I agree with the point that we as conservatives should not lower ourselves to 'name calling' as such. However, I would venture that what passes for 'name calling' here (and Mrs. Clinton evokes many) is rather a deep resentment for what she stands for, what she truly is as a person.
No one will argue the issue that Hussein, Hitler, bin Laden are deserving of labels (some might term it 'name calling' as well) of every vile nature for such describes their person. Hillary Clinton no less is such a vile person. She is duplicious, calculating, manipulative, hateful and in my humble opinion, just plain evil (I do not jest here).
The difference between her and the former is they attack from without, she works from within the system to subvert, weaken and overthrow and because of such she is the more dangerous...a Quisling if you will, not of a country, but of an ideology.
How can I state such things, how can I make such judgments? Consider all the evidence that associates with this woman's name, you name it...Vince Foster 'suicide', Whitewater, WH Travel office, Health care debacle, all the insider revelations...the list is endless.
I have no qualms in stating that this woman is a dire threat to just about every value we hold in American government or American social structure.
It is not so much that her name is associated with something (i.e. legislative bills) that may be "good" in and of itself, it is the fact that this woman will associate herself with good things like a virus, like poison...hoping we will swallow it and take her in.
Let's not fool ourselves one iota. She is only working to manipulate public opinion for her own purposes and that purpose is ultimately control of the highest office in the land.
May we be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.
Exactly! Like I said earlier, she's trying to develop a rep as being "strong" on military issues and as being "reasonable" enough to to work with such right-wing "terrors" as Lindsey Graham.
Amen!
Are you suggesting Graham should have found a way to remove her from the bill? I don't know enough about Senate particulars to know if that's possible, but if he had it would probably have helped Hillary by making himself look like a jerk (and making her look like the victim). There is a reason the GOP is often accused here of trying to be nice only to take it in the shorts later - it's because by and large we ARE nicer and we DO try to be civil and respectful. Sometimes this will backfire but if the alternative is becoming dishonest unpleasant backstabbers like much of the Dems then that's the cross we have to bear.
The last point is about the bill itself. If it is a good bill and having Clinton's name on it means it is more likely to pass then so be it. For me the end result is more important then potential political fallout.
Best to all.