Horrible Obama to Young People: “The Republicans Are Radical Their Vision Is Radica

[bripat9643]

You obviously can't defend your messiah without lying.

Hilarious!

Yes, you are.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Obama is just as radical as the tea parties.....I dont get it, is he saying we shouldn't listen to him either or is it just people who are radical with values that aren't the same as his?

How do you figure the Tea Party is radical??? They are no more radical than the Founders of this country.

Exactly, the founders were radicals too. It just depends on what type of radical you want to be.

I prefer the founding fathers style radical to the Barack Obama style radical.

I said this a bit further back in this thread

Obama is a Radical
Tea parties are Radical

Which type of radical do you support? If I had to go one way or the other i'd take the tea party radicalism over the Obama party radicalism

 

[Londoner]

OMG...is this idiot serious. Radical.....What about Obumba himself, radical left wing communist and his ilk, starting with Pelosi, Hitlary and Co.
2012 can't come quick enough to be rid of this pestilence and anti American govt headed by a "Token of the left".

The OP misrepresents Obama's words so that he can call him a horrible person.

Obama never said the Republicans are radical. He characterized a budget which reduces Medicare funding to a voucher program radical. It is radical because you are giving seniors 8,000 dollars to pay for 20,000+ worth of care. This will result in widespread suffering and death. This is radical. You might say that this is the price people pay for not saving enough money for old age, but you can't say that the effect of defunding Medicare is not radical. You are fundamentally altering an implied social contract that glued America together for 40+ years. This is the opposite of Burkean consensus, which doesn't rip into the social order with a revolutionary steak knife. You can't just throw a generation of seniors into the streets.

And please don't say we lack the money. This country is richer than it has ever been. Corporations are recording unprecedented profits. America could make minor changes to the Pentagon budget in order to protect seniors from dying face down in a ditch. It's about priorities. Stop bailing out Wall Street crooks. Stop subsidizing stateless transnationals who ship jobs overseas.

Deciding to provide medical care to loyal, patriotic American seniors is arguably more valuable than the 1,000 bases we have across the globe (which made sense during the Cold War). Or what about making cuts to the money-sucking power-centralizing Homeland Security budget, which spends billions protecting us from imaginary shampoo bombs. Why do you trust these Washington bureaucrats so much when it comes to security & defense? Why do you trust Washington so much? Why not take the money out of these big wasteful bureaucracies and make sure seniors don't die? Washington could cut a billion other things to achieve this.

Killing Medicare will result in more American deaths than the Department of Homeland Security will prevent. Killing medicare will result in more deaths than having hugely expensive bases in Germany and Japan will prevent. [WWII has been over for a ling time; I think it's safe to bring the troops home and start focusing on rebuilding this country]

Why do you need an expensive & secretive KGB-style Homeland surveillance agency? Bush was told in August 2001 that there were plans to attack NYC skyscrapers. What did he do? Did he put planes on scramble-ready alert? No. He did nothing because Washington is incompetent.

Here is what you don't understand: Washington cannot give you total security any more than it can end poverty. By giving Big Government expanded, centralized powers to track citizens, you only increase the likelihood that a flawed human will abuse that power. We'd all love to end evil and create a utopia where nobody gets attacked, but you can't get to that utopia by giving government more power. Why does the Right need so much security from Washington? Why do they trust bureaucrats so much? Why do they have so much faith in Washington to centrally manage global affairs?

Giving medical care to seniors has been one of the most effective use of tax dollars ever. It takes the expense of middle class parents off the backs of average consumers so they have more money to spend and drive the economy. It's better than having some lazy bureaucrat searching through your emails so he can prevent mentally retarded underwear bombers from blowing up their basements.

It's all about priorities. Trim defense waste. Trim pork. End subsidies to offshore transnationals who don't employ Americans! You will have more than enough money to take care of the great American seniors who built this country.

