Hillary Clinton Communist Quotes Quiz
Written by Brandon Henak on October 17, 2007 – 1:27 pm - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
The title gives it away but, here is a quick quiz a family member recently sent me (links to the quotes at the bottom):
“A little history lesson: If you don’t know the answer make your best guess. Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it?
1) “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above
2) “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few…and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.”
A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above
3) “(We)…can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”
A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Jose f Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above
4) “We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own..in order to create this common ground.”
A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above
5) “I certainly think the free-market has failed.”
A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above
6) “I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.”
A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above
Answers:
(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005″
As is the danger with most quotes, they are not fully understood until they are in context so, here are the links to the transcripts and speeches:
1. AP (Snopes)
2. Hillary Clinton Campaign Site
3. CNN
4. CNN
5. CNN
6. Washington Post
Sidenote: Hillary has also been in the news lately for supposedly eavesdropping on her husband’s opponents. We’ll see how it progresses before further comment.
Last 5 posts by Brandon Henak- A Biblical Account of the Obama - Messiah's Journey to the Holy Land - July 25th, 2008
- Poll: Who will be McCain's choice for Vice President? - July 21st, 2008
- Spine Tingling YouTube "Freedom" Narrated by Fred Thompson - July 20th, 2008
- Wednesday Hero: Cpt. Jamie Riddle - June 18th, 2008
- Obama and Che: A matching set? - June 17th, 2008
Posted in 2008 Election Coverage, Beyond the Facade |
October 17th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
[...] GOP3.com [...]
October 17th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
How gullible can you be?
Actual story of these quotes, and how they’ve been doctored to sucker in gullible people, is at
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/hoax-quote-collections-quote-mining-hillary-clinton/
Your blog has a supporting role in the post
October 17th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I think a similar list could be compiled to prove that Jesus was a Socialist too. Certainly the Christian community described in Acts was.
HRC is no saint; much less is she another Jesus, but if they are both Socialists …
sean s.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Wow. These are all fabrications? If that’s so, it’s the second time this month Brandon has posted something based on fabricated stuff he found on the internet. Check out: http://gop3.com/2007/10/08/policies-progressing-towards-socialism/
sean s.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Thank you Ed but, I was fully aware of the source of the quotes as I listed the sources from the snopes article. I believe however, that they are representative of what she thinks and that many of your windy diatribes about the quotes end up stating that they are correctly quoted but, you agree with her when in context.
She supports taking “things away from you on behalf of the common good”, redistributing wealth with 5k baby savings bonds, national healthcare and many other social programs.
The quotes are accurate, context is given, it is obvious that Hillary and the rest of the left is pushing America ever-closer to socialism.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Thanks Sean but, none of them are fabrications. They are all things she said. If you truely believe the supposed Tytler quote is a fabrication they must be teaching a different definition of fabrication in law school. Here is the definition according to dictionary.com:
Fabrication
–noun 1. the act or process of fabricating; manufacture.
2. something fabricated, esp. an untruthful statement: His account of the robbery is a complete fabrication.
These quotes are all actual quotes. Not fabricated. The Tytler quote included a disclaimer that stated it “has been attributed to many authors” therefore, it was not an attempt at fabrication.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
You could pull quotes out of context to prove almost anything about almost anyone. Can’t you make an honest argument?
October 17th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
If you believe them to be representative of what Sen. Clinton thinks, why not quote her words instead of yours. Writing a false script to put words in the mouth of those we disagree with is hardly sporting.
Several of the quotes are fabrications, to the extent that a few dozen words, or whole sentences are chopped out. That’s really bad form.
And, to take her quote where she says we have too many abortions, and make it appear she’s saying something against free markets, is just slimy.
It’s especially slimy considering in the transcript she specifically extols the virtues of free market economics, in the appropriate places.
It’s not your beliefs you claim to be representing, but those of U.S. Senator, a candidate for president. If you can’t let her speak for herself, then identify the quotes as your imaginings of what you believe she believes, and note that she says differently.
The appropriate thing to do would be to apologize for not checking up on the quotes better. Since you know purchase them for your own, it is your honor on the line.
Those quotes are fabrications. Retract them.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
“Thank you Ed but, I was fully aware of the source of the quotes as I listed the sources from the snopes article.”
So, basically, Brandon…you’re saying that you posted this out-of-context crap with the full knowledge that it was out-of-context crap, because it represents what you think we should think she believes?
That sound you hear is the death-rattle of my respect for your political beliefs. Until now I could at least pretend you were naive enough not to notice the Machiavellian tactics being used by the Repubs, but boy was I wrong. You fully condone them…and I can’t think of much more immoral than that.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
“If you believe them to be representative of what Sen. Clinton thinks, why not quote her words instead of yours.”
