“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas


Monday, October 08, 2007

What she has in store for us

Alright, hopefully most of you read Neal Boortz's web site every day. He's a good liberterian and has a lot of good information on his page. I stole these famous, telling quotes from there today and wondered how many of you could guess which world leader uttered them. Give it a try and see if you can peg the person who spoke them...

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."


So who do you think made those statements? Karl Marx? Vladimir Lenin? Fidel Castro? Che Guevera? Mao Tse Dung?

Each of these men made nearly identical statements in support of socialism/marxism/communism, but none of them made these exact statements. Hillary Rodham Clinton made every single one of them since 6/29/04 and 4 of them in '07. If, after reading the pure, anti-capitalist, socialist evil in those statements, you still think the U.S. would NOT tend perilously close to ruin if she's elected queen, they you are an idiot!

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Did you ever consider that the common good actually does well for the individual with assets. If you appease those with less money they will be less likely to revolt. history seems to share my opinion. I am in no way being soft hearted, just a realist.

Kevin said...

In history however, the government controlled all aspects of business, taking away incentive to make money. Hence the reason why the people revolted. This sort of problem is outlined in Atlas Shrugged. When the government controls business, the brilliant minds of the world revolt and refuse to continue producing for the American government. You will understand better why helping the common people won't work in the long run.

Anonymous said...

Thanks I read Atlas shrugged. The simple fact of the matter is that when some people live lives of luxury while others are dirt poor and starving problems occur. It is pretty easy to recruit suicide bombers when they have no money or prospects for money.

Kevin said...

What do you think will happen when the only people with money are the people that run the country?

Anonymous said...

That is what is happening now. The divide between the wealthy and everyone else is growing by the day. I am not talking about the rich, i am talking wealthy. The people have no power. those with money decide what our policies to be. The lobbyists are the ones in control. There are few idealistic politicians that are not under the thumb of one group or the other. Each of these groups does what is in their financial best interests.

Capt. America said...

And as you're fully aware of, Ed - all these statements are taken out of context, and attacking them is just as silly as those who tried to made fun of Bush in the 'Mandela is dead' incident the other day.

Context here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

Ed said...

@anon6:42, you said,

If you appease those with less money they will be less likely to revolt

I say, that's like paying the school bully to not beat you up. In what screwed up world is that the way to deal with antisocial behaviour? When you expect the worst of people, you get it. When you give them incentive to be their best, you get that too. The idea is to make not working, not earning, not being productive more painful and uncomfortable than working, earning, and producing. That carrot and stick system benefits everybody in society the most. Not the socialist pay-people-to-be-deadbeats way Hillary wants.

@capt.america8:05, I fail to see how any of these statements can be misinterpreted when they are abhorent regardless of context. But in fairness, if you can show me how they were taken out of context and intentionally misinterpreted, then I will gladly call "my bad" and retract my assertion that she is leading us down the path of socialism.

Kevin said...

@anon9:09,

What exactly is the difference between the rich and the wealthy?

Regulating businesses gets rid of the middle class. Trying to control the amount of money the big corporations makes takes away from the job market, contradictory to what you might think. A company wants to make as much money as possible, that is the point of starting a business, and when the government tries to force higher wages and more employees, businesses lose money. Also, when businesses get to choose who their employees are, they will choose the most qualified, i.e. those who went to college and earned degrees (thats the ones who worked harder). This will increase the quality of the products produced, which in turn help the economy. When you work based on qualifications, but get paid based on need, everyone loses. And this is what Queen Hillary wants to do.

ed said...

When you work based on qualifications, but get paid based on need, everyone loses.

Nail on the head Kev!

Reid said...

I own a small business. I would like to adress each point respectively, if I may.

