Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Considering he's had a GOP hell bent on opposing policy and destroying his character I'd say O has had a pretty rough time. (Oh, get over it. Every President has had that rough road. Pretending he has had some singularly rough time is a huge pile of cow poop. Thinking about where he started though history is likely to be pretty kind to his legacy...
Here's the full quote:
|
"After decades of broken politics in Washington, and eight years of failed policies from George W. Bush, and 21 months of a campaign that's taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.
Either he doesn't know the meaning of "fundamental" (basic · underlying · core · foundational · rudimentary . elemental · elementary · basal · root · primary · prime · cardinal · first · principal · chief · key · central · vital · essential · important · indispensable · necessary · crucial · pivotal · critical · structural · organic · constitutional · inherent · intrinsic) . . . or he does know and does want to actually fundamentally transform America.
"In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street.
Is he saying what he will transform is some core principal of America which commands us to create policies that promote greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street? I hadn't heard that such a principal was established and written into our foundation.
And why has the Wall Street greed grown after he helped to transform it by supporting continuous QE which just puts more money into the pockets of banks and Wall Street investors? And sucks the rest of us into more debt? And was he promising to transform the vote he cast as a Senator when he voted for the bank bailout? Sanders voted against it.
"In five days, you can choose policies that invest in our middle class, and create new jobs, and grow this economy,
So then why has the middle class shrunk under his transformation? Was there another one of those foundational, elementary, constitutional, core principals of America that is anti-middle class, and against creating new jobs, and growing the economy, that he had to transform? Didn't the middle class grow, and weren't new jobs created, and didn't the economy grow in America for over two centuries before Obama came along? And at a much, much, better rate than they have under Obama's transformation?
"so that everyone has a chance to succeed, not just the CEO, but the secretary and janitor, not just the factory owner, but the men and women on the factory floor.
Is there something at the core of America's foundational structure which gives only the CEO or factory owner the chance to succeed, and denies that chance to secretaries and janitors and men and women on the factory floor? What does he mean by them succeeding? Didn't they succeed before in the America he wishes to fundamentally transform?
"In five days, you can put an end to the politics that would divide a nation just to win an election, that tries to pit region against region, and city against town, and Republican against Democrat,
He did, and continues to, practice the politics that divide this nation . . . and not only to win an election, but to truly transform America. He pits red against blue, class against class, Republican against Democrat, race against race, secular against religious, citizen against immigrant, President against Congress, all and more to win elections so that he can help to bring about, not some surface scratching differences and fluctuations which are not an elemental, indispensable, feature of American governance, but to truly effect a fundamental transformation of that governmental system.
The great political battle in which he is engaging is the ongoing ideological struggle between Statism and Individualism. He is about transforming the relationship of the citizen to the government from one of sovereign self actuating individuals supported and protected as such by a government which is servant to their liberty, to one of dependent groups who are servile to the government and supportive of it as their overlord in order to be given that which they are not capable of getting on their own.
"that asks -- asks us to fear at a time when we need to hope.[END QUOTE]
He directs us to be afraid of one another in order that we place our hope, not on ourselves, but on government. The most feared words of a Progressive Statist are "I did that on my own."
His little speech is typical, self-serving, incoherent political pap. And, like a good Progressive, he is about transforming us from a Constitutional Republic into a Centralized Administrative State. The difference between each is FUNDAMENTAL. And that's the real fundamental transformation which he is about. The other little laundry lists of things he proposed to change are not fundamental to our founded Constitutional Republic. And don't blame "hell bent" Republicans for his not being able to make the changes he promised.
On the other hand, he has infused more destructive change (if not transformation) into what is left of our Constitutional system.