This is socialism, pure and simple

[Capitalist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

You can bet the republicans will be making a campaign video out of this clip.

She wants to take those profits?

Do any of you on the left see any problem at all with that statement?

[Capitalist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

You can bet the republicans will be making a campaign video out of this clip.

She wants to take those profits?

Do any of you on the left see any problem at all with that statement?

What's wrong socialists, cat got your tounge.

The only thing worse than a socialist is one who won't admit it.

[sparks]

:roll

[bbrown]

She wants to take those profits?

I cannot even believe that. I'm speechless. It's not bad enough that she wants to seize the profits of legitimate businesses earned legally providing fuel for our economy, but she wants to use this expropriated money to subsidize companies and research designed to eliminate the oil industry in the long-term. I am absolutely disgusted.

I'm torn between thinking that she's a demagogue and that she's actually seeking socialism. I guess it doesn't really matter because she's a demagogue who's using socialism to get her power.

This video needs to be spread far and wide.

Bill

[Trueblue]

I don't think what she proposes is possible in our system of government.

Does anyone have any ideas? Could she be talking about designating tax revenues?

[AYFR]

I don't think what she proposes is possible in our system of government.

Does anyone have any ideas? Could she be talking about designating tax revenues?

Just becasue it is possible doesn't make it right

[Saguaro]

If she becomes prez she could tax the heck of their companies

[Trueblue]

Just becasue it is possible doesn't make it right

Do me a favor, please read all of the words in my post.

I don't think what she proposes is possible in our system of government.

Thanks.

[Saguaro]

Just becasue it is possible doesn't make it right

Like Iraq ?

[Lone Laugher]

I will go out on a limb here and make a prediction or five.

First, she will be thoroughly attacked for those comments.

She will be given an opportunity to clarify them, and she will say that her intention was to propose that the oil companies themselves be encouraged to invest their profits into R & D that will end our dependence on foreign oil. Or...as was suggested here, that the tax revenue earned from those profits would be so distributed.

The people that hate her will not accept that clarification. The people that support her will accept it.

Certain people on here will take the opportunity to beat each other over the head for a day or so.

It will last about a standard 3 day news cycle and in the end the US will not be in danger of converting into to a Socialist economy.

Lets just nip it in the bud right here, shall we?

[Saguaro]

I will go out on a limb here and make a prediction or five.

First, she will be thoroughly attacked for those comments.

She will be given an opportunity to clarify them, and she will say that her intention was to propose that the oil companies themselves be encouraged to invest their profits into R & D that will end our dependence on foreign oil. Or...as was suggested here, that the tax revenue earned from those profits would be so distributed.

The people that hate her will not accept that clarification. The people that support her will accept it.

Certain people on here will take the opportunity to beat each other over the head for a day or so.

It will last about a standard 3 day news cycle and in the end the US will not be in danger of converting into to a Socialist economy.

Lets just nip it in the bud right here, shall we?

Not hardly....there is at least one that will run it into the ground

[Capitalist]

I don't think what she proposes is possible in our system of government.

Does anyone have any ideas? Could she be talking about designating tax revenues?

What she said was quite clear and in context. She wants to take those profits and invest them in blah blah blah.

Take those profits, other than through taxation how can she do that?

What I really see that as is a window into what she thinks the roll of government is.

[Capitalist]

I will go out on a limb here and make a prediction or five.

First, she will be thoroughly attacked for those comments.

She will be given an opportunity to clarify them, and she will say that her intention was to propose that the oil companies themselves be encouraged to invest their profits into R & D that will end our dependence on foreign oil. Or...as was suggested here, that the tax revenue earned from those profits would be so distributed.

The people that hate her will not accept that clarification. The people that support her will accept it.

Certain people on here will take the opportunity to beat each other over the head for a day or so.

It will last about a standard 3 day news cycle and in the end the US will not be in danger of converting into to a Socialist economy.

Lets just nip it in the bud right here, shall we?


That quote is months old from march I believe, and she has refused to answer any question about that statement.

But that is what she always does, she never leaves her script ever.