1) How can taking something away from me that I have worked hard to acheive, be good? I give plenty back. I am taxed at every turn, I pay unemployment compensation that goes to the worldwise few that no longer work here, they just collect cream off everyboby's elses efforts. What a load of manure!
2)I agree. I unfortunately find the track record of all politicians leans toward the side of "the few" meaning them. If it is good for them, then its good for us. What a load of manure!
3) Business as usual continues its death spiral as the government slowly regulates and taxes us too death. I believe that certain amounts of regulation need to exist(as citizens we need to preserve some facets of the green earth, we need clean water, we need clean air). I also believe we need to reward those with initiative to try alternative forms of energy, experiment with new and innovative technologies for the betterment of mankind, but to suggest that shared prosperity will result from government control of all is very communistic. What a load of manure!
4) What does this mean, its just a load of manure!
5) How would Hillary know what the free market has done? She has been spounging off of society for so long, she thinks she earns her money, and that we report to her, instead of the other way around. She is full of manure!
6)Thank God that she is watching the most profitable sector of society. Innovators, doers, movers and shakers all need to be watched and emulated so that the laggard scetors of the economy and the laggard people can start producing. Then we better rev up 'cause this country will go places. Our GNP will go through the roof, our economy will skyrocket, incomes will rise, it will be a great world, and all will be because the free enterprise system, that is in place will be allowed to flourish. Will ther be poor, yes, we will always have poor folks. Will there be unemployment, again, yes, it will always be. Look at this country many years ago, and you will find a nation that was hellbent on growth and getting ahead. Men worked, women stayed home (I am not espousing women not to work, it was basically that way)and those working folks paid bills, and had money left over. Government started stepping in and through the usage of taxes and regulations, we have watched our once strong econmy be shipped overseas to other countries. Now all we have is entitlement people with their hand out, and entrepenuers, like me, can't get things done, 'cause we spend way too much time managing paper for "the few", than we do managing our business. What a load of manure!

ed said...

Well stated Reid. As our resident entrepreneur and capitalist, I defer to your opinion on whether Hillary's comments are reason for concern, or as capt. america asserts, were taken out of context.

I believe the ball is in your court capt.

Capt. America said...

I find it hard debating against someone who's mind is on manure only.

I rest my case. Sorry.

Kevin said...

Capt. Do you own a business? Because if you do, then you understand how difficult running a business with regulations is, and how costly they can be. If you don't own a business, then I suggest you listen to Reid since he owns a business, and deals with government regulations on a day-to-day basis.

Reid said...

Capt. america @1:01

My mind isn't only on manure. All I read was a load of crap taken from "Hillaryspeak". Her points are not relevant nor if looked at as a whole do they make sense. I understand they are excerpts, I am only commenting on what was presented.
By the way C/A, grammatically, I think that your "nom de plume" should be capitalized. Captain is an earned position and deserves the honor afforded it, and I understand that "America" is a country name and also should be capitalized.

I unrest your case.

Kevin said...

Reid, I really liked the 1984 reference, classic and purposeful. Very nice Sir.

George said...

I think the captain should have the freedom to write his name anyway he wants. Like you, reid.

And Kev - your nose is getting brown.

ed said...

Look, I encourage praise just as much as dissent. There's nothing wrong with telling somebody you liked what they said. It's not brown-nosing if you have nothing to gain from it.

Reid said...

George: After I typed my statement, I started looking at various bloggers names throughout this blog, and noticed that all that I saw were in lower case type. Therefore, it could be the way the blog admin is set up. Regardless I still feel that anyone using an earned/honorary title should respect the position and deal with it accordingly. Maybe Ed can look into the way names are listed here at TRR.

ed said...

I think "blogger" posts names in lower case by default and I am unaware of a mechanism by which it can be changed.

--management

George said...

'It's not brown-nosing if you have nothing to gain from it.'

From easy-flattered people (NOT saying Ed/Reid are) one can certainly gain things like respect, sympathy, admiration, position, goodwill etc.

Kevin said...

I'm not looking to gain respect, sympathy, admiration, position, goodwill, etc. I was simply pointing out the reference and complimenting him on it. To say I'm getting my nose brown is a direct insult to me. I wasn't aware that complimenting someone was the same as kissing their ass, (excuse my language). What has the world come to when you can't even give a compliment without getting criticized.

ed said...

@george,

None of those things you listed have much, if any bearing on the standing of commenters here. Hopefully, everybody has the respect and goodwill etc, from everybody else. Now if you vehemently disagree with something somebody said, then feel free to voice your opinion. That's what I want to happen here. It's healthy, educational, and challenging to have a vibrant back-and-forth about ideas. That being said, the approval lasts only as long as your last post. Kevin agreed with Reid this time, but a few days ago, they were battling it out about something else. That's what it's all about folks. They still like, respect, and bear no ill-will toward each other.

Bobby T said...

No man is an island