Hillary wants to be dictator?

[Wingwiper]

Originally Posted by 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 weren't 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.

very well written and well said.. AMEN

[billy]

Originally Posted by Wingwiper

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.

[Wingwiper]

I forgot to back up what I said.... sorry

Google clinton chinese w-88 11,800 references

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world...hina-nuke.html



http://www.artistmarket.com/writers/...intonchina.htm
Clinton's trouble with China began before his re-election in 1996. To defeat the Republicans, the Democratic party needed a quick infusion of cash to pay for campaign ads. Clinton turned to his Chinese connection, old friends Johnny Chung, John Huang, and Charlie Trie. They headed a shadowy cast of characters that funneled millions of dollars into democratic campaign coffers.
Bill Clinton took contributions he knew came from China, and played another angle as well. US companies wanted to sell China military technology, but the sales were prohibited by law. Economic sanctions for the Tiananmen square massacre and restrictions on technology exports prevented these companies from selling China the armaments they wanted.
In return for campaign contributions, the President shifted regulation of technology exports from the State Department to the free-wheeling Commerce department. The administration also relaxed export controls and allowed corporations to decide if their technology transfers were legal or not. When easing restrictions wasn't enough, Clinton signed waivers that simply circumvented the law. The President's waivers allowed the export of machine tools, defense electronics, and even a communications system for the Chinese Air Force.
http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1999/040899.htm

http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/200...nage-case.html

Wen Ho Lee worked on fluid dynamics simulations as a computer programmer at Los Alamos. A technical mediocrity perpetually on the RIF (reduction in force) bubble, he scouted around for consulting work overseas and sought to boost his profile by inserting himself into the ongoing exchanges between Chinese and US weapons scientists during the Reagan and Clinton years.

He was also a dingbat who downloaded sensitive files in his specialty, first to an unsecure network and then to tapes, perhaps as personal trophies or as a resource for a second career. When his misdeeds came to light, he panicked, lied, and destroyed evidence in an effort to cover his tracks.

Wen Ho Lee should have been terminated for his security violations and he probably should have suffered criminal penalties for obstruction of justice.

Instead, he ran afoul of Department of Intelligence counterintelligence chief Notra Trulock, whose national security jihad paradoxically provided Lee with redemptive incarceration, book and movie deals, and a big settlement from the government and news organizations for the invasion of his privacy.



http://thinkinboutstuff.com/thinkinb...ar-us-carrier/

China’s enhanced ability to project nuclear force is noteworthy not merely for its threat to America but also because much of the Clinton administration’s decontrol of defense exports took place after 1995, when the administration first admitted that China may have stolen our W-88 warhead design. For example, the export to China of computers that could be used to test the performance of nuclear warheads continued even after the administration knew what had likely happened to the W-88 design. Similarly, the machine tools for the quiet submarine propellers were delivered in China after the administration realized the extent of Beijing’s success in appropriating our advanced nuclear weapons technology.

Google clinton Chinese 1,710,000 references

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...29/25139.shtml

Newly declassified documents show that President Bill Clinton personally approved the transfer to China of advanced space technology that can be used for nuclear combat.
The documents show that in 1996 Clinton approved the export of radiation hardened chip sets to China. The specialized chips are necessary for fighting a nuclear war.

http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Cl...als/index.html

Clinton Scandals, including Chinagate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...s/cf021098.htm

Mochtar Riady and his son, James, who control the Indonesian-based Lippo Group conglomerate and have been friends and supporters of President Clinton since his days as Arkansas governor, "have had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency," according to an unclassified final draft of a report by the Senate committee that last year investigated campaign finance abuses

Google clinton chinese lincoln bedroom 40,200 references

Google clinton chinese 600 supercomputers 32,700 References

http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu137.htm
THE CLINTON LEGACY: TREASON

So today, thanks to the Clinton administration and a few large Democratic Party "campaign contributors," communist China has 23 huge thermonuclear weapons ready to wipe out 23 of our cities.

http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard.../3772981.shtml

Under the Clinton administration, key technology listed on the State Department's Munitions Control list was transferred to the Commerce Department's Control list where it was promptly licensed for production outside the U.S. by China.

Google clinton dirt 509,000 references
Google bush jr dirt 162,000 references

[blaster]

everyone else on this thread have already said what I would have. I can't rember the exact circumatance but Hillary once said that George Orwell's book 1984 was her favorite book. I think she looked at it as a manual for her quest for power instead of a way to see how things shouldnt be. If she gets elected (god forbid) I just hope the checks and balances in our system work!

[Deersniper]

George Orwell? That explains alot. I think we need a new party! A second party would be nice.

[troy2000]

I'm pretty much ignoring any nonsense about the Clintons being guilty of high treason and mass murder. I'm also ignoring anything to do with New World Order conspiracy theories; if she's guilty of that so is every politician running, so why single her out? I'm sorting through the rest of the stuff, and there are some intelligent, reasoned posts.

[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.

Google a list of people who did serving the Klintons... make up your own mind...

[Wingwiper]

Originally Posted by troy2000

I'm pretty much ignoring any nonsense about the Clintons being guilty of high treason and mass murder. I'm also ignoring anything to do with New World Order conspiracy theories; if she's guilty of that so is every politician running, so why single her out? I'm sorting through the rest of the stuff, and there are some intelligent, reasoned posts.

I am sorry if you feel FACT is nonesense. I gave only brief references and there are many many more. Fact is the Clintons were and still are inolved with the Chinese.
Troy I am NOT attacking Democrats in the least bit, I am not attacking the Modern Liberal in the least bit. I am attacking two very corrupt individuals who found their way to the Top. The Kennedy's had Mafia connections, Ted Kennedy decides who will be a Supreme Court Justice and was never prosecuted for Mary Jo and who knows what favors were done for who and for what reason by the Clintons. It is NOT nonesense, it is all proveable just go and read.
Don't forget too the corruptness that J.Edgar Hoover the head of the FBI was reported to have had. Anything is possible when there is enough money involved or people willing to safrifice Honor.
Clintons aren't heros by any stretch of the imagination. 20 years ago who would have ever thought the Catholic Church would be so filled with disgrace as they are today from actions 20 years ago??? Anything is possible, beleive it.
Insight Symposium: Has Clinton's China policy put U.S. national security at risk? | Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies
China's inability to gain free access to advanced U.S. technologies after 1989 had a direct impact on China's military hardware. When Clinton and Gore came to power, the PLA had no modern air-defense systems; it lacked a military communications network; it had no modern command-and-control systems; it had no imaging or electronic eavesdropping satellites; its strategic rockets were unreliable and its theater missiles were at a nascent stage of development, hampered by technology bottlenecks. And in all of these areas, there was no solution on the horizon.
What a difference seven years have made. In this interval we have seen dramatic changes brought about by the Clinton/Gore administration in the way the United States manages its national-security export-control system. Unbeknownst to voters, or even to most policy experts, the new administration came to Washington in January 1993 with a coherent plan for gutting the entire export-control system, which it called a "wasting asset" left over from the Cold War.

[Shwanzig]

I remember hearing a comedian say

"50% of democrats want Hilary as the Presidential candidate, and 100% of the Republicans want her as the candidate."

Supposedly they have ALOT of bad dirt on Hilary right now

[mym1a]

I have had time to think about this. I think Hillary would make a great president however do to my station in life as being one of many,who are the unwashed uneducated and don't have the intelect to vote for some one as worthy as the high priestess,so to my liberal mentors I shall prostrate my self uopn the alter or the progressives and beg for the insight and wisdom that you have!!!!!!

[GlockMeister]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, yes,Politics! One of two topics never to be openly discussed among friends or with family. It seems to always cause arguments with not only the best of friends, but even with family. By the way, for those that may not know it, Religion is the 2nd topic.

