SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Next President 2008
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (2193)2/2/2008 1:12:40 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) of 3215
 
It is not a surprise that Ann Coulter is suporting Hillary. Ann Coulter is right. Both the Clintons are centrists and are moving more towards the right. Clinton's policies during his presidency are more conservative than liberal. In fact, the Clintons are wolves in sheep's clothing. They are cold and calculating Republicans disguised as Democrats. McCain on the other hand is more a liberal than a conservative. He is certainly more liberal than Hillary. The McCain-Feingold, McCain-Liberman and McCain-Kennedy bills are excellent indications of why McCain is more liberal than Hillary. Ann Coulter's support for Hillary is refreshing for the Republicans who needed a voice. After examining the Clintons legacy and the prospect of a Clinton co-presidency, it sends shivers through my spine. The thought of mandated health insurance plan by Clinton for the poor like many of us is just beyond belief. Forcing us to buy health insurance at inflated prices is morally wrong, obnoxious and reprehensible. She does not understand the ground realities of poor America because she had not been there. She criticized Obama for raising the issue of mandated health insurance. Is she going to fine us or send us to prison for not buying health insurance we cannot afford.

By the way, the sleazy and shady dealings surrounding the Clintons did not come up in the discussions. We need to look more into her integrity. Nothing was raised regarding the New York Times article on the Canadian businessmen who donated $30 millions to the Clintons for political patronage. Doesn't the press and the media, consider that such shady business dealings relevant to the discourse or has truth become irrelevant with the media? The question is, can we trust the Clinton co-presidency who has repeatedly shown a lack of moral integrity and a deficit of truthfulness?

Posted by: sbgamatt | February 2, 2008 10:31 AM
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News