Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
I don’t know how many times you have to hear stuff like this ...
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, June 06, 2007

But I intend to keep making it visible:



“[B]ecause an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. and that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground. The same with energy. You know, we can’t keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil and the need to deal with global warming and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God’s creation and just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

(HT: ST)
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"and that means something has to be taken away from some people"

And we all get to use our own definitions of "some people", and we are encouraged to think it is someone else, usually the rich folks. As the old political saying goes, "Don’t tax me, don’t tax thee, tax that guy behind the tree". In reality, the situation is, as Pogo might say, "I have met some people, and they are us".
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
She sure likes taking from people in the name of the greater good.

Anybody see the Democrat debate. When asked how he would pay for universal health care, John Edwards responded that he would repeal Bushs tax cuts on everyone from $200,000 and up. Why $200,000 John? Be a leader and show that your willing to do what you want others to do, drop it to $150,000 and I might listen. I still think that your going to screw the economy, but don’t take some nice round number just above the paycheck you take from people.
 
Written By: tonto
URL: http://
The bizarre part is that if she were to debate a Republican opponent, and he were to bring up all these "taking" quotes and the other quotes where she reveals her ambition to be Big Sister, she and her handlers would complain about the "unfairness" of the Republican "attack machine."
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
Her unspoken premise is the one that I fear the most. That is that she is just the one who will decide who should take and who should be taken from.

 
Written By: vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb.blogspot.com
Notice, also, that the premise that she uses as regards health care, is arguably false;

“[B]ecause an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact.
While that may or may not be true, we are asked to make the assumption that they are dying more easily because they are uninsured. We never hear the question asked "is this higher death rate due to lack of insurance, or lack of smarts as regards other lifestyle choices? "

It’s little clues like that that give lied to the overall position she takes.

Make no mistake, my friends; what she’s pushing here is socialism. There’s no other word for it, that is more accurate.

There are many who will not want to hear this. Then again, bats tend to prefer the dark.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Make no mistake, my friends; what she’s pushing here is socialism.
I’m pretty much with Bit on this one. If you look at Hillary’s top-to-bottom pontificating on domestic issues, it’s pretty clear her early leftism has stuck with her for life. It may occasionally be moderated by the demands of pragmaticism, but her goals look to me to be explicitly socialist.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I thought she was supposed to be bright. I’d expect a bright socialist to be a bit more covert in her language selection. Perhaps say "and that means we’re going to be asking some people to give a little more." It would be a lie since she intends to take it, but it sounds better and would raise fewer eyebrows. So either she’s not that bright or she thinks overt socialism will carry the day.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
It’s pretty funny how Sen. Clinton wishes "some people" to sacrifice for the greater good after you think about what her ideal trade policy probably looks like. I’m sure the greater good would have to sacrifice to protect "some people".
 
Written By: CJ
URL: http://
because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact
SO the insured never die?

I’M GONNA LIVE FOREVER! WOOOOHOOO!

And I’ll live long enough to see this socialist will never get elected.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
She’s not dumb. Notice that she got applause for it.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
SO the insured never die?
That’s only true in hospitals, shark. So, hang around hospitals, and you’ll live forever.

Apparently, doctors in hospitals check patients for insurance, and give lousy care to those without insurance. I don’t know whether this check is made before or after they check the patient for clean underwear.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
"that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf"

Hillary and her friends will not be giving up anything. Not a chance. The nomenklatura never does.
 
Written By: pst314
URL: http://
I thought she was supposed to be bright. I’d expect a bright socialist to be a bit more covert in her language selection
Synova’s response is correct.

However, it goes somewhat deeper than this; there is most certainly an element of the socialist which says "words mean whatever I say they mean". definitions, after all, are soooooo limiting. See, when the definitions of words are not important, neither are your word choices. In such an environment, you can use words to make people feel good about what you’re saying, regardless of what it is you’re saying. A primary example; "invest in America". Another; "Fairness", and so on.

These points are certainly not unique to Hillary Clinton. But she is one of the worst examples.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider