Thread: Hillary! I don't think so.

Cassie wrote:

Bush is corrupt, but I think Republicans are more currupt than the Democrats. Republicans are backed by big business, and big business will do everything to make more money. We, the Democrats, are supported by the poor, minorities, and smart people of all walks of life. There're many democrats that oppose illegal immigration, but they'd still vote Hillary over Tancredo, we just don't trust Republicans. I like your avatar by the way, it's cute.

Thanks, I like it too. In my opinion, many politicians are corrupt, both Democrat and Republican. It is hard to judge at any given time who truly is the most corrupt. That is why a honest politician who stands up for the people really gets attention from the people. Tom Tancredo stands very firm against illegal immigration and actually listens to the people. That is why I admire him. Check him out at his webiste if you want to know more. I don't vote for a political party. I always try to investigate and vote for the best person. That is what I have found works best for me.

I think it would be good to focus on what we have in common, rather that what we disagree on. I believe you are here because you oppose illegal immigration as we all do. People disagree all the time about politics and politicians and that is okay, because each person's conviction comes from what they choose to believe in their heart. I am glad you are committed to fighting against illegal immigration.

What is MOST important is WE are all here to fight against the invasion and that is a good thing.

CONSTITUTION


Oh Nooooooooooo, says Hillary/Billary
Can't have that Constitution! It won't do with our socialist/communist ideology.

NEW YORKers are over 1/2 million foreigners from communist and socialist countries retaining their ideologies. The rest are Libs from the valley of the United Nations of dictators, Thieves and Murderers who share those same ideologies. The children are coming out of socialist schools as Cassie is now proof in the flesh.

Wonder why HILLARY was ever elected in NY?

What a flaming joke this is.

U.S. CONSTITUTION

We were really popular when Clinton was president. Clinton was charismatic, and had a good speech. People almost all over the world liked him, Europeans, Latin Americans, asians, etc. Bush is a person that is not willing to make compromises and he's an cowboy attitude. People dislike us because of the war in Iraq. We received a lot of symphathy when we were hit on 9/11/2001, yet Bush managed to turn the symphathy we received into a dislike for Americans. I'm a registered Democrat, and will vote any Democrat that wins the nomination. I don't like Tom Tancredo because he's a Republican. The only Republicans I like are Colin Powel and John McCain. They're moderate Republicans who're willing to work together with the Democrats. Bush is corrupt, but I think Republicans are more currupt than the Democrats. Republicans are backed by big business, and big business will do everything to make more money. We, the Democrats, are supported by the poor, minorities, and smart people of all walks of life. There're many democrats that oppose illegal immigration, but they'd still vote Hillary over Tancredo, we just don't trust Republicans.

Cassie, you remind me of me before I had my eyes opened. I voted for Clinton twice, Al Gore and Kerry. There are certain things that the Democrats advocate that I wholeheartedly support, especially things like environmental protection, alternative energy sources and dealing with global warming. The Democrats also had always told us they were for America's workers and poor, and compared with the Republicans, this often seemed to be the case. However, my bubble was burst when I became aware of the severity of illegal immigration and as the political discussion on this issue began to take shape. I expected that the Democrats would be the ones calling out to put a stop to illegal immigration because this was hurting our poor, our low skilled workers, and depressing wages for our citizens. But no, just the opposite. The Democrats, with some help from Republicans, passed the biggest amnesty give-away last May that would seal the fate of our poor. With 100 million new impoverished people expected to be added to this country in the next 20 years, how could poverty EVER be turned around in this country, esecially for our poorest citizens? Have the Democrats addressed this? NO.

Speaking of 100 million more people added to our population in just the next two decades, have the Democrats, who claim to be concerned about the environment, spoken about what this will do to our environment?????? NOT ONE WORD.

Just last week, the Democrats were touting the ethics reform and lobbying bill, which Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi crafted. Are you aware that both the House and Senate bills contained a provision to suppress grass-roots lobbying by small citizen activist groups, thereby preventing citizens from being made aware of legislation and contacting their Congressmen?????
Even the ACLU cried foul and said this would be unconstutional because it would seek to block free speech and the right to petition our government. This was the DEMOCRATS! Hillary and Obama and nearly all other Democrats voted for this amendment and it was the Republicans who voted to remove it!!

Let me be clear. I do not like Bush at all (this actually is a grave understatement). I do not like the fact that many Republicans have been in the hip pocket of big corporations. I hate the fact that Bush lied to us and led this country to war under false pretenses, among other things. But when the immigration issue raised its ugly head, and the voting went down in the Senate, it became crystal clear to me that the Democrats, including such characters as Hillary and Obama, were not who they proclaimed to be. This pretty much did it for me. I no longer believe that politicans make decisions in the best interests of American citizens. I am now an Independent.

