Hillary wants to be dictator?

[Wingwiper]

Originally Posted by Deersniper

Read about Hillary and Bill's "PAST" friends- the FiringLineForum. She is a member of every Globalist agenda. If they are globalists you cannot trust them, as they serve the Bilderburgers. All of the others are the same way, except for Dr. Paul. Troy it encourages me to see you asking questions, Most people just believe what they read or see in the media. There is alot of truth out, if you'll do the research. I love the net!

WHEN Bill tried to get the Chinese on an equaliberium with the U.S.by giving them the W-88 Multi-strike Nuclear Warhead, Delivery System Technology and 600 Super Computers as well as renting out the Lincoln Bedroom, several times to the Chinese and allowing aChinese SPY to steal Nuke Secrets down his pants in Los Alamos it was for their beliefs in Globaliztion. She had full awareness of who was sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom, she dine with him. She is more than a Liar she and her husband are both GUILTY of TREASON in the HIGHEST order, thy both betrayed the American People and their TRUST.
There is NO doubt she puts on her pretty little Country Girl smile and hugs the little Black Kids for show and her goal is POWER. She is EVIL like her husband.

[troy2000]

So far, a lot of this thread has been interesting, but doesn't answer the question. No one has pointed to anything that even hints she'll try to dismantle our system and become dictator, or that she's any more power-hungry than the average egomaniac who runs for president.

Wingwiper, you're ranting. I asked you not to. The nonsense you're spouting about the Clintons being multiple murderers is just that: nonsense. Every time someone who was ever associated with them dies from any cause whatsoever, the crazies chalk up another victim to the Clintons. Get real...the man couldn't even get away with sex in the Oval Office, but he's successfully murdered 44 people? As I've said before, the more ridiculous the accusations against someone, the more likely some gullible people are to believe them. It's called the Big Lie technique, and counts on the audience figuring if there's that much smoke there must be a fire.

What I get from most of these replies, though, is that Hillary just makes people vaguely uneasy; a "gut feeling," as some of you have put it. Interesting. That could be because there's something off about the woman, and you're picking up on it. On the other hand, it might also be that you've been bombarded for sixteen years by a cottage industry of Clinton bashing, to the point that it's just permeated the country.

The day in 1986 I finally gave up on the Republican Party, I was at a Republican voter registration booth in a shopping mall. They had stacks of books, videos and pamphlets setting out for sale, accusing Bill Clinton of being a drug lord, murderer, rapist, traitor, and anything else you could think of. I re-registered as a Democrat on the spot, and made the little turd in the booth do the paperwork for me.

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by troy2000

I've heard and read repeatedly that Hillary Clinton is the worst threat we've ever had to freedom in this country; that she wants to take all our rights, destroy our system of government and become dictator, etc.

What's all the hysteria based on? Can someone give me facts and figures and references that explain why she's such a menace?

Politely now, and with proper language, or I'll delete the thread. Please don't just come on and start raving...

And by the way, I'll stipulate she's anti-gun; you don't need to waste time telling me that one. She's living in some sort of fantasy land where, "...the (gun control) law in New York has worked to a great extent."

give me a while to collect my thoughts!

If what you say troy about her being unable to to curb ownership of firearms is correct?what makes you think she would be effective with anything else? Is this the right time in history to have a lame duck president?I'm still waiting patiently to see anything positive come out of her last presidency???? And she was named after the famous mountainer who was the first to cilmb Mt Everest? yeah to bad she was born before his claim to Fame! If you can't tell the truth about something as simple as your first name,what else would you lie about?? I will do some research on Sir Hillary before I start making any serious allegations tho!!!

funny how those who oppose the Clinton's wind up dead or smeared?????
getting 2 for the price of one ?

[Wingwiper]

Originally Posted by troy2000

So far, a lot of this thread has been interesting, but doesn't answer the question. No one has pointed to anything that even hints she'll try to dismantle our system and become dictator, or that she's any more power-hungry than the average egomaniac who runs for president..

That depends how much you skip when reading.. You can lead a Horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Wingwiper, you're ranting. I asked you not to. The nonsense you're spouting about the Clintons being multiple murderers is just that: nonsense. Every time someone who was ever associated with them dies from any cause whatsoever, the crazies chalk up another victim to the Clintons. Get real...the man couldn't even get away with sex in the Oval Office, but he's successfully murdered 44 people? As I've said before, the more ridiculous the accusations against someone, the more likely some gullible people are to believe them. It's called the Big Lie technique, and counts on the audience figuring if there's that much smoke there must be a fire.

Nonesense, ranting??? Why because you choose to think about it or consider how outragiouse it is to believe it is all by coincendence??? Please spare me.. I never said HE murdered anyone. Anymore than Ted Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kopechn or JFK and RK had anything to do with Marilyn Monroe's Death or that the Kennedys found a way to get 36,000 dead people to Vote in Chicago. I find it odd that the Left can call Bush a Liar on speculation and claim it is HIS war on even more speculation and accuse him of going to war over oil and all of the other lefty hohums, but dare a Republican speculate about so many UNTIMELY deaths during the Clinton ERA and deaths who had connections with ole Bill and it is Rants, and nonesense. Sorry Troy, you need to expand your politcal horizons and research on your own.. The odds that Bill had no knowledge are about the same as you winning the powerball. Good Luck... Susan McDougla Lived and Jim McDougal within 48 hours of stating openly to FRONTLINE reporters that he would spill the beans and tell everything about Bill and his involvment with the $500,000, was DEAD. Another Coincendent.. OK! I'll buy that..

What I get from most of these replies, though, is that Hillary just makes people vaguely uneasy; a "gut feeling," as some of you have put it. Interesting. That could be because there's something off about the woman, and you're picking up on it. On the other hand, it might also be that you've been bombarded for sixteen years by a cottage industry of Clinton bashing, to the point that it's just permeated the country.

The day in 1986 I finally gave up on the Republican Party, I was at a Republican voter registration booth in a shopping mall. They had stacks of books, videos and pamphlets setting out for sale, accusing Bill Clinton of being a drug lord, murderer, rapist, traitor, and anything else you could think of. I re-registered as a Democrat on the spot, and made the little turd in the booth do the paperwork for me.

Denial does not replace Knowledge. Because you don't want to believe something doesn't mean it isn't so. Democrats have been so good at denial. I mean the President has always been held in high expectations and has always been deemed to be a LEADING EXAMPLE, that was until a certain BLOWJOB in the OVAL OFFICE by an INTERN and a MARRIED President, from that point on the Democrats have played the denial game to the fullest and have even tried the TIT for TAT with little success. But to each their own and it is a Free Country... Were you ever commited to your convictions or was being a Republican just a notion? I believe in myself and I have been called a Republican for those beliefs, it is not something that will change if I walk up to a table and see anything, it is a conviction I have with myself. Maybe you never were a Republican, ever think of that? Jeffords never was either, he was in it for the money and the clout.

[mym1a]

depends what the meaning of is,is! one can only assume that by voting for one you get both,as per their last sales pitch! therefore if i'm to believe what they say, Hillary is equaly responsibile for the death of hundreds of thousands of Serbs, the slaughter at waco and Ruby ridge, her previous administrations inability to deal with the middle east crisis, the Ellion Gonzales incident where Hillary's previous adminstarion had yanked that small child out of his home by swat team members,if you want more of the past then by all means vote for Hillary's third term in office. AS for there personal sex life and what they did to Monica??what consenting adults do in private is there business,however being the oval office is still part of the white house which is a public room,they may have shown better judgement in sharing their latest paramour in the privacy of there home or motel/hotel?? depends what the meaning of is, is?

[Wingwiper]

"I don't remember" 96 times in his Testimony but then he writes on Book on his Memoirs for $10 million. Don't figure.

[troy2000]

Okay, I'm done. I'll leave the thread as an example of what happens when you try to have an intelligent conversation about one of the Clintons; you get brainwashed True Believers ranting about them being mass murderers, and a bunch of name-calling. K

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Okay, I'm done. I'll leave the thread as an example of what happens when you try to have an intelligent conversation about one of the Clintons; you get brainwashed True Believers ranting about them being mass murderers, and a bunch of name-calling. K

nothing like wiggle room when things don't go as planned?
just as your belief in Bush's/ republicans fault for everthing !!!!!! I guess it depends what the meaning of is,is?

