Post Reply
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
Switch to Forum Live View military loves hillary!
7 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 10:49AM #21
Tonewah
Posts: 4
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/pol … 23477.html
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/251348.aspx
http://www.jbs.org/node/5942

I'm afraid Ron Paul is the candidate actually supported by the Military.  Hillary is supported by big business who profit from war.  She, like her husband, will have us fighting wars all around the world to benefit her buddies in the war-profiteering business.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 4:42PM #22
Jasr
Posts: 11,264
[QUOTE=mlyons619;23477]Let me add --

THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY IS NOT -- REPEAT -- NOT THE MILITARY!!!!

Thanks.[/QUOTE]


Good point but....


"I might add that military personnel do not share the Defense Industry's viewpoint -- most servicemembers STILL detest her.."

Can you document this? Possibly find a rationale?
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 4:52PM #23
Jasr
Posts: 11,264
I mean...

The days when the military could be turned against Mr. Clinton because he had avoided service in Vietnam, are presumably over, since the Republicans have now given us a draft-dodger of their own, who, unlike Clinton, never actually learned anything from the Vietnam nightmare about when it is right and advisable to deploy the US military, when it is not, and how to preserve the military for future administrations, in case it is needed.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 4:57PM #24
newyawka
Posts: 1,772
[QUOTE=Tonewah;30030]Hillary is supported by big business who profit from war.  She, like her husband, will have us fighting wars all around the world to benefit her buddies in the war-profiteering business.[/QUOTE]

yupperino
(i typed 'yup' but it was too short)
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 5:40PM #25
MilesB
Posts: 4,304
[QUOTE=Tonewah;30030]http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/pol … 23477.html
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/251348.aspx
http://www.jbs.org/node/5942

I'm afraid Ron Paul is the candidate actually supported by the Military.  Hillary is supported by big business who profit from war.  She, like her husband, will have us fighting wars all around the world to benefit her buddies in the war-profiteering business.[/QUOTE]
I am not sure who you're talking about exactly...

Yes donation wise; but then who actually donates in this country consitently? I did donate to both Ron Paul and Obama.

I am in the military and I can tell you, most of my colleges are either Guliani supporters or Hillary of their party. I seem to be the odd ball.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 5:48PM #26
MilesB
Posts: 4,304
It is also note worthy (that the conservatives here who go on about facts seem to not mention it...)

Obama also is receiving the most donations from the military out of the Democratic Candidates.

Yeah I am apart of that "statistic"! :P
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 9:40PM #27
eadler
Posts: 4,449
n0parkin

[QUOTE=n0parkin;29526]Eadler said :

"The likely winner will not have to promise anything to get political donations"

Eadler, do you read the news?  Did you know that Hillary's 'rural voters forum' is going to be held in a lobbyist office of Monsanto?  Hillary is getting money from lobbyists because she HAS ALREADY PROMISED them whatever they want. 

Do you really think Hillary is above bribery?  Have you seen her votes in the Senate?  The vote to do oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico?  The vote to allow Israel to use cluster bombs in Lebanon?  The tire burning in New York?  How about the vote for Plan Columbia - tied with human rights violations on farmers and union organizers? 

http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/0 … id_by.html

Clinton aids were being paid by the president of Columbia.  She's corrupt, Eadler AND she bribable.[/QUOTE]

Looking at her votes on energy, it doesn't appear  that she is in the pocket of the oil industry.  http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary … _+_Oil.htm
Among other things she voted to eliminate the subsidies for big oil, and to force them to do fund alternative energy research.

Since she is on the armed services committee, it is pretty clear that she doesn't need to do any favors for the MI complex to get campaign contributions. Even if she doesn't become president, she has a lot of power.

Her main contribution on Armed Services seems to be helping soldiers who are returning from Iraq, and their families.

If you look at her total voting record, it isn't as bad as you say it is.

It is pretty clear that as a women, and a presidential aspirant she is compelled to look tough on defense issues. It is pretty clear that any Democrat who has a chance to get the nomination is going to do the same thing. There is a justified fear on the part of democrats that they have been tagged as weak on defense by the Republicans, and that this has cost them more votes than they would gain by adopting the stance of Dennis  Kucinich.

If you compare her voting record to Barack Obama for instance, you will see that they vote similarly. She is a trifle more hawkish on some foreign policy issues, probably because as I mentioned, she has to prove her toughness as a woman.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook