Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: doug from upland
Actually, dougie-poo, I did read your other two posts, and they were equally lame, but for other reasons. The whole "Jew bastard" story, even if true, is lame for two reasons: first, so what if she said that -- no one with a brain gives a crap anymore [even if every American hears of this incident it's not going to make a difference]; and two, a lie detector test proves nothing. Lie detector tests are not reliable. If Hillary took a lie detector test and passed, you would probably find a reason to discount it. And if The American Spectator is the primary source for the hospital story, it's not much of a source [too partisan]. Even if the story is true, the hospital is as much or more to blame for the incident; plus, it's something any politician, regardless of party, would do. Politicians and celebreties pull stunts like this all the time. Most of us adults figured that out a long time ago.

If we want to stop Hillary, we have to cut out this juvenile, ineffective FR-style of Hillary bashing and thwart her with something more substantial [like -- gee -- how about on policy?]. Or, if she really is a criminal [and I wouldn't put that past her], then put her the hell in jail, and don't ask some Larry Klayman type loser to prosecute her. Put up or shut up on the criminal thing.

But Hillary's negatives are too strong for her to win the presidency, so why are we worrying?
36 posted on 12/22/2002 11:41:47 PM PST by paulklenk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: paulklenk
Thanks for the input. I'll give your comments the consideration they deserve.
40 posted on 12/23/2002 12:00:22 AM PST by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: paulklenk
If we want to stop Hillary, we have to cut out this juvenile, ineffective FR-style of Hillary bashing and thwart her with something more substantial [like -- gee -- how about on policy?]

You actually believe the majority of the voting public decide who they are going to vote for because of one's policy???

Most people vote based on who has the biggest negatives. They vote for the one the dislike the least

This story if given proper air time would mean way more than what policy Hillary stands on.

131 posted on 12/28/2002 5:48:46 AM PST by JZoback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: paulklenk
"But Hillary's negatives are too strong for her to win the presidency, so why are we worrying?"

Here in NY a couple years back, we said the same thing regarding her negatives. We woke up the day after the election to SENATOR Hilliary!.

177 posted on 01/02/2003 6:06:21 AM PST by KeyBored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: paulklenk
Paul, what you said are well and good, but what are you doing about it?
190 posted on 01/04/2003 1:53:49 PM PST by desertcry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: paulklenk
But Hillary's negatives are too strong for her to win the presidency, so why are we worrying?

She might have a shot if the economy gets worse or if a big terrorist hit happens. Unfortunately that's significant incentive for terrorsocialists everywhere.

249 posted on 02/23/2003 11:21:57 AM PST by alrea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson