Do-It-Yourself – A little history lesson. If you don't know the answer make your best guess. Answer all the questions before looking at the answers.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
rhettdejesus1975
rylandl831968
pyuuuke
nejronODP
monicachenoa
stwor
GrainOfSand
namezzzzz
bonnieweelass
emailconnexion
Toriup
Tadalafil
supernovaHK
property
raeliegh
butafore
1basque1
carloselorio
endtyranny
texangelwings
icono1
MikeWarner
tchef
rider87
ranchhand
Helixbuilder
klere
ClimRashell
lenseview
searchIVtruth
Uppercase
Viteaz
injest
fogowar
Irinap
rappin4tay
mariopazi
xcentrix
cptnkrk
Grammys
Mintyfunk
JOEY EVANS
KobraJeedai
Slistas
Raiderwall
alkateso
mdvaldosta
postaphis
OncejesterwasI
itsme2
226)
I got them all right, but I was surprised as to who actually said them....scary!
To me there is not enough to go on; who is she talking to or what about, is she going to take away from big business (doubt it but it doesn't say)is she just spouting off about some thing in another country, I don't trust her but these comments are ambiguous.
Oh and I fluked but was surprised at the author
To me there is not enough to go on; who is she talking to or what about, is she going to take away from big business (doubt it but it doesn't say)is she just spouting off about some thing in another country, I don't trust her but these comments are ambiguous.>>>
Exactly! I did a quick check on two of the remarks, found their context, and they don't mean at all what this 'list' tries to portray.
She was pandering to one of many lefty groups she speaks to. this doesn't surprise anyone other than the DNC.
What are you talking about???
In their quest to become Presidents Hillary and Bill will say anything. The latest being $5000 for every baby born and $1000 matching funds for your IRA. Now where do think that $1000 or $5000 comes from? It comes from 50% of Americans who pay taxes and is redistributed to 50% who don't pay taxes. It is called wealth redistribution and is a central theme of Marxism. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ...or in this case from those that pay income taxes to those that don't for a vote.
Ms. Clinton's state of New York makes 46 cents per gallon of gasoline sold. The Federal government makes 18 cents a gallon in gas taxes.But that is just not enouph to fund her Marxist inspired agenda. Hillary has vowed to confiscate the shareholders of oil companies profits in the name of the US Federal Government. There is no out of context words here. She said it
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-vows...
Exactly who is it that is vowing to exploit the "people"?
And this does not just affect the Rich, but most of the pension funds and 401K out there. It is just another trick to take $2000 from you and give you $1000. What a deal!!
I would rather pay 1000 dollars to the IRA of a working citizen, than pay 1000 to the tax coffers to pay off the bush/reagan debt.
OOO. Giving kids money is evil, but taxing billionaires is good and patriotic. LOOK! That's the same thing Marx said! OOO
We should all shut up and stop thinking about poor people and let corporations do what they want. Since Reagan they've just screwed the whole country up, that's all.
Are you saying every baby that is being born, and every person with a Retirement fund is poor? And further more that it is OK for the US Government to take money from one person and give it to another is OK with you? Wealth redistribution is a Marxist theme is it not? Every single thing that Hillary And Bill say to become Presidents seems to involve confiscating through taxation and spending the American PEOPLES money. It is BIG government where the government becomes the Central planners of your life. How much you make, what doctor you can see, what business you can be in, what school the "kids" can go to, and on and on...Government spending on social welfare and pet projects is way out of control. Bill and Hillary just plan on spending even more and exerting even more control on everyday life through the use of the United States Government agencies.
I'll tell you what. You vote for a CON. In fact, the whole damn country can vote for a CON. You see how far you get with your roads falling apart, your bridges falling down, your jobs going bye bye, your health failing & no place to go, your drugs so expensive you can't afford to buy them, your air turning brown, your food making you sick, and all those wonderful things that conservatives do for this nation. I've got mine. I think I'll just sit and watch while all you fools cut off your noses to spite your faces so you can 'think' you've got it all figured out. You want a country that doesn't give a f**k about one another, I hope you get it.
In the first case, she's in front of a group of liberal doners who paid Boxer's camp. $10K to hear her talk. She's clearly pandering to them. Did you not read the whole speech? It's clear she's promising to level the playing fields by taxing people. Since she's talking to someone paying $ 10K, it's not the normal middle class people. It's the middle class again. The group that does all of the work and pays most of the taxes. That's what I'm talking about.
I know what it's like to be middle class and pay lots of taxes. Under Bush my taxes have gone up more than under any other president. And I have fewer freedoms. And taxes will stay high until the dept is paid off.
How bad can Hilary be?
Hey, J4A:
A few comments:
Under Bush, the tax rates have not increased. Actually, they have actually decreased slightly.
Therefore, if your taxes have increased, it was because your taxable income increased. Period!
The Dem's in Congress are said to be against renewing the slight tax decrease that we have enjoyed (?) for the past 5 years.
The national debt will probably NEVER be paid off, because Congress LOVES to spend money. But take heart, because history shows that there is virtually no relationship between the national debt and tax rates.
The bottom line for you if paying lower taxes is important to you, then you should NOT vote for Hillary!
Now one question-- What freedoms have YOU personally lost?
Or are you just listening too closely to MoveBackward (er, I mean MoveOn) .org????
And if you want to know how bad Hilary will be, please review the quotes in the article!
"history shows that there is virtually no relationship between the national debt and tax rates"
BULL$HIT!
Do you recall Bush#1 saying "Read my lips! No new Taxes!"
Then after he got elected, he had to raise taxes? Well why do you think he had to raise them? I'll tell you why, because interest on the Reagan Debt ate up so much of the budget that taxes had to be raised to fund the government! Yet when your taxes are raised to pay interest on the current debt, will you blame Bush#2? Hell no! you will blame the congress and pres. that are in office at the time.
"history shows that there is virtually no relationship between the national debt and tax rates"
BULL$HIT!
Do you recall Bush#1 saying "Read my lips! No new Taxes!"
Then after he got elected, he had to raise taxes? Well why do you think he had to raise them?
Because congress was spending more than it took in. And that is the fundamental root of debt and deficits always has been always will be. It's not left, right or center. Whatever party controls the house controls the spending.
BTW after "Read my lips! No new Taxes!" Bush raised taxes was he able to keep his job?
it's debt
jordan11 - Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of this whole thing. It's frightening that there are people on this board that actually take this story seriously.
FYI, the entire story has already been debunked by Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist...
Okay, snopes didn't call her a maxist. I will. She supports the redistribution of wealth. It's clear when you read her whole speech, she's talking to the upper crust, folks who can afford to listen to her talk at $ 10K a plate. I can't afford that. I work for a living. What she clear states is that she wants to take back the tax cuts, but not on those people, other people. Well if she isn't taking money from the wealthy donors and the poor really don't have any money anyway, gee, I wonder who? That would be the middle class. Once again she's going after the folks who do most of the work and pay most of her taxes. Her what mine is mine and what yours is mine to sounds more communist. Strong leader, rarely listening to the common person, rules by using threats.
In an earlier post, you quoted Hillary as saying the following to the "upper crust" whom she was addressing: "We're not coming to you...and say 'we're going to give you more.' We're saying, 'you know what, for America to get back on track and be fiscally responsible, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you."
Now you say "What she clear states is that she wants to take back the tax cuts, but not on those people, other people."
Your analysis does not logically follow from the context. It's pretty obvious that you're not comprehending what Hillary said, or that you haven't thought it all the way through.
You have to ask, define who is rich (income bracket). Why we accept or allow such vague answers is beyond me.
Why do you think a quantitative definition was needed in this context? Do you think any reasonable person would not define the 10K donors she was speaking to as being rich?
So
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Was at a $10,000 a plate dinner put on by Norman Hsu.
Is that the context you want?
There is no context to any of these quotes. Given the lack of attributation, the lack of verifiability and the complete lack of context, I am certainly not taking this author's "dad's test" seriously.
It really isn't scary, if people will take a few minutes to go hunt down the context in which remarks are made. They have a whole different meaning when not plucked out of context for the purposes of making someone look like who they aren't. Here is some of that on the subject of her 'free market' remark. And as usual, the media doesn't correct the errors.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200710090007?f=h_...