[Wingwiper]

Originally Posted by mym1a

depends what the meaning of is,is! one can only assume that by voting for one you get both,as per their last sales pitch! therefore if i'm to believe what they say, Hillary is equaly responsibile for the death of hundreds of thousands of Serbs, the slaughter at waco and Ruby ridge, her previous administrations inability to deal with the middle east crisis, the Ellion Gonzales incident where Hillary's previous adminstarion had yanked that small child out of his home by swat team members,if you want more of the past then by all means vote for Hillary's third term in office. AS for there personal sex life and what they did to Monica??what consenting adults do in private is there business,however being the oval office is still part of the white house which is a public room,they may have shown better judgement in sharing their latest paramour in the privacy of there home or motel/hotel?? depends what the meaning of is, is?

OH MY God, MyM1A how could I ever forget ole Janet Reno, why yes! Ruby Ridge and Waco. shhhh must not speculate and accuse now.

I am a Catholic and I beleive in God and I remember walking up to this table once and seeing how the Catholics were trying to say that the aethists were supporting Satan, and that Jesus did NOT die on the cross and that there was NO GOD, well right then and there I started to NOT believe in Christ. Can you imagine them Catholics????

A sarcasium, not mean to be in insult as much as it is to wonder how anyone can be swayed from their beliefs so easily.

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by Wingwiper

OH MY God, MyM1A how could I ever forget ole Janet Reno, why yes! Ruby Ridge and Waco. shhhh must not speculate and accuse now.

I am a Catholic and I beleive in God and I remember walking up to this table once and seeing how the Catholics were trying to say that the aethists were supporting Satan, and that Jesus did NOT die on the cross and that there was NO GOD, well right then and there I started to NOT believe in Christ. Can you imagine them Catholics????

A sarcasium, not mean to be in insult as much as it is to wonder how anyone can be swayed from their beliefs so easily.

depends what the meaning of is ,is? the most honest thing clinton ever said!!!!!!!

amazing how: when you critize Bush your looked at as one with great insite exremely knowledgable and worthy of conversation however if you critique Hillary's failed health care, her past presidency you are labled as being brainwashed and stupid.??? I was hoping in good faith,for some one with great knowledge to free me of my brainwashed ignorant ways! so I could finely see the light,unfortunately it appears I'm forced to continue with my beliefs, as it is ???????? is!

[troy2000]

Okay, let's give this one more try: I have principles. Unfortunately, the Republican Party for the last fifteen or so years has had none; they have Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh instead. When the Republican Party returns to something like the party I was raised in and spent most of my life in, I'll return to the Republican Party.

Wingwipe, at the beginning of this thread I specifically requested no rants. You've done nothing but. You've spewed paranoid, illogical bs; you've name-called; you've almost singlehandedly destroyed the tone of this thread and made it just another vehicle for your ravings.

I'm not going to go to your numerous links and read more of the same. If you have knowledge that Hillary is power-hungry and wants to dismantle our democratic system so she can be dictator, politely and succinctly pass it on. Otherwise you may as well just butt out and go start your own thread, "Paranoid ravings about the Clintons."

[LarryO1970]

If you read excepts from her book "It Takes a Villiage" ... you will see what she is all about. Universal Health Care has it's pro's and con's ... but honestly, it is not the job of the Govt. Secondly, there is a part in the book that she states there would be big screen televisions along waiting lines to show people how to raise their children, etc. Frankly, it is not the business of her or the Govt. HOW we raise our kids... it is the parents' job, always has been.


Frankly, she scares me. Her husband was bad... a proven liar "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman"... we all know that line... as well as the line "Those that committed these acts will not go unpunnished" referring to the Khobar Towers bombing... God, there are so many to list I really don't know where to start.

She will be no better... and I fear, much worse.

[mym1a]

wingwiper GET IT RIGHT!!!! Bush BAD! republicans BAD! Clintons GOOD! democrats GOOD! you better learn this new reality or else you will be in a political re-education camp to help change your imperialist capitolist ways of thinking!!!! how dare you confuse the new reality with truth!!!!!!!!!
Troy
prove to us that Bush intentionaly lied to get us into the war and that oil was the only reason for it.obviously some in here are much closer to the Bush's and Clintons then they want to admit? do you have the documention to support the claim that Bush lied or a recording of him saying this??depends what is, is?

