cannot force an armed citizenry into socialism, therefore they will dis-arm us.
The only saving grace in this whole deal would be the supreme court ruling the Second Ammendment and "individual right", that would certainly curtail their ambitions. However, depending on how the Supreme's word their decision, restrictions such as licensing and registration, waiting periods, one gun a month, ect, could remain constitutional.:barf:
JuanCarlos
New member
But she wasn't the front runner (at least not a clear one) two years ago. Or four. And I've been hearing the "Hillary hate" for a long time now...basically since her first Senate run, if not back to Bill's time in office.
Ah, the doom and gloom.
I'm not excited about testing this theory (because I'd not be fond of the laws that would almost definitely be passed) but I'd be willing to bet money that even with 60 in the Senate, control of the House, and a Democratic President we still wouldn't end up "disarmed." Because unless they plan on just suspending the Constitution and stopping elections, that'd be a surefire way to lose every last seat they gained in rural/semi-rural states...which at least in the Senate are the very seats that would be giving them that majority. Oh, and they'd likely lose the next Presidency as well as the southern and mountain west states once again become firm Republican strongholds in the EC (assuming they aren't in 2008).
I agree. I don't think an all-out citizen disarmament program would ensue. Gun owners have a lot of political power these days. I have heard more pro-gun talk this political season than I have in nearly 5 decades. We need to use that power.
My concern regarding the 2A is the usual incremental-infringement approach, such as a new AWB, registration requirements, restrictions on magazines, new requirements to purchase/store/reload ammunition, microstamping nonsense, etc. The incremental approach is almost always the more effective and insidious approach.
My concern regarding Hillary as president is also the signal that it would send our enemies: You have at least 4 years in which to mess with us without fear on any real retribution.