She's "one of Them." She's "one of the boys."

She a NWO OFFICIAL--not even a stand-in. Right there with PNAC. Right there with UN troops. Right there with getting rid of the Constitution. Right there with amalgamating North America. Right there with WTO, the Bilderbergs, Trilateral Commission.

She's a wolf in drag. You should see her in church. She yawns through it. It's an ACT, this being a nice soft lady stuff. [I did.]

Every time we have a race for the presidency someone claims one of the candidates is the anti-christ. Makes me laugh. The NWO is the United States running the world through financial and military means. It is different than the world government. The world government will not happen untill 2/3 or so of the population is killed off. There are too many people too control and not enough reasons for people to let anyone control them. The US with all of its might can't even control Iraq let alone the worlds populace.

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
She's a wolf in drag. You should see her in church. She yawns through it. It's an ACT, this being a nice soft lady stuff. [I did.]

So...??
she yawns in church and that doesnt makes her a nice person

(typo's)

[edit on 18-11-2004 by infinite]

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
She's "one of Them." She's "one of the boys."

She a NWO OFFICIAL--not even a stand-in. Right there with PNAC. Right there with UN troops. Right there with getting rid of the Constitution. Right there with amalgamating North America. Right there with WTO, the Bilderbergs, Trilateral Commission.

She's a wolf in drag. You should see her in church. She yawns through it. It's an ACT, this being a nice soft lady stuff. [I did.]

Then I must really be a lost sheep because I don't believe in any of that NWO stuff.

[edit on 11/18/2004 by Lecky]

Originally posted by Yarnos
Hillary Clinton is a self serving egotist. She does things only for her own personal gain.
Is it because she's a women why she has such a big following ? If she was a man would she have nearly as much support as she seems to ?

Not at all, I've just never heard anything about her that would merit such hate. People act as though the woman sacrifices babies and drinks their blood for a living...

It's all been a big scam since the 1940s.

America's CIA and covert ops have been destabilizing Everywhere they could so America could sell their guns and weapons around the world.

America participates on both sides of the drug war--to keep the American dollar propped up with laundered money.

America's Leaders--being of the Rich caste--have since the 1970s and Reaganomics, plundered, pillaged and stripped American industries of their equities, simply for the fun of doing it. [Look at the poppy_bush transcript. He's playing a game with us all--a horrific game.]

Get real. Stop being spoon-fed the news They want you to believe.

Yeah.

I agree. When someone says they hate Hilary, I always scratch my head and wonder what did she do?

Beware of the Hill! It has already started. She is trying to portray herself as a "conservative Christian" .
She almost has her sheep costume ready. I believe she will get the nomination for 2008. I have a feeling that the last campaign will look like tidily winks compared to the next one.

Fellow conservatives unite!

NWO really means American Businessmen and rich American investors first. It is kinda like a wolf pack instead of wolves you have countries. america is the Alpha male. the rest are submissive.

Right, lets carry out a mini research project here. Split into groups for and against, then provide information to me why Hillary Clinton is or isnt apart of the NWO.

Thank you.

(this will prove better then a mud fight )

I would not be surprised if we elect a woman president in 2008, if we can find one.

If I could design one:

I'd pick someone who could be a war president to properly prosecute the war (and if you think a woman could not prosecute a war, I suggest you google terms like "Margaret Thatcher", "Indira Gandhi" and "Golda Meir")

I'd pick someone who hasn't been touched by political scandal and who could rise above politics. Having a political background isn't that important; Andrew Jackson and Dwight Eisenhower didn't do all that badly.

I'd pick someone brilliant -- perhaps a Ph.D. who started college at 16 and who has been an overachiever all her life. None of these slow-on-the-uptake, I'm-here-because-of-my-daddy-or-my-bazillioniare-wife guys like Bush or Kerry.

And then, while we're at it, I'd pick someone who was also a black concert pianist, because we need a well-rounded leader with artistic sensitivities; and besides, the blacks haven't had a president recently.

Now where could we find someone like that?

