Skip to main content

I know that there are lots of folks who vote Democrat in the Shoals due to unions and the like.

In 2008, potentially Hillary Clinton (aka: Hildebeast, Hitlery, etc.) will be the Democratic nominee for President.

Knowing what you know about her, would you vote for her, yes or no.

Me, ABSOLUTELY NOT. I think she is a socialist, very ambitious to the point of dangerous, does whatever to get whatever -what I call "anything as long as the ends jusitfy the means", anti-gun, and a feminist. I do not think she respects the military, either, from what I have heard personally from folks that used to work in or near the White House from 1993-2001, and from folks (namely cousins and a great aunt) who live in Little Rock, Arkansas when the Clintons were in the state house there.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I don't particularly care for Hillary, but would vote for her if she ran against Bushie!

Shrub never made a mistake.

He's perfect!

Rumor is, he's gonna' sacrifice himself and start a new religion!

What's this? Shrub is not ambitious "to the point of dangerous" and "does whatever to get whatever -what I call "anything as long as the ends jusitfy the means?"

And, like you, "I do not think (he) respects the military, either." Remember... an end to major military operations, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! (That lying SOB in the White House has done more to damage our military than anyone in the past century!)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brentenman:"I know that there are lots of folks who vote... Hillary Clinton (aka: Hildebeast, Hitlery, etc.) Me, ABSOLUTELY NOT."
Bush respects the military a heck of alot more than Bill and Hitlery ever did.....that is a fact. I know so, as I served under both.

Second, my not voting for Hitlery does not have to do with what package is between someone's legs, whether male or female.

If say the U.S. had a Margaret Thatcher-type person running, I would vote for her.

Third, Bush WAS very correct, military speaking, that the end of major military operations was over on 1 May 2003. How do I know? Well, from a tactical standpoint, yes. There was no more Iraqi Army or Republican Guard left to fight. The Iraqi military machine was toast by 15 April 2003. The insurgency sprang up AFTER major conflict ended, about August 2003. Major combat operations is force-on-force operations, i.e. national army versus national army. That would consists of Phase 1-3 Operations: Phase 1: build up; Phase 2: Air Campaign; Phase 3: Ground force-on-force operations/campaign. Phase 4: post-conflict operations, to include reconstruction. So from a military standpoint, yes, mission accomplished- Iraqi army destroyed, regime overthrown. Additionally, whenever a ship comes to port, banners of that type are done at the end of the ship's cruise. That is what you saw.
Bush respects the military about as much as his closet-homosexual advisor "Turd Blossom" respects fatherhood.

Bush had his daddy get him in the Tejas National Guard... then, Shrub conveniently neglected to show up for a flight physical...

GROUNDED!

Then, he didn't show up for duty!

AWOL/MIA take your pick.

One of my first-degree relatives was stationed at Maxwell/Gunter AFB when Shrub was supposed to have shown up there. And, my family was living in Prattville at the time, and travelled to Montgomery on a daily basis.

To assert that "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" and witness an escalation of fighting ensuing... it's not brain science or rocket surgery... it's like a Snickers© candy bar!

No matter how you slice it, it comes up peanuts!

Bushie/Shrub is a liar worse than the previous president whom did so for personal reasons, not military, not national security... personal private ones that belong only in his family, not in the newspapers, teevees, etc.

Would you want YOUR indiscretions blasted out everywhere? I trow not.

Bush has done more to damage the reputation of the U.S. military than any president in the history of this nation.

TORTURE

TORTURE

TORTURE

What a family value... right?

Remember... he's a "uniter, not a divider"?

Yeah... he's united al Qaeda and the whole Muslim world against us!

Thanks for nothing Georgie Porgie, puddn' pie!
If she wins the Democratic nominatation the Republicans will simply defuse the situation by running Condoleeza Rice. In fact she may be their best choice anyway. I ceratainly wouldn't have a problem casting a vote for her. She is a true conservative who favors leaving the Bill of Rights alone. There's no way I would ever vote for Hillary Clinton even if Bush was the only other choice. As tired as I am of him I'd have to bite the bullet and vote for him again before I could vote for Hillary.
One of the big struggles within the Democratic Party is BIG MONEY.

James Carville (sleeping with the enemy) and Donna Brazile are both part and parcel of that ideology.

Starkly contrasting that elephant-in-the-room is Democratic Party Chairman Dr. Howard Dean, MD.

Unlike them all, Dr. Dean had a prescription for America's health & healing and

1.) opposed Bush's Global War (before it was the cool thing to do)

2.) raised all his money from small contributors , (unlike Carville & Co., and Donna Brazile),

3.) was the first to use the Internet to reach out to people throughout America during his campaign.

As governor, Dr. Dean balanced Vermont's budget, provided universal insurance for children and pregnant women in Vermont, and is a man whom is in touch with the people, and responsive to their needs.

Although Dean probably won't be the nominee for '08, the nominee should be a strong candidate who won't be afraid to stand up to the BIG MONEY/BIG BUSINESS machine that runs the Republican party.

If one is beholden to one's master through funding, how would one be beholden to 250,000,000 people?

When special interests are out of the picture, the people's business can be done... not BIG BUSINESS!
In today's volatile climate, I think that many Islamic nations would refuse to negotiate with the U.S. if a woman was in office as the President of our country. It simply would offend their sense of men and women's proper place in society...and even if it didn't, they could easily use it as an excuse for not negotiating with the U.S. I see this as a potential liability for placing a woman, such as Hillary Clinton, in the White House. (The good will that the U.S. might gain by replacing the Bush Administration would be lost by replacing the administration with a woman. Again, when I mention Hillary as a "liability," I only speak of societies which place empahsis on male leadership.)
quote:
Originally posted by mlholt:
If she wins the Democratic nominatation the Republicans will simply defuse the situation by running Condoleeza Rice. In fact she may be their best choice anyway. I ceratainly wouldn't have a problem casting a vote for her. She is a true conservative who favors leaving the Bill of Rights alone. There's no way I would ever vote for Hillary Clinton even if Bush was the only other choice. As tired as I am of him I'd have to bite the bullet and vote for him again before I could vote for Hillary.


I agree. I'd vote for Rice...would not vote for Hillary. Totally hypothetical, but if Bush were the only other choice? I said I'd vote for ANYbody before I'd vote for Bush, but Hillary? That's like saying "you want toenails or fingernails with that soup?" Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by sbobek:
Would you feel the same way if a man expressed the same ideas? The biggest proplem for Hillary seems to be that she is a woman and woman are not supposed to take a strong stand on anything. My voting for her would depend on who was running against her.


sbobek, I agree with you. Very intelligent outlook!!!
quote:
Originally posted by severk:
yes


Wellllll, there is one thing you absolutely can add about the Clintons here... Hillary ran the country, Bill ran the Interns, so my guess is that Hillary would not play around with the Interns, and any Intern that did happen to work for her, (if she was voted in) wouldnt probably be stupid enough to hang clothes in a closet for two years, DUH! hahahahahahahaha
quote:
Originally posted by sbobek:
Would you feel the same way if a man expressed the same ideas? The biggest proplem for Hillary seems to be that she is a woman and woman are not supposed to take a strong stand on anything. My voting for her would depend on who was running against her.


UH!.. Why in the world would people (especially men) not want to vote for a woman???? Does that scare them? Affect their masculinity?, just WHY wouldnt a man vote for a woman if she were good, and we have to face it, ANYONE would be better than Dubbya!!!!
More women are getting into the presidential political picture.

First (as I recall) was Geraldine Ferraro, a Democrat, whom was VP candidate with Walter Mondale. Then, Elizabeth Dole, a Republican, wife of long-time senator (later Viagra/Pepsi spokesman) Bob Dole (whom also always referred to himself in the third person).

Then, Carol Moseley Braun, a Democrat, and U.S. Senator from Illinois competed for her party's nomination in the 2004 presidential election.

Interestingly, her official biography indicates she is a resident of Union Springs, Alabama.
I cannot help but wonder WHY people call themselves liberal, then come on a board like this, or out in public right the opposite shows.

And someone who is a conservist is the same way.

People dont LIKE liberals but they are one, it shows, in their talk, their walk, their words and their actions.

Many more Liberals out there than will admit it.....
I work, AND go to Church with a bunch of people who outwardly SAY they are Liberals, but their actions and words and even the way they raise their children say different.

Same with a Conservative.... they just cannot walk the walk either...

