• Calling Radicalism by it's Name - Barack Obama Strikes Back at GOP Rhetoric and Budget Policy
    83 replies, posted
[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/opinion/calling-radicalism-by-its-name.html?_r=3&hp"]Source - The New York Times[/URL] [QUOTE]President Obama’s fruitless three-year search for compromise with the Republicans ended in a thunderclap of a speech on Tuesday, as he denounced the party and its presidential candidates for cruelty and extremism. He accused his opponents of imposing on the country a “radical vision” that “is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity.” Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential front-runner, has embraced a House budget plan that is little more than “thinly veiled social Darwinism,” the president said, a “Trojan horse” disguised as deficit reduction that would hurt middle- and lower-income Americans. “By gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last — education and training, research and development, our infrastructure — it is a prescription for decline,” he said, speaking to a group of Associated Press editors and reporters in Washington. Mr. Obama has, in recent months, urged Republicans to put aside their destructive agenda. But, in this speech, he finally conceded that the party has demonstrated no interest in the values of compromise and realism. Even Ronald Reagan, who raised taxes in multiple budget deals, “could not get through a Republican primary today,” Mr. Obama said. While Democrats have repeatedly shown a willingness to cut entitlements and have agreed to trillions in domestic spending cuts, he said, Republicans won’t agree to any tax increases and, in fact, want to shower the rich with even more tax cuts. The speech was the first time that Mr. Obama linked Mr. Romney, by name, to his party’s dishonest budget and discredited trickle-down policies. As Mr. Obama pointed out, Mr. Romney described as “marvelous” a budget that would drastically cut student financial aid, medical research, Head Start classrooms and environmental protections. Mr. Obama further ridiculed the budget’s deficit-cutting goal as “laughable” because it refuses to acknowledge the need for new revenues. The speech was immediately attacked by the House speaker, John Boehner, for failing to deal with the debt crisis, but Mr. Obama pointed out how hollow that charge has become. “That argument might have a shred of credibility were it not for their proposal to also spend $4.6 trillion over the next decade on lower tax rates,” he said. The math is, in fact, quite simple: cutting both taxes and the deficit can mean only more sacrifice from the middle class and the poor, ending the promise of Medicare and Medicaid. Over the long term, the deficit can be brought down through a combination of cuts and new revenues; doing so immediately, as Mr. Romney and his party want to do, would reverse the fragile recovery. Mr. Obama provided a powerful signal on Tuesday that he intends to make this election about the Republican Party’s failure to confront, what he called, “the defining issue of our time”: restoring a sense of economic security while giving everyone a fair shot, rather than enabling only a shrinking number of people to do exceedingly well. His remarks promise a tough-minded campaign that will call extremism and dishonesty by name.[/QUOTE] The speech in question: [url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/04/03/president-obama-speaks-associated-press-luncheon[/url]
Elections running up, so he is going on the offensive again.
[quote]He accused his opponents of imposing on the country a “radical vision” that “is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity.”[/quote] A [i]liiiittle[/i] bit classier than accusing his opponents of corrupting America with a "gay agenda." Voting democratic this year because the whining of republicans has turned into sweet music.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;35433876]A [I]liiiittle[/I] bit classier than accusing his opponents of corrupting America with a "gay agenda." Voting democratic this year because the whining of republicans has turned into sweet music.[/QUOTE] I'm definitely voting for Obama because the Republicans talk about Obama trying to ruin the country when they themselves are going against core American values, and they're no more sane than the President himself
[QUOTE=Sector 7;35433876]A [i]liiiittle[/i] bit classier than accusing his opponents of corrupting America with a "gay agenda." Voting democratic this year because the whining of republicans has turned into sweet music.[/QUOTE] The "radical vision" part was actually more like "the budget these republicans are trying to pass shows that they have a radical vision of america", or something to that note in the actual speech. Gotta remember, this is a major media outlet we're talking about here.
Whenever people give republicans like santorum any sort of legitimacy I always think of this video [video=youtube;sGArqoF0TpQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ[/video]
When Obama wins (he's obviously going to win) he'll have more freedom to do things without having to worry about getting votes. Hopefully he'll be able to get more good things accomplished. Or, as the republicans say he'll try to spread his Muslim Atheist Socialist Anti Religious Agenda and show himself to be the Anti Christ. I think it'll be the first one.
The fangs have definitely come out now. I can't wait for him to SOUNDLY thrash whoever manages to come out of the primary clusterfuck a 'winner'.
