Hillary Clinton 2008

Kidfinger says:

"As far as the assault weapons go, Im all for the ban too!"

So much for your hypocritical and phony rant about the last freedoms being taken from the people, kidfinger.

You believe in those freedoms you approve of, and are more than happy to take away the freedoms that you don't approve of.

Kidfinger, you and Ashcroft are interchangeable parts.

The atf is not authorized to use m1a1 tanks against american citizens.
I find it funny that you bash bush for ordering military attacks against non-us citizens in Iraq but you support someone that allowed an illegal use of military force on american soil against americans and someone that trampled all over the second amendment. The 2nd amendment is what gaurantees we will be able to keep our rights provided in the constitution. When someone tries to strip that right from me and allowes the military to attack its own citizens that makes me think of the dictator Saddam. So in a nutshell you support someone that takes your rights and kills US citizens but do not support someone that allowed the assault weapons ban to pass and did not attack his own citizens.

I now know where you stand. You should move to China you would most likely like it there.

Cryptorsa1001, if you want a real laugh -- and you want to see the epitome of hypocrisy -- look at the lead post at www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, we have to go back to the very beginning, and start over.

It's that bad.

USGS lies, NASA lies, USDA lies, FDA lies, NSA lies, the Pentagon lies, the White House lies, and the rest of them just make things up.

Yep.

cryptorsa1001 and Off the street.

Both of you Bushies have not listened to a thing I said. I AGREE WITH THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! but my god, do you really need to own that shoulder mounted stinger missle? If you want to talk Hypocrasy, lets talk about your fearless leader and his total snubbing opf our constitution. The first ammendment and the second ammendment mean nothing to Bush, or either of you apparently.

cryptorsa1001
The ATF has the lawful right to use the force it sees fit to deal with civillian problems. Both of you nationalist ought to be mad at the people in the compounds instead of the ATF or Clinton. After all, they didnt do what the law said they had to do. They suffered the consiquences. I dont agree with this, but Im using the same bull# rhetoric you tossed my way. The voice of hypocracy emanates from those who scream it.

Off the street. I dont know about your background. All I know is you are 60 and an engineer. I dont know if you have ever fought for this country. I have. I did my time in the first gulf war. I fought for the government because I was told to. I KNOW what an assault weapon can do. I have enough experience with an M14 that I can pop a coke at 50 yards, flik the simiauto switch, turn around and cut a hanging dummie in half all in about 6 seconds. I have experience with weapons of all types, though I dont usually go around bragging about it. I even own a 12 guage winchester under over. If you want to keep believeing that I am a hypocrit, fine, I dont really give a #. However, get your facts straight about me before you start making accusations that you cant back up.

Once again let me state that the ATF does not have the right to bring in the active military to help it with its job. My goodness they used tanks against kids and women!!!!! Who is talking about shoulder fired missiles. At Ruby Ridge a government sniper killed an unarmed women holding her baby in her arms after they surrounded them. They could have waited them out. Randy Weaver later received a settlement from the government, which indicates fault on the government�s side. Since you know weapons you should know that with a scope in the daylight you could tell if someone is armed or not. She was killed in cold blood and nothing was done under Clintons watch.


Off_The_Street I agree with you. Kidfinger talks about his rights being trampled on then states people should not be allowed to own more than a couple of guns and they should not have assault weapons. I am surprised he is still posting. I called him out on the post you provided a link to because he said the Bush Administration is the first to jail reporters. I provided a link with info disproving his comments and he still was saying Bush is the first to jail reporters.

Kidfinger your arguments are weak and full of contradictions. You do not read other peoples posts so you jump to conclusions making an #ss out of yourself. Please take some time to think about what you are saying.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Once again let me state that the ATF does not have the right to bring in the active military to help it with its job.

Yes it does.

Randy Weaver later received a settlement from the government, which indicates fault on the government�s side. She was killed in cold blood and nothing was done under Clintons watch.

So while Clinton was in office nothing was ever done about this? Umm.... you just said yourself that they recieved a settlement from the government. More double talk from you.

I am surprised he is still posting. I called him out on the post you provided a link to because he said the Bush Administration is the first to jail reporters. I provided a link with info disproving his comments and he still was saying Bush is the first to jail reporters.

Your are suprised Im still posting? Im denying the ignorance you are spreading. I think you need glasses. I said PRISON. Not jail. Reporters are being threatened with PRISON! Damn you Bush lovers just enjoy reading half a post and continue to make assumptions and accusations about something you obviously know nothing about.

Kidfinger your arguments are weak and full of contradictions. You do not read other peoples posts so you jump to conclusions making an #ss out of yourself. Please take some time to think about what you are saying.

