XPost: alt.drugs.psychedelics, alt.drugs.hard
From: @gmail.com
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:40:47 +0100, "Obama Tells Military To Fire On
American Citizens"
wrote:
> There should have been something for everyone in President
> Barack Obama’s second inaugural address. For liberals, a full-
> throated call to arms. For conservatives, vindication.
> Obama settled once and for all the debate over his place on the
> political spectrum and his political designs. He’s an unabashed
> liberal determined to shift our politics and our country
> irrevocably to the left. In other words, Obama’s foes — if you
> put aside the birthers and sundry other lunatics — always had
> him pegged correctly.
> If you listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura
> Ingraham, you got a better appreciation of Obama’s core than by
> reading the president’s friends and sophisticated interpreters,
> for whom he was either a moderate or a puzzle yet to be fully
> worked out.
> Rush, et al., doubted that Obama could have emerged from the
> left-wing milieu of Hyde Park, become in short order the most
> liberal U.S. senator, run to Hillary Clinton’s left in the 2008
> primaries and yet have been a misunderstood centrist all along.
> They heeded his record and his boast in 2008 about
> “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” and
> discounted the unifying tone of his rhetoric as transparent
> salesmanship.
> They got him right, even as he duped the Obamacons, played the
> press and fooled his sympathizers. David Brooks, the brilliant
> and winsome New York Times columnist, has been promising the
> arrival of the true, pragmatic Obama for years now. In his
> column praising the second inaugural address, he appeared
> finally to give up. “Now he is liberated,” Brooks wrote. “Now he
> has picked a team and put his liberalism on full display.”
> Paul Krugman, also of The New York Times, wrote blog posts over
> the past few years titled “Obama the Moderate” and “Obama the
> Moderate Conservative.” For Krugman, Obama could never have
> proved himself a liberal short of an order to liquidate the
> kulaks. Even he, though, wrote of the second inaugural: “Obama
> has never been this clear before about what he stands for.”
> After years of portraying Obama as cautiously picking through
> warmed-over Republican ideas, an Eisenhower Republican miscast
> by his opponents as a liberal ideologue, Obama’s allies exulted
> in his open embrace of liberal ideology.
> The media, as a general matter, loved the speech. They praised
> Obama’s post-partisanship and now they praise his post-post-
> partisanship. They aren’t strictly contradicting themselves
> because the content is the same. In his old post-partisan phase,
> the president passed a nearly $1 trillion stimulus, a universal
> health care bill sought by the left for decades and a massive
> regulation of Wall Street. All prior to his “liberation.”
> One theory is that Obama has been forced into his unabashed
> liberalism by the irrational recalcitrance of Republicans. But
> you don’t advance a philosophically cogent view of American
> history in an inaugural address in a fit of pique. It wasn’t
> Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who made Obama believe
> that progressivism somehow represents the logical outgrowth of
> the American founding. It wasn’t House Speaker John Boehner who
> made him weave Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security into the
> flag as the 51st, 52nd and 53rd stars.
> Yes, Obama would have preferred to pass his agenda with
> Republican votes. That wouldn’t have made the agenda any
> different or changed his conviction that History with a capital
> “H” runs in one direction — toward more government and social
> liberalism. If anything, it would have re-enforced his belief
> that his remaining opponents were outside the mainstream and
> deserving only of his pity or his scorn.
> Obama is making his play, as the newest cliché goes, to become
> the liberal Reagan. As soon as he won reelection, we went from
> the Obama administration to the Obama years, and that is no mean
> feat. Becoming an enduringly transformational figure like
> Reagan, though, is a different proposition. He will have to
> leave office adored. He will have to cement his legacy by
> winning a de facto third term. His big policies will have to
> work, as Reagan’s did in winning the Cold War and reviving the
> economy.
> For all of the ideological ambition of his second inaugural, the
> policy agenda was thin or unachievable. Reducing wait-times at
> the polls isn’t a major item. At the federal level, gay marriage
> is largely up to the courts. He will get much less on guns than
> he wants and probably nothing significant from Congress on
> climate change. His best chance for a breakthrough is on
> immigration, which divides Republicans.
> The virtue of the address was making his intentions
> unmistakable, although Rush Limbaugh never mistook them in the
> first place.
> http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/rush-limbaugh-was-right-
> 86641.html?hp=l3
> --
> Are you obligated as an armed civilian, to defend unarmed
> liberals while you are both under fire by foreign agents of the
> outlaw Obama administration?
> No. Shoot the liberals immediately so they can't stab you in
> the back while you are defending yourself, then return a
> controlled rate of aimed fire.
>
You post er crosspost like a spam troll. And your litery work reads
like the 3 novel long War and Peace...
--
Kontac |=] | |>--- A taste of life...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
