Count me in, Larry.
We have to do whatever it takes to ....
STOP HILLARY
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
To: Joy Angela
I think for you and the author, it is long past your bedtime. You really need sleep.
2 posted on
02/14/2004 11:12:14 PM PST by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: Joy Angela
Of course Rush has been on this scenerio for weeks.
3 posted on
02/14/2004 11:12:57 PM PST by
js1138
To: Joy Angela
Excuse me, but how can Hilary run, let alone win, when she has refused and will continue to refuse to answer questions from the press? Even if she should relent, the American public will NOT like what she has to say and will be put off by her calculatingly cold style. Hillary is NOT inevitable but it seems that something about her causes some to feel helpless. Happy Valentine's Day.
6 posted on
02/14/2004 11:15:21 PM PST by
Meredith
To: Joy Angela
she will appoint Bill Clinton as the Head of the United Nations I don't believe an American can be Secretary General of the UN.
To: Joy Angela
I'll be praying Larry is right about Kerry and wrong about Hitlery.
10 posted on
02/14/2004 11:18:11 PM PST by
Indie
(That earthling has stolen the Imudium 238 explosive space modulator!!)
To: Joy Angela
There is just one little thing wrong with the scenerio, and that is, Bush will stanu up during the debates and ask about the "law enforcement" model of fighting terrorism. For example, in 1993 the terrorists tried to blow up the trade center. We tracked them down, arrested them and jailed them. Did that solve the problem? How about the Cole? How about the barracks in Saudi Arabia? How about the embassy bombings? Is it true that you were co-president when these policy decisions were made?
12 posted on
02/14/2004 11:19:34 PM PST by
js1138
To: Joy Angela
Rantings of a delusional paranoid, so consumed with hatred for the wicked witch that he grants her near deity status & can't even see straight.
I couldn't even stomach finishing reading this conspiratorial tripe. Unless Hitlery turns out to be the anti-christ, she couldn't possibly follow through with this nonsensical scenario.
14 posted on
02/14/2004 11:20:25 PM PST by
MCH
To: Joy Angela
This is a realistic scenario, I'm sorry to say. I'll fight.
To: Joy Angela
Hogwash!
19 posted on
02/14/2004 11:25:46 PM PST by
John Lenin
(Just because there is no draft does not mean there are no draft dodgers)
To: Joy Angela
Hillary won't run this year. She wants a shot when the White House is open in 2008. But just in case a Democrat could win this year, she'll insist on taking the Veep spot. That woman keeps all her options open.
21 posted on
02/14/2004 11:26:22 PM PST by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Joy Angela
Hillary will destroy the DEM party. If she is President, just imagine how many DEMS will lose in 2006
23 posted on
02/14/2004 11:28:11 PM PST by
raloxk
To: Joy Angela
Hillary is a domestic enemy of the Constitution of the United States.
24 posted on
02/14/2004 11:29:21 PM PST by
Keith in Iowa
(The only good news for Democrats is they could save $$ by switching to Geico.)
To: Joy Angela
heh....
Presented by the Federal Election Commission
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM ID: P00003392
Office Sought: President
Election Year: 2004
State: Presidential Candidate
District: 03
Party: DEM (Democratic Party)
NOTE:
Candidate listings may appear here as a result of draft committees or independent expenditure committees registering with the FEC. If no official documents of an authorized committee appear below, the individual identified here has taken no action to become a candidate.
fec.gov
26 posted on
02/14/2004 11:31:09 PM PST by
chance33_98
(Check out profile page for banners, if you need one freepmail me and I will make one for you)
To: Joy Angela
He almost had me until he said Hillary will appoint Bill Head of The UN....
I always fall for these things before I can put on my tinfoil hat.
28 posted on
02/14/2004 11:31:32 PM PST by
stylin19a
(Is it vietnam yet ?)
To: Joy Angela
This sounds pretty far-fetched to me. The only thing that makes me wonder is: Why did Bush go on MTP and why did he go on with really nothing new to add?
Is it possible that the whitehouse is encouraging the RATS to believe that Bush can be beaten? Is it possible that the whitehouse is encouraging a fatal feeling of invincibility among the RATS? Is it possible that they are trying to draw Hitlery out into the open? After all, the only reason she stayed out this time is a few months ago Bush looked unbeatable. Is it possible that the whitehouse is allowing Bush to look weak in the hopes that Hitlery will step in and claim the RAT coronation?
I'm not saying that the whitehouse started all this intern nonsense, but is it possible they got wind of it a few weeks ago and have been quietly doing what they can to encourage Hitlery to smash Kerry and step in and take over?
Because one thing is for sure. If she does that, Bush wins in a landslide.
I know. My thoughts probably aren't any closer in to a Low Earth Orbit than the Nichols conspiracy. But I'm just thinking out loud.
To: Joy Angela
If he's wrong again for the umpteenth time, will he just shut up?
49 posted on
02/14/2004 11:47:00 PM PST by
Bullish
To: Joy Angela
Hillary can't beat Giuliani in her own "home" state of New York...not post 9/11. Shoot, she only beat no-name Lazio with 54% for her 2000 Senate seat back in the pre-9/11 era.
Nor can she win in 2004 any of the states that Gore lost in 2000.
And all that Bush has to do is win again in 2004 the same states that he won in 2000.
But Bush is doing more than just winning his same states again in 2004. Contrary to the pure propaganda in the press, Bush is ahead by more than 5% in the polls in formerly Gore (2000) states such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Bush has an even chance of winning Oregon in 2004, and right now he is *ahead* of the Democrats in New York!
Bush is bursting all of the fund raising records, too. He's also got amazing name recognition now, something that he didn't have back in 2000. Nor can the Dems claim that Bush is too inexperienced any more, much less if they run a 1 term Senator against him.
What the Dems needed to have done was to have run a Presidential candidate in 2004 who could potentially win some of Bush's old 2000 states, such as Zell Miller who could potentially win Georgia, or Breaux who could potentially win Louisiana. Hillary as a VP candidate would have kept their liberals on their plantation while their Conservative Presidential candidate would have had a chance against Bush in the key Southern and Midwestern states.
Because if the Dems don't win any of those states that they lost back in 2000, then they lose again. California and New York simply won't win the Presidency any longer.
The closest that they've now got to anyone who can do that is Edwards for South Carolina, but he couldn't even win re-election to his own Senate seat there!
So Hillary is *not* winning the Presidency in 2004. She could be a losing VP candidate, but that's about it.
And if she runs for President in 2008, then we'll run Giuliani against her and beat her then, as well.
64 posted on
02/14/2004 11:57:55 PM PST by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Joy Angela
I doubt hilliary could win as many states as kerry. She certainly has more baggage, is more polarizing and can't deal with the media like kerry the bs'er can. I don't think kerry is toast but I do think he can't beat Pres. Bush
73 posted on
02/15/2004 12:15:01 AM PST by
paul51
To: Joy Angela
At The New York Times the story awoke uncomfortable memories. After an earlier sexual scandal involving Senator Gary Hart a presidential candidate who was photographed with his mistress on a yacht called Monkey Business senior editors concluded that journalistic investigation had taken a wrong turn. They felt here was a guy with good ideas who was qualified to be president but got derailed, one source at the paper said. I remember editors saying, Never again.
Sunday Times
89 posted on
02/15/2004 2:21:45 AM PST by
KQQL
(@)
To: Joy Angela
I agree with everything in the article because I, too have known this for a long time.
98 posted on
02/15/2004 4:04:05 AM PST by
beckysueb
(Lady Liberty is in danger! Bush/Cheney 04.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson