English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

do you know the mass number of people(males especially) who would not stand for this let alone our US MILITARY being run loudmouth women who knows nothing about warfare

2007-02-21 04:17:38 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Elections

19 answers

Because some people will believe anything you tell them; others will believe what they are told if it's what they want to hear, which Billary is VERY good at.

I think you fail to take into considerations the numbers of men - even men in the military - that will vote for her.

Make no mistake about it: Billary Clinton is a very schrewd politician. After all, she's been married to one for decades, and has watched him squirm his way out of one mess after another. She has learned her lessons well. For example:

She's learned the art of "misinformation" and pandering to the voters to get them to vote for her. She tells her audience - specifically the minorities - exactly what they want to hear in order to obtain their votes. This is how she got elected Senator from New York not once, but twice. I was living in New Jersey at the time this took place, so I saw it first-hand.

She has learned how to focus attention on what she perceives as a problem and lambasting the person she thinks is responsible, while at the same time keeping from view the fact that she has no real solution to the same problem. This is exactly what she's doing with Bush over the Iraq war. Never mind the fact that she voted FOR the war, she's too busy blasting the current admininstration for it to be bothered with that little detail. And have you noticed that not once - NOT ONCE - has she mentioned ANY kind of solution? Her only action is to call for the suspension of funding for the war to make a political point, all the while ignoring the fact that cutting funding will do nothing more than endanger our men and women in uniform by denying them the funds they need to purchase equipment and supplies, and will embolden our enemies to renewed action against us. But you won't hear her admit this...that's the "misinformation" part.

She's learned how to use the same topic two different ways, both as a negative against her opponents and as a positive to further her own agenda. The perfect example of this is the Iraq war - she uses it to blast the President, saying how bad the war is, but then she turns around and uses it as a reason why she thinks the Confederate Battle Flag should be removed from the grounds of the State House in South Carolina. She says that "in this time of war" all Americans should rally around the American flag...a convenient battle cry, but nothing short of poppycock which I find insulting. I'm insulted that she thinks I'm stupid enough NOT to recognize her pandering once again, and using a topic like the war for her own agenda. But then, coming from her, I shouldn't be surprised.

She's also learned to keep the obvious in the spotlight and hide her real intentions from view. The perfect example of this is the introduction of a bill sponsored by her, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and Charles Rangel to re-instate the infamous and totally useless Brady Bill. She and her anti-gun cronies want to put the bill back into effect for another ten years, taking the first step in the elimination of your personal rights - starting with the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment.

In my personal opinion, Billary Clinton is the single greatest threat to the safety and security of the United States and the American way of life in the history of the nation. And the really scary thing about it is that there are thousands of sheeple out there who believe everything she says and think she's the best thing since sliced bread, when nothing could be further from the truth.

I am committed to do everything and anything I can to keep this woman out of the Oval Office for the rest of her natural life. You can bet that I won't be voting for her.

I only hope America wakes up before it's too late.

2007-02-21 04:40:19 · answer #1 · answered by Team Chief 5 · 3 0

I don't think that Hillary's sex has anything to do with her chances in 2008. The fact is that most Americans, men and women, Republican or Democrat, despise her due to her conduct during her husband's administration. If she had just been honest with the Whitewater investigators, instead of being arrogant and hiding those documents, the investigators would not have had to probe as deep as they did, and the whole Monica Lewinsky thing would probably never have been discovered. When she decided to run for the Senate, the only chance she had was to carpetbag to the most liberal city in the country, which is the only place that would welcome her. The rest of America is not like New York City, and she will likely realize this if she were to win the Democratic nomination. Many Democrats do not want her to run, simply because although she is popular in NY, Americans in general do not like her at all, and it would cost the Democrats another presidential election.

2016-05-24 02:50:19 · answer #2 · answered by Nedra 4 · 0 0

As Commander-in-Chief, the U.S. President outranks any military officer. Because presidents are rarely present in war zones, and often have less military experience than the military commanders, only two presidents, George Washington and James Madison, have so far done so. A loudmouth woman can be President.

2007-02-21 14:31:14 · answer #3 · answered by GO HILLARY 7 · 0 1

If she wins, voters were not aware of this:THIS WILL OPEN YOUR EYES by Paul Harvey
>
> Conveniently Forgotten Facts Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers
> decided that a fellow black panther named...Alex Rackley needed to die.
>
> Rackley was suspected of disloyalty.
>
> Rackley was first tied to a chair. Once safely immobilized, his friends
> tortured him for hours by, among other things, pouring boiling water
> on him. When they got tired of torturing Rackley. Panther member
> Warren Kimbo took Rackley outside and put a bullet in his head.
>
> Rackley's body was later found floating in a river about 25 miles north
> of New Haven, Conn. Perhaps at this point you're curious as to what
> happened to these Black Panthers. In 1977, that's only eight years later,
> only one of the killers was still in jail.
>
> The shooter, Warren Kimbro, managed to get a scholarship to Harvard
> and became good friends with none other than Al Gore. He later became an
> assistant dean at an Eastern Connecticut State College. Isn't that
> something?
> As a '60s radical you can pump a bullet into someone's head and a few
years
> later, in the same state, you can become an assistant college dean! Only
in
> America!
>
> Erica Huggins was the lady who served the Panthers by boiling the water
> for Mr. Rackley's torture. Some years later Ms. Huggins was elected to a
> California School Board.
>
> How in the world do you think these killers got off so easy?
>
> Maybe it was in some part due to the efforts of two people who came to
> the defense of the Panthers. These two people actually went so far as to
> shut down Yale University with demonstrations in defense of the accused
> Black
> Panthers during their trial.
>
> One of these people was none other than Bill Lan Lee. Mr. Lee, or Mr. Lan
> Lee, as the case may be, isn't a college dean. He isn't a member of a
> California School Board. He was head of the US Justice Department's Civil
> Rights Division, appointed by none other than Bill Clinton.
>
> O.K., so who was the other Panther defender?
>
> Is this other notable Panther defender now a school board member?
>
> Is this other Panther apologist now an assistant college dean?
>
> No, neither! The other Panther defender was, like Lee, a radical law
student
> at Yale University at the time. She is now known as the "one of the
smartest
> woman in the world" (and may well become the next president of the United
> States). She is none other than the Democratic senator from the State of
> New York----our former First Lady, the incredible Hillary Rodham Clinton.
>
> And now, as Paul Harvey said; You know "the rest of the story".
>
> Just a reminder as she runs for President

2007-02-21 04:47:41 · answer #4 · answered by just the facts 5 · 3 0

Hillary thinks she can trick Democrats just like Giuliani planned on tricking the Republicans by using media polls that they learned how to manipulate while in New York. Its not the males that are totally against Hillary its the females.

2007-02-21 07:12:47 · answer #5 · answered by George G 3 · 0 0

There are actually a large number of voter who will vote for hillary if she wins the democratic primary --there are thsoe would will just fall back on their political party and vote democratic. believe it or not , she has accumutated a lot of money for pollitical use in running for the oval office. A female doesn't have to be on the front line to understand military stagedy, either. Look at Condeelza Rice and others who are ACTUALLY females.

2007-02-21 04:31:25 · answer #6 · answered by luminous 7 · 2 1

Yea you males seem to have a problem with women being in charge dont ya?

Fact is right now she seems to be the best person for the job.. seems most of the military is standing beside her on her views. Its to bad the males who think like you would rather have a moron male to finish running this country down then have someone who might actaully bring this country back up..

2007-02-21 04:53:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Principally because she and White Trash Billy have raised enormous sums of money to fund her campaign. That plus the supine mass media (they just "love" her) gives her a big leg up against the midgets she's got to contend with.

Obama? Give me a break!

Edwards? Geez, what a loser!

The rest of 'em? Just call 'em the Seven Dwarfs and be done with it!

2007-02-21 04:28:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

So far she's up against a Muslim. 'Nuff said.

Do the Republicans even HAVE a candidate this cycle? Where's Dan Quayle? He'd actually have a chance this time!

2007-02-21 05:10:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Knowing nothing about warfare seems to be the requirement - otherwise why was such an ignoramus elected twice in a row?

2007-02-21 04:23:49 · answer #10 · answered by Grist 6 · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers