i think she will make our country into a socialized country,where anything goes,gay marrige,tax payers will pay so much more.and their will be another attack on our country cause she will take out the troups,make our millatry weak.
2007-09-20 05:35:32 · 15 answers · asked by freebird403us2001 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You are not alone, actually quite a few democrats agree with you as well. Oddly it might be good if she the nominee since it may just push alot of folks to vote Republican lol
2007-09-20 05:45:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
As much as I want a change in 2008, I'm wary of that change coming from her. She'd be a horrible choice for President. She's poll driven so she doesn't do anything unless Zogby gives the thumbs up. Those policies she has come up with, I feel are cobbled from someone else's plans (like her healthcare plan) and derived with no real though on her part.
BTW, her election would mean that for 24 years, we would be ruled by either a Bush or a Clinton. When she's done in 4 or 8 years, would that mean it's Jeb's turn?
2007-09-20 12:47:07 · answer #2 · answered by Deep Thought 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only thing keeping me sane in anticipation of this nightmare scenario is the hope that Hillary just doesn't play as well west of the Hudson River.
She was elected to the Senate by the liberal moonbats in NYC. Upstate new Yorkers by and large hate her guts.
I'm reminded of Barbara Streisand's comment after the Bush election: "Where would the red part of the country be without the blue bits?" Well, I really don't know Barbara, but you better look at that map again, because I sure know where the Blue bit would be without the red: STARVING.
2007-09-20 12:48:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do and here is why
I won't vote for her because she reminds me of another politician that I don't like;
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." [Hillary Clinton, 1993]
"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." [Adolph Hitler, 1933]
The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." [Adolph Hitler, quoted in Hitler, A Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock (Harper Collins, NY)]
Or how about this guy;
Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." [Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party]
Or this guy;
"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all." [Vladimir Lenin, as quoted in Not by Politics Alone]
See the common thread in these statements?
And furthermore her political philosophy expressed in that statement too closely resembles this one;
Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position. [Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936]
2007-09-20 22:30:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hillary Clinton is a freaking communist and because she's smarter than Bush she can do far more damage than he could ever imagine.
Except national ID cards and a full on dictatorship if she gets in office. Expect forced integration everywhere, and get out of jail free cards for minorities because whitey is an evil racist and has it coming to him.
2007-09-20 12:51:33 · answer #5 · answered by Josh 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not a one person job. Congress has been doing it for about a century. Hillary will only make it happen faster, which she's already doing in the Senate.
2007-09-20 12:52:50 · answer #6 · answered by mikey 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She will push socialism, but I don't think she will get to much through the congress before we replace them again like when billy boy was prez. History does repeat doesn't it? And she cannot possibly be as bad as bone head Carter.
2007-09-20 12:46:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
She is not my first choice for President, but I don't think she'll ruin the country. Based on what you've written I don't think you've researched the issues and I don't think you understand them. It seems like all you've done is parrot right wing paranoia.
2007-09-20 12:45:30 · answer #8 · answered by BOOM 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
I am with you...she is not the right person for the job.
2007-09-20 12:45:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I honestly think she would be assassinated if she did happen to win - the Secret Service hates her.
2007-09-20 12:41:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