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Happened under his watch, so that makes it OKAY with you? You are condemning Bush for stuff that happened under his watch but it is okay if it is a democrat.

Completly different. Bush started a war. Clinton didnt have to authorize squat with RR or Waco. ATF is able to do these type of things without presidential approval.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Completly different. Bush started a war. Clinton didnt have to authorize squat with RR or Waco. ATF is able to do these type of things without presidential approval.

The dude speaks the truth,
ATF can do what they like

The US Gummint is out of control. "Checks and balances" have been dead since--maybe--the sixties. Look what happened to JFK/RFK/MLK.

Its agencies obfuscate, lie, deceive and make up stuff.

Its executives are dominated by ulterior motives and influence-peddling.

Its intelligence agencies are more focused on their processes and procedures than they are on the havoc they wreak all over the world.

Its legislators are blackmailed by industrialists who have the goods on 'em, especially for subtle violations of campaign financing laws.

Its judiciary are beholden to its Executive Branch, excessively.

Everybody is doing their own thing; to hell with the American people.

Don't you get that yet?

[edit on 18-11-2004 by Emily_Cragg]

I think she will run, But i know that Arnold Schwarzenegger will run against her. They are working now in cali to try and get him in for president, I am sure someone from Cali can tell us about the adds.

Article 2 Clause 5 of the US Constitution States: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

But it dont matter what the people say this will happen, just like everything else they are doing..

So in 2008 yes you are right, Hillary will run for president, BUT Arnold will win..

I see it being a race between Clinton and Rice myself.

Just a strong feeling that has been made even stronger since Rice was appointed to Head of State.

cryptorsa1001

The ATF can authorize a certian level of military intervention. It was not the Presidents choice. The ATF was responsible for the acts that transpired on both counts. By the way, Im 32 and watched Waco on TV. I know what Im talking about. If you want to place the balme on someone, blame the person responsible for ordering the military to attack the Waco compound without any planning. That is what got most of the people killed on both sides.

As far as the assault weapons go, Im all for the ban too! What the hell are you going to kill with an AK 47? A Kevlar coated duck Give me a break. Assault weapons are designed to mangle your body beyond the point of repair. I believe in the right to bear arms. But I dont think ANYONE but the military needs assault rifles. I also dont think any person needs anymore than 2 or 3 guns.

Clinton was not responsible for RR or Waco. Assault weapons are ment for war. And Hillary would lead with such charisma and patriotism that when people look back on Bush, they will see just what kind of a tyrant he really is.

If you want to talk about being responsible because an issue wasnt addressed, lets talk about the genocide occouring in Africa right now. President Bush has been asked what he will do about the situation and he danced around the question till the next question presented itself. I would rather have someone leading the UN that at least looked out for the best intrest for his country, then someone that is a known war manger and condones genocide in all forms.

GO HILLARY!

[edit on 11/18/04 by Kidfinger]

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
The US Gummint is out of control. "Checks and balances" have been dead since--maybe--the sixties. Look what happened to JFK/RFK/MLK.

Its agencies obfuscate, lie, deceive and make up stuff.

Its executives are dominated by ulterior motives and influence-peddling.

Its intelligence agencies are more focused on their processes and procedures than they are on the havoc they wreak all over the world.

Its legislators are blackmailed by industrialists who have the goods on 'em, especially for subtle violations of campaign financing laws.

Its judiciary are beholden to its Executive Branch, excessively.

Everybody is doing their own thing; to hell with the American people.

Don't you get that yet?

[edit on 18-11-2004 by Emily_Cragg]

So the whole government prevaricates?
If we are so aware that it is all lies why do we even bother to vote then?
Why do we not just do what they did in 1774,75,76 and start over again?
Who do we trust...no one? Not even our own judgement?

Got a solution?

I see a mess in 08.

1-Al Gore will run to piss off the Clintons, there is a lot of bad blood between these people and time will tell if he runs.

2-John Kerry has said is running in 08, plus he still has 15 million left over from this run for the pres and he has said, he will not hand it over to HC in 08.

3-I see the demo's getting everyone so upset with a bitter run for the white house, that the right will win again.