[QUOTE=Snake7;35434296]When Obama wins (he's obviously going to win) [/QUOTE] While he is going to when (if Americans have any kind of brain) I've learned to not count your chickens before they hatch when it comes to elections in this country.
The problem with Republicans is that the far right is dying in the USA. Even Fox is starting to sing a different tune because they've realized just how bad groups like the Tea Party look. Now that Obama has improved things, all the tired old rubbish the Republicans have been slamming Obama with, none of which had any substance other than to try and discredit him because his father was a Black Muslim, is getting stale, and they realize that they've got no good ammunition left. They can't criticize him on spending anymore because he's fixing the economy. They can't criticize his pulling troops out of Iraq because America wants them to come home. He sees the opening and he's driving home his advantage, calling the Republicans out for the frauds they are. At this time, the election looks clear-cut, let's hope he can keep up the momentum.
Not a single Republican candidate worth mentioning for the 2012 election. GOP expected to plead "temporary insanity" following the outcome.
This is poetry in action, people. Rush is considered a great authority among many republican voters, and Obama masterfully used his gaffe to expose him as an asshole. The man has an extraordinarily low level of intelligence - All his apologies and excuses just dug the hole deeper. People are losing faith in the Republicans. Now they remember what Bush did to the country. Now they realize just how stupid and greedy some of the leaders of that party are. Times are a'changing, and Obama, to a great extent, is an agent of that change.
[QUOTE=archangel125;35434868]The problem with Republicans is that the far right is dying in the USA. Even Fox is starting to sing a different tune because they've realized just how bad groups like the Tea Party look. Now that Obama has improved things, all the tired old rubbish the Republicans have been slamming Obama with, none of which had any substance other than to try and discredit him because his father was a Black Muslim, is getting stale, and they realize that they've got no good ammunition left. They can't criticize him on spending anymore because he's fixing the economy. They can't criticize his pulling troops out of Iraq because America wants them to come home. He sees the opening and he's driving home his advantage, calling the Republicans out for the frauds they are. At this time, the election looks clear-cut, let's hope he can keep up the momentum.[/QUOTE] The only good thing about a two-party system is that it guarantees some level of stability and reason. Not many people would actually identify as [I]Far Left[/I] or [I]Far Right[/I], and so there's a built in safety net for pretty much the exact situation the country is currently finding itself in. As soon as a party starts becoming too ideological, it loses the support of the swing voters, such as myself, who then throw their vote to the least insane sounding candidate. This loss of support forces the ideological party to reassess their positions, because political parties exist for one reason, and one reason only: to win elections. Of course, in my opinion, the GOP knows they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of beating out Obama this cycle. He's a strong military leader, a brilliant economist, a strategic populist. While he's losing support from the far left, he still has a strong foundation from the majority of middle-ground voters, and the far left will still vote for him simply because he's not the "other guy." The GOP has to know they're not winning this election, and so they're saving their power players, the realistic candidates, for 2016. The Republican party is just throwing sacrificial lambs into the grinder to feed the democratic process.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;35433919]I'm definitely voting for Obama because the Republicans talk about Obama trying to ruin the country when they themselves are going against core American values, and they're no more sane than the President himself[/QUOTE] Amen to this! Only I'm voting for him because there is not a canidate worth three cents to me this year to challenge him. Even if you hate him, you have to look at what he has to work with.. the legistrative body against him, a $14,000,000,000,000 debt, a failed economy, fighting two wars, and still can find a way [b]to reason with with the republicans if so needed.[/B] The GOP has failed. Too much religion and too conservative ideas. We need someone who is willing to work with EVERYBODY on the problems in this country.
all i want for Christmas is a socialist party that isn't terrible and has a chance of winning
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;35435007]The only good thing about a two-party system is that it guarantees some level of stability and reason. Not many people would actually identify as [I]Far Left[/I] or [I]Far Right[/I], and so there's a built in safety net for pretty much the exact situation the country is currently finding itself in. As soon as a party starts becoming too ideological, it loses the support of the swing voters, such as myself, who then throw their vote to the least insane sounding candidate. This loss of support forces the ideological party to reassess their positions, because political parties exist for one reason, and one reason only: to win elections. Of course, in my opinion, the GOP knows they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of beating out Obama. He's a strong military leader, a brilliant economist, a strategic populist. While he's losing support from the far left, he still has a strong foundation from the majority of middle-ground voters. The GOP has to know they're not winning this election, and so they're saving their power players, the realistic candidates, for 2016, and they're just throwing sacrificial lambs into the grinder to feed the democratic process.[/QUOTE] I hadn't considered that before. And the Democrats and Republicans have both swung between crazy and reasonable over America's history. Like when T. Roosevelt ran for president. But why wouldn't that work with more than two parties? One would inevitably take middle ground, even if not consistently.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35435036]all i want for Christmas is a socialist party that isn't terrible and has a chance of winning[/QUOTE] as long as they're not disgusting liberals im all for it
[QUOTE=thisispain;35435036]all i want for Christmas is a socialist party that isn't terrible and has a chance of winning[/QUOTE] Yeah GUYS LETS EAT THE RICH!!1!1!1!1
[QUOTE=MBB;35435134]Yeah GUYS LETS EAT THE RICH!!1!1!1!1[/QUOTE] hey i just think that when your taxpayers pay for a company to survive they should legally own it.
