Hillary wants to be dictator?

[TexasT]

Originally Posted by Wingwiper

Why do you come here and ask??
IS that a picture of you running?
Did you win?

Nope. I think you've won. Congratulations. You're a retard.

[kalashnikov47]

Troy, the question you asked is why Hillary? I don't think you need to be concerned with Just hillary, but look at the bigger picture. If hillary get elected, then it's 1989-2008 of clinton/bush regime. They're in the same boat. Vote for change at least. Ron Paul, maybe anybody but the clinton/bush family. At least Ron Paul has a 10 term voting record, and seems legit.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by kalashnikov47

Troy, the question you asked is why Hillary? I don't think you need to be concerned with Just hillary, but look at the bigger picture. If hillary get elected, then it's 1989-2008 of clinton/bush regime. They're in the same boat. Vote for change at least. Ron Paul, maybe anybody but the clinton/bush family. At least Ron Paul has a 10 term voting record, and seems legit.

Kalashnikov, I would have taken Ron Paul on the Republican side, or Bill Richardson on the Democratic side, over anyone else running. Unfortunately Richardson's already gone, and I don't like Paul's chances.

[Wingwiper]

Originally Posted by TexasT

Nope. I think you've won. Congratulations. You're a retard.

Brillant! seems you are here posting as well, and now YOU have started an argument on the Internet and I will bow out and leave you the WINNER, Congratulations.. What does that make you??

Shouldn't you be doing homework? Does your mom know you are on the Internet? watch it. PLOS.

[Beer Forever]

I am just tired of the dynasties really. How about somebody new aside from a Bush or a Clinton. It would be a nice change no matter who gets in really.

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by Beer Forever

I am just tired of the dynasties really. How about somebody new aside from a Bush or a Clinton. It would be a nice change no matter who gets in really.

different face but the same old smile !!!!!!!!

[GlockMeister]

Originally Posted by TXplt

I've been called alot worse than a liberal in my day

Seriously, when one becomes a member of congress or the President, one takes an oath of office. That oath of office is to support and defend the constitution of the United States. That now becomes your primary charge in life--education, health care, medicare, social security, etc., while potentially being important are secondary to this. If issues conflict, your charge to protect and defend needs to prevail. You can't rationalize this away in the name of the problem du jour or take the "come on now" approach. If you don't like what's in the constitution and are a public servant, you have to follow it until it's amended. I know of no gun control measure that ms. Clinton hasn't voted FOR. (one could argue that Obama is in the same category, and, being a constitutional lawyer should know better). The AWB and Brady Law were initiated under their previous tour in the White House. Mr. Clinton was always raving about "getting guns off the street" and blaming guns for all crime problems. In 1987 (in Arizona) we were permitted to keep firearms in our vehicles on base; in 1996 not so much. There's little doubt she's a firearms prohibitionist. Quite simply, I can't see her in any way being a faithful protectorate of our constitution. Just my opinion, of course. Think that's all I've got to say in the matter.

enjoy, and cheers.

WELL PUT TXplt. WELL PUT.

G-Meister

[TexasT]

[mym1a]

man i wish the founding fathers were here today, they would lose their minds!!!!!!