 

[Avatar4321]

Let's face it, Freedom, Self government, Personal Responsibility, and living within our means is a radical concept nowadays. It's sad, but it's true.

I don't mind being called a radical by a man who has been influenced heavily by marxism. Nor do I apologize for standing for the principles I previously mentioned.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Let's face it, Freedom, Self government, Personal Responsibility, and living within our means is a radical concept nowadays. It's sad, but it's true.

I don't mind being called a radical by a man who has been influenced heavily by marxism. Nor do I apologize for standing for the principles I previously mentioned.

Avatar gets it!

I'm a radical, obama is a radical.

we are just very different types of radical....im a george washington radical, obama is a General Mao radical.

 

[theHawk]

I guess you can't take the COMMUNITY AGITATOR out of him even as President. total disgrace. you all who voted for him should be ASHAMED

Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, April 21, 2011, 5:03 AM
Worst. President. Ever.
The most radical far left president in American history yesterday told an audience of (unemployed?) young Americans that, “Republicans are radical…. Their vision is radical.”
Via The Blaze:
YouTube - Obama Calls GOP Budget 'radical, Not Courageous'

He also told the (unemployed?) kids that Republicans will reduce the deficit “on your backs.”
What a horrible leader.

Barack Obama is the biggest spender in the history of earth. He tripled the deficit in one year, he increased the debt by nearly $4 trillion in two years and Obama and democrats increased the budget by $1 trillion in the three years.

read the rest and comments.
Horrible… Obama to Young People: “The Republicans Are Radical… Their Vision Is Radical” (Video) | The Gateway Pundit

If these days its "radical" to believe that we should secure our borders, reduce the deficit, reduce government spending, empower the private sector to create jobs, have a strong national defense, and adhere to the Constitution, then yes, Republicans are "radical".


However I do not believe these are radical ideas, they are common sense ideas that most Americans agree with. The Hussein is just such a far left Marxist that all these ideas are "radical" to him.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You get it too.

Now that you get it its time to make a shift to being PROUD TO BE A RADICAL!

Just like obama and CO are proud to be the type of radicals they are I am proud to be my type of radical.

Take control of the words and language and own it, just like the liberal media taught me to .

 

[theHawk]

Most of Obama's deficits were the result of Bush policies he got stuck with and lower tax revenues caused by the recession.

LOL, now who didn't SEE this coming.

It's a fact:

Bush's 2008 deficit = 458 billion. Obama inherited that.

Loss of tax revenue 2009 versus 2008 = 421 billion

That's about 880 billion dollars worth of deficit that Obama had nothing to do with. The 2009 deficit was 1.4 trillion.

Therefore, yes, what I stated was a fact. Most of the Obama deficit in 2009 was Bush's or the economy's. That's without even calculating how much mandatory spending went up because of increased unemployment, food stamps, Medicaid, etc., all of which were caused by the recession and not Obama policies.

Obama and the Dems had everything to do with the 2009 economy. They controlled Congress since 2007. So all that spending was on Dems (including Senator Hussein) just as much as it was on Boooooosh.

The Hussein inherited his own Democrat controlled economy.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Most of Obama's deficits were the result of Bush policies he got stuck with and lower tax revenues caused by the recession.

LOL, now who didn't SEE this coming.

It's a fact:

Bush's 2008 deficit = 458 billion. Obama inherited that.

Loss of tax revenue 2009 versus 2008 = 421 billion

That's about 880 billion dollars worth of deficit that Obama had nothing to do with. The 2009 deficit was 1.4 trillion.

Therefore, yes, what I stated was a fact. Most of the Obama deficit in 2009 was Bush's or the economy's. That's without even calculating how much mandatory spending went up because of increased unemployment, food stamps, Medicaid, etc., all of which were caused by the recession and not Obama policies.

