Hannity misrepresented Clinton quotes to claim she has "socialist views and intentions"
On the July 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, host Sean Hannity played a clip from a May 29 speech by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) -- in which Clinton said it is time for America "to reject the idea of an on-your-own society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity" -- and added, "This isn't the first time Hillary has made her socialist views and intentions so apparent." Hannity also characterized the speech as Clinton "blast[ing] the free market." In fact, Clinton said in the same speech that "there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets." As Media Matters for America has documented, other conservative commentators have similarly selectively quoted from Clinton's speech in order to paint her as a "socialist."
Hannity began the segment with a discussion of Clinton's senior thesis at Wellesley College on community activist Saul Alinsky, and then went on to discuss Clinton's May 29 speech outlining her economic vision for America, which he erroneously described as occurring on June 4. Hannity said that Clinton "blasted the free market, campaigned for redistribution of wealth for the common good, and compared the last six years in America to the era of the robber barons." Hannity played a series of clips from the speech Clinton gave May 29 at a high school in Manchester, New Hampshire, which the Associated Press described as "outlin[ing] a broad economic vision" in its May 29 report. From Hannity's America:
CLINTON: It's time for a new beginning ... time to reject the idea of an on-your-own society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. ... The genius of the American economy in the 20th century was that it helped to counter that tendency for people to push as far as their own interests would take them.
But in accusing Clinton of embracing socialism, Hannity ignored that immediately after Clinton stated that it was "time to reject the idea of an on-your-own society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity," Clinton praised the free market system when it includes "rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed." Clinton asserted:
CLINTON: It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an on-you-own society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society.
Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed. When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.
Instead of airing that statement, Hannity followed it with a statement from 17 paragraphs earlier in the speech:
CLINTON: The genius of the American economy in the 20th century was that it helped to counter that tendency for people to push as far as their own interests would take them so that we created a leveler playing field that benefited everyone.
In addition, Hannity truncated remarks Clinton made in San Francisco at a June 28, 2004, fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) as further evidence of Clinton's "socialist views and intentions." According to Hannity, at that fundraiser Clinton told the audience of wealthy donors:
CLINTON: We're not coming to you, many of whom are well enough off that actually the tax cuts may have helped you ... we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.
In fact, according to a July 2, 2004, correction to a June 29, 2004, AP report, Clinton said that "cut[ting] short" the tax cuts was probably necessary "for America to get back on track and be fiscally responsible," implying that the tax cut reductions would be necessary to reduce the federal deficit. According to the AP, Clinton said:
CLINTON: We're not coming to you, many of whom are well enough off that actually the tax cuts may have helped you, and say "we're going to give you more." We're saying, "You know what, for America to get back on track and be fiscally responsible, 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."
From the July 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America:
HANNITY: Now, some may argue that a college paper written almost 40 years earlier can't decode a candidate's politics or beliefs. In the case of Hillary, she idolized a left-wing radical in her formative years, befriended and supported known communists, radicals, and groups in league with America's enemies. Now, the Clinton campaign wants you to believe that it's ancient history, but as recently as June 4th, Hillary blasted the free market, campaigned for redistribution of wealth for the common good, and compared the last six years in America to the era of the robber barons.
CLINTON [video clip]: It's time for a new beginning. Time to reject the idea of an on-your-own society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. The genius of the American economy in the 20th century was that it helped to counter that tendency for people to push as far as their own interests would take them.
HANNITY: This isn't the first time that Hillary has made her socialist views and intentions so apparent. Take a look at what she said three years ago at a fundraiser in San Francisco. "We're not coming to you. Many of whom are well enough off that actually the tax cuts may have helped you. ... We're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." All this while the economy is booming as a result of the tax cuts, the unemployment rate is down, and Wall Street is posting extraordinary gains.
Clearly following in the path of Alinsky and others like him, Hillary has picked her target, frozen, personalized and polarized it, except this time the intended target is you, the American voter. Hillary's opponents say she'll do anything to win and doesn't take a position unless it's completely safe. But the thesis is written in her own words, and those are hard to run from. Which is why even after all of these years this is another Clinton chapter which remains open.
Ah, that's more like it. More ammunition for the troll army to sound the MMFA-Hillary conspiracy alarm again. For a minute there, I thought they were losing their focus and getting distracted by Obama.
When you analyse this hot breath of foul air, you surely must come to the conclusion Hannity himself is a socialist dictator. His way or no way.
The funny thing is, if a Fundamentalist Christian said this, it would be from God's mouth to our ears!
Oh, wait. A fundamentalist Christian would never say that we should help each other, or that we are our brother's keeper.
<rolling eyes>
Fear insiting, polarization up the yinyang. Yes she's after you and gonna make you into a socialist. RUN AWAY!
Real fine Hannity, Much does he get to spew in this fine, maybe just a bit incomprehensibly, manner.
I love History.
The nicest thing about it is that personal histories only involve Democrats.
God forbid someone should bring up Darth's draft deferments or W's drinking, but what school someone attended when they were 9 or a homework assignment they turned in, now that's important.
Well said WORRIERKING.
You just brought these items up now, didn't you. By your own pronouncements, nobody ever mentions these things, therefore you are nobody.
All too easy ...
"All too easy" ... - NL207
I'll bet it is. As this site is concerned with media, most of us understood WK's remarks to be referring to the media.
It's easy to not understand things, or to have others dumb it down or explain things.What's difficult is keeping up and trying to understand the topic. It may also turn out to be less embarrassing for you .
That's twice in the last few weeks our friend has questioned my intelligence.
Yet he can defend Fox Noise's resident tuber.
That must mean I'm dumber than dirt.
Questioned your intelligence?
I reduced your asinine argument to absurdity.
Your assertion that 'nobody mentions' the allegations against Cheney and Bush you referred to was proven false by your own mention of these allegations. That neither you nor the Lefty could grasp this concept is ample demonstration of your mentalities.
No you didnt, you just misunderstood the point completely. What a shock. Is he part of the media? I dont think he is in this context its pretty easy to understand he didnt mean anyone in the world but anyone in the press.
Yes, I remember well Bill O'Rielly's diatribe about the Red Cross red tape and miscues right after 9-11, and his incessant calls to boycott the Red Cross. And someone asked him what his philatropic efforts were. His response was " none of your business '. that is when I came to the realization this is not the man I or my kids should look up to.
Hannity appears to be jealous that he never wrote a senior thesis in college. But then, he is uneducated and with no apparent skills. Instead, he's survived on the right wing punditry welfare system. Where being wrong and dishonest is all part of the job.
Yeah, I don't think this guy even got a real high school diploma. I suppose sucking up to the GOP and kissing George's a$$ amounts to a good education.
I can't confirm the accuracy of this, but in Wikipedia it says the following:
Hannity attended St. Pius X Preparatory SeminaryUniondale in Long Island, graduating in 1980. He dropped out of New York University and decided to pursue a radio career.[2] He has received an honorary degree from Liberty University (2005)
So basically, he finished high-school, dropped out of University, and a couple of decades later Jerry Falwell gave him a degree. Does he ever talk about education? :)
I read thru this and see no high school graduation, or any graduation. that St Pius thing was a school to become a priest. i know priests and he ain't no priest.
http://www.geocities.com/thrawn03/hannity.html
Who is MMFA trying to kid? Hilliary most certainly has socialist views and has expressed them publicly on many occasions.
to. wit: "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." -- A prime example of socialism is there ever was one: state control of the means of production, in this case, energy production.
Translation for MMFA and anyone else that doesn't understand the meaning of the above remark: Hillary intends to strip the oil companies of their profits by government siezure, over and above the taxation normally applied to business and spend this money as the GOVERNMENT sees fit on assorted political energy boondoggles. If Hillary were not a socialist and actually believed in the effectiveness of free markets as MMFA claims above, she would want to allow the oil companies to reinvest this money as THEY SEE FIT to most economically satisfy the demand for energy instead of siezing and redirecting it.
She only said that to pander for a few votes. She has no intention of actually doing it. She's DLC, pro-corporate. She's as socialist as Pinochet.
Your statement is the semantic equivalent of saying she intentionally panders and lies for votes. If this is true, then how do you believe ANYTHING she says?
I say believe her actions. Her proposal for national healthcare in 1994 was the kind of socialist takeover of medicine Michael Moorwe dreams of.
NL as someone new to this blog, maybe you don't know Redking.
He may be a liberal, but he is not a fan of Hillary or the majority of the Democratic party. Try to keep up.
Her healthcare plan was a load of junk that wouldn't have worked anyway, a plan meant to fail. And she never touched the idea since. Hillary Clinton is a right-winger, a corporatist, a fascist. She's on YOUR side.
As usual you show that you dont know what you are talking about. IF Hillary were a Socialist she would be saying we need to NATIONALIZE the oil industry and make their profits into Government revenue. The oil industry gets a whole lot of government subsidies above what most industries do including exemptions from paying royalties on public land and using our military to aquire and assure resources. Taxing them above what other businesses are taxed at a time when our military is doing JUST THAT and unbelievable oil industry profits may offend you Free Market idolotors who think the market has all answers to all questions as dogma but its NOT socialism. Do you really want to make the argument that any talk about the general welfare is socialism?
Do you really want to make the argument that socialism does not include redistribution policies and only includes nationalism of industries?
Ah yeah because the is the very DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM. That is the government owning the means of production
http://www.answers.com/topic/socialism?cat=biz-fin
so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) n.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861709575
1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles
I thought you liberals were John Kerry "nuanced". It is ridiculous to claim that socialism has only the meaning of state ownership.