She will try to ignore it, but I can promise you that if she is the nom you will see that clip again, in ads by the republican party.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I don't think what she proposes is possible in our system of government. It is called an excess profits tax and has been done before. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_profit_tax If a group is making above market rate of profits due to an artificial condition such as a war, then these excess profits have been taxed in the past. Since the oil company are making much higher than average profits due to the war on terra, then such excess profits could be taxed.

This is not a new concept and has been done in the past during time of war. The republicans are claiming that we are in a war on terra, and in theory that provides the legal justification for a new round of excess profits taxes.

Again, the claim that this is socalism is silly. Was it socalism when this type of tax was used during WWII and the Korean War?

I do not agree with this tax but a large part of Houston's economy is tied to the energy industry. However,the claim that this tax is new and is socialism is simply wrong.

[toxic]

What she said was quite clear and in context. She wants to take those profits and invest them in blah blah blah.

Take those profits, other than through taxation how can she do that?

What I really see that as is a window into what she thinks the roll of government is.

You mean, tax the Oil Companies while they are making record profits, rather than provide them $11 Billion in subsidies and tax rebates like Bush did?

Taxes are a part of life for middle income people, the richest 1%, that earn over $450,000 per year, are going to have to get used to contributing their fair share too.

[issac the dragon]

Since we are fighting a war for the oil companies, and people are dying for them, I think the American people have a moral right to seize all their profits.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Since we are fighting a war for the oil companies, and people are dying for them, I think the American people have a moral right to seize all their profits.Good post. That was the context of Senator Clinton's proposal.

[Capitalist]

You mean, tax the Oil Companies while they are making record profits, rather than provide them $11 Billion in subsidies and tax rebates like Bush did?

Taxes are a part of life for middle income people, the richest 1%, that earn over $450,000 per year, are going to have to get used to contributing their fair share too.

She did not say take their tax subsidies and rebates, she said take their profits.

PS - I do not consider a tax rebate a problem. Giving back what they paid in is not a subsidy.

A contribution is voluntary, stop calling it that.

PS - the top 1% pay 35% of theincome taxes and make about 19% of the income. I think that is way more than their fair share.

The bottom 40% pay ZERO and the bottom 50% pay less than 4%.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

[Capitalist]

Since we are fighting a war for the oil companies, and people are dying for them, I think the American people have a moral right to seize all their profits.

I will support that as soon as you:

1. Prove that statement.... it is bullshit on it's face.

2. Show me in the constitution where id allows that?

3. Moral my ass, for someone of the party of legal baby killing to even discuss morals is amuzing.

[Wabash]

Do me a favor, please read all of the words in my post.



Thanks.

ANYTHING this evil bitch proposes is No Good!

[Wabash]

I will go out on a limb here and make a prediction or five.

First, she will be thoroughly attacked for those comments.

She will be given an opportunity to clarify them, and she will say that her intention was to propose that the oil companies themselves be encouraged to invest their profits into R & D that will end our dependence on foreign oil. Or...as was suggested here, that the tax revenue earned from those profits would be so distributed.

The people that hate her will not accept that clarification. The people that support her will accept it.

Certain people on here will take the opportunity to beat each other over the head for a day or so.

It will last about a standard 3 day news cycle and in the end the US will not be in danger of converting into to a Socialist economy.

Lets just nip it in the bud right here, shall we?

Sure, that's the spirit! Pack up this "discussion forum" and have it ALL your way! Yep...you are waaaaay out on a limb!

Not hardly....there is at least one that will run it into the ground

Now, who might that be?

What she said was quite clear and in context. She wants to take those profits and invest them in blah blah blah.

Take those profits, other than through taxation how can she do that?

What I really see that as is a window into what she thinks the roll of government is.

Like I said before....ANY proposal by Billary is not in our best interest, or Any interest for that matter! She is ALL about BIG govt. and SOCIALISM! Every bone in her fat liberal body is socialism!

That quote is months old from march I believe, and she has refused to answer any question about that statement.

But that is what she always does, she never leaves her script ever.

She will try to ignore it, but I can promise you that if she is the nom you will see that clip again, in ads by the republican party.

