Barack Hussein Obama is continuing to make campaign speeches on college campuses where those in the audience are too young (or indoctrinated) to know their socio-economic asses from their elbows. (Here's a helpful hint, kids: when Obama's taxes eventually bite you? That will be your ass!)
In any event, the alleged president is lecturing these awestruck and/or drug-addled kids on his plans for Hope & Change 2.0, and emphasizing the dangers presented by Paul Ryan's budget-balancing plan, which he now labels as "radical". He additionally adds that the plan is "not courageous" because it attempts to solve our nation-crushing debt "on the backs of the poor, or people who are powerless, or don't have lobbyists, or don't have clout." By which he means, of course, the blind paraplegic autistic children who the evil Republicans would force to use cheap secondhand unicycles instead of solar-powered, computerized wheelchairs.
Still, Hope n' Change is just a bit puzzled by the president's use of the word "radical" in this context. Fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget seems unusual in Washington...but "radical?" Really?
See, we remember when building bombs with the intention of killing cops would be considered "radical"...the way Obama bosom-buddy (and likely co-author) Bill Ayers did in his terrorist youth. But Obama doesn't see it that way.
We remember when a pastor who said things like "God DAMN America!" and suggested that the deaths of over 3000 on 9/11 was "America's chickens coming home to roost!" would definitely be considered radical. But again, Barack Obama doesn't apply that label to his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright.
It wouldn't even be much of a stretch for us to say that a woman who declared that she hadn't been proud to be an American in her entire adult life, as Michelle Obama did, would be considered pretty darned radical. But not to her husband...which makes us wonder about his grasp of basic vocabulary.
In any event, Hope n' Change believes that it really is possible for all of us to come to an agreemeent on a definition for this critically important word. And here it is...
If Barack Obama ever exhibits the bipartisanship he originally campaigned on, or ever makes an effort to stop doing "business as usual in Washington," or ever agrees to put the interests of the country ahead of his own political goals...that would be radical.
-
20 comments:
That SOB is out here in L.A. for a fund-raiser. Caused a MAJOR traffic jam because they didn't tell the local LEO's what routes they were going to take!
Idiots.....
They have a completely different dictionary on their home planet. Just look at all the attempts to re-label everything from Terrorist Attack (man cause disaster) to Tax Increase (reduced spending in the tax code). Remember, Liberal is now Progressive. The list is almost endless ... and so is the insanity that fuels it.
I would have thought that after over 2 years of a jobless recovery, enthusiasm for this President even among cluelessly liberal college kids would be somewhat muted, considering that by next month, those graduating who do not have state jobs waiting for them distributing superhero capes will all be competing for those same 50,000 openings at McDonald's.
Not that working at McDonald's will be all that worthwhile. Since McDonald's got their ObamaCare waiver, they won't be getting the cheap and wonderful health care that was promised a year ago. (At least they can stay on Mom & Dad's plan for awhile) And the the take-home pay they get will hardly be worth the trouble after the dollar gets inflated it irrelevance after years of printing dollars to fund porkulus and QE2, and possibly even QE3. And with $5 gas predicted by summer, nobody's driving to McDonald's anymore anyway.
None of this is particularly "radical". It's just sad.
Aw, don't worry Stilt, I get called a radical and a militant all the time. After a while you get used to it. Still, the Ryan plan is "radical" in the sense that it is commonsensical and might have a chance of working, and it might upset the gravy train the elites ride upon, while the status quo is leading us to a brink we know not. So I guess Obama thinks I'm radical too.
However, since you brought up a teachable moment on the use of the word radical and the new civility called for by everyone it seems, why is it that we gay folks as a group -- not me the productive entrepreneur who owns a home and pays taxes Jim guy -- but me and all my buddies are called by a good percentage of the country a lockstep "lobby" with a "radical" and "militant" "agenda" to destroy family, the nation and civilization for merely saying stop calling us "radical" and "militant" for owning homes and paying taxes and not wanting to worry about some cops at the door come to cure me of what they think ails me. So someone should ask the Family Research Council what their problem is; and their use of the word "radical." We don't seem to be making any headway with the group. Maybe someone straight can straighten them out.
Other than that, you're right, the president's use of the word "radical" is just ludicrous.
The word he was looking for was 'reactionary' - but apparently no one is taught that any more.
Amazing how this Punch Bowl Turd thinks he can go on spewing his lies, and get away w/ it. Even the MSM is starting to notice just how scantily clad the Emperor is..
Pete:
The MSM has their collective nose buried so far up Obama's bum the only thing they can differentiate is left cheek from right cheek.
The "Punch Bowl Turd" knows he owns their souls and can count on their fealty in 2012.
Speaking of Inigo Montoya...who's to say that Obama is NOT the six fingered man?
And yes, we can be very sure that the corporate MSM will do whatever becomes necessary to reelect Obama in '12...because for magical thinkers and true believers, any alternative is literally unthinkable.
What will hurt him is the independents, who have buyers' remorse, and the students for whom he is no longer a fresh novelty. That same combo could have made Clinton a one-term-Carter if the GOP had run anyone other than Bob ('Mean Old Man Potter') Dole.
Inigo Montoya...perfect! Although I bet you can find at least 25 more words that could put in that sign and still have it be accurate!
I think Obama really IS the six fingered man....and unfortunately 45% of the country doesn't believe that ROUS's exist...which can be quite dangerous.
Hm..what if every prospective voter in American had to pass a basic civics and current events test before becoming registered to vote...hm...maybe only 'thinking', and 'aware' people would get to vote?
One of the scariest scenarios is what you alluded to...college students who have not paid a whit of attention to the state of their homeland, by and large. I'll tell ya...the suspense of the election of 2012 is killing me! I just dont know how it will go...I know what it looks like now, but his smug puss is back on TV campaining already, and its a year and a half to go...holy crap!