"Over the past twenty-five years, efforts to adapt socialism to new historical circumstances have led to a range of New Left ideas and theories, some of them contained within existing socialist movements and parties, others achieving mobilization and support in the arenas of "new social movements." Some socialist parties reacted more flexibly and successfully to these changes than others."
Click on new social movements and you'll find some of your favorites like the ecology movement.
Next, move on to taxes such as the death taxes and income taxes.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200104/ai_n8933834
The current battle over repeal of the federal death tax overlooks its origins in the Socialist Party of America. Signed into law in 1916 by Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, the death tax appeared 12 years earlier in the 1904 Socialist platform, which pledged to:
"(W)atch and work, in both the economic and the political struggle . . . for the graduated taxation of incomes, inheritances, franchises and land values.. "
The Socialists succeeded in achieving these radical policy goals. "In our opinion," economists Milton and Rose Friedman wrote in their 1980 book, Free to Choose, "the Socialist Party was the most influential political party in the United States in the first decades of the 20th Century." The death tax had its origin in the Socialist Party.
<!-- BEGIN WIDGET: FA RELATED RESULTS --><!-- END WIDGET: FA RELATED RESULTS --><!-- BEGIN WIDGET: FA POPULAR RESULTS --><!-- END WIDGET: FA POPULAR RESULTS -->Mathematics explains how radical Socialist tax proposals came to be incorporated into federal law. Historically, third parties have had little success winning federal elections. Only a few Socialists (Meyer Landon of New York and Victor Berger of Wisconsin) ever served in Congress. But the Socialists had their tax proposals co-opted by the Democrats after their mathematical balance-of-power increased dramatically in several federal election cycles.
Point being, MMFA neglected to define socialism. Your definition is left out 99 percent of the real definition.
What the hell does the socialist party a century ago have to do with Hannity misrepresenting Hillary's quote?
Nothing. It is all about the use of "socialism." They do not really care about what it means, rather they wish to engender fear through their repetition of "scary" words like "socialism."
No it just left out your fantasy delusions. I already pointed out that ALL taxes were confiscation of private capital ostensibly for the common good. I am sure you like NL would like to define anything done with taxes as socialism. However socialism HAS a definition which is the people communally or the goverment owning the means of production. Having a government policy that taxes a heavily subsidized industry at a higher rate in order to further that goal simply ISNT socialism. You want to call them socialistic goals I dont really care it isnt socialism until we are talking about government owning means of production. Now Nationalized health care can legitimatly be called socialism taxing oil corporations cannot. It really is that simple
To define "SOCIALISM" as anything OTHER than the nationalization of all industry and means of production, for EQUAL redistribution to the population ... renders the term MEANINGLESS.
Giving a kid an allowance then becomes "SOCIALISM".
The problem is, the rightwing want to throw around the term "SOCIALISM" as if it means the confiscation by government of ALL private property. But when challenged, they redefine SOCIALISM to mean something else entirely.
BOTTOM LINE: When a Rightwinger uses the term SOCIALISM, they are engaging in FEARMONGERING, but have perverted THEIR definition to the point that there is nothing scary ABOUT the term. They might as well use the word "STUFF" in place of "Socialism", because their meaning would be just as clear.
"Hillary advocates STUFF."
Oh, wow. Good argument!
Maybe it was time to remind one and all that Liberalism and Communism are ideologically incompatible, notwithstanding conservative propaganda implying such an interconnexion (howbeit flawed).
Redistribution policies are not historically a function of Socialism, it is a function of democratic politics and had been for nearly 2500 years. The Athenians had a graduated tax system, that's a redistribution policy. Their economic system was pretty far from being anything like socialist.
And this is taken from a rant by John Gibson...
But then, people like Hannity and Gibson use fear-mongering when they invoke the word "socialism." Nevermind whether or not it is socialism. The thing that matters is the fear that the liberal use of the term "socialism" engenders. Hannity is an uneducated talking head, his understanding of economics, political science, and other social sciences is naive and ill-informed. He simply does not have the education needed to make an informed commentary. That, of course, is not his job. His job is to be dishonest. He speaks from ignorance and engenders hate and fear.
Is this the best you can do? Most of your post is a personal attack on Hannity. The rest that isn't, calls Gibson's article a rant. The only portion of his article I referenced was Hillary's quotation. That IS correct, is it not? Hillary DID say that didn't she? I could have chosen twenty different references to establish that. His happened to be first in the hits list.
My thesis stands: Hillary advocates the seizure of private capital so that it might be redirected to industrial endeavors as the state thinks right and necessary. Therefore Hillary is a socialist.
Thesis? My 3rd grader writes longer "theses" than that. You are in way over your head here.
Care to engage in a little private debate? I know just the forum.
You couldn't carry my dirty laundry.