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

If you read excepts from her book "It Takes a Villiage" ... you will see what she is all about. Universal Health Care has it's pro's and con's ... but honestly, it is not the job of the Govt. Secondly, there is a part in the book that she states there would be big screen televisions along waiting lines to show people how to raise their children, etc. Frankly, it is not the business of her or the Govt. HOW we raise our kids... it is the parents' job, always has been.


Frankly, she scares me. Her husband was bad... a proven liar "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman"... we all know that line... as well as the line "Those that committed these acts will not go unpunnished" referring to the Khobar Towers bombing... God, there are so many to list I really don't know where to start.

She will be no better... and I fear, much worse.

your confusing facts with the new reality LarryO

all arguements aside, Hillary is one of many that I wouldn't vote for this election, the selection is like having dog dung served to you in a ice cream cone or on a paper plate! bottom line it's dog dung!,

[Cyrille]

"Never argue politics or religion" Mr. Troy you will believe what you will believe and ditto Wingwiper and everyone else who has responded to your invatation. Mr. Troy.
What you asked for has been provided by Mr. Wingwiper and others who have dared to disagree with you. You can't see the forest because the trees are in the way or rather you'd rather not admit that there is a forest!

[mym1a]

I think the lines have been drawn on this subject, I hope we aren't all waiting around to prove each other wrong? as we argue the house burns!!

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by troy2000

So far, a lot of this thread has been interesting, but doesn't answer the question. No one has pointed to anything that even hints she'll try to dismantle our system and become dictator, or that she's any more power-hungry than the average egomaniac who runs for president.

What I get from most of these replies, though, is that Hillary just makes people vaguely uneasy; a "gut feeling," as some of you have put it. Interesting. That could be because there's something off about the woman, and you're picking up on it. On the other hand, it might also be that you've been bombarded for sixteen years by a cottage industry of Clinton bashing...

Troy2000, if the list Wingwiper provided citing chapter, line and verse on the myriad incidents that illuminate Hillary Clinton's character (or to be exact, illuminate her lack of character) and willingness to say and do anything she thinks she can get away with does not explain to you why more than 40% of the country regard her as a menace to personal liberty unfit to hold office, much less to hold the office she aspires to, then I don't know what will.

Every move she has made since coming into the public eye has shown me one thing very clearly: Hillary Clinton doe not want to govern. She wants to RULE. The difference between those philosophies is as night and day.

She wants at the very, very least an imperial presidency. If she thinks she can get away with it, she want to become America's first Queen Regnant. She has a track record of running roughshod over the little people. She hates the fact that to get things done, she actually has to work with Congress. She would much prefer to govern by fiat; via presidential bulls, speaking ex cathedra from the Oval Office. That's called dictatorship.

Frankly, she is more to be feared than Curious George Bush in terms of what will happen to our civil liberties if she gets in. She will build on the foundation whose cornerstone was laid by her scumbag husband and whose bricks were laid by Curious George (or whoever is pulling his strings), to strip us of every right guaranteed under the Constitutuion and take us to the horrible world Orwell envisioned in 1984. Her record while merely exerting influence in the Bill Clinton White House, and her track record as the alleged junior senator from New York in the Senate stand as proof of that. (Personally, I feel her proper title should be "Ambassador to the United States from the Peoples Democratic Republic of New York." I have maintained for years that New York State is the only state in the Union which has no representation in the US Senate.)

She has a lifelong track record of suppressing information that does not flatter her. She has voted repeatedly to support the current Administration's efforts that restrict and deprive us of civil rights, and twist the meaning of the language used in international conventions. SHe has voted to expand the evils first pioneered by her "husband" with the passage of NAFTA into newer arenas, to the detriment of the American worker andnthe American consumer. Her track record in the matter of gun control alone in my opinion is more than reason enough to pray some other Democratic asshat gets the nomination.

I sincerely believe her to be as great a threat to Americans' civil liberties as Huey Long and George Bush. It has nothing to do with her gender at all. It has nothing to do with her being a Democrat. It has to do with her record and her lack of integrity and personal honor. I went to a school whose credo is "A cadet does not lie, cheat or steal; or tolerate those who do." By that standard, she flunks on all four counts.

