Marxist statements made by Hillary Clinton

There are multiple references that are all apparently true. Follow the link:

Urban Legends Reference Pages: 'Marxist' Quotes from Hillary Clinton

so do you think she is a marxist?

Without question, yes.

LOL you americans think liberals or anyone left of centre are marxists LOL

Of course they are. Did you even read the statements made by Clinton..? They were not edited, just her true words and thoughts. Marxist - yes.

Yep she's a marxist socialist leftard, here's a article on Hilary (1993) and what she stands for. I'm posting half the article because Scooby has trouble hitting the mouse button to click on links. Your welcome Scoob.

The rest here: American Thinker: Hillary Clinton: I Will Change Our Country

Part of the article:

In the spring of 1993, shortly after her husband and political benefactor Bill Clinton took office as the nation's 42nd president, Hillary Clinton delivered the commencement address at the University of Texas. In her speech, Hillary reiterated the theme that has been at the heart of her political vision from the start:
"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West."
"Remolding society." This is the terminology of a utopian socialist, one who seeks to remake society according to a narrow and dogmatic ideology that claims to eliminate injustice, poverty, and unhappiness, once and for all. Hillary's ideology is an amalgam of New Left marxism and grievance feminism, the kind of unwholesome stew that is commonplace on elite college campuses.Significantly, the term "remolding" -- unlike such terms as "reform" or "renew" -- reflects a sweeping rejection of society as it currently exists: family structure (too patriarchal), economic organization (favors the rich), social practices (discriminate against women and minorities), and so on. In other words, someone who believes that society needs to be "remolded" is someone who, at bottom, cannot see any good in the American way of life -- and someone who, if she could, would radically change that way of life. Who doubts that this describes Hillary Clinton?


Lest anyone think that a more mature and experienced Hillary Clinton has tempered her political objective, consider her recent speech in Concord, New Hampshire, at an event over Labor Day weekend that her campaign titled "Change We Need." In her speech, Hillary forthrightly declared: "I will bring my experience to the White House and begin to change our country starting on Day One." That's right: Change our country. As her official campaign website illustrates, Hillary means what she says.


Socialized Medicine


Returning to the cause celebre of her days as First Lady, Hillary's official website proclaims that "America is ready for universal health care. Hillary has the vision and the experience to make it a reality." Hillary's plan for universal health care, i.e., socialized medicine, will nationalize -- and ruin -- approximately one-seventh of the U.S. economy. As night follows day, we will see shortages, rationing, waiting lists, deteriorating facilities, less research and development, fewer of our "best and brightest" going into medicine (and more doctors imported from third-world countries), and lower quality health care for most Americans (the richest citizens, including Bill and Hillary, will be able to obtain high-quality private care). This is what has happened in Great Britain under the National Health Service.


What concerns me most, however, is the harm that socialized medicine will do to the nation's character. Socialized medicine not only will be an economic and humanitarian disaster -- it will undermine the freedom, responsibility, and independence of ordinary Americans.


On this score, socialized medicine represents a giant leap beyond the major "middle class entitlement" program, Social Security. Social Security likewise promotes an unhealthy dependency on government (and unjustly taxes current workers to pay for older citizens' retirements), but at least it allows recipients to spend their retirement checks according to their own interests and priorities.

In sharp contrast, under a regime of socialized medicine, a person's choice of doctors, procedures, medicines -- even lifestyles -- will be controlled by the government. You think HMOs are bureaucratic, impersonal, and non-responsive? Just wait until Hillary creates an HMO for the entire United States! Furthermore, under Social Security, it is possible to maintain the fiction that each recipient has "earned" his or her payment. With socialized medicine, on the other hand, the redistributionist nature of the program will be unavoidable. Every American, except for the rich, will know that he or she is "on the dole." The result will be to spread across the nation as a whole the same enervating and demoralizing "culture of dependency" that afflicts the "beneficiaries" of the welfare state.


In truth, the rich do not have enough wealth that can be expropriated to fund a national health care system. This means that taxes will have to be raised, directly or indirectly, on all Americans to pay for this program. The government thus will take everyone's dollars and decide for us how the money should be spent on health care. The net effect, therefore, will not be to redistribute wealth from "rich" to "poor" -- but to redistribute power from the people to the government. As with all liberal programs, the real goal is to replace individual freedom and responsibility with an omnipotent and paternalistic state -- under the control of a political elite ("the vanguard of the proletariat," in Lenin's terminology, which still rings true to liberal ears). Such a system of government inevitably produces subjects, not citizens.


If Americans still believe in the fundamental principles on which this country was founded -- liberty, self-reliance, and limited government -- they must resist the siren song of socialized medicine.


