Wal-Mart didn't think so when they put her on the board of directors.
Does anyone know what socialism is?
2007-02-12 05:47:25 · 17 answers · asked by bettysdad 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
try researching her voting record as Senator of N.Y.
try researching her speech archives.
yes, I do know what socialism is.
her Wal-Mart history is just another page in her hypocrisy.
2007-02-12 05:53:01 · answer #1 · answered by slabsidebass 5 · 7⤊ 3⤋
Because her general political ideology, or thinking, includes more government bureaucracy and regulation, leading to bigger government, leading to increases in deficit spending and taxes. When was the last time Clinton, much less any Demonrat, offered an across the board platform of less bureacracy and regulation. To be fair, although Hellary is a socialist, she's not the only one of our elected officials who is merely a puppet for the owners of the Federal Reserve. If you'll look at the Senate roll call vote on the Real ID Act you'll see that not a single United States Senator voted to uphold and defend the United States Constitution but, instead, voted the way the owners of the Federal Reserve encouraged them to. When was the last time you saw a Demonrat, the so-called party of the people, submit legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve and it's domination over US monetary and economic policy?
2007-02-12 05:57:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes, i know what it is. And when a person talks about universal health care and 'taking' the profits of oil companies, those are pretty strong indicators.
Universal health care is the new code word for socialized medicine. It means the 'government' provides health care for all citizens. Guess where the government gets the funds to pay for this dream? TAXPAYERS, brother. And guess who gets to decide what Dr. you can see and when? The government again. Now, knowing how screwed up every other gov't function is, do you really want the gov't in charge of YOUR health care?
Hillary recently talked about the high profits of oil companies and how, if she were President, would 'take' those profits and use them for research into alternative fuels and such things. But those profits don't belong to the gov't, they belong to the shareholders of those 'public' companies. Believing that the profits belong to the government is a socialist idea. In fact, believing ANYTHING belongs to the government is socialism.
2007-02-12 06:28:50 · answer #3 · answered by mikey 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
maximum certainly. in my opinion, she has spewed socialistic perspectives for an prolonged time. she alters what she say's to greater healthful the locale. If, via some unfavorable going on, she turns into the President, all of us greater effective grab our hats....we are able to be in for the holiday of our lives.
2016-12-17 08:21:41 · answer #4 · answered by pfeifer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you hear what she said about the profits of corporations. She wants to take their profits. Not some of them. All of them. She believes that the profits that companies make is the government's money and what she allows to go to the share holders is her decision. There's no other word to describe it other than socialism. And we haven't even gotten into her health care plan.
2007-02-12 05:55:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Because she believes that the "people" can't think for themselves and need the government to take control of everything. By the way...it's not just health care that she wants control over...don't kid yourself.
...Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government...
2007-02-12 05:54:18 · answer #6 · answered by baby1 5 · 6⤊ 2⤋
to be social and rub shoulders with the people? What I'm worried about is if she gets elected and then goes through PMS.
This woman has already been bought and sold. Hilary Clinton doesn’t have the experience, in the military or intelligence sectors of our government to be effective in a time when we are fighting a war oversees and conducting a broader “war” on terrorism. Normally, this would not be an impediment...there have been many good Presidents, with no serious military credentials –– her husband being one of them. However, in order to rectify the quagmire that Bush has got us in, and also to redirect the “War on Terrorism” more effectively, and away from this Cowboy/Rambo strategy employed by Bush and his Henchmen, requires someone of either military or strategic competence. Hillary might be good at making chocolate chip cookies... but right now we need someone who demonstrates mastery of both military tactics and foreign diplomacy.
2007-02-12 05:52:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 7⤋
It is hard to classify Clinton. She changes her position on any subject if she thinks doing so will gain her votes. She has no interest in any party ideology. she has, at bottom, only one policy, she wants power.
2007-02-12 05:58:57 · answer #8 · answered by Elizabeth Howard 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because in a candid yale student interview in 1970 she admitted to being a socialist and having sexual feelings for other women . J/k but seriously she was caught naked in bed with another woman and a transexual midget both of whom happened to be socialist.
2007-02-12 05:58:43 · answer #9 · answered by josh h 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Becasue she wants socialized health care, higher taxes and big government. And I wouldn't say she is a socialost I would say she is power lusting Communist tyrant in the guise of a socialist moderate.
2007-02-12 05:53:54 · answer #10 · answered by Just_A_Bill 2 · 6⤊ 3⤋