My point is that we all need to carefully evaluate the record of each candidate and not just jump on a party bandwagon. The issues confronting us are far too complex to sign over our allegiance blindly to any politician. I don't find that the positions taken by either party are satisfactory. Both parties have major players who are globalists and want to see this country subjugated to a one world government, which means the loss of individual rights. I think we must move beyond the simplistic mindset that one party is good, the other is bad. The fact is that neither is good, and both may very well be bad!

Originally Posted by jbird

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:44 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cassie wrote: We were really popular when Clinton was president. Clinton was charismatic, and had a good speech. People almost all over the world liked him, Europeans, Latin Americans, asians, etc. .

sorry cassie your full of you know what, I spent the majority of my ten years in the army in europe, 7 of those years was under that sorry excuse for a commander in chief clinton, and I experienced the same amount of disdain under clinton as i did under bush, notably in Paris, in fact so much disdain in paris that I refused to go back there, even though it was only a four hour drive from where I was stationed. and that was during the clinton years.

Firstly, WELCOME, JBIRD!

Then you already know how many GOOD MEN we lost to retirement in the military during those oh so wonderful - I hate the military - Klinton years. Results? Just turn your head to the pentagon and the JC........that will tell the Klinton tale.

PFrance? What a laughing stock is PFrance. The only staple in their military footlockers is a hefty supply of WHITE FLAGS and a few bottles of wine. They shouldn't gain from a single American dollar.

Thanx for your service, JBIRD

Speaking of 100 million more people added to our population in just the next few decades, have the Democrats, who claim to be concerned about the environment, spoken about what this will do to our environment?????? NOT ONE WORD.


Kate,
This is a very interesting point that you bring-up. If you have traveled abroad to any of the Latin American countries you can see how these people feel about the environment. They don't care about this issue at all.
I would like to hear how the democrats and the republicans plan to handle this problem. They will probably not even engage in debating this cultural difference.

Cassie wrote:

I don’t know if Hillary was a speaker at that racist organization, La Raza.

Cassie she did, the speech is below.


Monday, July 18, 2005 5:10 p.m. EDT
Hillary Clinton Panders to Latino 'Advocacy' Group La Raza

U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said Monday the "achievement gap is beginning to close" between Hispanic and white students, while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton countered that she's not convinced the federal government is doing enough to help Hispanic youth get through school.

Spellings and Clinton each spoke at the convention of the National Council of La Raza, a four-day event that ends Tuesday.

The two did not dispute statistics that show Latino students have the nation's highest high school dropout rate and the lowest college enrollment rate, but diverged on whether the government is fixing the problem.

Praising No Child Left Behind, the education law President Bush signed in January 2002, Spellings pointed to National Assessment of Educational Progress scores released Thursday that show 9-year-olds, including Hispanics, have improved their reading and math scores.

"These results did not come out of thin air," Spellings said. "They came from a commitment to doing something that's never been done before, a commitment to giving every child a quality education."

"The achievement gap is beginning to close," she said.

But minutes later, the Democratic senator told the same group: "You are doing your part, but I don't know that your government is doing its part right now."

Clinton stressed that, though younger students' scores have improved, 17-year-olds have made virtually no gains since the tests first started being given 30 years ago.

"I'm not sure that we are doing everything we should to make your job easier, to make sure that the opportunity society is alive and well for everyone," she said.

Linda L. Silva, a Democratic organizer and advocate for Latinos in Concord County, Pa., stood with hundreds of others to applaud Clinton, particularly when the senator called for policy changes that would allow undocumented immigrant students to receive college aid.

Silva said she hopes to see Clinton enter the race for president in 2008. "There's no one else in America who has more integrity today," she said.

The welcome for Spellings was more muted.

Washington-based La Raza was founded in Phoenix in 1968 as a Mexican-American civil rights group and now is the nation's largest advocacy group for Hispanics. It represents 4 million members in 300 affiliates across the country.

Minutes after the speeches ended, eight people who said they want tighter controls on immigration walked into the Pennsylvania Convention Center where the meeting is being held wearing T-shirts and caps saying "U.S. Border Patrol," said Cecilia Munoz, vice president of La Raza. They were escorted from the building without incident, Munoz said.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005 ... 1712.shtml

© 2005 The Associated Press

KATE
Imho, herein lies a big part of the problem.....

The Democrats also had always told us they were for America's workers and poor

Anyone who espouses "for the Worker" is using the tried and true communist ploy. Sounds so wonderful, after all.........who the hell isn't for the 'worker?' The average, hard working Joe or Jane?

It all in the fine print! That is another way of saying REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. That, understand, is completely against the average American as it completely negates their possibilities for their own personal growth and wealth building.

The communists knew without doubt, and they were proven correct even in America as you've just innocently demonstrated, that they could gather to them the masses by using the WORKER as the bait.

They must have the WORKER to produce and then take their production and REDISTRIBUTE.

Most good folks simply don't understand this. Not by any means because they're stupid or less than but because who the hell has time to really dig into the FINE PRINT. We're so busy working that we tend to buy the propaganda if it sounds 'good & fair.'

That's the hook, if you will, that got you. It's a very simple workable theory that's been documented since the conception of the communist WORKERs. It's alive and well right here in the US of A.

The Globalists are now in the same damned game with a few little exceptions in the rule book.

Worker is just another word for "serf," which is just another word for "subject." Tyrants don't want to serve their peers. They want to lord over subjects. Understanding this principle, this nation originally only allowed landowners to vote. This was no big deal for the most part, because there was plenty of land, meaning that pretty much everyone owned his little stake in the nation. There were, however, immigrants who simply had no interest in or capacity for operating a freehold and living as an independent freeman. They clustered into cities where they could serve this or that need while not having their own lands to have to oversee and maintain.

One of the principal differences between the North and the South when the Civil War came down was that the Southerners were almost all landowners and freeholders while the majority of Northerners had already become non-landowner dependents, living in apartments and other communal arrangements (like the company quarters of the mining companies and factories). The victory of the North was the end of the dominance of freeholders and the beginning of the dominance of those who were reliant on first major companies and then the government. It was no time before everyone had a vote, and so the masses could vote themselves benefits from the treasury, which is the pockets of their countrymen. It has been downhill from there.

Sis, you're right. Many, many people just automatically think that the Dems are for the poor.....they just fall hook, line and sinker. I expected if the Dems espoused protecting our poor and our workers then they must surely be against illegal immigration. The Republicans most of the time offered nothing better......until it came to the illegal immigration question. Now things are completely turned around. It's many of the Republicans who are wanting to protect Americans, especially the most vulnerable poor and low-wage workers while the Dems just want to flood the country with poverty, and who the heck cares about the poor who are already here? They just fall through the cracks.

Originally Posted by Kate

Sis, you're right. Many, many people just automatically think that the Dems are for the poor.....they just fall hook, line and sinker. I expected if the Dems espoused protecting our poor and our workers then they must surely be against illegal immigration. The Republicans most of the time offered nothing better......until it came to the illegal immigration question. Now things are completely turned around. It's many of the Republicans who are wanting to protect Americans, especially the most vulnerable poor and low-wage workers while the Dems just want to flood the country with poverty, and who the heck cares about the poor who are already here? They just fall through the cracks.

KATE
I don't see it the way you do. Again, the fine print {I know I sound like a broken record but it's sooooo urgent}

The repubs, generally but certainly not all, have been for growth, innovation, for the working folk AND the Constitution. But by not understanding much of the legislation, CONSTITUTION AND how one moves people up the ladder, many people who've been educated in the past 3 decades in American schools aren't aware of these facts.

This is exactly how the UN and their supporters, the libs/dems, have managed to turn out 2 and now the 3rd generation of non-American Americans. Details are documented in their writings, btw.

The only way I can explain it is:
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
TEACH a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life.

KATE:
the only way we create anything is by desire. We cultivate scientists, artists, musicians, mathameticians, inventors, designers of everything, craftsmen and on and on and on.

It is a known fact that when one's desire is taken away, then they begin to fade and wallow. THAT is exactly what 'governement-cradle to grave' is. THAT is exactly what 'welfare' is. THAT is what a homogonized education is. THAT is COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM. THAT is the lib ideology. And now............it's the Globalist ideology.

*** Remember one very important fact. While these people are taking YOUR will and YOUR money to redistribute.........they are hording their money and becoming the top tier on the wealth meter. THEY are the controllers and YOU are the WORKER.

Btw, ENTITLEMENTS began with the libs. Entitlements are the redistribution of the working man's wealth! Not the handler's wealth

Can you now see how the ILLEGAL problem fits into this picture? This is why so many people are angry. The money is now being given to strangers. However, the money should never have been given to anyone so freely in the first place.

People have been played like a fine violin. FREE STUFF......give me free stuff. Take care of me. Give me benefits. more benefits. That's how they hooked the American people. "make them fat, lazy and take away the will to dream--we've got em hooked!" Throw in some drugs for a quicker demise and bam! We're living the nightmare now and it only took 3 decades to bring it to critical mass.

Do you know that we were once the world's premiere innovators? We have been sliding down ever since the entitlements have gotten a hold of our people. There's the proof for all to see if only they would look.