Shuck and Jive is her M.O.

She did not say take their tax subsidies and rebates, she said take their profits.

PS - I do not consider a tax rebate a problem. Giving back what they paid in is not a subsidy.

A contribution is voluntary, stop calling it that.

PS - the top 1% pay 35% of theincome taxes and make about 19% of the income. I think that is way more than their fair share.

The bottom 40% pay ZERO and the bottom 50% pay less than 4%.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

You tell em Bro!

I will support that as soon as you:

1. Prove that statement.... it is bullshit on it's face.

2. Show me in the constitution where id allows that?

3. Moral my ass, for someone of the party of legal baby killing to even discuss morals is amuzing.

DITTO!!

[Trueblue]

I will go out on a limb here and make a prediction or five.

First, she will be thoroughly attacked for those comments.

She will be given an opportunity to clarify them, and she will say that her intention was to propose that the oil companies themselves be encouraged to invest their profits into R & D that will end our dependence on foreign oil. Or...as was suggested here, that the tax revenue earned from those profits would be so distributed.

The people that hate her will not accept that clarification. The people that support her will accept it.

Certain people on here will take the opportunity to beat each other over the head for a day or so.

It will last about a standard 3 day news cycle and in the end the US will not be in danger of converting into to a Socialist economy.

Lets just nip it in the bud right here, shall we?

:D Great post.

What she said was quite clear and in context. She wants to take those profits and invest them in blah blah blah.

Take those profits, other than through taxation how can she do that?

What I really see that as is a window into what she thinks the roll of government is.

It is called an excess profits tax and has been done before. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_profit_tax If a group is making above market rate of profits due to an artificial condition such as a war, then these excess profits have been taxed in the past. Since the oil company are making much higher than average profits due to the war on terra, then such excess profits could be taxed.

This is not a new concept and has been done in the past during time of war. The republicans are claiming that we are in a war on terra, and in theory that provides the legal justification for a new round of excess profits taxes.

Again, the claim that this is socalism is silly. Was it socalism when this type of tax was used during WWII and the Korean War?

I do not agree with this tax but a large part of Houston's economy is tied to the energy industry. However,the claim that this tax is new and is socialism is simply wrong.

Thanks for the factual info.

She did not say take their tax subsidies and rebates, she said take their profits.

PS - I do not consider a tax rebate a problem. Giving back what they paid in is not a subsidy.

A contribution is voluntary, stop calling it that.

PS - the top 1% pay 35% of theincome taxes and make about 19% of the income. I think that is way more than their fair share.

The bottom 40% pay ZERO and the bottom 50% pay less than 4%.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

We need to talk about this 35%/19% thing, but I'm tired from working all day. How much of the money does that top 1% make?

I will support that as soon as you:

1. Prove that statement.... it is bullshit on it's face.

2. Show me in the constitution where id allows that?

3. Moral my ass, for someone of the party of legal baby killing to even discuss morals is amuzing.

That's a large and impressive straw man you've set up. I think that a member of the party of Shock and Awe shouldn't be discussing morals. Why? Because shock and awe kills living humans. You do not seem to be motivated by compassion for anything except fetuses, based on your record.

And further, ITD referenced morals, and not the USC. Not the same thing.

[AYFR]

Do me a favor, please read all of the words in my post.



Thanks.

My apologies.

[Trueblue]

My apologies.

Thank you!

[AYFR]

Thank you!

Sometime I read to fast :D

[Trueblue]

Sometime I read to fast :D

I figured that was what happened! I was worried that Cappy would take it and run with it if I didn't clarify! Then I could deny all day and he'd still have me convicted of being Mrs. Stalin. :D

J/K, Cappy. :D

[The Q]

:lmao

Say the word TB and we'll change your username to Mrs. Stalin! :woot

ADQ

[Trueblue]

:lmao

Say the word TB and we'll change your username to Mrs. Stalin! :woot

ADQ

Please, no, no, no. The phallic blue mushroom is bad enough. :lol

I'm sticking with TrueBlue.

