Excellent point, she could only do harm
Socialism is evil. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, social security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.
When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal", I'm sure He didn't mean "thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote in favor of it."
2007-07-13 20:22:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
0⤋
Let's get the arguement correct, Hillary Clinton is NOT a socialist, she is by definition a Fascist. A socialist believes that the government should own the major means of production and distribution. A social democrat believes the government should own key elements of the production and distribution chain. I am a social democrat, Hillary Clinton is not. I believe that a few industries, oil, gas, mining, nuclear power and all deep sea ventures, should be owned by the government. Hillary Clinton does not believe this. Hillary Clinton does not believe the government should own the hospitals or own the oil production or own anything of the sort. She is even on recoed supporting the privatization of the US Post Office. She is clearly NOT a socialist or a social democrat.
Someone who believes that the government should have full control of all means of distribution and production via regulation and laws is a fascist. Hillary Clinton IS a Fascist. She doesn't want the governent to OWN anything just to control it, regulate it and set up payment scales based on ability to pay not market value. She is a fascist and let's call her what she is.
PS Vote for Bill Richardson for a better America that is neither socialist not fascist but does follow Democratic values.
2007-07-14 06:18:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Oh I know !!!
She could TAKE all that money that the big oil companies make and spread it out amongst the disadvantaged and impoverished voters who don't own stock...and flatten the playing field. That way, only really stupid people would work and save and invest, because as soon as you MAKE more than you can get for free just by being a potential voter, Hillary would scrape the top off and give it away ! Or we could watch her get her jollies irritating the AMA for a few years, until Universal Healthcare 'The Return of the Lawyer' bellies up, again.
2007-07-13 20:29:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by algores_driver 1
·
4⤊
0⤋
Doing "good" is not on Hillary's calendar. She's in it for the power and nothing else. Oh, she'd do a few things here and there which will piss off all of America, but by and large, she's in it for herself. She's accused the Bush administration of Crony-ism. HA! Just wait and see what she does if she wins the White House. Does she really think we've forgotten about the White House travel staff?
2007-07-13 20:31:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by goaltender 4
·
4⤊
0⤋
in the regulations you impose, this question won't have the ability to be spoke back. you placed the question as much as get the solutions you go with to take heed to, not the reality! Your questions and my replies: specifically, i'm finding for a million) a balloting checklist that exhibits consistency in what she helps. i don't follow her balloting checklist, i'm from Calooneyfornia. 2) evedence of stable ethical character you're kidding, suitable? degree to which she compromised national secure practices via allowing labeled tips about her unsecured server is a legal. era! All of her lies with regards to the server, Benghazi, and assorted different fairy memories she spins coach her as a pathological liar. 3) historic info that her innovations are stable for the economy (ie. whilst Xyz raised taxes, unemployment droped via X%) i'd particularly seem at her checklist in her final interest. She became an abject failure as secretary of state. call a single united states or component of the international the place our place has more suitable over her 4 years in workplace. whilst asked this question awhile back, a state branch spokesliar necessary some days to return up together with her answer, then got here back with "Myanmar". heavily, Myanmar??? 4) info that she will have the skill to stand via her convictions whether they are unpopular the reality that she had to do concentration communities in the past her insincere apology for her inner maximum server says that she will have the skill to flow with the polls, not carry to her convictions. interior the destiny, her convictions would be criminal ones. 5) In what way is she extra suitable to the different applicants of her party She is way less honest than any of them, so how can we believe something she says? replace: Please think of of the form of as ending the sentence, "i'm going to be balloting for Hillary as a results of fact..." i'm going to on no account vote for Hellary, nor the different dimocrap for that way. it truly is one mistake I easily have on no account made in my sixty seven years in the international. What inspired you to ask the form of contrived, loaded question??? This must be between the worst questions I easily have ever seen in this website.
2016-10-21 05:52:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by cracchiolo 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Absolutely NONE. We have enough socialist programs already. We don't need anymore nor do we need a socialist president.
2007-07-13 22:25:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
First, she probably isn't currently a socialist.
Second, even if she is, given how much govt involvement there is in business and how much govt charity exists, it's doubtful anyone would notice any difference.
Socialism is an economic model that wants govt control (ownership or regulation) of major industries. We pretty much have that in most areas right now, and people keep clamoring for more. Very few people want pure capitalism.
So, even if she was a socialist, a large percentage of the country wants that as an economic model.
2007-07-13 20:21:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
0⤊
6⤋
Good that someone finally thought to ask.
Looking at the debacle that was Hillarycare, she's not a particularly competent socialist, either.
2007-07-13 20:19:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by rosbif 7
·
7⤊
1⤋
None and she has no place in our White House. Wal-Mart Hillie is about as Anti-American as they come.
2007-07-13 21:07:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
None. It wouldn't be good for us, unless you like having the government in control of your very lives.
2007-07-13 20:19:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Karma 6
·
6⤊
1⤋