"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 28, 2004, in San Francisco at a Democrat Party fundraiser)
"I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence." (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton - February 2, 2007, at DNC Winter Meeting - regarding profits earned by oil companies, which are not [yet] owned by the government)
"As president I know I can't kill, jail or occupy every nation we don't agree with and I cannot just wish that all the terrorists be wiped off the face of the Earth" (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton - February 10, 2007, at a campaign appearance in New Hampshire)
"We're going to change the way we finance the system by taking away money from people who are doing well now" — (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton — March 24, 2007, at a health care forum in Las Vegas)
2007-06-11 16:19:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by and socialism 4
·
7⤊
2⤋
the fast answer is that no, faith and irreligion had no longer something to do with the movements of those 2 men. They have been dazzling products of dazzling situations. There are some inaccuracies on your checklist, although. case in point: At 40 two, Stalin replaced right into a renowned discern interior the Soviet management, even though it replaced into 1920 - Lenin replaced into and could proceed to be the needed discern till 1924. At 40 two, Hitler replaced into the unquestioned chief of the Nazi occasion, even though it does no longer be for 2 greater years that he got here into political skill and four greater till now he thoroughly consolidated skill into the Nazi regime. At 33, Hitler did no longer lead a "revival" of the Nazi occasion - it were shaped basically some years till now, and he became its chief in 1921, at age 32. He replaced into commonly in charge for its superb boom and popularity, yet he replaced into imprisoned in 1923 and the occasion replaced into set back for a little while. At 33, Stalin replaced into in exile in Siberia; basically a 12 months later he outraged Lenin by technique of calling for cohesion with the Mensheviks. Georgia, on the time of Stalin's delivery, replaced right into a factor of the Russian Empire, and in no experience replaced into his relocation to the political centers of Russia resembling Hitler's relocation from Austria to Germany.
2016-12-12 18:38:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Democrats.
They've controlled the press for at least 40 years. Though their strangle-hold is weakening.
And, based on Hillary's plan to take the profits from the oil companies, and the Left's general yearning to control everything, I'm going to have to say it's the Democrats again who want to nationalize corporations.
Hope this helps.
2007-06-11 16:26:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
Both Republican and Democrat and anything in between sponsor NAZI-Socialism. It is formed and controlled from inside colleges and universities. They take young people who are interested in government and teach them Socialism and call it Democracy. The student takes the instructor's word for what they are learning. Then when they graduate they start their political career without knowing they have been programmed.
America is in Its 3rd generation so the instructors are preprogrammed. The mainstream American has not noticed the changes. But they will. Then it will be far to late.
2007-06-11 16:33:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Yeah. Right. Like the KKK or something. Pin up alot of stuff on the Demorats and Ratpublicans, but neither one of them comes anywhere near Hitler, Stalin, Chavez or Castro.
2007-06-11 16:24:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by krollohare2 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
Are you suggesting that nationalism, or pride in ones nation, is a bad thing? Nobody really has "control" over the press.....but the democrats are pushing for the other stuff.
2007-06-11 16:21:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by justin b 4
·
4⤊
2⤋
easy... liberal democrats. Reid gave 10 million illegal aliens a blanket amnesty today, quote " we must help these 10 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows.". Yet another example of morons on capital hill.
2007-06-11 16:27:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Working Stiff 3
·
4⤊
1⤋
All parties in the US are communist.We have no borders and are heading towards world government.The countries around the world are all for this plan because it takes down the US.Can somebody please tell me how this equates to nationalism?
2007-06-11 17:09:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Democrats and especially Hillary Clinton.
2007-06-11 16:31:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
Republicans...Did you see what happened to Whoopi Goldberg, Bill Maher and others when they stood up against Herr Bush?
Communism and Fascism are really the same thing. The only difference is that in Communism everything is run by the government and in Fascism, everything is run by business. When you go to the extreme either way, you end up back at the other side. Take, for example, the UnaBomber (a Communist) and Timothy McVeigh (a Fascist). But when it gets right down to it, the two had very similar beliefs. Such as it is with extremism in all its forms and fasions. At the ends they become indistinguishable.
2007-06-11 16:22:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by joanby 3
·
3⤊
7⤋