I am sure your dirty laundry is pretty stinky, but why would he WANT to carry it, meanwhile you couldnt out argue a gerbil
ALL taxation is the siezure of private capital to use for the common good. All taxation is not socialism when she advocates siezing the OIL INDUSTRY ITSELF get back to us. Your attempt at a point was so weak it was embarassing to have to point it out to you.
Hillary isn't proposing to redistribute one penny of this "tax" to the citizenry. She is proposing to spend it on government sponsored energy production schemes. Translation: The owners of these schemes are "special interests".
Can you even read? Or are you delusional?
Can YOU read or are you just a moron. I guess the incredibly stupidity you show in your post answers that quite well. Are you REALLY arguing that devoloping alternative energy is NOT for the common good? Do you OWN an oil company or are you REALLY that stupid? I guess you are. Again ALL taxation is confiscation of private capital to use, ostensibly, for the common good. All taxation is not socialism. Can you come within a parsec of addressing the argument or was that completely inane bit of stupidity the best you have?
"Windfall Profits" taxes are most certainly punitive, jealousy based, and an extension of socialist ideology.
Hillary did not propose to increase the tax rates on all profits, JUST OIL COMPANY profits. Moreover, she proposed to use these funds for specific purposes [earmarks!] as noted above.
Official corruption takes many forms. Once the identities of the beneficiaries are known, the corruption will be obvious.
Thats correct OIL industry an energy industry heavily subsidized including by our military gaining access to resources for them is targetted for taxes during a time of huge profits to plan for a future based on alternative energy. It is exactly what taxes do just like when cigarettes are taxed more heavily to pay for long term indigent health treatment caused by lung cancer or stop smoking inititives. Or gasoline is taxed to pay for road maintenence. When she calls for NATIONALIZING the oil industry get back to us until then she is not advocating socialism. AGAIN all taxes are confiscation of private capital for use, ostensibly, for the common good. You have done NOTHING to show socialism here not even in the ballpark
You could have chosen different references, but you did not. That speaks to the kind of sources you cite.
>FLUSH<
Ooops there goes what you have been using for a brain better call the plumber
Beware the RED SCARE!
NASA is Socialism! Down with NASA!
Actually Hillary would have to take a few side steps to the right to be a socialist. "We want to take those profits..." would be socialism. "I want to take those profits..." is closer to communism.
Last week I saw a "Who Said it?" quiz, which listed 30 mixed quotes by Karl Marx and Hillary Clinton. A couple of the famous quotes were easy to determine, but most were impossible to tell.
Let me explain something to you: the free market is wonderful for creating wealth. It os not wonderful for coping with environmental crises. If the oil companies decide to invest in propaganda denying the crisis, lobbying politicians, and awarding themselves $400 million dollar retirement packages, the free market answer is 'well, then the company fails, and a new company will arise to give the direct solution.' Yeah--eventually. In the meantime millions of people might die and billions have their way of life drastically reduced. And in a United States with a GDP a quarter what it is today, a new, smarter company will emerge, and the free market will triumph. Hooray.
You seem to think that the theory of the free market means that executives are smarter than scientists. It doesn't.
If we had INVESTED in alternate fuels in the Carter days, we would be a much wealthier nation than we are now. We would be stronger, and more secure, and we wouldn't be tied to the middle east. But you'd scream 'socialism!'
It's just long term thinking.
Let's make a few points for you:
There is at the present only ONE alternative "fuel" that is both available in large scale and cost competitive with fossil fuels and that is nuclear generated electricity. The liberal establishment was and still is opposed to the further construction of nuclear power plants, even going so far as to buy out a brand spanking new one [Shoreham, New York] before it had generated a watt of commercial power so that it could be torn down.
If we had wasted any more money on any of these phony alternative fuel solutions in Carter's time, we'd be not one iota better off today and probably worse off. e.g. The present government subsidies for ethanol fuels are distorting both the agricultural and energy markets. Ethanol is not cost competitive with gasoline. "The cost of operation was calculated to be 90.9% greater for E-95. "
You still have not explained how taxing a heavily subsidized industry at a higher rate is socialism. Also, while you are correct that there is no substitute for fossil fuels, you seem to think that by doing nothing but letting the free market make the oil industry rich, somehow our energy needs will be met. You mention nuclear energy, another highly subsidized industry, yet you seem to ignore the fact that the societal need for sustainable and efficient energy usage has been ignored for 30 years while we wait for the market solution to land on our lap.
If current alternatives are not good enough and government subsidized nuclear energy is our only way to continue living the way we do, then I am sorry, your free market paradise is taking us down the toilet. Something has got to give and if you are correct and we have no alternatives, I can only imagine what kind of market solutions are in store for us. So far it’s been consume as much as you want.
By the way, if Hilary is a socialist, what does no-bid contracts with Halliburton make Bush?
EB, the contrast in logic and clarity between your post and the one you're responding to is almost startling.
I'm predicting that it didn't penetrate the one skull that needs it, just wanted to let you know that it was appreciated.