WTF are you talking about? I dont read other peoples post? I read every word of a post before I reply you schmuck! Oyvay! Im not even jewish and you have me talking like one. I think you need a lesson on how the government works. A real lesson, not the ones they show on Fox news network. Do the police need the Presidents approval to arrest you? Do the police need approval to break up a riot? Does ATF need approval from anyone to maintain the laws they were formed to uphold? You should quit posting and start reading more on the government policies and procedures.

[edit on 11/18/04 by Kidfinger]

kidfinger says:

"Both of you Bushies..."

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004. Assuming that someone who disagrees with you to auromatically being a "bushie" is a rather poor attempt at ad hominem arguments.

"...but my god, do you really need to own that shoulder mounted stinger missle [sic]? If you want to talk Hypocrasy [sic], lets talk about your fearless leader..."


No. Let's not talk about Bush, who is neither my nor fearless.

Let's talk about the real issue here, which is your hypocrisy when it comes to bewailing the government taking away those freedoms which you want to keep -- and not saying anything about those freedoms of which you disapprove.

Your argument about "shoulder-mounted stinger missiles"is a red herring. You yourself said that you are in favor of banning "assault weapons". Not surprisingly, your previous comments about the "kevlar duck" and "mangling of one's body" show that your knowledge of ballistics, especially that of the 7.62 X 39 mm round, is right up (or, rather, down) there with your knowledge of the Constitution, the Second Amendment of which says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I suggest you check out the definition of the word "infringed".

"...and his total snubbing opf our constitution.

I am not saying that Bush and Ashcroft's mischief have not damaged the freedom of the American people; they are a grievous assault on our liberties. But I am not here to defend Bush; I consider his activities indefensible. My point is that your rant about freedom is hypocritical.

"The first ammendment [sic] and the second ammendment [sic] mean nothing to Bush, or either of you apparently.

For what it's worth, kidfinger, the Second Amendment is the one about keeping and bearing arms LOL!

Now far be it for me to tell you your business; but you would get a lot more respect from me (as well as from other members of this forum) if you would avoid ad hominem attacks and stick to the subject at hand, which is the hypocrisy of your rant.

Now for what it's worth, I believe in freedom -- as abhorrent as it may be to most of the people here. As a military veteran and a committed Christian, I am angered by the burning of the Flag, and consider homosexuality and abortion to morally wrong.

Nonetheless, I do not believe that such things should be outlawed, despite my aversion to them; I believe that you and I both should have the right to believe and act as we choose, as long as by doing so, we don't steal rights from others who might disagree with us.

I consider anyone who steals my rights, whether Ashcroft or Kennedy, whether Democrat or Republican, whether "liberal" or "conservative", to be simply one of two sides of the same corporate fascist, welfare-warfare, statist coin.

I believe in freedom, regardless of whether it's "correct".

It's a pity that you don't feel that way yourself.

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

I dont see Arnold running for president in 2008 because they can't get the consitution changed by then, if ever. First to amend the constitution you need 2/3's of the senate and the house to agree to it. Which is a long process itself, and than 38 states have to ratified the amendment for it to become part of the consitution. So there is no way Arnold will be running in 2008, and second I hope he can never run. A american should run the highest office of the land, not a foreigner. Hillary for 2008, Bill for UN GENERAL!

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
Hillary is not a nice soft lady. She is cut of the same cloth as all the OTHER NWO predators.

I didn't think I ever see the day when I agree with something you say, Emily

Hillary as President is just about the scariest thing I could imagine for this country!

"Hillary as President is just about the scariest thing I could imagine for this country!"

Why do you say?

I really am interested in understanding why Hilary is so hated.

... Because she is not what she seems to be.

... Her history in Arkansas and WDC is that of an undercover operator.

... She worked for the Rose Law Firm with which the Bush's are also associated; and she was associated with some shady real estate deals.

... I roomed with a guy whose friends were Secret Service agents in the White House, and they told stories about her extra-curricular activities with other women that turned our hair white. Maybe that why Bill's hair turned white.

... "Dragon Lady," is the expression that comes to mind.

... Amelia, I'm puzzled. It sounds to me as if we are agreeing, not disagreeing.

[shrug.]

*scratches head*

Thank you for the response, but, erm, I must ask again, "What did she do that was so bad?"

Lee, you raise an interesting point.

I certainly disliked (and still dislike) Hillary Rodham-Clinton but it's not like I consider her the anti-Christ or anything. And I ignore any sleazy gossip about her putative sexual encounters. Unlike her husband, she did not have the office of President to degrade; her sexual activity is no business of mine.