Sharply Limited Energy Consumption


After the health care industry, Hillary has set her sights on the energy industry, which literally drives the economy, indeed our entire way of life. Without plentiful, cheap energy -- which, despite complaints about rising gas and heating oil prices, Americans continue to possess in relative abundance -- it simply is not possible to live the kind of on-the-go, high-consumption, air-conditioned lives that Americans enjoy. Where does this energy come from? It primarily (85%) comes from fossil fuels, i.e., coal and oil and natural gas. Alternative energy sources, such as hydro, solar, wind, and biomass, cannot come close to fueling an advanced industrial and technological society like ours. Nuclear power, about which Hillary says she is "agnostic," has been neglected for so long in this country (it only supplies 8% of our total energy needs) that it cannot be part of anything but a long-term solution. The bottom line is that if we do not burn lots and lots of fossil fuels, Americans cannot continue to enjoy their high quality of life.


Hillary claims she is going to make our country "energy independent," i.e., not reliant on "foreign sources of oil." This sounds like a worthy goal, but it is not remotely plausible. That is, unless we severely restrict our consumption of energy, roughly one-third of which comes from foreign sources (mainly oil used for gasoline). The consequences of such a "belt-tightening" strategy would be to drastically reduce both the size and vitality of our economy, leading to massive unemployment and a lower standard of living.
Furthermore, Hillary's manifest belief that it is problematic for us to buy oil from Canada and Mexico, two of our three largest "foreign" suppliers, makes no sense. Indeed, the only way for the United States to buy less oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela -- the true problem --

Of course they are. Did you even read the statements made by Clinton..? They were not edited, just her true words and thoughts. Marxist - yes.

Yep she's a marxist socialist leftard, here's a article on Hilary (1993) and what she stands for. I'm posting half the article because Scooby has trouble hitting the mouse button to click on links. Your welcome Scoob.

The rest here: American Thinker: Hillary Clinton: I Will Change Our Country

Part of the article:

In the spring of 1993, shortly after her husband and political benefactor Bill Clinton took office as the nation's 42nd president, Hillary Clinton delivered the commencement address at the University of Texas. In her speech, Hillary reiterated the theme that has been at the heart of her political vision from the start:
"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West."
"Remolding society." This is the terminology of a utopian socialist, one who seeks to remake society according to a narrow and dogmatic ideology that claims to eliminate injustice, poverty, and unhappiness, once and for all. Hillary's ideology is an amalgam of New Left marxism and grievance feminism, the kind of unwholesome stew that is commonplace on elite college campuses.Significantly, the term "remolding" -- unlike such terms as "reform" or "renew" -- reflects a sweeping rejection of society as it currently exists: family structure (too patriarchal), economic organization (favors the rich), social practices (discriminate against women and minorities), and so on. In other words, someone who believes that society needs to be "remolded" is someone who, at bottom, cannot see any good in the American way of life -- and someone who, if she could, would radically change that way of life. Who doubts that this describes Hillary Clinton?


Lest anyone think that a more mature and experienced Hillary Clinton has tempered her political objective, consider her recent speech in Concord, New Hampshire, at an event over Labor Day weekend that her campaign titled "Change We Need." In her speech, Hillary forthrightly declared: "I will bring my experience to the White House and begin to change our country starting on Day One." That's right: Change our country. As her official campaign website illustrates, Hillary means what she says.


Socialized Medicine


Returning to the cause celebre of her days as First Lady, Hillary's official website proclaims that "America is ready for universal health care. Hillary has the vision and the experience to make it a reality." Hillary's plan for universal health care, i.e., socialized medicine, will nationalize -- and ruin -- approximately one-seventh of the U.S. economy. As night follows day, we will see shortages, rationing, waiting lists, deteriorating facilities, less research and development, fewer of our "best and brightest" going into medicine (and more doctors imported from third-world countries), and lower quality health care for most Americans (the richest citizens, including Bill and Hillary, will be able to obtain high-quality private care). This is what has happened in Great Britain under the National Health Service.


What concerns me most, however, is the harm that socialized medicine will do to the nation's character. Socialized medicine not only will be an economic and humanitarian disaster -- it will undermine the freedom, responsibility, and independence of ordinary Americans.


On this score, socialized medicine represents a giant leap beyond the major "middle class entitlement" program, Social Security. Social Security likewise promotes an unhealthy dependency on government (and unjustly taxes current workers to pay for older citizens' retirements), but at least it allows recipients to spend their retirement checks according to their own interests and priorities.

In sharp contrast, under a regime of socialized medicine, a person's choice of doctors, procedures, medicines -- even lifestyles -- will be controlled by the government. You think HMOs are bureaucratic, impersonal, and non-responsive? Just wait until Hillary creates an HMO for the entire United States! Furthermore, under Social Security, it is possible to maintain the fiction that each recipient has "earned" his or her payment. With socialized medicine, on the other hand, the redistributionist nature of the program will be unavoidable. Every American, except for the rich, will know that he or she is "on the dole." The result will be to spread across the nation as a whole the same enervating and demoralizing "culture of dependency" that afflicts the "beneficiaries" of the welfare state.


In truth, the rich do not have enough wealth that can be expropriated to fund a national health care system. This means that taxes will have to be raised, directly or indirectly, on all Americans to pay for this program. The government thus will take everyone's dollars and decide for us how the money should be spent on health care. The net effect, therefore, will not be to redistribute wealth from "rich" to "poor" -- but to redistribute power from the people to the government. As with all liberal programs, the real goal is to replace individual freedom and responsibility with an omnipotent and paternalistic state -- under the control of a political elite ("the vanguard of the proletariat," in Lenin's terminology, which still rings true to liberal ears). Such a system of government inevitably produces subjects, not citizens.


If Americans still believe in the fundamental principles on which this country was founded -- liberty, self-reliance, and limited government -- they must resist the siren song of socialized medicine.


Sharply Limited Energy Consumption


After the health care industry, Hillary has set her sights on the energy industry, which literally drives the economy, indeed our entire way of life. Without plentiful, cheap energy -- which, despite complaints about rising gas and heating oil prices, Americans continue to possess in relative abundance -- it simply is not possible to live the kind of on-the-go, high-consumption, air-conditioned lives that Americans enjoy. Where does this energy come from? It primarily (85%) comes from fossil fuels, i.e., coal and oil and natural gas. Alternative energy sources, such as hydro, solar, wind, and biomass, cannot come close to fueling an advanced industrial and technological society like ours. Nuclear power, about which Hillary says she is "agnostic," has been neglected for so long in this country (it only supplies 8% of our total energy needs) that it cannot be part of anything but a long-term solution. The bottom line is that if we do not burn lots and lots of fossil fuels, Americans cannot continue to enjoy their high quality of life.


Hillary claims she is going to make our country "energy independent," i.e., not reliant on "foreign sources of oil." This sounds like a worthy goal, but it is not remotely plausible. That is, unless we severely restrict our consumption of energy, roughly one-third of which comes from foreign sources (mainly oil used for gasoline). The consequences of such a "belt-tightening" strategy would be to drastically reduce both the size and vitality of our economy, leading to massive unemployment and a lower standard of living.
Furthermore, Hillary's manifest belief that it is problematic for us to buy oil from Canada and Mexico, two of our three largest "foreign" suppliers, makes no sense. Indeed, the only way for the United States to buy less oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela -- the true problem --

It seems to be an automatic reaction from most Americans anyway, when talking of socalled Marxists, that Marxism is inherently wrong. i wonder hoe many Americans actually truly know what Marxism is or realise that true Marxism has never happened and not just because of the lies you are told by Fox,billionaires backing main parties (they're unelected but are the major influence behind govt policies Democracy don't make me laugh) it's all because of your spies and sometimes plants in countries trying to break away from Capital;ist Selfish Indoctrination through Education system, compete get the better job, better house car and media.Your side uses propaganda and mind control too but they never say so and true Marxists which i am and very proud to say so im nopt conned by the Education system and media training me to be selfisah and fit in with the system and believe there is no alternative that is obviously why they tell you all the lies.True Communism never happened because of another massive reason that countries didn't do it at same time and support each other to keep out of trade and USA financially blackmailing them ie through arms race and grain deals to force them back towartds Capitalism.Trotsky and up to 300 of his followers believed in this and stood up to Stalin they and people like me are the true Communists and they were hunted down and killed so hopw on earth can western media have said we supported USSR and Stalin dirtiest lie ever told this Pinkoe rubbish evryone knows most of USA is paranoid about Communists but e few actually know what it is and that its never happened Your politicians and media are duping you.

did you do that all by yourself ? or is it taken from one of your unbiased websites that you use in your post's ! :wtf:

Watch is Scoob. At least her posts are well thought out and not just some terse knee jerk response.[/QUOTE

do you think so LOL SHARIA LAW IS LEAGAL IN THE UK,AND HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST LOL YEH WELL THOUGHT OUT

Watch is Scoob. At least her posts are well thought out and not just some terse knee jerk response.

pity she cant get them right !

She puts time and advanced thought into every post, unlike many others here, including me, on occasion.