Too bad you have no facts. You are simply wrong, uniformed and ignorant.
Let the price of oil remain at or above $50 a bbl for the next 5 years, which it will barring a recession.
This will come as a shock to you. There largest deposits of oil in the world are not located in the Middle East, Russia, Africa, Asia, Eurrope or South America. They are right here in North America. The Canadian Tar Sands and the Green River Basin Oil Shales are variously thought to contain 2-3 TRILLION bbls of recoverable oil. This number is roughly 10 times the known reserves in Saudi Arabia.
The price of oil need only remain greater than $10/bbl to make recovery from the tar sands economical. At $30/bbl recovery from oil shale is economical.
Emulate the French, who generate 75% of their electricity from nuclear, and you have an energy supply that is sustainable for centuries at the present demand. And this doesn't even consider coal, which is also more plentiful in North America than anywhere else on earth.
No YOU are obviously the one who is plain ignorant. Incredibly so. He made the correct point. You have NOT explained nor have you even tried how taxing a heavily subidized industry at a higher rate is socialism. It isnt you are apparantly to ignorant to get that. Here is a clue for free just because you are too dumb to GET the point doesnt mean there wasnt an excellent one. There was. When Hillary calls for nationalizing the oil industry get back to us.
I have two points in rebuttal:
1. I think that you are coming from the cost competative issue from a flawed perspective. The fossil fuel industry is nowhere near paying for the true cost of their product. As was pointed out to you, they receive huge subsidies for land aquisition and extraction, and they do not even come close to paying for the environmental costs of their products. So, to complain that alternative fuels need government subsidies to be researched and implemented is the height of hypocracy.
2. If the government did not steer technology in a direction that benefitted the common good and just allowed the "market" to determine what would be researched and produced, we would be 100 years behind our current technologies in a wide range of markets. Your example of nuclear energy is one of them.
The statment that our only option is nuclear power is well uh pretty much bogus. There are some newer options even in nuclear power. A recent college project produced hydrogen at a cost equilient to the price of gasoline. Well its price a month or two ago.
increased efficiences, wind power, tidal power, geothemal power.
Freaking stop limiting our possible options, we gots lots.
Utter BS.
Government meddling has done more to stifle progress than all other forces combined.
Consider the morons governing Australia. These greenfreak nitwits want to mandate the use of flourescent lamps in place of incandescent lighting in their fair country. They will etch this into law, and any attempts to change this in the future will be vigorously resisted by the businesses who have profited from this mandate. And there will be need to do this NOW! LED lighting is now available, and it is vastly superior to fluorescent both ecologically and in cost of ownership.
This is a prime example of misguided government meddling.
Our own government is promulgating a food crisis with it's asinine subsidy of corn based ethanol fuel. Ethanol is less cost effective than oil. The only thing that makes it attractive is the subsidy.
Of course I was referring to gov't subsidized research into alternate technology. Putting all eggs into one basket ususally come back to bite in the long run.
That said, I must address your "goverment meddling" obsession. This oh-so-common argument from conservatives is so simple-minded and short-sighted. If you honestly believe that there is any such thing as the "free market" or that we would have anything that we have in America without a strong government, you are delusional. Go find a country without a working gov't and see how the citizenry is getting along. You can start with Afghanistan and Iraq.
If you hate gov't "meddling" so much, lets take back all those oil subsidies and free land grants and see how much they whine and raise prices. If we took just what we gave away to the oil companies and put it into an Apollo project for alternative energy research, we could have a better answer than corn-based ethonol and hybrids in just a few years. That seems like a reasonable comprimise to me. There is no gov't meddling into the oil companies and we can find a better alternative for our continued social and environmental health.
Yeah I just hate the government meddling that gave us rural electrification, the highway system, a world class communication system an educated workforce ALL of which contributes to the ability of companies to make money more efficiently. Damn that meddling government.
Actually NL#, there is a fuel that beats oil. And its not nuclear. Which has been pointed out is HIGHLY subsidized and no where near as efficient as the lobbyists want you to believe it is. (I know, lets dump all the waste in NL's backyard, that will save some money.)
One word: Coal.
It is not the solution and I don't advocate its use. But it shows that your argument is flawed.
Coal? You act like I've never heard of it.
There is more coal in N. America than anywhere else on Earth. The cleanest way to utilize it is coal gasification, but just try to build a power plant that uses this. Watch the leftists wage a disinformation campaign to prevent local government from issuing a permit to build such a facility anywhere near a population center. The dirty COAL plant will ruin YOUR neighborhood!
Well, yousee, that's the beauty of a free society and a democratic republic such as America (if we all stand up and make our voices heard). People don't want nuclear plants and coal plants near them for very good reasons. They also have stood up in Colorado and put the keibash on the plans to carve oil shale out of the Rocky Mountains. We were sick of the gov't backing these industries plowing into the earth to extract these dirty, polluting energy sources and not putting more energy into developing alternatives. Like I've said earlier, there is gov't"meddling" currently going on in favor of fossil fuels and most of us would like that "meddling" to be pointed in a smarter direction.