People say she was a sleazy lawyer; well, what lawyer isn't at least partially a sleaze-bag? After all, their raison d'etre is to bend the laws to subvert justice, right?

What annoyed me about Hillary was her behind-the-scenes attempt to socialize healthcare while completely ignoring tort reform, which is the one thing that possibly could salvage our healthcare system.

I think most people are against Rodham-Clinton not because of her socialist policies (which, I propose, are abhorrent) but because, as a dynamic woman, her very existence is a threat to their fragile egos.

And it's not just a "Republican misogynist" thing by any means; why do you suppose so many Democrats are afraid of and thus attack Dr. Condoleezza Rice?

�Plus �a change, plus c�est la m�me chose.�

Yeah Lee...it's a great mystery to me as well...

Must be something bad b/c people hate her so much...

Some thoughts on Hillary..

The thought of her getting anywhere near the White House makes me ill. Not to ill, though; because, I don't think there's any way she will ever be electable for the presidency. I know many of you out there like and admire her, but she is simply too polarizing. Much the way G.W. Bush is. She's a very intelligent, formiddable woman with an agenda. Not so sure what that is beyond herself. Personally, I want no part of it. As for her sex life, I could care less what log legs does on her own time. If Bill doesn't care, why should we?

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Once again let me state that the ATF does not have the right to bring in the active military to help it with its job. My goodness they used tanks against kids and women!!!!! Who is talking about shoulder fired missiles. At Ruby Ridge a government sniper killed an unarmed women holding her baby in her arms after they surrounded them. They could have waited them out. Randy Weaver later received a settlement from the government, which indicates fault on the government�s side. Since you know weapons you should know that with a scope in the daylight you could tell if someone is armed or not. She was killed in cold blood and nothing was done under Clintons watch.


Off_The_Street I agree with you. Kidfinger talks about his rights being trampled on then states people should not be allowed to own more than a couple of guns and they should not have assault weapons. I am surprised he is still posting. I called him out on the post you provided a link to because he said the Bush Administration is the first to jail reporters. I provided a link with info disproving his comments and he still was saying Bush is the first to jail reporters.

Kidfinger your arguments are weak and full of contradictions. You do not read other peoples posts so you jump to conclusions making an #ss out of yourself. Please take some time to think about what you are saying.

You are right, # clinton. The bastard was the best conservative republican ever elected. I don't care who says he was actually a democrate. He was about as liberal as nixon. Screw those fake liberals like clinton. (not so sarcastic)


(more sarcastic)
Everyone should own guns after all. I mean god damn, those government types might just take over our country, and we need to defend ourselves.

And when the government jails reporters (in new york during the RNC), well good, they wheren't going along with our program anyway. I mean 17th in the would for the free press is not that bad. There are lots of other countries that are much worse than us.

Jailing people with out charges and torcher isn't that bad. Just make sure that the flag doesn't get those nasty blood stains on it. If it does we'll have to kill the #er that bleed on it so he can't do it again.

And about the flag, if it ever touches the the ground the person that let it touch the ground should be shot. If a man is laying on the ground, we should put in him in a nice jail.

Lord knows that all the rich people deserve thier money and they have worked hard for it. Never have i heard of a man exploting women and minoraties for wealth. Never can a man live with himself if he know that his actions have put a family out on the street with no food.

If you are in the public office you couldn't have cheated to get there.

If i have my gun, i'll use it against the government, but i really like this one so instead i'll use it against those crazy hippies who don't like them.

WTF

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
As for her sex life, I could care less what log legs does on her own time. If Bill doesn't care, why should we?

LMFAO!!!
i hate to think what she does anyways *shudders*

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

Hillary is the big player in whitewater, she is the crook of the family. I'd much rather have Bill back in the whitehouse then Hillary, but then she probably runs the show anyway. She is definately a wolf in sheeps clothing. Besides she's one ugly bitch - no wonder Bill wondered.

It's definately time to see a Woman or African American in the Whitehouse, but if Hillary Clinton becomes the Democrats choice we will elect another Republican.

None of us will ever forget Ruby Ridge & Waco and we wont forget the administration who lied about it & promoted those who were in charge at the time. Those we put in charge burned our children to death.



[edit on 18-11-2004 by outsider]

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
As for her sex life, I could care less what log legs does on her own time. If Bill doesn't care, why should we?

LMFAO!!!
i hate to think what she does anyways *shudders*

Good Lord what did I start???? ALl I wanted to know was what your thought were about a lady in Arkansas, holding a Hillary 2008 bumper sticker, and saying "We are ready for a New World Order" not Hillary's sex life......