Who said it? A small political quiz for all of you.
October 8, 2007
Do please answer all of the questions before you scroll all the way down to see the answer key. Good luck and here’s to hoping that you all learn something from this quiz.
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. Jose f 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
If that isn’t proof that Hillary Clinton is a dangerous person trying to destroy this society then I guess i’ll have to dig a litle deeper to prove it wont I!
October 11, 2007 at 8:10 am
Comments ripped out of context, without citations to verify accuracy, aren’t proof of anything but authorial bias. Got citations to the speeches?
October 15, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Have you seen her thesis from her college days? Very telling as to what she wants to be when she rules the world
http://gopublius.com/hillary-clintons-wellesley-thesis/
October 15, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Here, this site shows how you’ve misquoted Sen. Clinton, and cut up her words to make it appear she’s said things she didn’t say:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/clinton_quotes.htm
Time to apologize for the hoax, I think.
October 16, 2007 at 12:21 am
Snopes is awesome.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hildabeast.asp
Not only do they provide some of the quotes that you claim that I’ve diced up and taken out of context but they also provide numerous other quotes with various sources.
Also, these questions were also a part of a nationally syndicated radio shows program notes in a discussion on Hillary Clinton. Not only did they provide the quotes for the ones written in the books but there was audio provided to the ones she has said in public.
Since I’m not privy to getting my hands on the audio you’ll just have to keep assuming, in your typical liberal fashion, that I’m lying but your belief that I am “fibbin” still wont change the reality that I am, in fact, telling the truth.
Besides, you claim that I’ve taken these out of context….in what context would any such statements ever be appropriate??
Since your an obvious supporter I’m sure you’ll come up with some progressive liberal stance in which your going to justify her words, but I can assure you that you cannot do so without threatening the definition of “Individualism”. You see, Hillary hates that word because it means, to her, that the people do not need her.
Guess what? We don’t.
October 16, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Well, for one, in the line where you claim she says we all have to give up our money for what you imply is a socialist system, she’s talking about the top 5% of income earners. In short, if you make less than $100 million/year, it ain’t you.
It’s error by omission, but it took some cutting to make that quote say the opposite of what Hillary said. If you had billed it as “don’t you think people should pay taxes proportionately to their earning ability,” it would have been more accurate, but it would have denied your point.
In this one, you quote Sen. Clinton as saying free markets have failed — economic heresy, really, or plain stupidity. That’s not what she said, of course. Here’s the full quote, addressing health care specifically:
Now, if you’re arguing that our health care system is best int he world at the cheapest cost, then you could claim she was in error. But you’re not that stupid.
So what is your point? You have to lie to make Clinton say something that would concern people. It’s a lie by omission, but again, we’re seeking whole truths, not half-truth lies.
It’s interesting that, faced with such evidence of your amazing dissembling, you claim it’s my problem.
That’s the moral crisis in this nation. Too many conservatives have no qualms about lying, cheating and stealing.
Shame on you.
October 16, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Well, I was using the quotes that were provided. As I mentioned before, they were a part of a radio programs production notes. I hd no part in the actual nitpicking of words. So, if there is any lies there then I am not actually the one doing the omitting.
However, I still stand by the fact that her words (even in full context) are damaging to the country. the Free-Market is the only bastion in which any economic progress (especially in Healthcare) can be found. It is no lie that Mrs. Clinton has been a very strong supporter of socialized medicine. I know, I know, she calls it a Single-provider insurance plan, but the single provider in question still comes down to “all taxpayers as a whole”.
Her plans for the Healthcare system in this country are going to drive this country to ruin in more ways than just monetary. No, our Healthcare system isn’t perfect, but it is far better than Cuba, Canada, or the European Health Care System.
Also, she wants to remove the tax cuts that benefit many of the people who are considered “the top tier”. Why are we penalizing people who are successful? Why should the top of the ladder be subjected to far more regulations compared to the bottom ladders who are barely even productive to society?
In the year 2006, want to know how much of the percentage of taxes were paid by the top 1%? 40% was paid by just the top 1 percent of income earners. The top 5% paid over 60% of the taxes that were owed last year. In actual numbers, the top 1% paid more in taxes than me or (possibly) you make in an entire year from income multiplied. They already pay in more and provide more money than the “less fortunate” could possibly ever hope to contribute…..why should they be penalized for being better?
Oh, thats right. We’re not supposed to be “better” are we? Isn’t that what this is about with Mrs. Clinton? She wants to level the playing field….not by trying to spur actual work out of the lazy, ignorant, or non-productive, but instead she wants to pull the ladder out from under the people who worked hard to climb to the top.
By the way, don’t try and use Paris Hilton or any of those upper class sponges to try and get your point across. You see, the top 1% of people who paid all those taxes are people who actually earn -INCOME- which means they draw a check every week, bi-week, or monthly. Which means they work and therefore are entitled to the lavish amount of money they make.
October 16, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Then I would think you would have no difficulty in admitting that, and in apologizing for spreading what is by any definition a crass lie about a public official, whether you like her policies or not.
Being misled is one thing. Sticking to material one knows to be false is quite another. Were you misled, or do you now purchase those lies wholesale for your own?
A correction would be in order, if not a full retraction.
Same as today, except that the bill to taxpayers is significantly reduced. But I wonder — do you really think our medical system today is so socialized? Then what’s the harm of reducing the cost and increasing the coverage?
I don’t think you’ve read Sen. Clinton’s health care proposal. Leaving the insurance companies — bloodsuckers that they are — in their current position is hardly “socialized” medicine.
If the top 1% of the population paid only 40% of the taxes while making 95% of the money, they were undertaxed. Sure million-dollar-a-year people pay more taxes. They can afford it, and they should, in a fair system.
It’s unfair to cap their taxes while incrasing the burden on the poor, and especially unfair to pass the burden to the middle class.
Fair taxes is what is called for. I cannot imagine why you think fairness is a bad deal. Do you make $1 million a year in wages? Why are you so stingy, then?
October 17, 2007 at 2:30 pm
If Mrs. Clinton was really after “Fair” taxation then she would run with tax reform as her platform instead of trying to bastardize the healthcare system.
If she wanted fair tax she should start with this: http://www.fairtax.org
You see, the Fair Tax removes income taxes from a persons paychecks (it’s a little more complicated than that but thats what it does) and places a national sales tax on all items that you purchase. What this does is remove the power to forcefully take money from the workers in this country every pay period. The citizens still pay taxes but only when they buy something. It takes power away from government and returns it to the people (which is what is needed.)
Think of all the extra money you’ll have since you’ll be receiving your full paycheck instead of the raped and abused stub you get now. Sure, the national sales tax offsets that a bit, but the Fair Tax also allows for a tax rebate every month (granted you save your receipts) and you get a refund for the purchase of necessities of life (food, water, etc etc.)
———————————————————
If you’d like to learn more on the Fair Tax then hit that link I sent you.
As for those “bloodsucking” insurance companies let me point you to a little process I like to call “The vicious litigation cycle”. Insurance companies pay for your medical bills that in turn pay for the physicians cost. The rates of many insurance policies go up because the price for medical care (from the doctors side) goes up. Why does that go up? Well, mostly due to pharmaceutical companies selling products, malpractice insurance, and of course…their paychecks. What you don’t realize is that the malpractice and the pharmaceutical costs outweigh the doctors pay salary in most cases.
Why? Well, you have ambulance chasers and tort lawyers who constantly attack doctors and companies. Many of the cases that are dragged through court are frivilous and completely erroneous, but that still doesn’t stop the courts from slamming the doctors and pharma. co. with court costs and other fines. These fines then take money from the doctors and the companies and so their rates go up. Then when rates go up so do your insurance premiums.
See? A cycle of litigation that ruins our insurance. Mostly brought about by corrupt and ignorant lawyers. Much like John Edwards!
—————————————————————
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/goldenage/wonder/Archive/Popular/harpers0855.htm
that link refers to an old 1955 story known as “The Cutter Incident”. Cutter was a medical lab that was commissioned by the government to make a polio vaccine. It’s a good read and it shows what happens when the government screws up something with healthcare and then leaves a company who did everything right (Cutter) to rot and suffer in litigation. Why is that important? Well, Cutter now makes Bug spray, and even though their tests had shown the vaccine to be clean (so did the PHA tests which were done AFTER the vaccine was boxed and sent) the judicial system and Public Health Admin threw them under the bus and practically ran them out of business.
Same thing happens with doctors and other pharm. companies today. When stuff like that happens….your rates go up.
October 17, 2007 at 10:26 pm
[...] Assaulting the Spire [...]
October 29, 2007 at 2:46 pm
So, tell me Aurvant, what are your thoughts on Peter Paul and Hillary?
video here…
http://wlsam.com/article.asp?id=499226&SPID=17549