Actually these are the facts

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

9/1/2001 national debt was 5.77 trillion
9/1/2009 national debt was 11.79 trillion

That is a total of 6.02 trillion added to the debt
0.75 trillion/year
42% of our national debt from Bush's time

9/1/2009 national debt was 11.79 trillion
4/26/2011 national debt was 14.3 trillion

That is 2.51 trillion added ot the national debt
1.58 trillion/year
18% of our national debt is from Obama's Time

Do you see that obama is more than doubling the rate at which we are adding to the debt compared to bush?

 

[jillian]

LOL, now who didn't SEE this coming.

It's a fact:

Bush's 2008 deficit = 458 billion. Obama inherited that.

Loss of tax revenue 2009 versus 2008 = 421 billion

That's about 880 billion dollars worth of deficit that Obama had nothing to do with. The 2009 deficit was 1.4 trillion.

Therefore, yes, what I stated was a fact. Most of the Obama deficit in 2009 was Bush's or the economy's. That's without even calculating how much mandatory spending went up because of increased unemployment, food stamps, Medicaid, etc., all of which were caused by the recession and not Obama policies.

Actually these are the facts

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

9/1/2001 national debt was 5.77 trillion
9/1/2009 national debt was 11.79 trillion

That is a total of 6.02 trillion added to the debt
0.75 trillion/year
42% of our national debt from Bush's time

9/1/2009 national debt was 11.79 trillion
4/26/2011 national debt was 14.3 trillion

That is 2.51 trillion added ot the national debt
1.58 trillion/year
18% of our national debt is from Obama's Time

Do you see that obama is more than doubling the rate at which we are adding to the debt compared to bush?

1. to unscrew up what baby bush screwed up...

2. you don't cost jobs in a fragile economy ...

3. i don't see any justification for hitting the middle class and neediest while still giving subsidies to oil companies and where corporations aren't paying near their appropriate tax rate.

fix those, get out of iraq and afghanistan, and then talk about screwing the middle class and poor in order to feed an ideology that hates government.

 

[Avatar4321]

1. to unscrew up what baby bush screwed up...

So Obama is trying to fix the problems of the Bush adminsitration by continuing the problems of the Bush administration?

2. you don't cost jobs in a fragile economy ...

You'll have to elaborate here, because I have no clue what you are trying to say.

3. i don't see any justification for hitting the middle class and neediest while still giving subsidies to oil companies and where corporations aren't paying near their appropriate tax rate.

I don't have a problem taking away any subsidies as long as we allow oil companies to actually drill and, you know, provide us more oil. Nor do I have any problem with them as long as we are cutting other expenses as well.

fix those, get out of iraq and afghanistan, and then talk about screwing the middle class and poor in order to feed an ideology that hates government.

I have no problem getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan at this point. It's time for them to stand on their own two feet. Let's get out of Libya and Pakistan, to the degree we are in it, too.

Why don't you hate government when it does all these things you hate? Government is a necessary evil in life. Why on earth do you want to empower it more? Especially when what we should be doing is empowering people by exercising our own freedom to do so.

You want to help the poor and middle class? Stop treating them like they are stuck in a situation they can never escape. Stop trying to stop people from being able to create wealth. Stop treating them like they are helpless victims of life. They aren't. They are your brothers and sisters who can accomplish amazing things if you give them freedom and encourage them to use it to better their situation in life.

People aren't as stupid and helpless as you guys would like to think.

 

[Dot Com]

I think the President sugar-coated it. Repubs, in the U.S.A., are a threat to all mankind.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think the President sugar-coated it. Repubs, in the U.S.A., are a threat to all mankind.

No. Just to those who seek power over man.

 

[digger]

Disgraceful. How dare Obama call the Republicans radical? What a disgrace! I mean, I know that you must hate hyperbolic rhetoric just as much as I do.

This is just icing on the cake. On top of the death panels, and the Socialist rhetoric, and the leading our country down a path to complete ruin because of an insane devotion to big government for its own sake.

You're kidding, right? Pot, meet kettle.

 

[edthecynic]

LOL, now who didn't SEE this coming.

