Is anyone supposedly capable of being a president that oblivioius to whats going on in her immediate presence. This idea. Perhaps they are, but no one, even a liberal extremist voter should be that naive.
travelgate, filegate, whitewater, the vince foster coverup, the montana land grab, campaign finance fraud 2000, the rental of the lincoln bedroom, the cattle futures fiasco, the health care fiasco, jennifer, paula, monica, what is...is, the largest tax increase in us history, the tie breaking vote to tax social security breaking a fifty year promise to the nations elderly, no response to the uss cole, african embassy bombings, at least six chances to capture or kill bin laden in sudan,
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country
WHAT DO YOU NEED A ROADMAP????
2007-11-03
22:35:29
·
24 answers
·
asked by
koalatcomics
7
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
lmfao....liberals just wont give it up will they. ask billy dale or peter paul if this is unproven pap. ask the thousands of people who the clintons defrauded in whitewater if its unproven pap. cmon the 11th hour fire sale pardons of marc rich and susan mcdougal....???
liberals have no shame, none whatsoever. and your certainly right. id do all i can not to let a felon govern the us.
2007-11-03
22:57:16 ·
update #1
The answers you've received to your question from libs are hilarious:
First, they're all spouting off about getting Bill's experience by electing Hillary, and the answers are saying that you have to separate the husband from the wife. Did they forget Hillary's "We are the President" statement?
Then, they state that all of Hillary's reported transgressions can't be held against her because they're supposedly unsubstantiated, and yet the same people are constantly yapping about having to impeach President Bush for one made up thing after another, or he's a drunk, or he's a draft dodger, or he's in the pocket of big business, or he lied about WMDs, and on, and on, and on with all sorts of UNPROVEN charges.
As you said, they should look into the Peter Paul thing, or at least wonder why it is that there's always a Chinaman with a fistfull of hundred dollar bills lurking in the shadows behind her. Could Hillary be the Manchurian Candidate? There's just too much baggage there to ignore.
2007-11-04 00:04:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Well as far as that quote goes, I can completely understand what she meant by that. In war, when the men go off to fight and sometimes die, the women are left back home to keep the bills paid make sure the kids are fed, clothed and go to school everyday. When the man dies in combat, it's terrible, but his pain is over, as is his duties to that family. It's the women and children of that family who must struggle on, working to keep themselves fed and sheltered even through their enormous, paralyzing grief. Sorry, you confuse your fear with intelligence. It isn't intelligence, it's fear of the unknown. What I don't understand is, invading Iraq was a pretty unknown thing too, but you were all for THAT. Why so timid about Hillary? Are you THAT afraid a woman CAN do the job (after all you've already proved a buffoon can do it) so well, the US may decide they LIKE having a female President? And as a "REAL MAN" don't you feel a little ashamed of yourself for picking on a woman? "REAL MEN" don't pick on people smaller than themselves. Only bullies do that. Are you a bully? Or a gentleman? It's time to decide which is greater: Your civility or your terror of women.
2016-04-02 04:00:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm so sick of hearing all the Rep's asking what are Hillary's qualifications? I don't what the requirements are to be president other than you must be a US natural born citizen and at least 35 years of age. I'm sure there are tons more requirements, such as political experience, College whatever. So, can someone tell me what qualified Bush to be president other than "Daddy" was president? I mean didn't he fail at every business he was in charge of. I guess he had some military experience, but isn't a veteran, because I never heard of any war he was in. So, really what is Bush's qualifications for being president? I blame all the Rep's talk radio host for fueling the fire of hate and division between Rep's/Dem's. Mainly Rush LimpD**K and "Homo" Hannity. I would probably like Rep's if not for them. Are we all not Americans first, so shouldn't we focus on who would be best for this country instead of who we should and shouldn't hate?
2007-11-04 00:52:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
In addition to the above, my biggest objection with her is her lack of experience and this rampant @ss-kissing that follows her for no reason.
What are her qualifications?
1. One-plus terms in the Senate? Big deal!! Dodd and Biden have a lot more than that. Nominate them.
2. First Lady? Big deal!! Let's elect Laura Bush and save the country some moving expenses. The only thing Hillary was involved in (universal health care) was a debacle.
3. Administrative experience? Well, let's see... there's.....ummmmm......oh, and ......ummmmmm
I don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican. You have several better choices on both sides of the aisle.
2007-11-03 23:17:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by Pythagoras 7
·
4⤊
2⤋
The Impeachment was overturned and the Clintons were never been convicted of ANYTHING (despite Republican wasting tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money investigating what color his underwear were, and on up), so unless you DO have additional REAL evidence of your allegations, it's time to stop the lies and the fear mongering. You don't make you or your party look very intelligent when you overlook the greed and corruption of your own Party to talk about your national obsession with a female President.. But please, continue on, it makes it easier to ID you. You might want to remember George W Bush invested the office of the President with up-to-now unheard of authority and power, power which could very well be in Hillary's hands in a few months. Besides making your Party the most shortsighted in history, it also has allowed the Dems to not only BENEFIT from that power but to BLAME YOUR PARTY for it existance! Great work, geniuses. When you elect a fascist, more fascists will run for the office. Simple as that. And you guys opened the door. So again, thanks.
The harder you try to keep Hillary out, the more determined people are going to be to vote for her, if only on the basis Hillary is NOT your choice, because your party has been making disastrous choices the last 7 years.
Your Party has no credibility anymore, so to assume anyone but the most rabidly sexist and mentally diseased are even LISTENING to you is ridiculous ego and a state of denial everyone in the WORLD sees.
She could sell off the entire White House, jail the Olsen Twins for heresy and make stem cell necklaces a HUGE fashion statement, and would STILL be a much better President than the fool you chose twice because of your OWN fear, and I know you can't imagine why anyone would vote on the basis of something OTHER than how scared we are of war and women, but we would rather vote with our intellects than our "gut feelings".
But PLEASE, keep blaming Hillary for Bill's perceived crimes (while excusing treasonous acts by the current administration). Keep blaming First Lady Clinton for not pushing Healthcare Reform through a hostile Republican Congress who had no interest in changing the status quo, who were not interested in helping Americans have a better life (even thought Laura Bush has done even LESS in Office as First Lady ]too occupied keeping the White House liquor cabinet locked up so George won't get into it?]).
2007-11-04 00:39:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋
I won't be voting for Hillary, because I do not believe she's qualified, and I want a president who will work to unify the divide that's been widened in America since 2000.
That said, I find the following statement ironic:
>>Is anyone supposedly capable of being a president that oblivioius to whats going on in her immediate presence. ...<<
Because here, we have a Naked Emperor whose pretext for invading Iraq (and STILL NOT KILLING BINLADEN) was WMDs, then "liberating," all the while paying NO ATTENTION to post-invasion planning.
My point is that one cannot throw stones without realizing that one lives in a glass house...
2007-11-03 23:18:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Yes I totally agree.
People don't pay attention to the facts you state.
But I believe each one them. I remember the whole Clinton Presidency.
2007-11-04 01:01:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by I hate Hillary Clinton 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
No women are voting for her because she is a woman and no other Good reason I can fathom. The reason Hellory wasn't charged in any of the criminal cases was because Billy Bob would have pardoned her or made it clear the prosecutor would be stuck working the back woods the rest of his/her career.
2007-11-03 22:46:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by lord_he_aint_right_nda_head 3
·
2⤊
3⤋
A vote for Hillary is a vote in complete naivete.
I Cr 13;8a
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As0LxS10WDUdini7QwbH4n_sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071102013947AAdC1e8
2007-11-04 13:59:44
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
She stayed married to Bill. A clear sign of insanity. Not to mention all the other stuff you listed.
2007-11-04 11:07:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by SallyJM 5
·
1⤊
0⤋