Lame that a thread about Obama turns into a thread about Bush.
Big surprise on this left-wing loon bin.
Actually, I have a different take... it's lame that you would use this particular video to start this particular thread to insinuate that the man elected by the majority of Americans is somehow unspooling America's legacy.
I will quote you:
Enter the current administration, and by virtue of implementing an unprecedented, radical left wing agenda they are effectively undoing 234 years of American tradition, sacrifice, discipline and history.
Let's take a brief look at this "radical left wing agenda":
Health care is a right, not a privilege. Nothing radical or left wing about that unless you prefer to make a buck in the process of allowing someone to live or maintain a high quality of life. If this goal of ensuring Americans receive health care hadn't been attempted by several Republicans, you might have a leg to stand on. However, Teddy Roosevelt tried it in 1912, Eisenhower tried to address private health insurers in the late 50s, Nixon promised it in 1971, Ford supported National Health Insurance legislation in 1974, and the Bush I administration proposed health care tax credits and purchasing pools and even ran on that reform against Clinton. So... nothing left wing about it,
starinvestor.
[For references, see Focus on Health Reform published by The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in March 2009.]
America should defeat her foes. Nothing radical or left wing about that unless you prefer we actually
do reverse 234 years of precedent. Let us not forget that troops were in Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11, not as a result of the 2008 elections. Continuing the military initiative of a previous Republican administration...? Hardly left wing,
starinvestor.
Corporate polluters should be held accountable. There is not one iota of radicalism in this. Although
regulating business seems to be anathema to many Republicans, let's not forget that the Environmental Protection Agency was established by Richard Nixon. The initial charter of the EPA was to consolidate multiple federal programs under the aegis of a single agency, but its first actions were to hold entities accountable. William Ruckelshaus (another stalwart of the Republican party) recounts:
"Shortly after opening EPA's doors, we filed suit against the cities of Detroit, Cleveland, and Atlanta for polluting their rivers with sewage. Similar actions against industry followed." [See the EPA website here.]
The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act as we know them today? Yup, laws strengthened as part and parcel of the Nixon administration's EPA. So, pursuing BP sounds to me to be a pretty sane and well-established centrist policy,
starinvestor.
We shouldn't allow America's banking system to crash. I think you could find several pro-Obama writers on this board who would politely tell you that they thought this was a terrible idea. None the less, there is nothing left wing or radical here either. Even
Holman Jenkins (probably the most pro-business, anti-Obama columnists at the
Wall Street Journal) pointed out that the bailout was inevitable:
"But let's understand something: The taxpayer already stands behind the banking system, and is on the hook for its losses in one sense or another."[From Obama's Dangerous Bank Bailout, 4 February 2009]
Jenkin's comments were published two weeks after Obama's inaugural... which just sort of points out the obvious: this bailout started under the Bush II administration and was sustained because unraveling it would have created more damage than allowing it to proceed. In the long run, the bailout appears to have succeeded and averted a banking crisis. The last crisis we had like this? Under the Bush I administration: $124.6 B was paid by the US Government under George H.W. Bush to bailout the S&Ls.
[See Wikipedia, "Savings and loan crisis"]
I think you're going to have to let this one go unless you would like to impugn two generations of Bush policy-making,
starinvestor.
So, what is left? What other so-called "left wing" policies does this President pursue? Trying to establish dialog with America's enemies? Nope, that is called diplomacy. Even as he spoke the words "
trust, but verify", Ronald Reagan was pursuing diplomatic approaches to ending the Cold War. Letting your wife pursue a public campaign promoting healthy eating habits for America's kids? Nope, that is called common sense. It's the reason Barbara Bush and Laura Bush campaigned for literacy and Nancy Reagan wanted kids to learn to 'just say no'.
You see... there just isn't a lot of "left-wingness" or "radicalism" for you to hang your hat on,
starinvestor. You don't like President Obama and you don't want to brook any room for him to maybe have a good idea or a cogent strategy on anything.
You ridicule this
entire board
and its members by stating that it's a "left-wing loon bin", so let me challenge that.
Supporting the President is not now, nor has it ever been, a "left-wing" activity. Neither is standing up for the principles of America. And neither is it "left-wing" to call out someone's ill-reasoned, hate-inspired diatribes that apparently are designed to agitate instead of inspire, unite or create. Criticize intelligently all you want, but hate for hate's sake? That's not "right wing" or "left wing"... that's just ignorance,
starinvestor.