It's a fact:

Bush's 2008 deficit = 458 billion. Obama inherited that.

Loss of tax revenue 2009 versus 2008 = 421 billion

That's about 880 billion dollars worth of deficit that Obama had nothing to do with. The 2009 deficit was 1.4 trillion.

Therefore, yes, what I stated was a fact. Most of the Obama deficit in 2009 was Bush's or the economy's. That's without even calculating how much mandatory spending went up because of increased unemployment, food stamps, Medicaid, etc., all of which were caused by the recession and not Obama policies.

Actually these are the facts

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

9/1/2001 national debt was 5.77 trillion
9/1/2009 national debt was 11.79 trillion

That is a total of 6.02 trillion added to the debt
0.75 trillion/year
42% of our national debt from Bush's time

9/1/2009 national debt was 11.79 trillion
4/26/2011 national debt was 14.3 trillion

That is 2.51 trillion added ot the national debt
1.58 trillion/year
18% of our national debt is from Obama's Time

Do you see that obama is more than doubling the rate at which we are adding to the debt compared to bush?

First of all, the fiscal year begins 10/1 not 9/1.
And it is dishonest to compare all 8 Bush years. Clinton handed Bush a completely different economy to Bush to destroy than the already destroyed economy Bush handed to Obama to fix.

It would be more honest to compare Bush"s last fiscal year to Obama's.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

04/27/2011 - $14,295,127,825,809.10
09/30/2010 - $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49

Bush's last: $1.88 trillion
Obama's average: $1.48 trillion, nearly half a trillion of which is the interest on the GOP debt passed onto him from Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It's a fact:

Bush's 2008 deficit = 458 billion. Obama inherited that.

Loss of tax revenue 2009 versus 2008 = 421 billion

That's about 880 billion dollars worth of deficit that Obama had nothing to do with. The 2009 deficit was 1.4 trillion.

Therefore, yes, what I stated was a fact. Most of the Obama deficit in 2009 was Bush's or the economy's. That's without even calculating how much mandatory spending went up because of increased unemployment, food stamps, Medicaid, etc., all of which were caused by the recession and not Obama policies.

Actually these are the facts

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

9/1/2001 national debt was 5.77 trillion
9/1/2009 national debt was 11.79 trillion

That is a total of 6.02 trillion added to the debt
0.75 trillion/year
42% of our national debt from Bush's time

9/1/2009 national debt was 11.79 trillion
4/26/2011 national debt was 14.3 trillion

That is 2.51 trillion added ot the national debt
1.58 trillion/year
18% of our national debt is from Obama's Time

Do you see that obama is more than doubling the rate at which we are adding to the debt compared to bush?

First of all, the fiscal year begins 10/1 not 9/1.
And it is dishonest to compare all 8 Bush years. Clinton handed Bush a completely different economy to Bush to destroy than the already destroyed economy Bush handed to Obama to fix.

It would be more honest to compare Bush"s last fiscal year to Obama's.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

04/27/2011 - $14,295,127,825,809.10
09/30/2010 - $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49

Bush's last: $1.88 trillion
Obama's average: $1.48 trillion, nearly half a trillion of which is the interest on the GOP debt passed onto him from Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

It wouldn't be more honest at all, it would just be a nice cherry pick. Im using the entire bush presidency and the entire obama presidency to compare the 2 on the basis of national debt. You just want to pick bush's worst year out of political motivation.

And fine move the numbers forward a month to 10/1 and see what happens


10/1/2001 national debt was 5.8 trillion
10/1/2009 national debt was 11.9 trillion

That is a total of 6.1 trillion added to the debt
0.76 trillion/year
43% of our national debt from Bush's time

10/1/2009 national debt was 11.9 trillion
4/27/2011 national debt was 14.3 trillion

That is 2.4 trillion added ot the national debt
1.6 trillion/year
17% of our national debt is from Obama's Time


changing the date by 1 month really didn't change obama's doubling bush's addition to the debt/time. it actually made both presidents look worse.