[QUOTE=archangel125;35434901] Times are a'changing, and Obama, to a great extent, is an agent of that change.[/QUOTE] ehhhhh
[QUOTE=Lambeth;35435263]ehhhhh[/QUOTE] What he has got going for him is charisma - Strength. People rally behind such leaders. Being a masterful manipulator of men is not enough, but true leadership ability? That's rare.
[QUOTE=archangel125;35435310]What he has got going for him is charisma - Strength. People rally behind such leaders. Being a masterful manipulator of men is not enough, but true leadership ability? That's rare.[/QUOTE] You make Obama sound absolutely perfect, when in fact he's made a lot of mistakes. I don't see him as a very good leader, but maybe that's because I'm supportive of his opposition.
Wow. With election day coming up, Obama is throwing up these beautiful speeches, and they are [i]kicking ass[/i]. Next Obama term is gonna be awesome. No need to worry about reelection, no reason to keep the gloves on.
[QUOTE=TheFishyG;35435378]Wow. With election day coming up, Obama is throwing up these beautiful speeches, and they are [i]kicking ass[/i]. Next Obama term is gonna be awesome. No need to worry about reelection, no reason to keep the gloves on.[/QUOTE] its a shame however that all it takes to win an election is common sense. all of the candidates from the GOP should be great leaders with great ideas, or at least pretend they're going to follow through with great ideas. instead they push for psuedo-conservative agenda with batshit insane ideas on how the world works
I feel like that we (the GOP, I don't like to associate with them, but in a 2 party system its difficult not to) is going through a shit election. Last election we had sensible canidates, this is just bad. [editline]4th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;35435046]I hadn't considered that before. And the Democrats and Republicans have both swung between crazy and reasonable over America's history. Like when T. Roosevelt ran for president. But why wouldn't that work with more than two parties? One would inevitably take middle ground, even if not consistently.[/QUOTE] US consitution says a MAJORITY as in over 50%, if that isn't revised then it would be a no go.
[QUOTE=archangel125;35435310]What he has got going for him is charisma - Strength. People rally behind such leaders. Being a masterful manipulator of men is not enough, but true leadership ability? That's rare.[/QUOTE] ehhhhhh
[QUOTE=thisispain;35435239]hey i just think that when your taxpayers pay for a company to survive they should legally own it.[/QUOTE] The alternative is to, you know - actually fix the problem and end corporate welfare
Well that about hit all of the nails directly on the head. Thank you Obama, you have restored my faith that [B][I]SOMEONE[/I][/B] knows what the fuck they're doing in our government. Glaber rated me disagree, I feel special.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;35435421]I don't like to associate with them, but in a 2 party system its difficult not to)[/QUOTE] Not really. I don't identify with either party. Everyone has some conservative and some liberal thoughts. Nobody is republican, nobody is democrat, it's all just shades of grey. I vote for whoever makes sense. I don't care what party they are. this year it's gonna be Obama, next year who knows. If the GOP throws up sensible men that won't skullfuck us and the Liberals throw up a bunch of batshit loonies then I'll vote GOP. I don't care either way, I just want a competent president for once. [QUOTE=archangel125;35435046]I hadn't considered that before. And the Democrats and Republicans have both swung between crazy and reasonable over America's history. Like when T. Roosevelt ran for president. But why wouldn't that work with more than two parties? One would inevitably take middle ground, even if not consistently.[/QUOTE] I'd like to see the party system done away with entirely, candidates would instead simply run as themselves. I feel it'd curb a lot of the pointless bickering and Me-Versus-You infighting that plagues congress. I know it won't happen and there's probably other flaws I'm not aware of, but I could definitely see the benefits of not having arbitrary sides on which to fight an ideological war on our legislative floor.
[QUOTE=MBB;35435134]Yeah GUYS LETS EAT THE RICH!!1!1!1!1[/QUOTE] You know nothing of socialism.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.