[The Q]

Dude. I LOVE that mushroom.

ADQ

[Trueblue]

Dude. I LOVE that mushroom.

ADQ

:hotdog

[bbrown]

Since we are fighting a war for the oil companies, and people are dying for them, I think the American people have a moral right to seize all their profits.

Are you kidding? How is the war "for the oil companies?" Iraq is strategically important for its oil reserves, but it accounts for less than 10% of the OPEC production. Moreover, oil companies would want the supply of oil to be constrained. Less supply means higher prices.

But even if it were being fought to protect America's interests in oil, that does not mean that the American people (and here I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you mean the government as representative of the American people) can just loot the oil companies. What a bold assertion *totally* unsupported by the legal system! If you mean what you literally wrote, then no mob has a right, moral or otherwise, to any wealth produced legally.

The war in Iraq is not about oil, though perhaps peripherally. It was about getting rid of Saddam Hussein and I think the motivation was very personal to George W. Bush. *That* is the truly disgusting thing: that he is willing to waste Americans' lives for what amounts to revenge. The "forward strategy for freedom" was really an afterthought and the "weapons of mass destruction" were a smoke screen to mask the true intent.

Wars should be fought to protect our economic and national interests. They should not be entered into lightly and should be undertaken only when our citizenry's individual rights are threatened.

Your repugnant statement is of the same vein as Hillary Clinton's linked earlier. I can understand why you support her: she's getting you access to the money of those whose achievements you could not equal.

Bill

[Trueblue]

Your repugnant statement is of the same vein as Hillary Clinton's linked earlier. I can understand why you support her: she's getting you access to the money of those whose achievements you could not equal.

Your comment is a bit harsh, rather unjustified, and btw, whose achievements? The Dubya's of the world, who achieved by picking their parents wisely? :lol That is exactly how Bush ever did ANYTHING in the oil bidness.

I think that Issac is outraged by the war, and the war is about oil. Look at the other despots in the world, look at the other terrorist havens-we sure didn't invade any that didn't have oil.

[Kurtz]

Elitists, where would the world be without 'em?
Oh yeah, better off. :lmao

[Capitalist]

:D Great post.





Thanks for the factual info.



We need to talk about this 35%/19% thing, but I'm tired from working all day. How much of the money does that top 1% make?



That's a large and impressive straw man you've set up. I think that a member of the party of Shock and Awe shouldn't be discussing morals. Why? Because shock and awe kills living humans. You do not seem to be motivated by compassion for anything except fetuses, based on your record.

And further, ITD referenced morals, and not the USC. Not the same thing.


Excess profits? What the fuck is that? Who determines that? What a load of crap. That is socialism.

Tell me is there any other industry where YOU think they make TOO much money? Gee those damn doctors are all rich, lets tax their EXCESS profit.

CEO's , hell no one needs to make 10 million a year, lets 'take those profits'.

Trial lawyers, my god John Edwards has a net worth of over 100 million dollars, what did he do to deserve that? Lets get those trial lawyers 'excess profits'.

Bill Gates has 60 billion dollars, no one needs that much, lets go get that to. Hell all the billionaires, none of them NEED that much, lets take it.

You know what, why don't we just establish a maximum wage. No one needs more than 300,000 a year to live. So lets justs set the marginal rate for over 300k at 100%. Yeah that's it.

I have an even better idea, lets just let the government have all the money and distribute it more evenly, it is not fair for someone to have more just because they have talent or work hard or teir parents made sure they got a good education or because their parents worked hard and left it to them.

Since the government has all the money anyway, just nationalize all the companies and put them under government control. Yeah we might as well do that to make sure everyone is treated fairly and that everyone has the same stuff cause it is not fair that some people have big houses and some people live in little tiny apartments.

This is what you leftist fucking want, except you expect to be part of the ruling class and will expect to have just a little more than the rest.

Screw socialism but the above is where we will all go eventually unless we do something...

[Capitalist]

I figured that was what happened! I was worried that Cappy would take it and run with it if I didn't clarify! Then I could deny all day and he'd still have me convicted of being Mrs. Stalin. :D

J/K, Cappy. :D

I don't need to, you do that all by yourself.

[Capitalist]

Your comment is a bit harsh, rather unjustified, and btw, whose achievements? The Dubya's of the world, who achieved by picking their parents wisely? :lol That is exactly how Bush ever did ANYTHING in the oil bidness.

I think that Issac is outraged by the war, and the war is about oil. Look at the other despots in the world, look at the other terrorist havens-we sure didn't invade any that didn't have oil.

Interesting you should mention that...

Here is a quote you may find interesting:

Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar. But then, without nepotism, W. would be pumping gas in Midland — and not out of the ground.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinion/30dowd.html?hp

I agree that W might well not be where is is today if his father had not been ho he is. But the same could be said for Hillera as well.


As to the war about oil, if even true.?

Tell me something, since our entire economy, lifestyle and standard of living is based on a large supply of relatively cheap energy, what better to go to war over.

[Trueblue]

Excess profits? What the fuck is that? Who determines that? What a load of crap. That is socialism.

Tell me is there any other industry where YOU think they make TOO much money? Gee those damn doctors are all rich, lets tax their EXCESS profit.

CEO's , hell no one needs to make 10 million a year, lets 'take those profits'.

Trial lawyers, my god John Edwards has a net worth of over 100 million dollars, what did he do to deserve that? Lets get those trial lawyers 'excess profits'.

Bill Gates has 60 billion dollars, no one needs that much, lets go get that to. Hell all the billionaires, none of them NEED that much, lets take it.

You know what, why don't we just establish a maximum wage. No one needs more than 300,000 a year to live. So lets justs set the marginal rate for over 300k at 100%. Yeah that's it.

I have an even better idea, lets just let the government have all the money and distribute it more evenly, it is not fair for someone to have more just because they have talent or work hard or teir parents made sure they got a good education or because their parents worked hard and left it to them.

Since the government has all the money anyway, just nationalize all the companies and put them under government control. Yeah we might as well do that to make sure everyone is treated fairly and that everyone has the same stuff cause it is not fair that some people have big houses and some people live in little tiny apartments.

This is what you leftist fucking want, except you expect to be part of the ruling class and will expect to have just a little more than the rest.

Screw socialism but the above is where we will all go eventually unless we do something...

I expect the "ruling class" to be based on merit and the choice of the people.

Excess profits seems to refer to price gouging. Are you familiar with that concept?

I don't need to, you do that all by yourself.

Not to intelligent people.

Interesting you should mention that...

Here is a quote you may find interesting:




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinion/30dowd.html?hp

I agree that W might well not be where is is today if his father had not been ho he is. But the same could be said for Hillera as well.


As to the war about oil, if even true.?

Tell me something, since our entire economy, lifestyle and standard of living is based on a large supply of relatively cheap energy, what better to go to war over.

Oh, you are absolutely wrong. Hillary went farther in the few years of adulthood before she married Bill than Dubya did in the couple of decades before he was appointed President.

We need to change our oil dependency. There are many things better to go to war over. Those joining the military pledge to defend the nation, not to be mercenaries for corporate interests.

[Capitalist]

I expect the "ruling class" to be based on merit and the choice of the people.

Excess profits seems to refer to price gouging. Are you familiar with that concept?



Not to intelligent people.



Oh, you are absolutely wrong. Hillary went farther in the few years of adulthood before she married Bill than Dubya did in the couple of decades before he was appointed President.

We need to change our oil dependency. There are many things better to go to war over. Those joining the military pledge to defend the nation, not to be mercenaries for corporate interests.


Why don't you detail for us all Hillera did to advance herself between graduation from college and marriage to Bill Clinton...


I don't believe in price gouging, if you don't want to pay a price don't buy the product.

[Trueblue]

Why don't you detail for us all Hillera did to advance herself between graduation from college and marriage to Bill Clinton...


I don't believe in price gouging, if you don't want to pay a price don't buy the product.

I already have told you before, but I'll give you a wikipedia link again.