Try again.

 

[bripat9643]

First of all, the fiscal year begins 10/1 not 9/1.
And it is dishonest to compare all 8 Bush years. Clinton handed Bush a completely different economy to Bush to destroy than the already destroyed economy Bush handed to Obama to fix.

It would be more honest to compare Bush"s last fiscal year to Obama's.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

04/27/2011 - $14,295,127,825,809.10
09/30/2010 - $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49

Bush's last: $1.88 trillion
Obama's average: $1.48 trillion, nearly half a trillion of which is the interest on the GOP debt passed onto him from Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

Sorry, turd, but your counting the TARP money that the Obama administration spent and the porkulus money that was added to Bush's budget. That's why you're using the fiscal year, but includes tons of Obama's spending.

Like I told you, subtract $1.2 trillion from the figure for Bush's last budget. Obama gets the credit for that.

This is just another example of the liberal technique of cherry picking the data.

In other words, you're a god damned liar.

 

[edthecynic]

Actually these are the facts

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

9/1/2001 national debt was 5.77 trillion
9/1/2009 national debt was 11.79 trillion

That is a total of 6.02 trillion added to the debt
0.75 trillion/year
42% of our national debt from Bush's time

9/1/2009 national debt was 11.79 trillion
4/26/2011 national debt was 14.3 trillion

That is 2.51 trillion added ot the national debt
1.58 trillion/year
18% of our national debt is from Obama's Time

Do you see that obama is more than doubling the rate at which we are adding to the debt compared to bush?

First of all, the fiscal year begins 10/1 not 9/1.
And it is dishonest to compare all 8 Bush years. Clinton handed Bush a completely different economy to Bush to destroy than the already destroyed economy Bush handed to Obama to fix.

It would be more honest to compare Bush"s last fiscal year to Obama's.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

04/27/2011 - $14,295,127,825,809.10
09/30/2010 - $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49

Bush's last: $1.88 trillion
Obama's average: $1.48 trillion, nearly half a trillion of which is the interest on the GOP debt passed onto him from Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

It wouldn't be more honest at all, it would just be a nice cherry pick. Im using the entire bush presidency and the entire obama presidency to compare the 2 on the basis of national debt. You just want to pick bush's worst year out of political motivation.

It would be more honest because it shows the disastrous state the economy was in that Bush passed onto Bush. Using Bush's 8 years is the cherry picking because it took time for Bush to destroy the economy that Clinton passed to Bush. You don't want to use Bush's last year because it shows that Obama is an improvement over Bush and that goes against your partisan bias.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

First of all, the fiscal year begins 10/1 not 9/1.
And it is dishonest to compare all 8 Bush years. Clinton handed Bush a completely different economy to Bush to destroy than the already destroyed economy Bush handed to Obama to fix.

It would be more honest to compare Bush"s last fiscal year to Obama's.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

04/27/2011 - $14,295,127,825,809.10
09/30/2010 - $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49

Bush's last: $1.88 trillion
Obama's average: $1.48 trillion, nearly half a trillion of which is the interest on the GOP debt passed onto him from Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

It wouldn't be more honest at all, it would just be a nice cherry pick. Im using the entire bush presidency and the entire obama presidency to compare the 2 on the basis of national debt. You just want to pick bush's worst year out of political motivation.

It would be more honest because it shows the disastrous state the economy was in that Bush passed onto Bush. Using Bush's 8 years is the cherry picking buscuse it took time for Bush to destroy the economy that Clinton passed to Bush. You don't want to use Bush's last year because it shows that Obama is an improvement over Bush and that goes against your partisan bias.

clinton handed bush a recession and a total fail of intelligence and preparedness for 9/11.....two can play that game if you want.

 

[geauxtohell]

He used the term "radical"?

This is a level of hyperbole that hasn't been seen since the late 80's!