She tries that stunt as el-Presidente and we’ll have to have a 21st-century version of the Boston Tea Party.
Yep, that graphic is included in this == http://youtube.com/watch?v=t6lc17H35lA
She and Hugo Chavez are ready to form the Pan American Collectivist Union.
She can have all my stuff I will acquire from here on. It’s all being made in China: pet food, clothes, ink cartridges. If she can get it away from China without paying for it, she is welcome to it.
“These tenants are especially true at the federal level with any nation.”
Tenants - I never trust the spell checker.
Let’s take away her power and political future for the common good!
That being said, this wench doesn't scare me. We've had worse (Wilson, Roosevelt, the Johnsons, etc.).
Firstly, that's a lie. Things are taken first and foremost to benefit politicians.
Secondly, even if the motivation were accurate, not everyone agrees what the "common good" actually is. Young men are drafted for the common good--in the opinion of those who run the government. The young men may not agree that they are serving the common good by going to war.
Thirdly, even if the motivation is to serve the common good, and even if the "taking" actually does serve the common good, the takers have no right to take what does not belong to them. If they did, then every thief and common criminal could justify his crimes at trial with the logical equivalent justification that he had greater need of whatever it was he stole than did his victim. It is intellectually dishonest for politicians to use the same invalid excuse that our courts disallow in the case of thieves, robbers and burglars.
Does anybody have the text of this “common good” statement—in context?
I’d love to see what else Shrillery was saying.
When will the elite walk the walk?
Never.
Hypocrites all, they mouth a doctrine and philosophy for others they would never take upon themselves.
Thank you for posting this. I’ve been afraid that no one remembers her very frightening comments at that event. This needs to be broadcast far and wide.
And welcome to FreeRepublic.
During the 1964 presidential election campaign Lyndon Johnson said something almost identical to this Clintonian assertion. I haven’t been able to find it by surfing the net.
LBJ’s stated his intention something like, “We want to take from you money that is being spent unwisely and spend it more appropriately.” I thought at the time that this was an exquisite expression of the Socialist Manifesto.
Tell me!! Am I the only one here to whom this sounds suspiciously like "From each according to his ability - to each according to his need?"
Could it be that I am being overly suspicious of the motives of these people? Go right ahead. If you think that I'm being overly suspiciously, please go ahead and nail my ass.
Mrs. Bill Clinton has probably had it removed.
Epistle Albert Gore Jr. has expressed a number of bourgeois traits that need to be curtailed. Urban sprawl, bigger cars, modern agriculture practices, what have you. Anything that has made America powerful and comfortable has to be scrapped.
Starting new business has never been more difficult. New products have to run an obstacle course of red tape. Somewhere a small group of people weld enough influence to bridle the American economy. These committees have decided that there is too much consumerism, there are too many trains running, too many planes flying, too many ships at sea, too many automobiles, too many vacation trips, too many guns, too many rich diets. Americans are just going to have to accept the idea that they need to live in mass housing and ride mass transit. By taking things for the common good will bring a planed economic collapse. The people will be told and convinced that it is a good thing. The rich are being marginalized. The new rich and will be those corrupt officials in government.
When Bill Clinton was in Buffalo a few years ago he was talking about the govt. surplus and tax cuts and he said that he wouldn’t give tax cuts because we wouldn’t spend it on the right things.
Unless,of course,a loophole is written into the legislation...or unless she makes some secret moves before the legislation is enacted.
Yeah, okay. Getting a creepy feeling. Kinda like the one my ancestors must have had before they fled Lenin, and others...
But if I remember my Marxist/Leninist crap correctly, isn't that phrase in a larger commentary on 'each giving according to his means'. In which case I politely bow and step back and wait for her to lead by example. She has more than most of us, so she has more to give, right?
Of course, I won't hold my breath. I'm still a bit aghast that she actually said that to Americans during her bid for the presidency. She d@mn well wants to be our very own Lenin or Pol Pot or Chavez. Shudder.