Yeah that argument will have more weight with me right after they put one in Beverly Hills, Grosse Pointe Kennebunkport or right next to the White House.
Very strange. hantywaste was attending seminary school ( he may have been thrown out for a FOLEYpaux). catholicism is a form of socialism as are all sects of christianity. christians for the most part, want a theocracy as does hantywaste. Under a theocracy there would be many socialistic type programs as there is now. Socialistic type programs exist now within various governmental programs (welfare, foodstamps, public housing etc). hantywaste speaks from his posterior orofice which is the hole closest to his "brain". He is a fomentor, hypocrit and a meatsack cadaveroid. Just another member of the ultra rights living corpse corps of the religious zealot society and the braindead sheep movement. Universal healthcare will be a socialistic approach to what is going to leave many Americans out in the streets to die. Even the word healthcare when applied to what we have in this country is a misnomer. Alopathic medicine is not health care. Perhaps more on that at another time. Money needs to go into developing other energy sources and if the GVT. has to control the profits of the oil cos., so be it. They have no interest in developing new sources of energy at this time without some motivation. There is no reason not to incorporate socialistic parameters in the shifting paradigm of governing if it expedites progress. Not everything a society wants to acomplish can be achieved within a strict free market construct. Examples: CIA, FBI, Police, Military, NASA, and even the government (obviously). hantywaste is just making noise because that is what he gets paid to do by his "hantywaste society of braindead sheep" and the interbred mongoloid b.o. club of the copraphagic herbraphrenics
hebraphrenics
Well thank God we are not doing that now...oh wait we are. Yes, the government is taking YOUR MONEY and giving it to big oil, as well as nuclear energy companies, so what is your point? They also take YOUR MONEY and do other terrible things, like build roads, build schools, bail out airlines, etc. So get your head out of the sand and see that socialism is all around you every freaking day, and I for one am glad it's there. I don't want to have to build my own raods to the local stores. I don't want to build a school and hire and pay for the teachers to teach my kids. These are things beyond me and beyond most Americans. Thank God we have a strong country that can take care of these things that are too big to do as individuals.
EXXON CEO Lee Raymond: $400 million.
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CEO Ray Irani: $460 million.
So much for "reinvesting" in alternative energy. When "how they see fit" hits the CEO class, they see fit to enrich themselves.
It's one thing to tout the benefits of "unencumbered free market". It's quite another to champion the integrity and social consciousness of proven greedheads, who DO NOT rely on anything having to do with "free markets", but instead employ ARMIES of lobbiests to rig all laws to their benefit, taking BILLIONS in taxpayer funds at the same time they are making RECORD PROFITS.
And employing the American Army to secure oil fields which the oil companies then exploit.
If there were anything "fair" or "free" about how big business operates, our rightwing bully-business defenders might have a slight point. Since the CLASS WARFARE is being waged in earnest from the TOP, with billions invested in perverting all rules to advantage the corporations while SCREWING the consumer ... there is not "free market" point to be made. NONE.
[Many are PAID WELL to propagandize how corporations should be left alone, that government is bad, and that nothing should interfere with the "status quo" of lobbiests for wealthy special interests skewing all rules and laws. There are SOME who simply cannot deal with self rule in a democracy, and long to be DOMINATED and SUBJEGATED by their "betters" ... those with money and power. We probably get BOTH kinds as posters in this site. Which is which? It doesn't matter: BOTH are dangerous and wrong.]
A socialist rant if there ever was one filled with all the jealousy, envy and greed that any Marxist class warrior cold want.
Have you in all your life EVER produced ANYTHING that anyone else was willing to pay for in the absence of government coercion? This is exactly what capitaism is all about: harnessing the power of greed to motivate man to supply goods and services that are actually desired by his fellow man.
Thats true that is what CAPITALISM is all about and what DEMOCRACY is all about is allowing the people through their representatives to rein in the greed that makes SOME greedy people pollute our water or build a housing project on the Love Canal toxis waste dump site in order to make money no MATTER the societal cost. Its one of those checks and balances that make the country great.
long view of history:
I honestly believe that our children's children will look back on Fox News and right-wing radio hate as we look back on the Salem witch trials: a moment of utterly inexplicable scapegoating and hysteria. (Yes, Salem--this goes wel beyond the McCarthyism analogy.)
if there's a kind of anti-hagiography of the era, this Fred Flintstone-esque blockhead will be at the top--or, more exactly, the bottom. Can this thug dive any lower?
Of the endless bits of misinformation and paranoia in this clip, a few stood out:
1--equating repealing the Bush tax cuts with socialism!
