There is no requirement that the "perversions" be new to be classified as radical. Not sure where that came from.
To be radical something needs to be different, very strange, very, very "out there" in some way or other. I cannot imagine any other standard. If past administrations did the same thing, albeit not routinely, I don't see how all of a sudden they get to be radical.
Lane, you're reaching here.
I think you're the one who's reaching. You're overgeneralizing and exaggerating. You don't like the guy or his approach, ergo he must be all variety of bad things like a liar and a radical. Probably a bastard, too. <g> I don't think you've made a case based on the meaning of the words. If you disapprove of him so much, then pick a more precise and apt notion of what it is about him you disapprove than "radical." I disapprove of him because he is too centrist and command-and-controlling for IMO the good of the country, fiscally irresponsible, and redistributionist, to boot. But that doesn't make me believe that he tortures small animals or fails to wash his hands when he uses the toilet. Or that he isn't charming and smart.
As to "nationalization", it is a matter of degree.
Exactly what I have been arguing. Nationalization is more radical than a distorted bankruptcy. If there are more radical options out there, than a distorted bankruptcy cannot, by definition, be radical because it is, indeed, a matter of degree. Fiddling with the bankruptcy process is an increment, not a leap. Nationalization is a leap.
to do so is contrary to long-established Senate rules. That makes it radical imo.
That makes it disreputable. That's different from radical.
nothing this sweeping
I agree with you that there's more at stake here, which makes it more egregiously disreputable. But the tactic isn't novel.
In any event, that confuses radicalism, the leftist ideology, with extreme tactics, again not the same thing.
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.
I haven't commented on that because I don't know enough about it to speak intelligently about it. I have heard the complaint but I haven't seen or heard what he said that might be construed as radical.
There is no precedent, AFAIK, for what they're doing here.
Every administration tries to manipulate the press corps and most are at war with some part of it in one way or another. Whether you go after the NYT or Fox is a function of your party. Whether you refuse to recognize certain reporters in press conferences, shuffle the press corps to less attractive digs, refuse to address the National Press Club, or try to foment internal conflict within the corps as Obama is doing, it's just a matter of tactics.
there is a REASON such a large number of people are concerned about the direction the country has taken.
Of course there is. But that doesn't make him a radical. There have been lots of reasons for concern at various times. Concern doesn't imply "radical."
Consider the large number of people concerned about the direction of the country when Bush invaded Iraq. Does that make Bush a radical? One could argue that he is based on your criteria. Perhaps even by mine. After all, invading a foreign country that isn't a threat to us, particularly one bigger than Granada, while done in the past, is pretty far out there.
(As to James Watt, I agree -- he was out there and had no place in the cabinet).
Nice that we can agree on something. |
