Because people in general aren't really all that bright.
Seriously.
Many people who support Hillary do so because they know her name. They have no idea what she stands for... but they recognize the name. When challenged, they can't even tell you ONE thing she's done to deserve to even be IN the race and are unaware of her propensity to flip-flop on issues and lie just to say whatever is best to be saying at the time to get elected.
They don't remember that she's possibly responsible for someone's death because of her Whitewater scandal... during which she refused to answer the Grand Jury's questions.
They don't remember that a few days after 9/11, she was carrying on and laughing and having sidebar conversations DURING A MEMORIAL for the people of 'her state' who were killed during that attack.
They don't remember that she testified that she and Bill KNEW Saddam had WMDs and they he needed to be stopped when casting her vote to authorize use of force... and now lies and says Bush 'tricked' her.
They don't realize that her brand of government is BIG government with socialized programs galore. They don't realize that their taxes are going to go way up to pay for that.
They don't know that Clinton NEVER 'erased the deficit'... we did not have a surplus during their administration. They balanced the budget. Whoop dee doo. Big difference between that and being OUT of debt.
They don't know a LOT of things about what happened during the Clinton years because one of Clinton's aides stuffed documents down his pants from the national archives and walked out with them. They've never had to answer for that, either.
In a nutshell... the press gives Hillary a free pass. She never has to answer a hard question. She would get KILLED in a debate where she has to play hardball. I'm just a citizen and I bet I could demolish her in a debate!
But the American people?
Most of them are sheep and they'll follow the name they know.
That's what the PC crowd does. They make people into sheep. Make them followers, afraid to express a difference of opinion for fear of being a 'heretic'.
Think, people! Look at the facts. She is a socialist and will bring this nation to utter ruin financially while making us weak and vulnerable to attack militarily.
2007-10-05 13:44:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bryan~ Unapologetic Conservative 3
·
2⤊
3⤋
There are 3 solutions right here... a million) The censorship is of the media, and is left-wing, subsequently left financed, and could extra help the leftist schedule's.... 2) The above answer additionally applies to the fake commercial of each and every of the political BS to the final public. maximum all and sundry is conscious that media shops are that of WWF or in spite of the fact that they call it now-- Staged for left-wing administration. all and sundry that's no longer a libertarian and conservative, or the two% of 'others' void out all factors of political correctness to alter it with propaganda that can assist and help their destiny 'handouts.' 3) further time, i do no longer think it would have relatively mattered if Clinton released him or no longer. Osama might have got here across somebody to do the job with equivalent or extra credentials. 9/11 became destined to ensue. And, even with the undeniable fact that Clinton's antisocial strikes in prefer for this actual terrorist did no longer something yet inflict extra effective injury and set-decrease back, it became fairly inevitable for the plan to be performed... ultimately. --Rob USMC
2016-10-10 09:26:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
We were attacked by Islamic terrorists way before Clinton was President -- In Iran under Carter (hostage Crisis)and in Lebanon under Reagan. When the US attacked Iraq in first Gulf War from bases in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden turned against the US who had supported him and the Taliban in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Russians. Not to mention 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. To blame Clinton alone for 9/11 is to ignore 30 years of history and give a free pass to Reagan Bush 1 and Bush 2.
2007-10-05 13:59:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
We shouldn't elect them again. Bill just did his part in the continuation of a policy of ignoring the situation. That started undered Carter and in many ways was perpetuated by every President until G W Bush. Reagan pulled out of Beirut, G H W Bush stopped short of doing what was needed in the Gulf War, and Clinton was so busy with his 20 or so scandals that he was completed disconnected from any foreign policy issues.
2007-10-05 13:39:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by booman17 7
·
3⤊
3⤋
Oh dearie me yes, it's all Bill and Hill's fault.
Forget the stupidity of Ronald Reagen.
Ignore the manipulation of George Sr..
Pay absolutely NO attention at all to the fact the George Jr. is the dumbest, greediest, most callous, meglomanical horse's patoot who's after soiled the Oval Room carpet.
You just go right on with your accusations.
We all need our little fantasies, don't we?
2007-10-05 14:26:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by St. Hell 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
Uh...actually the first attack occured when the Marine barracks was attacked in under Reagan's watch...100's of Marines were killed...Reagan did nothing.
2007-10-05 13:52:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Or it's because we can't stop buying oil from the terrorist. Because your crazy right wing facists don't think global warming and gays are real even though they both are and a lot of republican politicians seem to be the latter.
2007-10-05 13:47:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Beaver 1
·
1⤊
3⤋
Sweetheart, it's not the President they're paying attention to, it's the imperialism.
2007-10-05 13:34:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
No, they aren't.
2007-10-05 13:34:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