I did quote hers. I did not make any of these up they are straight from the links I posted.
“And, to take her quote where she says we have too many abortions, and make it appear she’s saying something against free markets, is just slimy.”
If she believes there are too many abortions, why is she a poster child for planned parenthood? The free market didn’t fail them, Roe v Wade did.
“Several of the quotes are fabrications, to the extent that a few dozen words, or whole sentences are chopped out. That’s really bad form.”
Several of the quotes ???? There are only 6! The majority are direct and three of them are taken from rush manuscripts anyways so the person who put this together may be just as accurate as the rush transcript.
“So, basically, Brandon…you’re saying that you posted this out-of-context crap with the full knowledge that it was out-of-context crap, because it represents what you think we should think she believes?”
No, I posted it because I read the quotes, she said them and the sources are there. They are not fabricated.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Another example of her thinking:
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own†society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society†really is an “on your own†society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,†she said.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4230.html
October 17th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Your link for the first quote doesn’t cite anything by any Clinton. There isn’t anything approaching that quote there.
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
You didn’t bother to even check the links!
October 17th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
But in citing quotes, it wasn’t Roe that failed. It wasn’t Clinton who failed. It was you. According to your quiz, there isn’t even a quote on the abortion issue there. Your quiz asks who said it, “a.) Marx b.) Lenin c.) Molotov.”
Intentionally misleading. Your quote is just wrong. Retract it. Take it down.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
The quotes are not wrong, there are links for the context. I corrected the 1st link, thank you for pointing it out to me. I appreciate all your contributions but, when Hillary is pushing Socialized Medicine, 5,000 savings accounts for babies and many other socialized policies, it’s quite obvious even in the context I provided that she would bring this nation closer to socialism.
I provided the email, cited it as such and included the links for context.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:31 am
“No, I posted it because I read the quotes, she said them and the sources are there. They are not fabricated.”
They are not fabricated, but they are wildly out of context. Basically, you’re saying you didn’t lie…you merely strongly implied the lie was true. Wow, what a moral distinction.
Not to mention that you specifically posted those quotes in quiz form, drawing flat-out laughable implicit comparisons between Hilary and dictators. From a man who is frequently bemoaning comparisons drawn between Bush and dictators, one would think you would then have the decency not to turn around and do the exact same thing–not to mention strongly DEFEND said about-face–when it’s your side doing the smearing.
Were I running for office, I could say: “You know, I really hate some Christians. Not all of them, just the ones who yell insults and heap hellfire on me because I don’t think like them. Most of them are perfectly civil and really good people, but people like Fred Phelps or Ann Coulter are just hateful, hateful self-righteous jerks. I could never believe in a God who condones that kind of bad behavior.” And you could then quote me as follows: “I really hate Christians.” Technically, I did say those words–I even said them in the same sentence. But is that still a complete misrepresentation of what I said? Obviously. (Unless, of course, I’m a liberal. Then it’s okay because indubitably I do believe that, I’m just not saying it directly, so the quote must be on some level accurate.)
Swift Boat Brandons for Truth.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:37 am
“If she believes there are too many abortions, why is she a poster child for planned parenthood? The free market didn’t fail them, Roe v Wade did.”
Overturning Roe will not stop abortions, it will simply make them less safe…not to mention force many victims of rape, incest, or debilitating conditions brought on by pregnancy to carry to term. Boy, what a service to us women!
The way to reduce abortions is by reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies by giving our kids the information they need to make informed decisions about sex (that means the failed program of abstinence-only non-education has to go) and giving women with unplanned pregnancies full and fair information about ALL their options. Only then will abortions be what they should be–rare, but safe.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:58 am
1. “Swift Boat Brandons for Truth” Sorry, I don’t see the comparison.
2. I provided the context for the quotes in the links, you are more than welcome to go read the whole CNN transcripts, AP stories etc.
Look, the quiz format is from an email, as I clearly stated. I also plainly laid out the links to all the quotes. The context is there but, since you can’t seem to click through the links, I will be responding with another post to Ed’s original post that supposedly “outs” people. Even if you read the quotes in context, the meaning is still there.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
No. Hillary Clinton never attacks the free enterprise system. You may not like antitrust enforcement, but it’s the fulcrum of the system, and her support of regulation to keep the fulcrum workable is not socialism in any respect.
The quotes are wildly, wildly out of context. The editing is unfair, and it changes the meanings of the quotes. Were you to turn in a paper to most colleges of any repute giving these quotes with the citations you offer, it would be grounds for dismissal from the college.
I don’t think academic crimes are excusable merely because they are academic. If we cannot have honesty, what’s the rest worth?
October 18th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Hillary Clinton never attacks the free enterprise system? Seriously? What is her health care stance? Here is her webpage (that way you can claim I am misqouting anything)
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx
To me, and a good number of people most ideas she has involve her minpulating the free enterprise system. Even below is a qoute from Hillary on that free markets should be really free.
“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.”
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1839
Now i’m not debating whether or not she is right but “I don’t think academic crimes are excusable merely because they are academic. If we cannot have honesty, what’s the rest worth”
October 18th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Ed - I disagree, even when you read the whole transcripts (through the links I provided my readers) , her general socialist bent is quite obvious. She wants to socialize healthcare, give 5k of government money to every baby born and continually make more and more Americans rely on government wealth redistribution rather than themselves. American independence and self-reliance is what made this country great, not baby bonds, higher taxes and socialized healthcare from the government.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Interesting use of quotes. As long as taking stuff out of context is fair game, here’s a quote from Brandon:
“She supports pushing America ever-closer to The free market. Now i’m not debating whether or not she is right but She wants American independence and self-reliance baby bonds, higher taxes and socialized healthcare from the government.”
Clearly, Brandon is a big fan of Hillary Clinton’s!
October 19th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Better one, Ryan:
“Thank you for pointing out to me all your contributions. Hillary is pushing many policies, it’s quite obvious that she would bring this nation independence and self-reliance. She is what made this country great.”
Brandon said every single one of those words and phrases in this thread (in only two posts, no less!) so they must be accurate quotes, right? I mean, he even said those words in the order I grouped them…
I read the context, Brandon. If I hadn’t, I wouldn’t consider myself informed enough to pass judgment. But since I did read the context, I feel perfectly justified in calling you an equivocator.
Incidentally, for a man who has no issues throwing increasing amounts of government money away on abstinence-only “education” which study after study has shown does worse than nothing to stop teen sex or abortions, not to mention the huge and increasingly pointless money pit known as the Iraq conflict (not a war, note), you seem oddly eager to attack Hilary for wasting government money. I’m no Hilary cheerleader, but at least her spending policies could conceivably help people.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Baby bonds didn’t make this country great? Tell it to Arkansas Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller and Attorney General Win Rockefeller, Jr., New York Gov. and Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, and West Virginia Attorney General, Gov. and Sen. Jay Rockefeller. Tell it to any kid who gets college paid by parents. Passing wealth like that has made millions of Americans better citizens, and America is better off for it. Doing it for millions more Americans would probably benefit even more Americans, both directly and indirectly. Think “GI Bill;” by your criteria, boosting the education of a few million veterans didn’t do anything for America. Read Tom Brokaw’s book, The Greatest Generation, and you’ll understand differently. Incidentally, Hillary is for boosting GI education benefits, too, in the face of Republican cuts for veterans benefits.
Helping veterans is one more way you’re going to say America didn’t grow, right?
Self-reliance? Balderdash. America has been built on government give-aways — homesteading, Land Grant Colleges, transcontinental railroad, coal, oil and gas extraction, timber harvesting — all government give-aways.
You promised a lesson in history. You could use a few yourself.
October 20th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Agreed Ed
October 20th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Nice try Ryan, but if you going at least take Brandon out of context use his words, not mine.
October 20th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
“Passing wealth like that has made millions of Americans better citizens, and America is better off for it. Doing it for millions more Americans would probably benefit even more Americans, both directly and indirectly. Think “GI Bill;†by your criteria, boosting the education of a few million veterans didn’t do anything for America. Read Tom Brokaw’s book, The Greatest Generation, and you’ll understand differently. Incidentally, Hillary is for boosting GI education benefits, too, in the face of Republican cuts for veterans benefits.”
I have no problem with people passing their money to their family, I have a problem with the government redistributing wealth. The GI Bill doesn’t fit in this category as I see it as a necessary benefit for our soldiers in uniform who are protecting this country. Handing out $5,000 to every baby born is totally different. You should not get money just for being born unless your parents earned and saved it.
Our government continues to become the parents of millions of kids, taking away tthe need to support kids with welfare and now taking away the need to provide healthcare for kids with middle class SCHIP (thanks to Bush for defeating that one) and eventually nationalized healthcare. We don’t need a nanny state that pays for baby bonds, healthcare, welfare and retirement. We need citizens who have to learn to save their own money, provide for their children and make America a better place through private industry not government intervention.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
“We need citizens who have to learn to save their own money, provide for their children and make America a better place through private industry not government intervention.”
