Why is Hillary so bad?

Nothing special negative happened during the Bill Clinton years. That is right. It takes time to destroy a whole nation. If Hillary Clinton wins you will not be led by a nose ring the morning after, into the promised land of socialsim. But eventually you will find your self there. The negatives America faces today is because Bill didn't hold the rudder during his time. He was busy having a giant ego tripp in the office. Just as Reagan with his tax cuts could only pave the road for future great economic harvests, harvests harvested in a time while Bill was in the office, Bush is trying a politics that is good in the long run for America. Those nuts in the Middle East needs to be tamed, not let roam free under Hillary. The problems Hillary will create, should she win, will only be felt long after she is gone.
 
I don't know that she's so bad except for being vehemently anti-gun (big important reason), regardless of how she's downplayed that in recent years , and the fact that she's a big tax & spend liberal, bordering on socialist, regardless of how she's downplayed that in recent years. Other than that, not too bad. If elected, I believe her true colors would come out, and taxes would go up more than with any other candidate (assuming a complicit Congress). Since taxes are already WAY too high (at the federal level), this makes her highly undesirable in my book. Clinton I balanced the budget, mostly because Mr. Perot put that issue on the table. Clinton II would do no such thing. She'd continue bleeding the treasury for the war, AND add more domestic spending. What's not to dislike?
 
Many years ago the Democrat party was really not that bad. In those days it really was "a party of the working man." Trouble is that since the late 1950s socialists have been infiltrating the Democrat party and running as Democrats instead of under their TRUE colors. As a result of this maneuvering, more and more people have moved away from the new liberal-socialist-Democrat party. People who used to represent the socialist groups (Nazis, Posse Commitatus, etc.) have begun to ENDORSE the new socialist/Democrats candidates. That's EXACTLY why the neo-Nazis along the west coast endorsed and handed out John Kerry flyers in Oregon and Washington States. This is why both the CPUSA and the American Nazi party endorsed Kerry on their websites in 2004. Back in 2004 Hillary Clinton went to Europe to meet with political leaders over there. ALL of the leaders that she met with over there were from SOCIALIST parties. In London, UK, Hillary even very quietly met with the braintrust of ALL socialists: the infamous Socialist International. The Socialist International is a group of people who guide and direct political candidates as to what they should and should not do. With socialists, timing is everything. It was SI that told Hillary Clinton that she should NOT run for election with John Kerry. Research at that time indicated that the ONLY ticket that the Democrats could come up with that could have beat the Bush-Cheney ticket was one with Kerry as President and Hillary Clinton as Vice President. Kerry repeatedly called Hillary after he got his party's nod to offer her the number two slot. SOME rumors indicate that Kerry called Hillary Clinton up to 5 times to offer her that slot but each time she refused to talk to him. Because of her actions, Kerry was forced to offer the slot to John Edwards and to expect to be defeated which did come to pass. Yes, Hillary is after power and would love to further the socialist agenda at ANY cost. Yesterday one of Hillary's socialist buddies, Dennis Kucinich, went to Ft. Benning, Ga., to protest the Army's School of the Americas. Typical of most socialist Democrats, Kucinich is right on top of things... In 2001 The School of the Americas was disbanded. As Monica Manganaro Army spokeswoman said of the protestors, which included Kucinich, "They are spectacularly misinformed." Way to go, Dennis and typical socialist Democrats you're only SIX YEARS behind the times!!! Typical anti-gun, anti-religious, anti-American Democrats!! They can't get anything right on issues.
 
HR 1022 was proposed one month after the Democrats gained control over Congress (i.e., February, 2007 proposal IIRC). It is, by far, the most anti-gun statute ever proposed. The Democratic leadership favors this proposal.

If Clinton becomes president you will lose your 2nd Amendment rights if the Democrats have their way.

To say otherwise is putting your head in the sand. The Democratic leadership has been for the total prohibition of private firearms ownership for 40 years now.

Maybe some of you guys are too young to really understand what I'm talking about? Or, maybe you're trying to justify voting for a Democrat and still say you're for the 2nd Amendment?

If Hillary Clinton gets elected and the Congress stays in the Democrats' hands, we will lose our 2nd Amendment rights IMHO. I simply cannot believe, based on the facts for over 40 years, that some people disagree with this statement.

It's as plain as the nose on my face and I have a big nose!:p

(Unless we win Heller that is!)
 
Watch C Phillips link to the Google video. Remember Vince Foster. My gut feeling is that she can't be trusted. Elections always seem to be a vote for the lesser of 2 evils.
 
The way it is:

Hillary was treated like crap by her husband, if she gets in charge she'll make us all pay for it. Just a little 'undeniable truth of life' I have noticed over the years.
 
MGHO

I was in constant fear for my job when slick willie ran things, and the whole experance is sumed up by me saying "I have never been so ashamed to be in the military and an American as when slickey Bill was in office.
I pray at night that I NEVER have to say that again. With god as my witness I feel if she is elected my shame and pride will see a whole new low. I have spoken with my wife about seeking employment out of my lifes calling.
If all else fails Albian Sands is always in need of Electrical engineers and heavy equiptment operators out at the strip mines.
 
Hillary is a marxist, pure and simple. Going further she is a psychologically damaged marxist. As such she is to be considered an adversary never to be trusted. I would never consider giving her my back in a knife fight.

Can't say that about republicans. Where Hillary has it over all republicans so far is she is pretty consistent in her believe system. She may flop around on various policies but her belief system is consistent. I can't put my finger on what republicans believe. In a fit of stupidity I just might be able to convince myself to give a republican my back in a knife fight. A truly stupid move since they may or may not be my adversary at any given time.

So I guess in a perverted sorta way Hillary is a better choice. At least I know where she stands and is never to be trusted.

Are we really in that bad of shape?
 
So many of these posts are going like, "hillary is evil/satan/a b****/socialist" and so many go off in generalities. You don't win with such junk. Specifics?

I'll start. She is super-protectionist, pro-tarriff, anti-free trade. The unions have bought her out.

When a bunch of rich guys from Dubai wanted to buy out the New York harbor, she was very much against it. You know, not wanting to offshore blue-collar labor, and also, something about terrorism. And everyone could see right through it. Rich guys from Dubai -> located in the United Arab Emirates -> Arab People -> Terrorists!

But get this - the consultant for the the Dubai buyers turned out to be.... Bill Clinton. Talk about a lack of communication.

This one time, she was doing a press conference, and she said something like, "...and I'd like to finish with a quote from Mohatma Ghandhi... he's this guy I know who works at a gas station..."

Hillary Clinton said:
We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.
Click to expand...
 
So many of these posts are going like, "hillary is evil/satan/a b****/socialist" and so many go off in generalities. You don't win with such junk. Specifics?
Click to expand...

With her being in the spotlight, the dirt dug up on her on the surface, and true colors of this candidate...you don't need specifics. If you do, then I'd have to say that do the "searching" for yourself. This isn't exactly a Duncan Hunter or Ron Paul that has just surfaced in the past couple of years. Specifics on these types of candidates is definitely warranted. They were not well known in the recent past. Hillary on the other hand...
 
Basically, she only cares about one thing. Power. And she'll do anything to get it. Anything.
Click to expand...

Somebody check my pulse! I think I just agreed with Manedwolf! :eek:

I've hated her ever since the '92 primary when she pulled off that "suzie homemaker" persona with her cookie recipes, then turned around with her "power-woman" routine the next very week when she found out the focus groups didn't like it.
She's fake. There's nothing to her.
The only thing she displays public support for is that she should be president.
Every decision she's ever made in the Senate has been with an eye to her presidential bid. "I voted for the war but now I'm against it but I'll vote for the surge and then say it doesn't work and now I'll vote to extend the war into Iran but I'll work to end the war while I don't....and all of it's Bush's fault.
I'm normally loathe to drag out the "pukey" emoticon, but..... :barf:

She's cold, calculating, devoid of any substance, and doesn't seem to have any guiding principles whatsoever.

And (this is not intended to thread-jack in any way) I can't seriously respect anybody who claims they were "fooled" by the village idiot.

Another (final) edit:
I think Robin Williams had a great idea: If a candidate accepts a contribution from a corporate interest, they should be forced to wear the logo like a NASCAR driver.
People would reject her if they knew who was bankrolling her.
 
Didn't James Madison or one of the founding fathers say "Those who seek power are corrupted by it, but those who are given power without asking for it are responsible with it" or somthing like that? I remember reading it in my western culture class a year ago. Somewhere in that text book...

edit: here's a good one "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -Lord Acton, 1887
http://www.cusdi.org/quotes.htm
 
I pulled this off the web some time ago

Crooked Hillary

If they really wanted to be president, then when they look at the polls and realize that Hillary Clinton is leaving them in her dust, they would vow to stop her with every fair and accurate tool at their disposal — and the beauty is, they would legitimately be able to tell themselves they are doing it to save the United States from somebody so corrupt that she is “unfit for elective office.”

1. Hillary’s husband Bill Clinton “is so thoroughly corrupt it is frightening.” It is, of course,
almost impossible to separate Bill from Hillary in this regard, because their careers are so intertwined and because so many of the corruptions in Clinton’s past specifically involved projects on which Hillary was actively involved. Still, for instance, there is no honest explanation for Hillary’s killing in the cattle futures market, when she made about $100,000 very quickly on a $1,000 investment just at the time when brokers appeared to be curiously post-dating and probably re-allocating trades to benefit favored clients.

2. Then there was Whitewater, somehow written off by the big media as irrelevant even though the investigation landed about a dozen convictions of (mostly) close Clinton associates, even though the Clintons both benefited financially from the whole imbroglio, and even though Hillary’s own Rose Law Firm was hip-deep in the whole mess — as was shown when the infamous firm billing records mysteriously and belatedly showed up in a spare White House office, reportedly with Hillary’s fingerprints (real, not figurative) all over them.

3. Hillary Clinton was intimately involved with the botched handling of the firing of longtime White House Travel Office employees, combined with the odd and scary (and utterly disproportionate) use of the FBI to investigate the employees on what proved to be utterly spurious charges.

4. Then there were the multitudinous examples of skullduggery involving unseemly access for and unseemly and/or illegal campaign contributions from a veritable cornucopia of shadowy Asian
businessmen. Hillary, again, was a big player in the whole mess. And Hillary’s own subsequent campaigns have been bedeviled by other questionable contributions similar in kind if not in degree to the various White House Asia-gate scandals.

Hillary Clinton, just like her husband Bill, is “is so thoroughly corrupt it is frightening,” and she is “unfit for elective office.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top