College

After graduating from high school in 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College where she majored in political science.[13] She became active in politics and served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans organization during her freshman year.[14][15] However, due to her evolving views regarding the American Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War, she subsequently stepped down from that position.[14] In her junior year, Rodham was affected by the death of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., whom she had met in 1962,[8] and became a supporter of the anti-war presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy.[16] Rodham organized a two-day strike and worked with Wellesley's black students for moderate changes, such as recruiting more black students and faculty.[17] In that same year she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government.[18] She attended the "Wellesley in Washington" summer program at the urging of Professor Alan Schechter, who assigned Rodham to intern at the House Republican Conference so she could better understand her switch to the Democratic Party.[17] Rodham was invited by Representative Charles Goodell, a moderate New York Republican, to help Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s late-entry campaign for the Republican nomination.[17] Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami, where she decided to leave the Republican Party for good; she was upset over how Richard Nixon's campaign had portrayed Rockefeller and what Rodham perceived as the "veiled" racist messages of the convention.[17]

Rodham returned to Wellesley, and wrote her senior thesis about the tactics of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky under Professor Schechter (which, years later while she was First Lady, was suppressed at the request of the White House and became the subject of speculation as to its contents).[19] In 1969, Rodham graduated with departmental honors in political science. Stemming from the demands of some students,[20] she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address.[21] According to reports by the Associated Press, her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes.[22][23] She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement;[8] she also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally-syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers.[24] That summer, she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez (which shut down overnight when she complained about unhealthy conditions).[25][26]

Law school

Rodham then entered Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.[27] During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center,[28] learning about new research on early childhood brain development and working as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973).[29][30] She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital,[29] and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free advice for the poor.[28] In the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, researching migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education;[31][32] Edelman would become a significant mentor to her.[32]

In the late spring of 1971, she began dating Bill Clinton, who was also a law student at Yale. That summer, she interned on child custody cases[33] at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein,[34][35] which was well-known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes;[35] two of its four partners were communists.[35][36] The following summer, Rodham and Clinton campaigned in Texas for unsuccessful 1972 Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern.[37][38] She received a Juris Doctor degree from Yale in 1973,[8] having spent an extra year there in order to be with Clinton.[39] Clinton first proposed marriage to her following graduation, but she declined at the time.[39] She began a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.[40] Her first scholarly paper, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973[41] and became frequently cited in the field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

Bush can't hold a candle to all of those accomplishments and recognitions. For god's sake, Cap, Bush was out getting DUIs during this time. Face it, she was already somebody when she married Bill.

[Trueblue]

Why don't you detail for us all Hillera did to advance herself between graduation from college and marriage to Bill Clinton...


I don't believe in price gouging, if you don't want to pay a price don't buy the product.

That's easy for you to say, at this particular point in time. :lol

Price gouging happens when people have no choice but to buy the product, otherwise nobody could gouge them.

[Capitalist]

I already have told you before, but I'll give you a wikipedia link again.

College

After graduating from high school in 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College where she majored in political science.[13] She became active in politics and served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans organization during her freshman year.[14][15] However, due to her evolving views regarding the American Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War, she subsequently stepped down from that position.[14] In her junior year, Rodham was affected by the death of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., whom she had met in 1962,[8] and became a supporter of the anti-war presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy.[16] Rodham organized a two-day strike and worked with Wellesley's black students for moderate changes, such as recruiting more black students and faculty.[17] In that same year she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government.[18] She attended the "Wellesley in Washington" summer program at the urging of Professor Alan Schechter, who assigned Rodham to intern at the House Republican Conference so she could better understand her switch to the Democratic Party.[17] Rodham was invited by Representative Charles Goodell, a moderate New York Republican, to help Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s late-entry campaign for the Republican nomination.[17] Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami, where she decided to leave the Republican Party for good; she was upset over how Richard Nixon's campaign had portrayed Rockefeller and what Rodham perceived as the "veiled" racist messages of the convention.[17]