Staying with the student theme...just read something from the heritage foundation...WHY ARENT STUDENTS REVOLTING?
According to Chris Long, prez of the Intercollegiate Studies Institure, campuses fail to provide an understnading of the intellectual foundations of conservatism, leaving young people with no viable alternative to liberalism. That is why his mission is to reinvigorate the 'traditional liberal arts education' on college campuses and help students 'understand what it means to be an effective citizen in today's world.'
He says that is no easy task. With the Obama administration on track to leave the next generation a back-breaking amount of debt and economy in shambles, students might have to be 'mugged by reality' before they will come to their senses, such as when they get their first paycheck and half the money's is taken away.
Add to this group all the other groups of uninformed Bush-haters, and takers of government money and its pretty scary.
Sorry...forgot to mention that these students are at the most rebellious period in their lives...and their president wants to run every area of their lives for them...so why arent they revolting?
@pryorguy- Actually, Obama is quite skillfully convincing these students that they are rebelling by standing up against the evil rich, the corporations, and old style "politics as usual."
The kids are just too young and naive to realize how they're being used...and that their "rebellion" is shoring up the power of a political party which believes in controlling the citizenry.
Actually just having all voting citizens be paying taxes should work good enough...if over 40% of the country is NOT paying taxes...well Obama's approval rate is about 45% right now...do the math...
Much of the problem has to do with the fact that we're talking about "children" here, almost literally. As Mark Steyn like to point out, socialism/liberalism likes to extend out childhood, almost to retirement age. A few generations ago, most teenagers were thrown into the realities of adulthood at 18. And most went willingly. Today, you can stay on your parents health insurance until 26! In Europe, it's no longer socially awkward to be living with your parents into your 40s! Our society today allows people to remain kids almost indefinitely, so why not?
And as pryorguy points out above, most have never been exposed to conservative ideals, beyond the invectives continuously thrown at them by the mainstream media and their establishment educators. It never occurs to them that they are, in fact, tools of the establishment because they know of nothing other.
And as for their not rebelling against the state that is holding their future hostage, why should they? We throw cheap college at them. As long as they conform, don't think free, or don't try to run a business, they rarely butt heads with liberal authority. And liberal authority makes them feel freer when it tells them they can screw each other endlessly and it won't judge them for doing so, as long as they wear a condom. In a sense, they've literally been seduced by the state.
Suzy, I've often suggested that our ballots should be combined with our 1040 form: Your vote counts as much as the amount on line 60. That would eliminate a good 1/3rd or more of the electorate; the deadbeats who have no skin in the game.
@John - agreed. Voters should be those who actually pay taxes, I think ... have skin in the game. Used to be you had to be a land owner ... maybe it's time to go back to that?
@Others - As to the youth: I have a 21 year old in college and a "just" 18 year old in high school. The 21 year old has gone with me to vote since he was 18, and the "just 18 year old" can't wait ... and they understand the stakes! Like me, the 21 year old held his nose in 2008 and voted for McRINO. We lost. We look forward and hope for better in 2012 (not seeing it yet). BOTH are AMERICANS and will vote that way ... FOR America!
It isn't the youth. It isn't the schools. It IS the parents!!!! (Stilt: do I get extra IQ points for just 4 exclamation points?). If we don't talk to them and educate them, they will not know. If we relinquish that job to the government (schools) ... well ... we deserve what we get. I,for one, was not a passive parent, and I'm proud of my kids! They have a good foundation (I may be a little biased, here).
Chuck, if you're raised two fine young people to adulthood, without having the "culture" pollute them, you deserve to be proud!
@Chuck- AND you get the bonus for using extra exclamation points!
Yay, Chuck.
Mom took me voting from when I was 6 - even let me flip the levers (no, I've never actually USED one of the 'confessional' voting machines, but I have fond memories...)
First Pres I could vote for was Reagan, in '84 - man was THAT a 'no brainer'..
Then I read Atlas Shrugged - and never looked back.
Agreed on the boredom factor on Dole, and the nose hold on McRINO. The fact that Trump polls so well against 'the current (has been) crop' says more about THEM than HIM...
PLEASE can we get someone w/ some gonads?
Sheriff Joe, from AZ, perhaps?
Pyroguy, @ civics test - the NAACP et al would just flip right out if you tried that. That, SPECIFICALLY was used to keep black from voting pre-civil rights.
As far as land owning, that would dis-enfranchise a cubi-metric buttload of folks who, like New Yorkers, are fine upstanding citizens who just happen to rent. (Ok, in the case of New York, maybe not miss 'em so much, but you see the point)
Definitely, tho, if you didn't pay income tax (or spouse), maybe you should not vote.
If your 'paycheck' is gov't dependant, you should not get a vote (Military Exempt)
Bob Heinlein, in Starship Troopers proposed that if you had not served at least one enlistment, you did not get to vote - theory being that if you were not willing to die for the country, who the hell cares what you have to say about RUNNING it...
Personally, I'm for Universal Enlistment - after graduate HS (or on 18th b-day, if drop out) you do basic, repeat until you pass, and then 2 years service - either in armed forces / merchant marine or Peace Corps, or Amricorps, etc... gets all citizens familiar w/ firearms, and 2 years to 'mature' and experience 'reality' before hitting college / trade school (God KNOWS *I* could have used it).
Win, Win, Win.
@Pete(Detroit)- Great post, but for some reason Blogspot's spam filter grabbed it and tucked it away until I could manually okay the posting.
I apologize for the delay and, for the umpteenth time, for the fact that I have no control over the workings of the spam filter. Theoretically, every time I tell it that something is NOT spam, it will get a little "smarter." So hopefully we'll be seeing less of this in the future.
Post a Comment