2--that Hillary associated in college with America's enemies!! (the sociology dept.?)
oh, and did blockhead mention that she is "ambitious"?--surely a 1st for a presidential candidate.
Alinsky teaches how power may be used. Unlike Machiavelli, his pupil is not the prince but the people.
...A sharing of power, thinks Alinsky, is what democracy is all about. Where power is lacking, so are hope and happiness. ... Nor does he confine his tactics to the traditionally underprivileged. Although he has largely helped the very poor, he has begun to teach members of the alienated middle classes how to use power to combat increasingly burdensome taxes and pollution - from the Saul Alinsky link in the MMFA article.
So Power to the People is what Alinsky is all about and yet Hannity says this: Clearly following in the path of Alinsky and others like him, Hillary has picked her target, frozen, personalized and polarized it, except this time the intended target is you, the American voter.
Holy Crap! Hillary may also want the United States to join the rest of the Industrialized World and provide healthcare for all its citizens....eeeeeek!
sounds good on paper. If someone eats a diet of grease sugar and bleached white flour do they deserve "healthcare" ? What health care really is in this country is: diagnose and prescribe pharmaceuticals to mask the symptoms of degenerative disease. Education on cutting edge nutrition and eating like a human being instead of a hog going to slaughter should be a priority. SICKO the movie is incomplete. Drugs can't take the place of nutrients that are not in the food supply and the soil in this country. I do not want my tax money going toward someone that is killing themself with non food foods. I will pay for education to teach this person that the standard American diet (SAD) will kill them and cell ready solutomic nutrition is the answer* (* Dr Linus Pauling. 99% of all diseases are caused by mineral deficiencies. And there is imperical scientific and anticdotal evidence that establishes this as fact). But as Epictetus once said: It is impossible to teach somebody something they think they already know. There is conspiracy in this country by the AMA and the FDA to outlaw nutritional supplements and Americans need to wake up or they will be taking a dirt nap way before their time.
anecdotal
JASPER:
There is always room to improve one's diet, but on aggregate, if what you say is TRUE, then the trends we are seeing in health, longevity, and mortality would be REVERSED from what we see in America.
Americans eat what they eat, and you seem to think out diet is deadly, and that "pharmaceuticals" only MASK dread diseases.
How, then, are American's life expectancies increasing dramatically? And where is the evidence that a lifelong of "eating well" dramatically increases the quality of life for a person?
Sure, there may be a farm woman in Okinawa who eats only fish and rice who lives to be 120. But who's to say her life is superior to an ad exec or auto worker who dies at 90, after eating pork and ice cream?
The doctor says, "You have to give up smoking and drinking and sex."
You, "Will I live forever if I do?"
The doctor, "No, but it will just SEEM like it."
Jasper, I must assume that you are self insured; otherwise, you're already paying for people like that through your insurance premiums...plus making yacht payments for the CEO of your insurance company.
Enjoy.
... and ration it arbitrarily without regard to merit just as all these socialist paradises do.
Get real. People die by the thousands in these socialized medical systems waiting for care that is in short supply. The choice of who dies is random and has no bearing on the patient's individual merits. This is no improvement over what is done here, and from society's perspective, is actually an inferior system.
Would you care to back up your assertion that thousands die in countries with socialized medicine waiting for treatment meanwhile back in 02 a study said 18,000 people in the US died for lack of access to healthcare
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm
WASHINGTON — More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.
The 193-page report, "Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late," examines the plight of 30 million — one in seven — working-age Americans whose employers don't provide insurance and who don't qualify for government medical care.
About 10 million children lack insurance; elderly Americans are covered by Medicare.
That number is NOW closer to 45 million without health insurance.
I love the concluding line from the clip, "the thesis is written in her own words" !!!! as opposed to . . .?
By the way, is that "The Exorcist" music in the background?
Hannity: a clown and propagandist for all time.
We did not need Hannity to tell us that Hillary is a Gramsci Socialist. She has already promised forced preK for all students...
What is so new about that? The CPUSA supported Bill, and John Kerry too.
Hillary is a political animal; a panderer and liar and Media Matters is biased in this if they do not admit it.
HILLARY IS A COMMUNIST WHO WANTS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE FOR ALL.
We don't want Hillary or her wacky Marxist schemes. She will do or say anything to get elected.
hey nl 207 she would tske profits to begin to seek energy alternatives. the primary goal of government is to provide safety and avoid exploitation of its citizens. we do it via regulation and laws,you repubs duo it via theofacsism. remember a group called haliburton, fine bunch of fellows. be interested to know what was the subject of your COLLEGE thesis .
As if there aren't enough other reasons for me to be p*ssed off at our media, I find myself almost defending HC every few weeks,they're that bad.
I think Hillary's biggest mistake here was not finding another word instead of "take". This was all over righty radio a few weeks ago, and theyreally directed the dittoheads brains to the word "TAKE".
