Hillary Clinton's anger issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
I found that "plantation" comment to be very awkward. I genuinely felt embarassed for her.

Either way, both Clintons have well covered, but well known, anger issues. Dick Morris, if I remember correctly, recalls a story in his book about Bill physically attacking him in the White House kitchen. It's very weird, because it comes up every now and again, yet it's always batted away by the press and covered up. I remember there was a story on Drudge a few years back about Hillary telling a Senator to shut up or something to that effect during an actual meeting.
 
RealGun said:
This topic appears to serve only as bait for low road remarks. To actually address the topic, I think any anger issues on Hillary's part will be offset when she is up against John McCain, who is notoriously prickly himself. At least he is genuine and typically has a point, firing for effect.

If the next presidential election ends up between Hillary and McCain - after I stop wretching I'm heading for a bunker deep inside a mountain. They're both two peas in a pod - despicable politicians that desire nothing but what's good for themselves - the rest of us be damned! That would just be a choice of awful vs intolerable - UGH!!!!!
 
Hillary has been throwing ashtrays, lamps and books in fits of rage since 1996.


Too many agents / subordinates have reported these accounts.

Her supporters seem quick to look the other way. Just like Bill's supporters has always excused the woman-grabbing.

Hillary seems to have had a nasty temper for quite a while. Perhaps always has.

Nasty tempers do not disqualify Presidential candidates. Johnson and Nixon are recent examples.
 
Maybe that's why Hillary is so anti-gun, she knows she can't trust herself with one because of her rage issues.
 
America has alot to be embarassed about

I found that "plantation" comment to be very awkward. I genuinely felt embarassed for her.
I am genuinely embarassed for America and the great men who have sat in the Oval Office before them that The American Sheeple were so devoid of integrity and full of greed as to allow Clinton and Clinton to desecrate the Presidency for not one term, but two.

I am embarassed for the Senate Democrats who told Henry Hyde and the House members who presented the articles of impeachment, "We don't care if you have video of him raping a woman, getting up and shooting her dead - we will not convict him in the senate." (Read the book "Sellout" by David P. Schippers on the impeachment).

I am embarassed for the Senate Republicans who did not have the courage, integrity and honor to convict Clinton and throw his pathetic ass out of the White House because making the America live with him till the end of his term would increase the chances of getting a Republican President elected in 2000.
 
I would be that angry too....

if I had to wake up next to slick every morning..........as far as calling her a "lady", I believe that is exaggerating some.....I am old enough to know what a real lady is......and I agree as posted above.....she is ugly.....no amout of alchol could make that look good enough to take home when the bars close............chris3
 
if it came down to clinton vs. rice..

i'm voting clinton

we really need another nixon.. he knew how to handle foreign affairs
 
"Why do you all hate America so much?"

A common Faux-news talking point whenever Bush or his policies are criticized


"You people will do anything to fit it in with your irrational hatred of GWB"

A common "rebuttal" to any criticism of Shrub's policies on THR


If you cannot see the parallel you are blind. If you think this spewed vitriol is "the high road" I truly pity you.

BTW, since disagreement with groupthink is automatically assumed to be a claim of diametrical opposition on all points, HRC is not exactly at the top of my wish list for 08 either.
 
Standing Wolf said:
I see no reason to insult coyotes.
If you know the derivation/meaning of the phrase "coyote ugly" you would understand that this isn't an insult at all but complimentary of their sense of propriety and self-preservation.
 
1.) All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues.
2.) Multiple user registrations are prohibited.
3.) As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.
4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
5.) We cannot provide a comprehensive list of "Things Not To Say".Posts that are contrary to the above policies, or to the mission of The High Road, may be edited or deleted at our sole discretion. Membership may be revoked if such a step is deemed necessary by us. We're a private venture enabled by an all-volunteer staff. Please treat this venue as a polite discussion in a friend's home and respect the wishes of the hosts.
We have noted that the civility of L&P has been plummeting of late. Correlated with this is yet another resurgence of political posts that do not meet the criteria as outlined in the rules of conduct. Just because a post is 'political' does not mean it belongs here. It must address firearms issues or civil liberties issues directly. "Civil liberties are in danger because Bush lied, people died!" and "we will lose all of our guns becuase Hillary has anger issues!" will not cut it. Post directly, not obliquely, about how a given topic has an impact on RKBA or civil liberties.

Thank you,

Staff at THR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top