I was born into an upper-middle class family that lives below its means, worked summers and Sundays in high school, and I’m still going to have to work my way through grad school because my parents can’t afford it. My significantly less fortunate boyfriend works ten hours a week and is still barely making it, not to mention he had to incur significant loans to get here in the first place. Were it not for government money, he would not be able to get a college education, period, dooming him to a crappy, low-pay job and his children to similarly dire straits. And your response is to say, too bad, kid, that’s your fault? For shame.
I’d love to see you justify that one. Or, for that matter, to explain how a child has “earned” or “deserved” its parents’ money any more than a child has “earned” a government bond.
October 21st, 2007 at 1:35 am
“Were it not for government money, he would not be able to get a college education, period, dooming him to a crappy, low-pay job and his children to similarly dire straits. And your response is to say, too bad, kid, that’s your fault? For shame.”
Hmm. I think you’re putting words in my mouth or making insinuations. I have no problem with scholarships for those who need them. In fact, that is one of the reasons I make donations, because I believe there should be need based scholarships, especially for those who not only need them but work hard and get good grades.
As far as generational wealth goes, I believe it is a bit of a dangerous thing in that it can spoil some and be a very positive influence on others. Regardless, I think a parent that works hard has every right to pass on their wealth to those they love. I never said anything like “too bad kid it’s your fault”, I think we need to realize that everything we do today effects not only ourselves but, our children in the future. If we want to leave them with money or put them through certain schools, we have to make certain sacrifices or work certain jobs.
It’s just a fact of life, you can’t go through life doing anything and expect the government to take care of your children’s higher education , healthcare, well being (welfare), and retirement. It’s detrimental for all of society to allow a nanny state that frees parents from their responsibility to take care of their children and do their best to prepare for “themselves and their posterity”.
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:09 am
The reason wealth redistribution doesn’t work is that it eliminates the incentive to work and produce that exists when people are allowed to keep the fruits of their labor, to provide for themselves and their families…be it for their children’s college or anything else. It is that incentive that builds the economy by producing more goods and services, creating jobs and opportunities and producing enough surplus that supporting those that cannot support themselves does not snowball into a culture of taxpayer funded government handouts that result in a society of the super rich and the government dependent.
It’s easy to see why government wealth distribution is popular with such a broad spectrum of people. There is the support from the rich who want to sound caring when they support government handouts and wealth redistribution while they remain unaffected because their contribution through taxes isn’t enough to affect their lifestyle. Then there is the support form a growing number of the middle class who are paying so much to finance handouts, but don’t want to say someone shouldn’t get them (that would be mean) but instead say they should get them too. It’s also a wider base of support to say “give it to me too†instead of “let me keep mine.†Most troubling though, government handouts are popular with those who have found government wealth redistribution handouts more profitable than working enough to support themselves. The choice between becoming finically independent to support their families and/or themselves through enough hard work vs. choosing not to and getting others to pay through the government has been a sufficiently easy choice for enough people to negatively affect us all.
The ever increasing taxation for government handouts (and other outrageous spending) especially harms people who come from the lower economic classes, like me, that are trying just to reach the middle class lifestyle but are finding it ever more difficult to reach because of higher taxes that the middle class ends up paying. This level of taxation the middle class carries also establishes a disincentive for others to even try to become self sufficient perpetuating a culture of taxpayer funded government handouts.
All of these wealth redistribution supporters are in addition to the people that actually do need taxpayer funded handouts because they are incapable of taking care of themselves.
It is going to take society, not politicians, making the distinction between those in need from those that don’t that is going to get politicians, like Hillary and others, to do something other than telling (insert ANY audience) they are going to be the ones who will come out ahead with wealth distribution in order to get elected and is going to enable us to make real progress against government dependency, perpetual poverty, and leaving the ever shrinking middle class financially handicapped from footing the bill. FOr those that can support themselves but are not managing to need tools, not wealth redistibution.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Damn straight! Rules — like antitrust rules. Surely you don’t advocate that we NOT have fair competition in free markets, do you? Antitrust is one of the key tools we have to make free markets work at all.
It’s one thing to complain about specific rules and regulations, but quite another to simply say you oppose all rules (which I’m assuming, since in that quoted phrase Sen. Clinton says nothing other than some few rules are required), which makes you close to an anarchist, doesn’t it?
Anarchy is worse than free markets, even and especially Hillary Clinton-regulated free markets.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:27 am
As much as I’d like to see a woman president, I don’t trust Hillary as far as I can throw her.