Who said?

[Bob Alcaro]

A little history lesson:

Answer all the questions before looking at the answers.

Who said it? [You will be shocked by the answers.]



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

A. Karl Marx B. Adolph Hitler C. Joseph Stalin D. None of the above



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." A. Lenin B. Mussolini C. Idi Amin D. None of the Above



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

A. Nikita Khrushev B. Josef Goebbels C. Boris Yeltsin D. None of the above



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."A. Mao Tse Dung B. Hugo Chavez C. Kim Jong Il D. None of the above



5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."A. Karl Marx B. Lenin C. Molotov D. None of the above



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." A. Pinochet B. Milosevic C. Saddam Hussein D. None of the above















Answers:



(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004

(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007

(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005



Be afraid. Be very, very afraid !

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

I knew the answers before getting to the bottom.... what do I get? (God I hope it's not a case of the Hillary's in a year)

 

[Tom Schindler]

Got proof?





Tom

 

[Kevin Palmer]

I just did a search on each quote. Every one came back to Hillary. Most were from news article ranging from the New York Times to other big name papers.



Based on that, I am guessing there is some sort of a connection to the words and that she said them.

 

[Tom Schindler]

I guess the real question is what were the context in those statements. TRake away rights or take away tax cuts to bring the national debt back down?



I posted a comment about Alan Greenspan saying Bush F'ed up the economy and R Shek had a fit.





Tom

 

[Kevin Palmer]

True, taken out of context it could have meant virtually anything.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Can "I certainly think the free market has failed." be taken out of context? I seriously doubt that context could change its meaning to a non socialist one. The quote is a sentence by itself--it stands alone--there is really no context for it to be taken out of.



Anything hillary says comes standard with a semantic clause to escape it, if the need should arise, but I consider these quotes to be a small glimpse of hillary's true agenda. Bill redefined the word "is" to suit his own purposes, and hillary is doing the same thing with the word "progressive".



For semantics, hillary claims to support captial punishment. The candidate quiz posted here a while showed that, but I seriously doubt that such a largely socialist person could condone the legalized killing of others. She'll say anything to get in, and then be ready to get out of her statements if called.



Jimmy Carter was the failed president, but hillary will probably be the president that finishes off america. Carter wanted to--and still wants to-- "talk" with hostiles, including pro-nuke iran...hillary is someone I could conceive trying to make peace with them. That won't end well at all.



I seriously hope she doesn't try and cater to the blinded environmentalists by pushing such failed technologies as hybrid cars upon us poor masses, but that is a different argument all together.



If hillary becomes president, it may be time for a 4 year leave-of-absence to canada...they don't care who comes in, apparently, as I have Never even had to show my passport at the canada border station.....who would terrorize canada? You guys are lucky up there...in that respect (only).

 

[Johnny O]

Tax rate cuts result in more money going to the government, not less. Problem is that the government does too much and spends too much.

The Laffer Curve really does work.

A tax rate of 0% results in $0.00 taxes.

A tax rate of 100% also results in $0.00 taxes because no one will bother earning any income, at least not that the govt will see, because they will take it all.

The rate at which the govt will receive the greatest tax revenue is somewhere in the middle, although not necessarily at 50%.



[Broken External Image]:



Yes, as a matter of fact one of my degrees is in economics.

 

[Johnny O]

Hillary may be a Socialist at heart but what a lot of people miss is that she is also pragmatic and driven (to put it mildly) and will do whatever it takes to win. This is not necessarily a good thing and not necessarily a bad thing. If that means Obama as VP, she'll do it. If that means moving to the center, she'll do it. If that means keeping the war going against the wishes of the far left, she'll do it.

But I still don't think she'll win.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

JohnnyO says:

Tax rate cuts result in more money going to the government, not less. Problem is that the government does too much and spends too much.

I think you are missing a word there, Johnny. By the curve shown it is clear that you meant to say:

Tax rate cuts can result in more money going to the government

Any tax rate cut when the current tax rate is between Point A and the Equilibrium Point on the curve will result in a decline in revenue and taxes to the govt. Any cut when the current tax rate is between the Equilibrium and Point B would result in an increase as you describe.



