I was wondering what dirty trick they would try to crown Hillary, I hope this gets reported, obviously Edwards lead in Iowa, (not reported by news) is making the NWO pull a few more rabbits out to coronate her.

It also says they will strip the state of its delegates, where is the Michigan uproar on the news? I bet if Hillary needs those delegates they will give them back. And the news better not cover that with pro Hillary spin.

[edit on 10-10-2007 by Redge777]

Oh gosh, We're screwed!! It's sad she might be president. I honestly thought the country was better than this. Guess not!

[edit on 10-10-2007 by 1337cshacker]

Its all talk until the votes are in. I don't buy into all of the pre election hype that is going around. Everything changes when the voting booths are up and running. <-- I keep telling myself this so I don't get depressed.

Originally posted by Digital_Reality
Its all talk until the votes are in. I don't buy into all of the pre election hype that is going around. Everything changes when the voting booths are up and running. <-- I keep telling myself this so I don't get depressed.

I hope so too dude. I'm not saying you are, but be careful not to lie to yourself!

Originally posted by Digital_Reality
Its all talk until the votes are in. I don't buy into all of the pre election hype that is going around. Everything changes when the voting booths are up and running. <-- I keep telling myself this so I don't get depressed.

Unfortunately, regarding Michigan, it is more than all talk. Unless some sort of lawsuit is filed to stop the primary, the other candidates will NOT be on the ballot. It is inexplicable that they actually were registered to be on the ballot, and then all withdrew yesterday. They had pledged not to campaign in Michigan if Michigan violated the DNC mandate not to have their primary first, but they did not pledge to withdraw.

I think it is also telling that the parties want to perpetuate the idiotic idea that Iowa and New Hampshire go first. This is only because it is much easier to control the outcome in these small states.

Yeah, Hillary has been selected to be the candidate. Only time will tell if she was picked so that the presidency can be handed to a republican or whether she was picked to continue the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty.

Hurrah for the new plutocracy that has become America. With a Bush or Clinton "elected" to or one heart beat away from the oval office for conceivably 30 years, the descent is complete.

Is this all that we as a republic can throw up to lead us? This "woman" is downright frightening. She is so drunk for power, she makes Bush look like an amateur. When she is appointed high dictator, the end is nigh and dare I say, she may be the last president of the United States.

I believe thanks are in order to the Republicans and Democrats for ushering in this new era of Newspeak and soon we will all be able to emote at our own Goldstien.

I believe I will be locking the door to my bunker on Nov. 5 2008, regardless of which dictator is appointed.

[edit on 10-10-2007 by shai hulud]

I'm not that concerned, I don't think she's electable. The republicans all hate her and a good portion of the democrats do too. She flip flops on major issues so much that she makes John Kerry look stable. I also think she's got most of the base pissed off at her for promising to get the troops out of Iraq and then pulling a 180 when it came time to do so.

It actually might be a good thing if she wins the nomination because it just might make a 3rd party candidate viable.

Because of my unique employment status, I have had the opportunity to work around some of the most affluent investment brokers, high level ceos, and the like. You know, Bilderberger types. So far, every single one of them in their meetings has all but decided that Hillary is the next president and the Democrats gain seats in the Congress. These are people that have amassed great wealth betting on the system since the Federal government stopped worrying at Appomattox. I personally doubt they would risk all their ones and zeros on betting on policies that have yet to be implemented if they were not privy to certain information. From what I have seen, they have very little fervent attitude towards politics if it does not involve net loss and net gain. Hopefully they all have underestimated the dark horse of Ron Paul. He's a bit of a loose cannon, but a little bloodshed and revolution for the sake of democracy (i.e. the Republic) is good.

I do concur that what this country needs is a viable third option. The extreme left has co-opted the Democratic party to an extent that they are taking their marching orders from borderline communists. The Republicans have been overrun by robber barons that are the modern equivalent of the social "elite" that have little in common with a middle class conservative. For example, what does an old school, blue dog, Roosevelt Democrat from the mid west have in common with a West coast, homosexual, environmentalist? Probably less than zero. By the same token, what does a rural,conservative, blue collar, gun owner have in common with a wall street mogul that has a yacht named after his wife? Again probably less than zero, but all still vote along party lines for lack of a better choice. The problem is finding the big (and old) money to back a third option. In these times that would be a serious long shot.

Let us hope that sanity may see us through to a viable leader, but history usually proves otherwise.


[edit on 10-10-2007 by shai hulud]

[edit on 10-10-2007 by shai hulud]

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I'm not that concerned, I don't think she's electable. The republicans all hate her and a good portion of the democrats do too. She flip flops on major issues so much that she makes John Kerry look stable. I also think she's got most of the base pissed off at her for promising to get the troops out of Iraq and then pulling a 180 when it came time to do so.

It actually might be a good thing if she wins the nomination because it just might make a 3rd party candidate viable.

The only thing a third party candidate will do is guarantee that Clinton wins the election. The Dems did the same favor for Bush running Nader out there. The Republicans did the same favor for Clinton running Perot. The Republicans are already talking about running a socially conservative 3rd party candidate which would in fact assure Clinton of winning, like her husband, with under 50% of the vote.

The smart money says to go back to your stock charts from 1992 and look at what health care companies tanked after Clinton I was elected and bet they will tank again.

I concur that all a third party with a conservative platform, would do right now is assure Clinton II victory. Perot absolutely destroyed a Bush I reelection and assured a Clinton I victory (sheesh, this is starting to sound like a monarchy).

In order for a third party to have a realistic shot, it needs to be leading or somewhat competitive against the other two. The only one in recent history that seriously challenged the status quo was the Dixiecrat party that stole the conservative Democrat vote in the 50's and 60's. There has not been a serious challenge since, and probably will not be for some time.

I have no doubt that the health industry will tank even more than in the 90's when Herr Hillary ascends to the throne. The fact that this woman is so far up in the polls only shows that the populace is seriously misinformed to the true disaster that awaits them when Clinton II does win. The word "tax" will assume a whole different meaning under this regime. Bush has done more than enough to spend us into astronomical debt and Clinton II will be more than happy to relive the "rich" (i.e. anyone that receives a paycheck) of their monies to cover it all. There is only so long this fat pig will float.

Originally posted by shai hulud The fact that this woman is so far up in the polls only shows that the populace is seriously misinformed to the true disaster that awaits them when Clinton II does win.

I do not believe the polls are accurate at all. They are being used for propaganda in my opinion. Why do I think this? Because I never spoke to anybody who says they like Clinton II.

Maybe this is why they had to fix the Michigan primary. The real internal polls probably show Clinton II embarrassingly behind Obama and Edwards.

I can agree with you somewhat Robert. I have heard little support from we "common folk" going for Hillary. The truly amazing thing to me is the absolute disgust coming from certain lifelong Democrats that would never vote for a woman or a black man. Ironic to me since I thought the Republicans were supposed to be the racists and Liberal Democrats were supposed to be more open minded.

Why do you so hate a person who can knock the republicans out? Republicans seem to hate her for medical and retirement reasons. How I will fall off my seat if you collectively balls it for the third election in a row, just because you can't stand your best chance. Suppose that's just politics as usual.

Im just going to assume the worst (that Madam Supreme Ruler Hitlery Klinton will be the next president) until proven otherwise, that way I wont fall as deeply depressed as I would if I thought positive should it actually happen on 11/4/2008.