Feb 02 2007

Hillary The Communist

Published by at 7:06 pm under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

Hillary wants “to take oil profits” and give them to other companies …. I mean invest in alternative energy sources. Goodbye Hillary (and the dems). One thing America does not believe in is state confiscation of private property. When would it stop? Would Hillary and her Communist friends take profits from McDonalds to fight obesity? Will they take profits Marlboro to invest in medical companies? What am I saying – they already did that! And they are planning on a fat tax on foods they decide our not healthy. Democrats are going to squander their opportunity because we are not going to cough up our industrial base to the government to control and dictate (and strangulate).

36 responses so far

36 Responses to “Hillary The Communist”

  1. Terrye says:

    More of Bill Clinton:

    The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

    The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm’s way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.

    If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we’re acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

    Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

    But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America’s vital interests, we will do so. In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

    Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

  2. Terrye says:

    link for Bill Clinton’s war mongering speech;

  3. Mark_for_Senate says:

    Hey Soothie, what do you and your mom Molly have to say now?

  4. lurker9876 says:

    Very good, terrye!

    Terrye, what do you think about Arlen Specter’s comment regarding Bush’s “I’m the decision maker” (check scrappleface’s:

    Arlen wants to clarify the US Constitution regarding Article 2, section 2.

  5. Terrye says:

    I think Specter needs to reread the Constitution. The truth is if the Senate can come up with two thirds majority they can pass a bill and try to fly it past the president. The Constitution lays out the rules for that. The truth is there are 100 of those guys and they can not even deal with Social Security and immigration without it turning into a brawl, there is no way they can “decide” foreign policy. Specter is just too vain to admit it.

  6. pagar says:

    The part of the Constitution that needs to be enforced is Article 3, Section 3.


    John Kerry meeting with the enemy in Paris during the Vietnam War,
    Sen Rockefeller meeting with the Syrian leader in Jan 2002.
    Sen Bill Nelson, Sen Dodd, Sen Kerry and others meeting with Syrian leader in 2006 and 2007.
    Sen Kerry and Sen Harkin meet with Sandinista leaders.
    Sen Cantwell and many other Congresspersons have met with Fidel

    All any foreign leader has to do is announce that their countries policy is against the United States, Democrat Congresspersons will soon be there. When the only foreign policy the Democrats have is surrender, what is the purpose of these meetings?

    “When the American people fully understand the costs of this war – including tangential costs ”
    The cost of every enemy of America knowing that American leftist
    terrorist supporters won the Vietnam War for the Noth Vietnamese, and that the American leftist terrorist supporters are trying to win this war for the terrorists is going to be borne by every American forever more. The terrorists know all they have to do is win the support of the American leftists, and than the American leftists will defeat America.

  7. patrick neid says:

    terrye–you go girl !!!

  8. Retired Spook says:

    Patrick, I was thinking the same thing. My fellow Hoosier Terrye is on a roll today.


  9. Retired Spook says:

    Name me a war against an insurgency that a colonial occupying power has won.

    First of all, Sooth, I don’t subscribe to your view that the U.S. is a colonial occupying power, and I don’t think most Iraqi citizens do either. Do they, at some point, want us to longer be there? Of course. Do we, at some point no longer WANT to be there? You bet. Colonialism, in the context that you portray it, has been largely nonexistent for a long time.

    Here’s the most recent example of an insurgency being defeated, but I could turn the question around and ask you to name an insurgency that has defeated a national government. This article puts that question (and your question) into perspective:

    Instead of throwing up our hands in an irresponsible fit of despair, we need to learn not just from past disasters but also from historical victories over insurgencies. Indeed, of all the attempts in the past century by irregular indigenous forces to expel regular foreign forces, around a third have failed. (emphasis – mine)

    Look, no one ever said this was going to be easy. Although history is not on our side (2-1 against in the last century, based on the previous statement), neither does history preclude victory.

  10. Terrye says:

    Soothsayer is also overlooking the fact that when a suicide bomber drives into a corowd of civilians in a market and kills over 100 people, he is not going after some imperialist occupier. Often as not he is a terrorist who may or may not even be an Iraqi and he has one goal: kill people. That is it. He is not there to liberate the people from an occupier, just the opposite. And if soothie can look at that kind of mayhem and not know what side he should be on…then I pity him.

  11. BarbaraS says:

    The object of liberals on this site is strictly to close it down. The only way they can accomplish this is to be so obnoxious that everybody gets tired of the hassle and goes to another site. As everyone has noticed they/he never accepts anything we say. He demands that we back up our statements with links, etc. He doen’t accept that if he has a question he should be the one with links refuting us. He derides everything. There is no subject under the sun that he is not an expert at. He knows everything about everything. And I do mean everything. Some very good posters are no long with us. They got tired of his taking over the site. I’m tired of it myself but I will not let him run me off.

  12. MerlinOS2 says:


    It is amazing how much time and talking head bobbling has gone into the costs of this war and how small and hidden is the other side of the coin of the benefits of winning it.

    This is really not one of those glass half full situations.

    Both sides should be examined in a full and fair debate.

  13. pagar says:

    ´”The object of liberals on this site is strictly to close it down.”

    It’s not just this site, they’re doing the same thing on every proAmerican
    site I visit. In addition, bills to restrict citizens from contacting their Congressperson etc , are being introduced in Congress. The object in all the leftist efforts, is to make sure that there can be no proAmerican movements leading up to the 2008 election. The Swift Boat Vets getting their message out destroyed John Kerry’s efforts to be elected President in 2004. The American left is doing their best to insure that the truth does not derail their efforts in 2008.

    People who believe in America need to make sure that the American left is not allowed to take America without a fight.

  14. Retired Spook says:

    Barbara and Pagar, I don’t believe in censuring people just because they don’t agree with me, so maybe the solution, as For Enforcement and I have discussed via e-mail, is just to ignore people like Ken and all his aliases — simply don’t respond to them. People like Ken thrive on getting under people’s skin. Absent any reaction, they’ve got nothing, just their own pathetic, misguided, mis-informed little existence.

    Just a thought.

  15. BarbaraS says:


    I don’t mind hearing other people’s views but discussing anything with these people is like talking to a brick wall. They never change their minds about anything. They make an idiotic statement, you show evidence where they are wrong, they cannot back up their statement or back it up with lefty propaganda and continue to make the same statement. It is a waste of time trying to discuss anything with them. And it gets tiresome to have someone snark at you for everything you say and demand that YOU show evidence. And another of their tactics is divide and conquer also. Actually there is nothing they won’t try. The democrats stick at nothing to get what they want. They leftys go even further than that. All I was saying is that their object is to shut us up and this is their way of doing so. I fear that you are falling into the republican stance to be gentlemen at all times while being sniped at by the opposition and losing.

  16. missvotingforreagan says:

    How much of the 39B usually goes to the shareholders? I would like to hear from someone who has shares in Exxon about what they think of Pres. Heilary’s idea.