Currently, and PLEASE, correct me if I'm wrong. The House of Representitives is now currently controlled by the Democrats; With Nancy Pelosi, also a Democrat, the Speaker of the House. The Senate, is now also currently controlled by the Democrats. The Senate Majority Leader and the Assistant Senate Majority Leader are both Democrats. Again, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

Do we really want a Democratic President voted into office? Does anyone have a clue as to what that means? It means, the Democrats will have the POWER and pass ANYTHING THEY WANT TO, and NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO STOP THEM, NO ONE!

If Hillary,Obama or Edwards get elected, our gun rights are gone. If Hillary, from what I remember hearing (sorry, a while ago, don't remember, just know I heard it), gets her way, and since the Democrats would then CONTROL IT ALL, it is quite possible the entire 2nd Amendment could be either gone or re-written. She has commented on how she'd be happier and wouldn't have any problems if it, the 2nd Amendment was gone.

GO AHEAD THEN, BY ALL MEANS, VOTE DEMOCRATIC for President THIS NOVEMBER!

With that said, I feel the need to ask this. Troy2K, you definately seem to know a lot. You seem to have a very level head on your shoulders. You most often make a lot of sense. Which makes me have to ask you this.

Why do you care about what is being said about the Clintons? Why do you care about what is said, whether it is true or not, about Bill and/or Hillary Clinton. Obviously, you are not happy with the current administration. I get it. And I'm guessing from that unhappiness, you're probably going to be voting Democrat, this November. Hey, it is still America and you have that right. It will NOT make me like or dislike you. It will NOT make me stop reading what you have to say. I get you are unhappy with how things have been for many years, thought I saw something you wrote/said in a previous post for this topic, like for the last 15 years or so the Republicans have? Anyhow, I get it, and you have every right to not only feel this way, but to also express that feeling, on paper or out loud. BECAUSE FOR NOW, THIS IS STILL AMERICA.

What the future holds however, scares me to death. Not just for me, but for my child and his children, hell for all future children. The fact that the Democrats will have full total control is all I need to make me definately not vote Democratic this election. I too have that right. I'm sure nothing I say will sway your decision to vote or not vote for anyone either. I always vote for whomever I feel will and can do the best. I could care less what anyone has to say about any of the Democrats running or not. Nothing anyone says, about, for or against, any potential Democratic or Republican candidate, will ever be the reason I vote or don't vote for any one candidate.

I'm pretty sure because you do have that good head on your shoulders and because you seem to be pretty smart and seem to know a lot, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING ANYONE SAYS WILL EVER BE THE REASON YOU VOTE OR DON'T VOTE FOR ANY CANDIDATE, DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN EITHER, SO I HAVE TO ASK, WHY THEN DOES IT MATTER TO YOU? WHY DO YOU NEED TO HEAR OR SEE PROOF ABOUT ANYTHING SAID ABOUT THE CLINTONS?

Troy2K, I in no way am trying to start anything with anyone, especially you. I respect your opinions and I truly wish that I could at least be a third laid back as you. I have my OPINIONS and BELIEFS the same as ANYONE ELSE, on G&G or in the entire country for that matter. I only ask because I just don't get it, is all.

G-Meister

[BattleRifleG3]

The federal government does NOT have the power to change the Constitution. An amendment would have to be ratified by the states. What I'm afraid of is the federal government just giving it and the state governments the finger and just violating it, openly this time.

[The_Patriot]

Originally Posted by BattleRifleG3

The federal government does NOT have the power to change the Constitution. An amendment would have to be ratified by the states. What I'm afraid of is the federal government just giving it and the state governments the finger and just violating it, openly this time.

I was getting ready to post the same thing.

There are few more opposed than I am to the Clintons being in office again, but truth be told, it wouldn't give her a blank check to destroy the nation singlehandedly. Thank God for checks and balances--they would *help* minimize the damage she'd cause. And thank God that the States are needed to amend the Constitution. The framers got a lot right when they wrote that document. Too bad they didn't include term limits for Congress, though...