I heard the line more in the sense of somebody at their job saying "I'm going to take this cash left over from the Company picnic, and put it into petty cash for the Xmas party."
Give the wingnut media credit, though. Across this nation, they.ve got many of our fellow Americans drinking generic beer and eating Hamburger Helper so they can put gas in their tanks, then freaking out that Clinton wants to "steal" from the Oil Companies.
As if there aren't enough other reasons for me to be p*ssed off at our media, I find myself almost defending HC every few weeks,they're that bad. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am with you how annoying is THAT?
The only hateful thing is Hillary with her army of people to control what was said about her husband. Talk about hate -- they actually did things to people like steal their FBI files...
Yes, Hannity is right. We CANNOT, under any circumstances, return to the booming economy of the 1990's. That would just be torture. The balanced budgets were the worst. Can you remember the days when we were not adding huge amounts onto the National Debt for future generations to pay later? I know I was horrified. I mean, a barrel of oil was only $12 in 1998! $12!?!?! Just imagine what they did the the CEO's of big oil. They probably had to settle for the 200 foot long yacht that Christmas instead of the 215 footer.
All the jobs being created...the stock markets tripling in value...it was the worst period in the history of our country.
Man, be afraid of the Clintons. Be VERY afraid.
http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm
CLINTON: It's time for a new beginning ... time to reject the idea of an on-your-own society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. ...
Nothing but empty rhetoric. Would make a warm and cozy leftist Bumper Sticker if it were a little shorter.
Shared prosperity would be Bill and Hillary direct depositing $1000 a week into each of our checking accounts. Other than that, I'd have to ask Hillary, what's your plan other than pretty words?
CLINTON: When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.
Like investing $1,000 in cattle futures Hillary?
Talk about empty rhetoric so your rebuttal to Hillary making broad statements like most politicians do in speeches is unless they give away all their money they shouldnt talk about the common good? Man you have GOT to be kidding.
TAZ:
I hear you about that "empty rhetoric".
On the campaign trail, GW Bush said he would be the candidate of 'tough love.' He explained, "The men and women in uniform understand that if you break the law, there will be a consequence, in order to have a safe country ..." Sep 20, 2000.
Who knew that, in PRACTICE, this would mean letting 4 counts CONVICTED FELON Scooter Libby off the hook?
this dialogue seems to have been displaced onto some rivalry between posters.
--which is fine.
But I'd like to keep the focus on just how insane this Hannity clip is. It's important we don't lose sight of this amidst bickering back and forth.
forgive me if, in reply to Hannity's accusations against Hillary, I make a rather obvious (but easily overlooked) point:
college is a place where you encounter often controversial views. Sometimes one agrees with those views in later life; at other times one grows out of them. Writing a thesis, choosing a topic for the thesis, should never be equated with an act of political advocacy.
As I say, these are VERY obvious points. Still, they seem to be WAY beyond Hannity's feeble mind.
Hannity can’t seem to tolerate any thought or idea that is not conservative. If it is non-conservative it is “liberal” or worse and should be contained. Heaven forbid we tax corporations to fulfill societal needs that corporations are not designed to address. If you bring that one up, you are a vile and evil socialist.
Hannity has such a low tolerance for diversity of thought – he has his own version of political correctness, as do many conservatives. He also has no faith in the resilience of our system. Imagine, a moderate democrat like Clinton poses a threat to our free market globalized system! And to think, it all started with that term paper!
Does the militarization of America as orchestrated by lobbyists, Neoconservatives, etc. with the industry funded by our tax dollars connote socialism?
Hey, this is off topic but I just read Bush commuted Libby's prison sentence but left the $.25M fine intact.
Yeah, they're not getting any more bashful with their corruption, are they?
Silly me there for a moment I thought the rule of law actually applied to the Bush administration too.
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred.
And this little post got lost.
Have you ever noticed that we never hear the rightwing scream about socialism when middle class tax dollars are used to subsidize fat corporations including war profiteering on a no bid contract by the VP's former company. No its only when tax dollars from corporations or the wealthy are used to help promote the general welfare that the screams begin. Whats up with that?
Pay attention, Solon. Giving our money to big corporations and the very wealthy is a no-lose deal, as they just want the money to create jobs and give it back to us through the robust economy that's produced by a small group of people hoarding all of the assets of the country .
That's the way I heard it, anyway.
Now, giving that dough to the poor folks and kids, that's another story. There just going to spend it on food.How does that help me?
I just want to do a survey. I have not read any of the previous 75 posts and this is just for curiosity sake. How many of you here would consider yourselves Socialists or at least have leanings toward socialism?
I promise I have no ill will or malcontent in mind even though I am conservative therefore I am evil.
http://www.runswiftwhippets.com/Funny/Governments.html
I'm in favor of certain socialist ideas. I haven't made a big study of all its pemutations. I do not favor helicopter socialism, i.e. ignorant actions by ignorant people.