Based on the REALITY of family members being Presidents, and the HORROR of it, would you still vote for Hillary? I certainly wouldn't. Hell, I didn't vote for Bill Clinton, much less his wife.
2007-01-13 05:30:37 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I didn't vote for either Bush, and I wouldn't vote for a Clinton.
2007-01-13 05:33:40 · answer #1 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well, you are a conservative that just wants to dump on Clinton!
At least I don't vote for people like these!
". . . The government investigation against Prescott Bush continued. Just before the storm broke, his son, George, abandoned his plans to enter Yale and enlisted in the U.S. Army. It was, say our sources among the former intelligence officers, a valiant attempt by an eighteen-year-old boy to save the family's honor.
"Young George was in flight school in October 1942, when the U.S. government charged his father with running NAZI front groups in the United States. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, all the shares of the Union Banking Corporation were seized, including those held by Prescott Bush as being in effect held for enemy nationals. Union Banking, of course, was an affiliate of Brown Brothers, Harriman, and Bush handled the Harrimans' investments as well.
"Once the government had its hands on Bush's books, the whole story of the intricate web of NAZI front corporations began to unravel. A few days later two of Union Banking's subsidiaries -- the Holland American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation -- also were seized. Then the government went after the Harriman Fifteen Holding Company, which Bush shared with his father-in-law, Bert Walker, the Hamburg-Amerika Line, and the Silesian-American Corporation. the U.S. government found that huge sections of Prescott Bush's empire had been operated on behalf of NAZI Germany and had greatly assisted the German war effort."
See www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html
www.rense.com/general26/dutch.htm
The Draheim Report
a VIDEO: Keeping It in The Family: The Bushes and the Nazis
2007-01-13 05:40:13 · answer #2 · answered by cantcu 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
but you voted for the bush clan, and only now are you admitting it was a huge mistake?
and , now looking back in hind site, are you warning about what might happen with Clinton, the most beloved president going back to the Regan era?
lets take a chance, cause we already know that it will be 100000% better then what we just went through with the Chimp.
To bad GW ruined any chance for Jeb, ehh?
2007-01-13 06:04:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Carter changed into the worst in my lifetime, yet with information from the time obamadinejhad is via wrecking each and everything, he will replace him because the worst. He nonetheless had 2 years to flow (regrettably) and that i'm particular he will do his ideal to earn that dishonor. and that i wasn't prepared on Johnson, Nixon, Ford, or Bush Sr. both, yet they were no the position close to as undesirable as both above.
2016-12-02 05:21:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not about person. Bush was elected twice. It's about money and power. Hillary and Edwards will win in 2008 that will give Democrats 8 years in the White House. They have the money and power.
2007-01-13 05:37:33 · answer #5 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hillary Clinton will make a good President.
2007-01-13 05:34:00 · answer #6 · answered by tewarienormy 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
As I said before. If Hilary can't handle her home life and didn't stand up to Bill years ago she's not the one to be running the country and I am very serious about that. Hilary may be a fine woman and I have nothing against the Democrats but thats how I feel.
2007-01-13 05:40:40 · answer #7 · answered by robert m 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
John Quincy Adams was not a bad president. Two of the greatest presidents (The Roosevelts) were distant cousins.
In looking at Bush II:
1. The stock market is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are
back.
2. Unemployment is at 25 year lows.
3. Taxes are at 20 year lows.
4. Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.
5. The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last
year.
6. Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years.
7. Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows.
8. Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01.
9. Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not
surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Queda's top
dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel.
10. Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British
Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets
being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate
the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks.
11. Just as President Bush foretold us on a number of occasions, Iraq
was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just
as President Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the
region are arriving from the shadows of their hiding places and flooding
into Iraq in order to get their faces blown off by US Marines rather
than boarding planes and heading to the United States to wage war
on us here
Given these facts, what's so bad about Bush II? The biggest reason Bush is perceived so negatively is based on what and how the press covers various aspects of his presidency; unfortunately, good news does not sell newspapers so you haven't heard about the positive aspects of our economy; you have only heard about the rising cost of gas; you have not heard about successes in the middle east only car bombing and death.
As for Hillary, I think my biggest concern with her (is the same concern I have with some newer politicians), is you don't know exactly what you are getting. In years gone by, it was easy to know what your are getting; Ted Kennedy is an old school politician; you have a good idea where is stands in the political spectrum. Reagan was similar. With Hillary, (and George Bush II to some extent) you don't know exactly what to expect.
With Obama and McCain in the picture, 2008 will be the most interest primary season in years.
2007-01-13 05:56:38 · answer #8 · answered by Joe J 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
yes i would vote for hillary. first of all, she is a whole lot smarter than her husband and she doesn't have a dick as a brain, she actually has a brain. the bushes have always had an agenda and they use their family for that (foreign oil interests) I believe hillary's agenda's are not as much for personal gain and i really believe she will do good for this country. c'mon it is 2007 time to get a woman in there,it is long overdue.
2007-01-13 05:35:19 · answer #9 · answered by emmys momma 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No I am a Dem and I do not think Hillary or any other woman is the person for the job!
I know I will be accused of being a male pig....but with all the women lib crap ...can you imagine the repercussions of a woman President?
She would not get my vote at all!
2007-01-13 05:35:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