>>> With the exception of the auto bankruptcy, they are nothing new.
>>> If you want to support "radical," then you have to find NEW perversions.
Lane, you're reaching here. I don't think you you usually do this but in this instance you clearly are.
There is no requirement that the "perversions" be new to be classified as radical. Not sure where that came from.
As to the car industry, whether you hand it over to the UAW or to federal government, it doesn't much matter -- it is corruption of established business processes that have been in place for decades. As to "nationalization", it is a matter of degree.
While bills have been passed without a 60 vote majority before, nothing this sweeping -- and to do so is contrary to long-established Senate rules. That makes it radical imo.
The attack on the CIA has never been done before. Not sure where you got that idea. While Jimmy Carter did massively damage the CIA, I'm not aware of him trying to prosecute anyone for acts deemed legal by a prior administration. That is radical.
No president of the US has conducted an "apology tour" the way Obama has and I'm not aware of any president who has so frequently and harshly bashed the United States. Maybe you could tell me who it is you're thinking about that did this before.
Same with the attack on Fox News. There is no precedent, AFAIK, for what they're doing here. For example, even after CBS and NBC went after GWB with all their might, GWB never cut off access to them. And I don't think this is something any president who understands the constitutional basis for this country would do that.
Whatever. As I said, some of it I accept is opinion but there is a REASON such a large number of people are concerned about the direction the country has taken.
(As to James Watt, I agree -- he was out there and had no place in the cabinet). |
