The writing on the wall indicates Hillary Clinton will be the next President and the Right Wing Nuts are shaking in their boots. Why do they hate so much and what are they afraid of?
2007-01-28 06:12:01 · 12 answers · asked by itsdabigbadwolf 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
PROUDLY I STATE "IT IS YOU LIBTARDS WHO SHOULD BE AFRAID OF HER." BETWEEN THE VINCE FOSTER DEAL AND HER LAND DEALS, WHAT'S HER NEXT BOMB TO BE DROPPED?
THEN THE CONSERVATIVES CAN SIT BACK, SIGH WITH A SMILE AND SAY "I DIDN'T VOTE HER IN". GO AHEAD -BRING HER ON!
2007-01-28 08:58:10 · answer #1 · answered by tcbtoday123 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To answer your initial question: I have no idea what a "neo-con" is, and I'm not afraid of having a female president. Not in the least bit....just not THIS female.
You must be looking at a different wall than I am, skippy, 'cause I don't see any guarantee that Billary will get elected. I think she's gonna run such a dirty campaign that the Democrats won't nominate her, and if she does get nominated I don't think she'll win. She would be the second worst thing to ever happen to this country, second only to that lying, cheating, criminal piece of crap husband of hers. If she doesn't have the brains and/or the common sense to dump the chump after he makes a fool of her on INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION, how can we trust her to have the brains and common sense needed to run the country?
No thanks...I'll vote for Bucky the Dancing Mule before I'll vote for Billary Clinton.
2007-01-28 06:24:09 · answer #2 · answered by Team Chief 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I fail to see this writing on the wall. Especially when there is so much buzz in an impending clash between Barack and Hilary. Leaving the door open for John McCain. I hate Hilary because she (and all Dumb-o-crats for that matter) has an agenda composed solely of unimportant, social issues that may in some way help people, but ignore all the real problems of the country. For instance Dumb-o-crats took over Congress this month, and all they've managed to do is try and get stem-cell research, higher minimum wage (to run out the small business), cut tax breaks on oil companies (so you and I have to pay for that break now).... So imagine having a president with these kinds of ideals... just criminal.
2007-01-28 06:20:00 · answer #3 · answered by Modus Operandi 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
because it merely proves that each and every thing we were declaring about GW Bush for 8 years become authentic. they merely won't be able to get used to havnig an sensible, properly-spoken President who has earned the acceptance he has. and they don't desire to get used to it; that is a lot extra relaxing to keep claiming he's Muslim and wasn't born contained in the USA. that's no longer authentic, yet on the grounds that at the same time as do they care about the reality, besides? Edit: LOL, God's Reporter--for sure Bush is extra difficulty-free now that he's driving a horse in Crawford instead of screwing up the finished international. and obviously Obama's rankings have dipped somewhat because now he's honestly doing the pastime. earlier to January, he wasn't in ability. Any polls taken then did no longer have a lot validity previous own popularity, and that i might want to wager that no count number how brilliantly he would prevail, and that i'm hoping he does, he received't see numbers like that lower back.
2016-12-03 03:55:20 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hilary Clinton doesn’t have the experience, in the military or intelligence sectors of our government to be effective in a time when we are fighting a war oversees and conducting a broader “war” on terrorism. Normally, this would not be an impediment...there have been many good Presidents, with no serious military credentials –– her husband being one of them. However, in order to rectify the quagmire that Bush has got us in, and also to redirect the “War on Terrorism” more effectively, and away from this Cowboy/Rambo strategy employed by Bush and his Henchmen, requires someone of either military or strategic competence. Hillary might be good at making chocolate chip cookies... but right now we need someone who demonstrates mastery of both military tactics and foreign diplomacy.
2007-01-28 06:16:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
1 - Asked and answered hundreds of times. You appear to be one of the dazed and confused who won't bother to read the answers and insist on incorrectly using the term "Neo-Con". Hey, more power to you if you wanna waste your time.
2 - They're not; it's guys like you that live in fear. Think about it: do they act fearful? Do you?
3 - They don't "hate" so much; they work hard to see things turn out the way they want them to.
4 - Weak Sisters gaining too much power.
Like the man said: Don't worry, be happy.
2007-01-28 06:26:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hillary stand for:
1. High Taxes
2. Weakness on Defense
3. Socialized Medicine
4. Government funded Imbecile/Criminal Breeding
5. "Catch and Release" crime fighting.
To summarize: all the things that will eventually make the USA a 3rd world country.
2007-01-28 06:15:59 · answer #7 · answered by my_evil_twin_41 3 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Hillary Clinton is unelectable, the democrats will not nominate her.
2007-01-28 06:16:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
SHE'S BEHIND 44 STATES TO JUST 6 TO BOTH McCAIN AND GUILIANI.
A reading comprehension class might make that writing clearer.
2007-01-28 06:17:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If a conservative female was running would you vote for her? Would you? Or would you say her politics do not agree with yours? Should I then say you are afraid of a female president too?
2007-01-28 06:22:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