TJR

 

[Kevin Lang]

The laffer curve does make logical sense...and to think that it was conceived upon a restaurant napkin lol.



The government always does too much. No Child Left Behind is proof--education should be left to the state, not the federal government, so there go millions+ of tax dollars.

If we could cut that back, we wouldn't have so much of a problem. (Cut back needless spending--repeal the asinine nclb) However, the left pushed for nclb, and BOTH bush presidents pushed for federal education, so there is little hope of it going to way.



Doing anything to win is pathetic. A president needs a backbone, and if you just change your beliefs to cater to the majority, you lack that. That will make you john kerry, and look what happened to that loser. No presidential position for him...hillary, please follow his example, and stay in the senate at the most.



Thanks.

 

[Johnny O]

True TJR, but I was just trying to be brief.

Hillary has a few things going against her. 1) Senators have a poor track record of being elected President. Only two in the last 100 years. Of course one could also argue that means we're due. 2) First woman to seriously be a contender. 3) Socialist background, although for a lot of people that's a positive, and serious lack of personality. The closer you look, the more she rubs anyone the wrong way. 4) Northeast Liberals have a poor track record of being elected President. 5) If she wins, then every President for the last 20 years will have been a Bush or Clinton from the same dang families and I don't think America likes to be led by an oligarchy all that much. But if she waits four or eight years then she'll be too old to likely be considered.



With what I know of the GOP candidates I'd have to say that I like Huckabee the best but right now I think Guiliani has the best chance to win. It's early though.

 

[D Knx]

As was stated earlier, you can find anything someone says and take it out of context.



I listen to what the President says and most of the time I can't for the life of me understand what he is talking about . It's like he is talking from a script, and when you ask him tough, pointed questions, a lot his responses are nonsensical.



I could posts quotes from him, and to the non - biased reader, they probably would not get much, if anything, out of what he is saying either.



No matter who wins the White House in '08 they are going to have make some tough choices. We are all going to feel some pain in the pocket, whether it's minimal or not will depend on the candidate who is serious about addressing the nations issues



D-

 

[Tom Schindler]

Deryck,



I like this Bush quote....

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

I really love this one...

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

By reading those quotes, one can say we have a mentally retarted person leading this country.





Tom

 

[Gypsy me]

hmmmm .... those statesments could be taken in a few different ways...meaning anyone could twist the wording to suit their own needs..



Oh wait...it is coming up on election year... All election year does s divide people and cause discontent.... Wouldn't it be nice if the people in the U.S. could just be as one.



Ugh wait.....that wouldn't work either....then we'd be considered a nation of people that have no voice. :unsure: things to ponder....

 

[D Knx]

Tom, those are rich. Here's one:



"You know, when you give a man more money in his pocket—in this case, a woman more money in her pocket to expand a business, it—they build new buildings. And when somebody builds a new building somebody has got to come and build the building. And when the building expanded it prevented additional opportunities for people to work."—Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007



What ?



D-



Oh and just to not take this out of context here is the entire speech

 

[Martin]

Thanks for the Dubya video.......I didn't understand him when I watched it on TV and I still don't understand him after watching the video :huh:

 

[P M]

None of which is related to the original point of this thread that Hillary is someone to be very afraid of.

 

[Martin]

Your right PRM, at this point, I have no idea who or if I'll be voting this time around. I'm not pro Hillary, but if I knew she would be like Margaret Thathcher.....she'd get my vote :blink:

 

[D Knx]

I understood what the original point was. I also understood what was written, but to take someone's statements and somehow imply that those statements indicate a reason to fear what they may do in the future strikes me as odd considering the state we're in now.



When any one takes an honest look at what is being said and done now, they would rationally conclude that we Americans, should be greatly concerned with what has been and is occurring now:



"And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it."— Speaking on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007



OKAY!



"You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one."—Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006



OHKAY!!



"My job is a job to make decisions. I'm a decision—if the job description were, what do you do—it's decision maker."—Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007



And he's got his finger on the button NOW! Talk about FEAR!!



D-