I have discussed this with a LOT of my friends, and they, too see the trend of this going on, not only here, but nationally...
Personally, I don't fit into a nice neat little package that can be labeled & I'm sure, if they were honest, that's true of most people. I'm what is deemed conservative on some issues and what is deemed liberal on some issues. That's probably why I cannot be Dem or Rep because I don't agree with them on everything. It's also why I don't consider myself a Baptist just because I attend a Baptist church.
Just sitting here thinking,... it seems like the older I get, the more Liberal I do become. I am not sure why, I guess that is something I need to research. I always thought of myself 'conservative', but now it only seems to me like conservatives are "JUDGES" and "JURIES" and "EXECUTIONERS" and I just dont fit that mold anymore. Oh well, I have ALMOST 2 years to think it through, I guess.... Razzer
UH!.. Why in the world would people (especially men) not want to vote for a woman???? Does that scare them? Affect their masculinity?, just WHY wouldnt a man vote for a woman if she were good, and we have to face it, ANYONE would be better than Dubbya!!!! ----posted by Kindred_Spirit


I thought I would share this website with you. I hope it helps.

Real men, unlike women will no vote for a woman just because they like the way she looks. i.e Slick Willie...LOL



Bristol Herald Courier 9/29/01

The Associated Press

TOPEKA, Kan. — A female state senator says if women's suffrage were being voted on today she would not support it, because the 19th Amendment was the start of a decades-long erosion of family values.

“I'm an old-fashioned woman, Senator. Kay O’Connor told The Kansas City Star. “Men should take care of women, and if men were taking care of women (today) ‘we wouldn't have to vote.”

Delores Ftlrtado, co-president of the Johnson County League of Women Voters, had asked the 59 year-old Republican to the league’s “Celebrate the Right to Vote” luncheon, and O’Connor responded: “You probably wouldn't want me there because of what I would have to say.”

Furtado said she was shocked by O’Connor’s view. As a state senator, Furtado said, “she is the beneficiary of a system she doesn't support.”

O’Connor said she does vote. But she said she believes that if men had been protecting the best interests of women, then women would not be forced to cast ballots and serve in the Legislature. Instead, they could stay home, raise families and tend to domestic duties, she said.

The 19th amendment giving all U.S. women the right to vote was ratified in 1920. O’Connor said the amendment began a societal shift that eventually, encouraged women to trade homemaker roles for careers.

She said she entered the workplace only because of her daughter was ill and medical bills were mounting. O’Connor, of Olathe, was elected to the state House of Representatives in 1992 and won a Senate seat last year. She isn't worried if voters don't like her views.

“If I don't get re-elected, my only punishment is to go home to my husband and my roses and my children and my grandchildren,” she said. ~And if the trips to Topeka get to be too much and my husband asks me to quit, I would.”

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/women_vote.htm


However, there is another factor that is almost never mentioned: Bill Clinton is the sexy Bad Boy, an attractive rogue, and women tend to fall, and fall hard, for such men. By now the phenomenon of the sexy Bad Boy vs. the sexless Nice Guy is so well-known that it scarcely needs to be demonstrated. Countless examples might be cited: we'll look at just a few:

http://www.debunker.com/texts/gendrgap.html
Bill Clinton and the "Gender Gap"
Robert Sheaffer

We hear a great deal of pious talk about the so-called "gender gap" in favor of Bill Clinton in the fall election. Simply put, this means that polls show that women are far more likely to vote for Clinton than are men. Of course, the Politically Correct explanation for this is that Clinton "cares more" about the needs and concerns of women. This, it is usually explained with great sanctimoniousness, is proof of Clinton's superior virtue, since women are the Moral Sex, and it means that the opposing candidate had better fall all over himself to apologize for the sins of his patriarchal behavior. But that view is difficult to defend, given the fact of Clinton's extreme womanizing, and the serious charges against him concerning sexual harassment (in other cases, the mere fact of the charge is itself enough to cast the accused into eternal ****ation - for example, Robert Packwood and Clarence Thomas.) That Clinton habitually lies when faced with a problem, and cheats on his wife at every opportunity, can no longer be seriously questioned. See any of the new Clinton expose books that have recently come out: Partners in Power, Blood Sport, Primary Colors, Passion and Betrayal, Unlimited Access.

http://www.debunker.com/texts/gendrgap.html
However, we could all wake up in Hell one day and find that he is running for Vice President under "I have a bad ticker" Richard B. "Dick" Cheney, who suddenly finds himself in afib and his defib fails... the bada-boom, bada-bing!

"W" would be prez!

What a horrific nightmare, indeed!

Of course, it'd be more of the same... more lies, more big spending, more imcompetence.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×