HRC is not "evil"?  Maybe not.  Let's go ask her buddy Vince Foster....

What?  You say he was found in a DC park with a "self inflicted" gunshot
wound to the back of the head?  Limber fellow, that one!

Drollness, drollity, drollision, drollosity aside, if you have children,
read "It Takes a Village".  Stephen King's got nothing on her!  Even more
frightening is that while Mr. King's works are novels, Miz R-C's is dead
serious, "this is the way things would be if I had my way" non-fiction.

As regards Chelsea, it's my understanding that her parents--both of
them--were more involved with their political machinations than spending
time raising their daughter.  Sure, it takes a village to raise your kids
when your out politicking and making nefarious land deals.  I think the kid
probably turned out ok in spite of her parents, not because of any special
nurturing they gave.  Sometimes it just happens that way.  Sometimes the
"preacher's kids" turn out to be the delinquents.

Point is, as Bobby indicated, HRC would just as soon have the government
raise your children and turn them into a wonderful race of
politically-correct Utopians.  Am I being tongue-in-cheek?  A little, maybe,
but what Hillary has publicly proposed is not too far from Marxist ideals,
or, worse yet, Hitler's concepts.

Yep, she's a person I fear.  I'd be afraid of her if she were male too.

Kyle

-----Original Message-----
From: BG Greer, PhD [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 9:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ironies


Scott,

       You are correct about President Bush's administration and
constitutional rights.
I can not agree with you about Senator Clinton. She has an agenda and in its
own way it will restrict the rights of parents to discipline their children
and other "big government" tactics. I sound like a far right wing nut, but
having lived in Memphis which is next to Arkansas, we heard more about Mrs.
C then
most folks.

Bobby


> What George W. Bush has done to the office of President and to the
> Constitution of this country (particularly to the doctrine of habeus
corpus)
> is far more troubling to me.
>
>