[GlockMeister]

Originally Posted by BattleRifleG3

The federal government does NOT have the power to change the Constitution. An amendment would have to be ratified by the states. What I'm afraid of is the federal government just giving it and the state governments the finger and just violating it, openly this time.

I know. My point was that Hillary would like to. lol

And you're right, it only takes an Amendment, and not only Hillary would sign it in a heart beat, many others probably would also if it pertained to the 2nd Amendment. Yet another reason to NOT give one party full and total control and any point in time.

G-Meister

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by The_Patriot

I think it impossible for one person with one perspective to report on the so-called hysteria. I think the anti-Hillary crowd have a myriad of unique reasons. For me?

1) My gut. The Clintons have always appeared to be liars. That was true the first time I heard Bill speak, and still true the last time I heard Hillary speak. I got into politics about the time Bubba got elected the first time and had no bias, but it didn't take long fo me to listen to my gut...I knew they were no good. All these years later, I've never felt differently. Not once.

2) Their disdane for the military. I just finished my 20 years. The Clintons and their ilk did their worst to dismantle our military and its capabilities the first time around. They'll do it again if given the opportunity. Bill and Hillary are connected at the hip, it's a package deal; buy one, get the other. It's no secret to those around her that she loathes the military, regardless what she says in public. To be fair and balanced (he he), I am not that proud of how the Republicans are wearing out our military either. I'd rather see it used in defense of this country instead of the world's police force. But, as usual, we're forced to pick betwee two evils. She is far worse for the military than any Republican. I never saw morale as low as it was under Bill. I'd hate to imagine what another 4 or 8 years would do.

My intuition and the impact on our military is enough for me. If you think this country needs a capable, motivated and modernized military to deter and fight future wars, then you are at odds with Hillary. If you consider that China is spending like a drunk sailor to modernize and strengthen its military with the primary goal of achieving parity with the West, that should rattle you just a tad. There's a real giant rising out there and we need someone that'll keep their eye on the ball.

In my opinion, that's all I need to avoid her in the voting booth. I don't even have to think about her flawed socialist agendas/ideas or her cloudy past. It's moot.

Well put. I put in 20 as well, and retired just last year. When I hear Ms. Clinton mention the military it literally makes me cringe in disgust. In my humble opinion, if Bill were a paid soviet agent he would have been hard pressed to attempt to do more damage than he did to our readiness. But it was a true credit to everyone that we rallied and did our missons well despite his lying to us, his cutting our budgets and readiness, and his personal character. You just can't respect someone who has no problem looking you in the eye and lying to you. I know of no one I worked with who respected him personally or professionally.

I personally see Ms. Clinton as more of the same, and more than willing to tell anyone absolutely anything in order to advance her career and personal power. If anything, I believe she epitomizes the dishonesty and self-serving aspects of the team with none of the likability. These type of people make terrible public servants. I really can't see how anyone would be fooled. I believe she acts as an affront to our personal liberty, and it is an affront to our political process that she got where she did so far. I can only hope that people can make the right choice of not voting for her. But that's just my opinon.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by The_Patriot

I was getting ready to post the same thing.
There are few more opposed than I am to the Clintons being in office again, but truth be told, it wouldn't give her a blank check to destroy the nation singlehandedly. Thank God for checks and balances--they would *help* minimize the damage she'd cause. And thank God that the States are needed to amend the Constitution. The framers got a lot right when they wrote that document. Too bad they didn't include term limits for Congress, though...

That's one of the things I had in mind when I started this thread, Patriot and BRG3. I'm puzzled that there are people who are not only saying that Hillary wants to be a dictator; they're saying they're actually scared it will happen. I don't see any evidence that she wants to be more than president myself (however scary that in itself might be), and I can't imagine why anyone thinks it could actually happen.

Originally Posted by GlockMeister

With that said, I feel the need to ask this. Troy2K, you definately seem to know a lot. You seem to have a very level head on your shoulders. You most often make a lot of sense. Which makes me have to ask you this.
Why do you care about what is being said about the Clintons? Why do you care about what is said, whether it is true or not, about Bill and/or Hillary Clinton.

GlockMeister, that's a fair question, and an interesting one. And I had to stop and think before answering it, because I don't want to just give you a glib response.

It isn't because I'm a big fan of Hillary. I probably won't even vote for her if she's nominated, unless I think the alternative is very, very bad. I'm not wild about the idea of a president and congress being in the same party myself.

I suppose part of the reason might be sheer contrariness; when I see a crowd beating up on a person or an idea, I tend to take the other side. I've been in a few brawls in my time, and somehow I always wound up fighting alongside the outnumbered guys. I'd like to think that's at least partly because of an honest sense of fair play and balance, instead of simple hard-headedness.

But it's more than that. I also hate having people trying to scare me into stampeding with the herd, and I'm sick to death of the politics of hysterical fears, smears and lies that the Republicans (and conservatives in general) seem to have turned into an art form starting in the nineties. They light their hair off, and run around in circles screaming, "fire, fire! The country will burn in a nuclear holocaust and you will burn in damnation, if you vote for the evil liberals and Democrats!"

I'm tired of hearing that whoever happens to be the current Democratic nominee is the spawn of Satan, the reincarnation of Hitler, someone who is hellbent on destroying the country they, their children, their relatives and their friends happen to live in. Whatever happened to the concept of the loyal opposition, where you could call the other side wrong without calling them traitors?

I once heard Rush Limbaugh say that Democrats are deliberately destroying the public school system in this country, because an ignorant electorate is their only chance of seizing and keeping power. There are fools out there who believed him, and who will grimly vote against the Democrats to keep it from happening. I hate that kind of appeal to stupidity, and I hate the fact that it works.

I also have a serious disdain for irrational paranoia in general, and conspiracy buffs in particular. When I start hearing the Clintons are mass murderers and drug lords, or puppets of the Bilderbergers, Freemasons, Council of Foreign Relations, Elders of Zion or whatever, it tees me off and I try to inject a little reason and common sense into the discussion.

And regardless of my personal beliefs, I feel compelled to answer flat-out lies or bs when they show up on my doorstep (and this is my doorstep; G&G is the only forum I frequent online). Some of those who've been on here for a while might even remember a time or two when I've stood up for Bush, because someone was spreading something about him I thought was irrational.

Maybe that's just the streak of self-righteousness that more than one person on here has accused me of having...

[TXplt]

No one person could be a dictator, but it isn't hard for agenda based politicians to attempt to water down our constitution to the point the rights become meaningless. It's also possible for them to support nominees to courts and teachings which perpetuate falsehoods about the constitution. We share some very basic objective rights which are now violated under laws passed by the "fire in a crowded theater" logic. Think it's not happening ?

What about warrantless searches (including your car if you're pulled over); isn't the constitution very specific about prohibiting this ? Check out the 4th amendment. Drug testing kids in schools -- without a warrant ? Effectively having our supreme court say "screw the consitution, we think this is a real problem" (maybe just like communism or any other problem).

The constitution prohibits a state sponsored religion, and in the same breath prohibits laws restricting the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF (we always seem to miss that part--this says that while your teacher may not be able to tell you to include a prayer in your speech, if you want to it's ok). We're not allow to pass laws restricting freedom of speech or the press, but routinely do if the issues or speech makes some groups uncomfortable. What about so called "hate crimes" -- how can you constitutionally make any one crime worse than another under the due process amendment ? But we do.

Then we get to the 2nd amendment, which, when one reads anything written by the framers of the constitution, was designed to give the people the right to keep and bear arms. Keep and bear (and bear means carry). The idea behind this amendment was the ultimate safety device against a tyrannical government or wicked law that somehow got through the constitution. The concept being it would be impossible for a government to control a people if the people had essential parity with their would be captors in terms of arms. The people who wrote the constitution had well seen people enslaved by totalarian states in the past and were trying to write in a safety valve to preclude this in the future.

