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

Hillary was anacolyte of '60's radical Saul Alinsky, the author of "Rules For Radicals" and one of the seminal influences in the Marxist, anti-American movement that spawned many counterculture yippies such as Allen Ginsberg and so on...her husband completely gutted our intelligence and military services, and he even lost the nuclear launch codes he was supposed to secure on his person at all times. The Clintons are on record as saying they "loathe the military", and BJ himself repeatedly blew off phone calls from national security advisors when Special Forces had Bin Laden in their crosshairs, preferring to continue playing golf, refusing to come to the phone to make a decision and saying he'd "get back to them", which he never did. This is all documented by Lt. Col. James "Buzz Patterson, who carried the "nuclear football"--the special briefcase carrying the apparatus in case of a nuclear confrontation. His first book, "Dereliction of Duty" details the abject negligence of B.J.C..

2007-09-01 14:28:49 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

12 answers

This is another good reason why Hillary should not become president.

2007-09-01 14:35:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Not a huge fan of Hillary but what has GWB done in the last 7 years?? He has made more terrorists than ever. He gave Bin Laden what he wanted...a Vietnam. After 9/11 most of the world had America's back and instead of sending all forces to Afghanistan and getting Bin Laden at Tora Bora..he got away..Talk about having someone in your cross hairs! I had friends at the battle of Tora Bora they told me it was biggest clusterf#ck they had ever seen or been apart of. Bush has caused a great downfall for America and hopefully in 08 the right people will take over and get it right while the republicans keep tapping their feet in men's rooms.

2007-09-01 15:04:08 · answer #2 · answered by Xander 3 · 1 1

Why do you look only to the faults of the people you call "hippies" but not to that of the current administration?

To make an EDUCATED opinion on politics, one must look at the faults and success of ALL major players. ALL OF THEM. (Please note before you "LIEK, SHES SAYIN THAT BUSH IS BAD LOLOLOLOLLLLL!!11!", I'm saying he has weakness and strengths. Just like Hilliary has weaknesses and strengths.) Otherwise you sound like just another mudslinger whose one-sided views are further dividing this country.

Tell me, what is the purpose of this question? Because you don't seem to be looking for an answer but instead a soap box.

If this is what you crave, go get a blog and rant your "ideas" elsewhere.

2007-09-01 19:13:32 · answer #3 · answered by Elyse 2 · 0 0

“of course the consumer-friendly human beings do no longer choose conflict; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in usa, nor in Germany. it fairly is known. yet after all, it is the leaders of the country who verify coverage, and that's consistently an ordinary rely to drag the individuals alongside, whether it fairly is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the individuals can consistently be introduced to the bidding of the leaders. it fairly is ordinary. All you need to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for loss of patriotism and exposing the country to possibility. it fairly works the comparable in any united states of america.” Testimony of Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering on the Nuremberg Trials on the Hague *i think of he's speaking approximately scared human beings such as you*

2016-10-19 21:34:03 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

So, 40+ years ago -- when she was much younger and before decades in politics -- she studied under some people you don't like.

And her husband may have made mistakes during his term in office, or at least done things you would have done differently.

That's your explanation why she is unqualified?

2007-09-01 14:42:38 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3 1

As opposed to a man who was a self described alcoholic until he was 40?

These attacks on the Clinton's are getting old and beyond irrational.

2007-09-01 14:36:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

Hippies, no.

Hippies in this nation have proven rather delusional, rather naive, and quite easily brainwashed.

2014-11-25 03:57:16 · answer #7 · answered by yamnnjr 6 · 0 0

Oh yes, the suits of the Bush Administration have done so much better, they are so on the ball....hell, they haven't even seen the ball.
My Pet Goat anyone?

2007-09-01 14:34:55 · answer #8 · answered by justa 7 · 3 2

We have a hippie in the White House. He even did cocaine and you ask this question?

2007-09-01 14:55:26 · answer #9 · answered by oldhag 5 · 2 1

"Should hippies be trusted....", you have no choice that generation is the generation in power, give it another ten years then their children will be in the right positions to be the leaders.

2007-09-01 14:41:56 · answer #10 · answered by in pain 4 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers