I am well informed. Obama is a radical with a radical agenda.
You can say that grass is purple a zillion times but repeating it doesn't make it so. Only when you can demonstrate it does it become a fact.
I can't think of a single thing he has done that has helped this nation.
What does that have to do with being a radical? It doesn't make him a radical any more than it makes grass purple. If your point is that you think he's taking us headlong in the wrong direction, then just say so. That is a legitimate opinion and is even arguably a true statement. But why insist that he's a radical? Calling him a radical is not an opinion, legitimate or otherwise, but an error of classification just like grass being purple is an error of classification.
Perhaps you insist on "he's a radical" as code for "he hasn't done a single thing that helps this nation." If so, then I suggest you abandon the inapt code and state your opinion directly. I will certainly not give you any argument on that opinion. First of all, it is an opinion, not a factual error, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. And second, that opinion doesn't differ all that much from my own opinion. I will, however, give you an argument when you make an incorrect factual assertion. Obama is not a radical. You have misclassified him.
I don't know why you insist on the "radical" label. It's of no more use than successfully pinning a "bowler" or "vegetarian" or "nerd" label on the New York Yankees. It accomplishes nothing. They're still the champs.
I refuse to give up on you. One of these days you will see it.
Words have meaning. Word meanings can and do change over time but they do so at a glacial pace. You and I won't live long enough to see the word, "radical" in its current meaning accurately applied to Obama. Obama might live long enough, I suppose, to transform into one since he may already have proclivities in that direction, but, given that presidents are restricted to two terms, he won't be in office long enough for it to happen while he's still in office.
Answer me this:
Is his desire to take over the auto industry radical?
Is his desire to take over the healthcare industry radical?
Is his desire to eliminate media which is not echoing his approved party line radical?
If the first of those were true, it might reasonably be classified as radical. The others, no. Nationalized health care is SOP in industrialized countries. Something that's SOP by definition cannot be radical. As for going after the media, that's common around the world and across the political spectrum. (Historically it's been particularly common in right-wing dictatorships, which are on the opposite end of the spectrum from radicals.) Likewise, anything in common practice cannot be radical. |