Yet, now we have outright gun bans in DC and Chicago ? How is that possible when it states clearly "shall not be infringed ?"

This amendment can be inconvenient and scary to some, but if you don't like it the right answer is to amend the constitution, not ignore it.

The people who wrote the constitution meant it essentially at face value. Although wise beyond their years, many had very little formal schooling compared to us. Unfortunately that acts against us. We "lawyer" things to get our way. In a way, we know it's wrong, but we want to pass a law anyway.

We get into the "all pigs are equal but some are more equal than others." This is a very slippery slope. We have issues, some very significant and scary, but if we allow them to compromise our constitution we will see all the rights become meaningless. Unfortunately, there are those who write laws and those who enforce laws and those who appoint judges who believe this should happen. The correct answer, if we don't want people to own guns, is to amend the constitution. "But that's hard" some say so laws in shades of gray are written to restrict our constitutional rights thus totally undermining all of them. For this very reason, we need to be very cautious of who we elect. The loss of our constitutional form of government is more subtile when it happens slowly.

[GlockMeister]

Troy, First of all, thanks for taking the time to thoroughly answer my question/s and if I might add, well explained. From the many other things you've posted or replied to, I expected nothing less. I, on certain areas, can relate. Not only can I relate on certain areas, I can see some of the trends and hysterias you speak of. Not only in the words sometimes posted here on G&G, but in the words of those that tend to influence the masses. No need to mention names, they know who they are.

I asked what I did not only because I wanted to know, but I thought it might be helpful for others to also know. Thanks again Troy.

Lastly, I've said it before and I'll say it again, This November, I think we'll all merely be choosing the lesser of two evils.

G-Meister

[toolman]

Troy, you and I have had a few "discussions" about politics in the past. As far as Hillary is concerned, my concerns are based on her past record of saying anything she thinks will win her votes, even though she is aware of the fact that she's on record as directly contradicting her previous position, sometimes more than once. She has also publicly stated that she, in essence, will take over the parenting of our children(a bit dramatic, but you get my point) because she knows what's best for us. She is rabidly anti-gun and we're just starting to fully realize the freedom afforded by the expiration of the AWB enacted by her husband and a pet project of hers. To finish, she's just an egotistical, self-centered witch! I know you like to check facts so you may've already seen this, but here's a link that, I believe, perfectly reflects her true attitude:
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Hillary Clinton Quotes

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by toolman

Troy, you and I have had a few "discussions" about politics in the past. As far as Hillary is concerned, my concerns are based on her past record of saying anything she thinks will win her votes, even though she is aware of the fact that she's on record as directly contradicting her previous position, sometimes more than once. She has also publicly stated that she, in essence, will take over the parenting of our children(a bit dramatic, but you get my point) because she knows what's best for us. She is rabidly anti-gun and we're just starting to fully realize the freedom afforded by the expiration of the AWB enacted by her husband and a pet project of hers. To finish, she's just an egotistical, self-centered witch! I know you like to check facts so you may've already seen this, but here's a link that, I believe, perfectly reflects her true attitude:
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Hillary Clinton Quotes

Been there and read it a long time ago, toolman. But thanks for the link and the reminder it's there.

I'll admit she doesn't seem like the most cuddly woman in the world, and I don't like some of her beliefs. As I said, I probably won't vote for her.

On the other hand, if someone had followed me around for the last twenty years doing nothing but collecting the quotes that made me look bad, I'd come across as pretty sorry too...particularly if the quotes weren't presented in context.

I suspect part of Hillary's problems with bodyguards, etc., might have stemmed from a predictable clash between a strong-willed woman and men from a relatively male-chauvinistic background who weren't taking her seriously; cops, military men and government employees aren't usually clones of Alan Alda.