Nice try to cover up. Your story has "Clinton's March 3, 1996" comments. This story has the quote dated "Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007".
Try again with the correct date.
I was merely trying to show what happens when things get taken out of context. Went over your head, I see.
no context can justify them unless she was quoting someone else and then invalidating the quote.hillery is not bill.bill was a con artist and that was all.he was a nothing that did nothing and whos goal was to have nothing happen.hillery is a communist.she believes in from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
AHhh you see when the Libs/Dems offer up a whole clip of someone calling the military "phony soldiers", well thats taking things out of context because you have to have listened to EVERY ONE of his broadcasts to understand. BUT if you take a one sentence remark made by a Lib or Dem then context isn't neccessary, in fact most of the Bushbots claim its irrelevant.
And while we are at it, we should get the media to retract "out of context" acusations on her comments about phony soldiers... oh, wait that was a LEFT wing attack on RUSH. Never mind then. Just clear up the Hillary stuf.
How so? I heard the entire conversation. It's what he said. HE'S the one who changed it...afterward.
Hillary Clinton is a classic socialist and is not good for the United States of America....... PERIOD!
lol jordan, no he's not and it's NOT what he said. He didn't change a thing. And if you're talking about the minute and a half that was left out, it was totally irrelevant to the comment.
Well, you're wrong. Nothing more to say, really.
No, I'm not wrong. Rush has been vindicated:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20071010/cm_uc_crbbo...
Rush Limbaugh, Vindicated
I went over to George Soros lackey, Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo love-me page and not a single mention of his "formal congressional resolution condemning Limbaugh" His latest news section covered time from Sep. 25 through Oct. 10 but no FORMAL congressional resolution condemning Limbaugh
Humm I wonder why?
Same thing over at Tom (TopGun, no really)Harkin love-me page. Sep. 21 through Oct. 11 not a peep about his infamous "just high on his drugs again" speech.
George Soros meatpuppet Nancy Pelosi. Her official Gov. love-me page does not mention her "formal congressional resolution condemning Limbaugh" words, I wonder why?
Pelosi: 'Crimes Motivated by Hate Will Not be Tolerated in Our Country' Thursday, September 27 2007. I guess she means unless her master George Soros says it's okay
Harry Reid, the spineless gutless surrender monkey (AKA George Soros gift to the GOP) Also failed to mention his attempt to push this "formal congressional resolution condemning Limbaugh" through the House. Could point out he's got no huevos but that wouldn't be news would it.
The Guttersnipes got a shot out under the wire, unfortunately they setoff rows of Claymores.
Ain't that a bitch
A row of Claymores going off 'tis a real bitch.
AG - Your link points to an opinion piece authored by the president of the Conservative Communications Center. Do you really think that's an authoritative source to use to corroborate your opinion?
Maybe not, but I know my ears are an authoritative source.
heard the whole thing too and knew who he was talking about by name before he got to it.he has used the term many times before on his show so those who listen to his show knew what and who he was talking about.
What uninformed idiot didn't know about phony soldiers like Jesse Macbeth? Wasn't congress, they had just passed the "Stolen Valor Act" 6 months after the Jesse Macbeth Story blew up. Couldn't have been the MSM, ABC ran a story on Jesse Macbeth 2 days before Rush. Couldn't have been these groups that were exposed as partners in fraud with Jesse Macbeth ? IVAW, he was there posterboy, Vids and as a speaker. Afterdowningstreet, the daily Koz, VoteVets.org, ..
So who was so stupid not to know about phony soldiers like Jesse Macbeth.
Check out this pic
http://dyingwarriors.blogspot.com/2006/03/iraq-...
Jesse Macbeth on the left holding the IVAW poster. Attention to detail, look at the feet in this pic.
injest,
Thanks for the message. That IS some good marchin'.
How does that go again? Left-right...
Oh the heck with it. Bush lied!
She has my vote!
(Lucy) Ohhhh RICKY!!!!
Mine, too, Ricky. Nobody else of presidential caliber is running.
Obama comes to mind. But I haven't done my homework on either one.
I submitted one and propeller put up two. ??
You just confirmed that liberals are socialists. Thank you.