Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (10564)	10/20/2009 6:43:23 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

That said, to suggest his legislative priorities aren't radical is strange. The man "pushed through" an $800 BILLION pork-filled "stimulus" bill. I cannot imagine someone suggesting that isn't "radical". Back to words having meaning, "radical," by definition, is at the edge, way outside the mainstream, abnormal, extreme, nutty. As long as he is taking heat from his left for relative moderation, he simply cannot be considered radical. As long as his approval ratings are high, meaning he has support from the majority or even a large plurality, he can't, by definition, be radical. It's all relative to the mainstream. It may be radical historically but not in current context. Historically unusual is not the standard. Being way outside the mainstream is the standard. No matter how outside your own sense of what is appropriate he may be, he can't have so many people farther out there than he is and be deemed "radical."