Rodham returned to Wellesley, and wrote her senior thesis about the tactics of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky under Professor Schechter (which, years later while she was First Lady, was suppressed at the request of the White House and became the subject of speculation as to its contents).[19] In 1969, Rodham graduated with departmental honors in political science. Stemming from the demands of some students,[20] she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address.[21] According to reports by the Associated Press, her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes.[22][23] She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement;[8] she also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally-syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers.[24] That summer, she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez (which shut down overnight when she complained about unhealthy conditions).[25][26]

Law school

Rodham then entered Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.[27] During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center,[28] learning about new research on early childhood brain development and working as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973).[29][30] She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital,[29] and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free advice for the poor.[28] In the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, researching migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education;[31][32] Edelman would become a significant mentor to her.[32]

In the late spring of 1971, she began dating Bill Clinton, who was also a law student at Yale. That summer, she interned on child custody cases[33] at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein,[34][35] which was well-known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes;[35] two of its four partners were communists.[35][36] The following summer, Rodham and Clinton campaigned in Texas for unsuccessful 1972 Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern.[37][38] She received a Juris Doctor degree from Yale in 1973,[8] having spent an extra year there in order to be with Clinton.[39] Clinton first proposed marriage to her following graduation, but she declined at the time.[39] She began a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.[40] Her first scholarly paper, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973[41] and became frequently cited in the field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

Bush can't hold a candle to all of those accomplishments and recognitions. For god's sake, Cap, Bush was out getting DUIs during this time. Face it, she was already somebody when she married Bill.


So she went to school then married Bill Clinton, wow she did so much!

There are THOUSANDS of people who do what she did pre marraige to Bill every fucking year...

I asked for what she did between graduation from college and marrying Bill. It would seem from the time she graduated from Law school until she got married was less than 2 years.

What did she do in those 2 years?

[Trueblue]

So she went to school then married Bill Clinton, wow she did so much!

There are THOUSANDS of people who do what she did pre marraige to Bill every fucking year...

I asked for what she did between graduation from college and marrying Bill. It would seem from the time she graduated from Law school until she got married was less than 2 years.

What did she do in those 2 years?

You are such a liar! Look at all that she did, at the recognition she received, at all the times she was chosen to do something quite special. It is simply sad that you are insisting that I do this for you instead of you reading this yourself and simply admitting that you were wrong. It happens to the best of us, Cap.

organized a two-day strike and worked with Wellesley's black students for moderate changes

Rodham was invited by Representative Charles Goodell, a moderate New York Republican, to help Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s late-entry campaign for the Republican nomination.

She attended the "Wellesley in Washington" summer program at the urging of Professor Alan Schechter, who assigned Rodham to intern at the House Republican Conference so she could better understand her switch to the Democratic Party

In 1969, Rodham graduated with departmental honors in political science.

Stemming from the demands of some students,[20] she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address.[21] According to reports by the Associated Press, her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes.

She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement;

she also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally-syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers.

That summer, she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez (which shut down overnight when she complained about unhealthy conditions).[25][26]

Rodham then entered Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action

She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital,[29] and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free advice for the poor.
[
In the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, researching migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education;[31][32]

That summer, she interned on child custody cases[33] at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein

She began a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.[40] Her first scholarly paper, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973[41] and became frequently cited in the field.


What she did is in the article, and now it's time for you to show ME what Dubya did in those same years. And everybody get ready to laugh at the comparison.

[Lone Laugher]

It is pretty clear to me after reading through this thread and other recent threads, that Capitalpissed is EXTREMELY jealous of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She has accomplished more and worked harder than he ever will...and he can't stand it. A woman...whodathunkit! How does that feel, Cappy...you couldn't hold a candle to her.

[Yellowdogtexan]

One of the things that my kids' school is proud of is the fact that it rejected bush and jeb for poor academics.

I also know that bush applied to UT Law School and was rejected which is why he went to business school. Not only did Senator Clinton make into law school (something that bush was unable to do) she was on law review. Evidently even at business school bush was a mediocre student. Other than the Texas rangers, every business activity that bush touched failed or went bankrupt. The Texas rangers position was in effect a gift from Tom Muse and a group who would later become some of bush largest financial backers.