Act II

That story is quite humerous posted right over your signature.

 

I don't think that tears will have the same effect this time. Obama has major momentum heading into tomorrow.

I do think her tears were quite real. She had been told for months that her winning the Democratic Party nomination was a sure thing. Now it is not a sure thing and may be slipping away from her. Also, she has been campaigning non-stop. As the old saying goes, fatigue makes cowards of us all.

 

Ken, you need to stop saying these things, they are too logical. Don't you know that many here only look for ways to criticize Hillary every chance they get. And God knows, she is not allowed to be human at all!

 

Especially given the fact that this quote was taken out of context.....

 

Okay........ I'll bite.... which quote and how was it out of context? I'm sure your dying to enlighten us.

 

I think poor Hillary is exhausted and needs several months of vacation. That should strengthen her and get her out of her mood.

 

Carpro is not only correct in his reply, he is brazen is his misrepresentation of what was said. Most likely, carpro received that laughable email that is circulating the Net.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

Carpro knows that the quote he is using is taken out of context.

Happy Tuesday,
BiR

 

Can you spell "P-H-O-N-E-Y"?

My thoughts exactly!

Will Sen. Hillary Clinton manage to literally "cry her way into the Oval Office"?

To me, at least, it certainly appears possible!

Ed

 

Thumbs down for all of Act II!

FTR, I have read every word in the "Snopes" article.

The supposed 'lack of context' changes little, in this, IMO.

I am no more satisfied with this now, than before.

I freely admit to being fully in favor of the freedom of my choices, including the freedom to fail, and free enterprise, which gives me the freedom to succeed, as well.

None of this spoken by Sen. Hillary Clinton, even in complete context, is very conducive to that view!

Ed

 

Personally, I could almost wish for about 5 years of vacation for everyone still currently running for the office of President of the United States. The best options from my POV gained almost no traction, or did not even run.
They would be Gov. Bill Richardson, or former Sen. Sam Nunn , as Democrats, and former Sen. Fred Thompson, Rep. Duncan Hunter, and Sen. Sam Brownback, as Republicans.

Given the remaining (official) choices between Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barak Obama, and Sen. Mike Gravel, as Democrats, and Sen. John McCain, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Gov. Mitt Romney, Rep. Ron Paul, and Amb. Alan Keyes, as Republicans, I would have to say, and even this is with great reservation, Gov. Romney and/or Gov. Huckabee, then possibly Amb. Keyes are the best of a remaining sorry lot, IMO. FTR, the worst of the lot is Sen. Gravel!
>
>
>
>
>
Wait!! I just had an idea on the vacation!

Make that vacation 9 years!

Ed

 

That being the case, then you know this quote is being taken out of context.

Regards,
BiR

 

There is no context in which would change the intent. It is a marxist statement it is part of the communist agenda and that will never change.

 

It is NOT a Marxist statement. You just don't know when to quit, do you?

 

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is the quote to which you are referring-

as opposed to your own, also out of context (and I'll add, incorrect), tag-line of

, the posted part of the quote is given by 'Snopes', as follows

You might note that even 'Snopes' elides something in the first sentence in their quote. So even this supposed 'rebuttal' is somewhat out of context, is it not? The event was (according to 'Snopes') one where

Hold it!

Let us stop right here and pause, shall we?

First, and foremost, neither the "Bush administration", nor the "Clinton administration", nor any other administration past, present or future, can ever be said to have "enacted" anything. That is what the Congress does, and specifically, where revenue is concerned, this originates in the House of Representatives. Not even the Senate can even start to enact any 'money bills', let alone an "administration". The maximum that the Senate can do is to not agree to the legislation, by not passing it, when it arrives in their chamber, although it usually (but not always) will amend it and somewhat compromise with the House, and afterwards, the House and Senate agreeing on the final version, and passing the bill, the "administration" can either sign, let it become law without signature, or veto said legislation, when it arrives to the hand of the President. And the Congress can then override said veto, at that, should one occur, and should Copngress then so choose.

Second, who died and by their last will and testament, willed to 'Snopes', i.e. Barbara and David P. Mikkelson, the right to decide who is or is not "relatively well-to-do"? That is their opinion, at best. I will grant that any individual (including both you and me) or group of individuals has every right to "peacefully assemble", raise funds, and support or not support, Sen. Boxer, Sen. Clinton, Sen. Thompson, or anyone else he, she, or they may choose. But that is not the same thing, is it?

Third, exactly whose desire is/was it to "repeal tax cuts that had recently been (duly) enacted by" Congress, as opposed to the deliberately misleading statement of "by the Bush administration"? That is not stated either, is it?

Fourth and fifth, as also in my second point above, who authorized Sen. Hillary Clinton to decide on who is or is not "well off enough"? She certainly seems to have made the assumption that she knows who is! Ditto with the implied assumption that she is the spokesperson for this, and that she can speak "on behalf of the common good".

FTR, to my knowledge, the Constitution never even assumes what is "the common good", not speaks to it in its pages, with the closest thing being one purpose of "We, the People ... in Order to ... promote the general welfare,", in the Preamble and is also addressed in Article I, of the Constitution.

I will grant that Sen. Clinton has the "right of 'free speech'", hence the right to give her opinion, and freely say whatever she thinks, about any subject, just as do you or I.

I strongly doubt that I would qualify as one who is/was "well off enough" to have been in that assemblage that Sen. Clinton was addressing. I am just as certain, that I would surely be considered as more than "relatively well-to-do" by the average rural citizen of Paraguay, Afghanistan, Benin, Rwanda, Chad, Vietnam, or the Central African Republic, to name a few examples. It is a matter of opinion and perspective, at best.

FTR, I think overall, that the tax cuts may have helped, not only me, but also America, in general. I have not authorized Sen. Clinton, or anyone else for that matter, to decide for me on this, as to whether or not "America needs to get back on track", or whether these proposals, in fact, are 'derailing' America. That decision is why we have a "ballot box", in a free society, I believe.

The very idea that someone else should be able to decide this for me, is straight out of the Marxist/Lenin playbook, which its modus operandi of "from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs".

That, like the partial quote attributed, is a bit "out of context", I grant. And you are also technically correct, that "this is not a Marxist statement!", by Sen. Clinton. But all the context and 'technicals' one could possibly muster, in either event, does not even begin to change the principle involved, and hence my initial response, that I do not find it at all condusive to free enterprise, and the freedom to strive to succeed, without seeing the increase of my labors taken away by someone else!

Ed

 

And by marxist I intended meant that it is marxist in nature and intent not as an exact qote. Which should have been obvious.