English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

What does that mean exactly? Does that mean she is going to steal from us, or ask us to donate? And, which method do you consider to be morally correct, stealing or donating?
It seems to me this common good she keeps talking about is really just another way of saying forced communism. Do you get that same feeling?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=clinton_something_has_to_be_taken_away_from_some_people&ns=AmandaCarpenter&dt=06/04/2007&page=full&comments=true

2007-06-08 06:08:25 · 31 answers · asked by rmagedon 6 in Politics & Government Politics

31 answers

she means our freedoms and security, she already stole as much as she could on moving day from the white house

2007-06-08 07:38:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

It's the same thing Liberal Democrats have been saying for years. She's just spinning the old, "rich need to pay their fair share," drivel. It's from their playbook. She's just saying it a different way.

Anytime the government takes any of your money without your permission I call it stealing. You're taxed by the use of force. If you don't pay, they will make your life miserable; to include throwing your bu** in jail. They have so screwed up the tax code, the only way to fix it would be to start all over.

Any politician who wants to raise taxes should be opposed. If you're a Liberal Democrat rubbing your hands together in glee because the rich are going to get soaked you're badly mistaken. They will figure out how to keep theirs. Meanwhile, the middle class is paying 25-40% of their income in payroll taxes, state taxes, sales taxes, user fees, licenses, etc. Everyone focuses on the wrong things. The politicians love it when people are fixated on people's salaries. Class envy works. Do this experiment. Ask everyone you know what their definition of rich is. You'll get many different answers.( Including Al Gore who said people making 200,000 a year are milllionaires because in 5 years they made a million!) Your definition of rich will change many times in your life. So while everyone gets caught up in what evryone else should pay in taxes we have a Congress with a 3 trillion dollar budget and they can't balance their checkbook!

2007-06-08 13:40:05 · answer #2 · answered by Matt 5 · 3 0

Easy answer. Hillary will take away guns, money, private transportation, and other freedoms that our Constitution provides for. She wants to transform the U.S. into a socialist country. If you don't think this is true, just look at her statements. Our ancestors gave their blood and lives to help develop this country into a free society. Hillary has no respect for any of the sacrifices that have been made by our citizens. She wants a communist form of government here.

2007-06-08 15:23:48 · answer #3 · answered by Hangin' Out 2 · 2 0

I've got to hand it to Wolf: At least she's honest in her promotion of the socialist state. If the rest of 'em were as forthright, it would be easier to defeat them.

I don't believe for one second that she's only after "the very wealthy, big businesses." I am helped by the tax relief in place and I am FAR from the very wealthy, I believe she would eliminate the relief I currently have. I think that would equal more theft than is already in place.

She isn't after my vote however, she is offering those bogged down in the current system, more. She wants their vote.

I don't deny that "assistance" is needed for the benefit of some, but why not allow communities, families and states to have a bigger roll. The federal government is the wrong place to put that trust, they don't really care about my family members.


The idea of her being elected scares me.

2007-06-08 14:41:26 · answer #4 · answered by Moneta_Lucina 4 · 2 1

I believe she is referring to land, she was one of them that was not happy when Americans voted against the government from taking our land.

She also needs to realize her words "GOD'S creation" Her self proclaimed power is no match against HIS. If she really understood what she spoke about HIM. and then spoke these words, "something has to be taken away from some people", she would realize this means her to. HE is still in control.

Her comment about celebrates, was another thing I wrote in a letter to Pres. Bush, before the Dem's took over Congress.
My words " You know it is a sad America when entertainment and the celebrates make more money than hard working men and women who struggle daily to just make ends meet.

I still believe they intercepted that letter and Pres. Bush never received it.

2007-06-09 08:14:02 · answer #5 · answered by Cheryl 5 · 0 0

She means that those of us who work hard must give up even more of our earnings than we do now to support others. Some social welfare is certainly acceptable. But she has gone way overboard. She is clearly a socialist. And, being that, she does not have the best interests of our form of government in mind. Heil Hillary!

2007-06-08 13:23:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6 0

no I don't feel she is endorsing 'forced communism'

in order for any gain to take place -be it you gaining or someone else gaining- there has to be some loss.

the only people stealing are companies that overcharge people and many of them do.

maybe for once we could have a sense of community. maybe we could be okay helping others.
maybe we could stop being afraid of new and different things

are we a socialist country? no
communist? no
capitalist? yes
republic? yes
democracy? yes
does that prohibt us from stealing positive policies from socialism, communism, republics, democracies (since we are mixed), or other forms of governement?
No.

in other countries candidates can be upfront socialists even when the country doesn't practice socialism. I'm not saying Hilary is a socialist, she's far from it. but its sad that we couldn't have a candidate for the presidency be an open socialist. they have no authority to change the country and if we elected a socialist for 4 years and a capitalist for the 4 years after that not much would change. each president leaves something behind and makes some sort of change but as long as they don't abuse their power typically the change isn't that drastic

2007-06-08 13:44:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 5

"Taken away" doesn't imply donations. Hillary never asks, she demands. She will steal. What does morality have to do with the Hildabeast?

2007-06-08 15:24:53 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 2 0

She means some of the tax breaks for larger employers, she also means the right to bear arms. Things that conservatives consider a right she wants to take away basically.

2007-06-08 13:17:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6 1

Did you read the whole article? How about this?

An uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person,” Clinton said. “I mean, that is a fact. So what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground.”

Look at the last sentence. Maybe it is that the haves should give a little so the have nots can be served and lives can be saved.

2007-06-08 13:18:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 4

fedest.com, questions and answers