T2K, in the Survival Forum there is a thread called Bad Vibes. The question that started the thread asks, "Has anyone ever felt 'bad vibes' or 'heebiejeebies' while on a trek in the woods?" The overall thrust of the thread is on point to your objection to people who have replied to you having a "gut feeling" that Hillary Clinton is a wrong 'un. My own contribution points out that if you're getting a bad vibe from someone or something, pay attention. Your subconscious is trying to tell you something, a conclusion reached by your hindbrain composed of things your forebrain isn't picking up on.

Both of the Clintons, but Slick Hillary far more than Slick Willy, do not merely give me a bad vibe. They set off alarm bells and flashing Red Alert lights. I don't get many hunches like that, but I have learned the hard way to pay attention to those I do get. In the case of the Clintons, that on top of what I know about them from their actions on the record tell me our nation not only does not need them, but that the United States cannot afford them, or her, or however you choose to regard the pair of them as the chief executive officers running USA, Inc.

That is why I do not trust them a nanometer, no matter which party they claim to be affiliated with.

[A-10]

Originally Posted by Wingwiper

Denial, does NOT make it UNTRUE. * Absolutely oppose the war in Iraq. Oct 2007
* Leave combat troops in Iraq only for conterterrorism. Sep 2007 (how many is that)
* Defunding war is the only way to force Bush to change course. Sep 2007
* The Iraq war is Bush's war. Jun 2007
* Voted for Iraq war based on available info; now would not. Apr 2007
* Critic of Iraq war, but won't recant 2002 vote in its favor. Nov 2006
* Regrets Bush's handling of war, but not her war vote. Oct 2006
* Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. Oct 2002

This back and forth, self-rightous idealism is enough to prove Hillary's incompetence in a political position. This country needs a president like her like we all need holes in our heads.

[The_Patriot]

You know, I'm a bit confused over what you're expecting people to provide. Are you just trolling? Or is this still serious? It's hard to prove someone's future intent, isn't it?

First, I'd say that I've known many Clinton haters over the years. I have never heard one say that Hillary was out to singlehandedly destroy our Republic. Sure, she has some whacky ideas, and a well documented thirst for power, but even she knows she wouldn't have the power (even as President) to destroy this country. She would need the support of Congress and even the states to make sweeping changes to the Constitution. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your question.

I think it'd be interesting to turn the question back around. Can you, or anyone on here cite great accomplishments of hers that could illustrate her readiness to assume such a powerful position of trust? What has she really done in her claimed 35 years of public life? I've read a number of books on her and Bill; I think her resume is exceedingly short. After all, she's a Senator ONLY because of her husband's popularity, and ONLY because she moved to a lib- and Bill-friendly state. She hasn't earned her way; it was handed to her. What major projects/programs, legislation or efforts has she pushed through that has made America a better place? It's a short list, folks.

I guess, for me, my disdain for Hillary is a combination of so many factors. I know you don't respect intuition as I do, but my gut is something I like to listen to. I suppose a lot of people do, that's why her anti-numbers (percentage of people that say theyd NEVER vote for her, under any circumstances) are extremely high, in fact, the highest in recorded history if I heard correctly.

If you're still seriously seeking information, take time to read up on her. Read what she's said; read what she's done; read accounts of people that knew her well. Every examination of her will be slanted one way or the other, so be sure to read both sides. I read a little on both sides, and the average conclusion I came to wasn't pretty.

Go read the book entitled Dereliction of Duty; It's one of many that give first-hand reports of her personality behind closed doors. My wife had friends that worked Air Force One when we were stationed at Andrews; they told me stories that matched what I had read about, so I'm inclined to believe a good deal on what I've read about her personality. Hillary has an explosive and ruthless mean streak, but she tries to keep it hidden. She would completely lose her mind and scream at Bill and others behind close doors. "Evil" is a word often used to describe her when she was on the warpath, out of the public eye. Many in the White House would scatter to hide in offices when they heard she was in the building. Read how she told Military personnel in the White House that she WAS NOT to see a military uniform. It should make your blood boil. Read how she thinks the military's primary mission is humanitarian. That is hardly the charge as outlined in the Constitution.

By the way, it's also interesting to me that you're so easy to condemn Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove in the same fashion that you've rebuked others for (on Hillary). Do you think either of them want to destroy America?

Now, before anyone gets totally honked off at me, understand that, while I am a Republican, I am also very disappointed in recent events. Our current Administration and candidates are NOT the conservatives I'd like to see leading the party. I'm not happy with either side of the aisle. I've looked long and hard for honorable men in Washington; it appears they are a scarce commodity.

[TexasT]

Troy, I don't vote for people based on party lines, nor do I vote for people based on their stance on guns granted we have many more issues in common. It's not that I dont think she is capable of running the country. It's that I think the changes she wants to make will be a little more extreme than she says.

Let's take our favorite topic -guns. She is already wanting to make several large changes in the purchasing and what type of gun you can be allowed to use. In addition to those changes, I think she will come up with more things to add to the list, like when you can carry a gun during the day, has to be in a holster, can't have a round chambered, so on and so forth. Essentially what I think I'm saying is that I see her micromanaging some things that affect my life that I already effectively manage on my own.

On top of that I'm not sure how well she would get along with the people that are there to help her make decisions. No, you don't have to spew sunshine and rainbows all the time to be a good leader, but you should get along with the people around you. Call it woman's intuition if you will. I see people opposing her for a number of reasons: 1) she's a woman 2) she wants to make huge changes 3) people disagree with how she handled the whole Bill scandal, and I'm sure you can think of a few more.

I'm not saying I oppose her for those reasons, I just think the country and the president need to be on the same wavelength for things to work out (you've seen what happened with Bush's reign).

Pm me if you want to discuss one other reason I'm not sure if she should be in office next term.

[BattleRifleG3]

Bush once said that he's not an expert at getting everything done, but he picks the right people to do the job, ie his cabinet. In my opinion, the earlier majority of his appointments were the best thing about his presidency. It was when his second term came that things started going downhill. Consider John Ashcroft who, despite what the media said, had a firm stand on individual rights and disagreed with some of what Bush did that has abridged them. Colin Powell, whose idea for Iraq wouldn't have left us in the position we're in now. And putting constructionist judges on the Supreme court.

Compare that to the aforementioned Janet Reno and the card carrying Communist Madeline Albright. Waco and Ruby Ridge, enough said. It's the Clinton cabinet that scared me the most with Al Gore, and who scare me as much as anything with Hillary Clinton.

A fact that some politicians are waking up to is that the government is not what it is supposed to be and that people don't trust it anymore. And along with that comes wanting to keep the last resort when all other methods of reform have failed. Yes, the RKBA. Some politicians are trying desperately to fix things before they get that bad, but everyone has a different definition of what it will take. Others are desperate to make the RKBA impotent because they fully plan to depart from the Constutution.

Label me a "single issue voter" if you want; in my belief you have to have a single, central principle to make any decent decision, and that is limited government. When it seems like both parties have forgotten the meaning, it makes the last resort far more important, because you're that much closer to having to use it. If a politician doesn't have the RKBA in their crosshairs, it tells me that they have hope that the Constitutional government will prevail and will never get that bad, and it also means that if they're proven wrong, they are willing to let the people do what they did before according to the Declaration of Independence - erect a new government in its place. It means that even if they hate that prospect, as I do, they would rather let it happen than turn into a dictatorship.

Those who want to take away the RKBA have chosen the other position. That if things fall apart, they will be the ones who remain in control, not the people. And that they are willing to do terrible things that they wouldn't get away with if the RKBA were still there.

So to answer your question, it is Hillary's track record of being willing to do ANYTHING to get what she wants, combined with an incomparably powerful political machine, that makes me believe that she seeks to become a dictator. And the fact that she's cozy with a bunch of other dictators in the world. She doesn't play by the rules, as in she tries to be above the law. That's what a dictator is. One way authority, above the people. Not governing the people while being kept in check through separation of powers, regular elections, and the people holding the last resort in case everything else doesn't work to prevent a dictatorship. All of these things defined in the Consitution, a unifying document that keeps the peace because it defines the government and protects the rights of the people in one package.