calfoxwc Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Charles Krauthammer Speech/Comments on the 'New Economy'& Obama Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright & careful in his analysis, & never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fearmonger nor an extremist in his comments & views. He is a fiscal conservative, & has a Pulitzer prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News & writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have shared this w/ many of you & several have asked me to summarize his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically & internationally. Even 2 Dims at my table agreed w/ everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded & have not 'drunk the Kool-Aid', feel free. Here is his resume from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer A summary of his comments: 1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a 'cool customer' who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's 'behind the mask'. Taking down the Clinton dynasty from a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time. 2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan & Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing w/ your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attn. to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES! 3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, incl. dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, & wants to 'level the playing field' w/ income redistribution & punishment of the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada. 4. His 3 main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, & NAT'L HEALTHCARE by the Fed. govt. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap & trade will add costs to everything & stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is healthcare program, because if you make it FREE & add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go thru the roof. The only way to control costs is w/ massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid. 5. He's surrounded himself w/ mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever run even a candy store. But they're going to try & run the auto, financial, banking & other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama's not a socialist; rather a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says. 6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the USA, more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries & their agendas. He sees mo[/size]ral equivilency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany & England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the 1st President ever who has chastised our allies & appeased our enemies! 7. He's now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (& pain) will not 'come due' until after he's reelected in 2012. He'd like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, & hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, & Mr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcicist. 8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. We're 'pining' for another Reagan, but there'll never be another like him. He believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in Feb.) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere & intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts & info if she's to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller govt., personal responsibility, strong nat'l defense, & states' rights. 9. The current level of spending is irresponsible & outrageous. We're spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead to hyper inflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid & Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due & people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus pkg. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions & the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above. 10. The election was over in mid-Sept. when Lehman brothers failed. Fear & panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, & the war was grinding on indefinitely w/o a clear outcome. The people are in pain, & the mantra of 'change' caused people to act emotionally. Any Dim would have won this election; it was surprising is was as close as it was. 11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dims continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it'll be a dogfight. It'll all be about the economy , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Great Post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 wow. If the guy who came up with this was so smart, he would realize that the bailout began under Bush. (#9) The election was over when McCain chose Palin as his running mate. (#10) Was this guy concerned about the trillions we've spent on a war in Iraq and the overspending that went on for the previous 7 years? (#9) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownIndian Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 cal, could u please use smaller fonts next time ? It is hard to read .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 wow. If the guy who came up with this was so smart, he would realize that the bailout began under Bush. (#9) I guess if the new president was so "smart" he'd realize that Bush was no longer in power and that he could rebuild the bailout in his own way... Excellent thoughts from Krauthammer. (I'd lose the "Buttock" as this is otherwise a smart and very defensible post) WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 It's truly amazing just how quickly the right has completely lost it's shit. "Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, incl. dismantling capitalism." "Obama’s not a socialist; rather a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution." It's a bit comical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 It's truly amazing just how quickly the right has completely lost it's shit. "Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, incl. dismantling capitalism." Try replacing two words. Substitute "Cheney" or "Bush" (or any other popular republican villain) for Obama. Now change the word "capitalism" to "The Constitution." Still outraged? "Obama’s not a socialist; rather a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution." It's a bit comical. Which terms bother you? Secular? Progressive? Seriously. Far left? Not compared to Red China but to the left end of US politics, right? Revolution, er, as in "Change" ? Also Inspecta, I undrstand but hey we all have our shtick. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Maybe you could tell me what it is about going through the relevant committees and existing institutions - i.e. the democratic process - to achieve policy goals that the American people elected him to achieve is "ruthless", or what he's doing to dismantle capitalism, or incite a revolution. Last time I checked he's trying to figure out a way to give Americans health care coverage. This is typical email forward nonsense based on the premise that an un-American evil lurks in the White House. You think it's spot on. Like I said, it's amazing to me that it only took six months for the right to completely lose its shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Maybe you could tell me what it is about going through the relevant committees and existing institutions - i.e. the democratic process - to achieve policy goals that the American people elected him to achieve is "ruthless", or what he's doing to dismantle capitalism, or incite a revolution. Last time I checked he's trying to figure out a way to give Americans health care coverage. This is typical email forward nonsense based on the premise that an un-American evil lurks in the White House. You think it's spot on. Like I said, it's amazing to me that it only took six months for the right to completely lose its shit. Maybe you could read what I said and respond to it. So far you don't like the word ruthless. Fine. Pick a euphemism. i guess nationalizing the banks, auto industry and health care industry is capitalism at it's purest form in your book. Revolution means change Heck, not only armed revolt. Relax. Unless it's different it the Hecktionary. PS I'm not commenting on the merits of these acions right now. Just saying what is... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I guess I missed the part where we nationalized the banks and proposed to nationalize the health care industry. Even the auto industry isn't being "nationalized." Maybe if you knew something about anything we could have an honest debate. But no, I have to spend my time telling you what words mean, and what reality is. And no, revolution doesn't mean change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I guess I missed the part where we nationalized the banks and proposed to nationalize the health care industry. I suppose so. Even the auto industry isn't being "nationalized." Maybe if you knew something about anything we could have an honest debate. But no, I have to spend my time telling you what words mean, and what reality is. And no, revolution doesn't mean change. Revolution Definition: drastic action or change, often in politics Synonyms: anarchy, bloodshed, cabal, coup, coup d'état, crime, debacle, destruction, disorder, foment, golpe, guerrilla activity, innovation, insubordination, insurgency, metamorphosis, mutiny, outbreak, overthrow, overturn, plot, radical change, rebellion, reformation, reversal, revolt, rising, row, shake-up, shift, strife, strike, subversion, transformation, tumult, turbulence, turmoil, turnover, underground activity, unrest, upheaval, uprising, uproar, upset, violence WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobuo Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 How could you miss the attempts at nationalizing healthcare or the auto industry? Obama essentially took over General Motors when he did this. Another article here. And you don't have to look any further than this forum to see the information about his healthcare plans. Might want to take your head out of the sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 That's right, Steve. Drastic and wholesale change is different from change. I'm sure this is too subtle a difference for you, even though it's not that subtle. And now when confronted with the fact - not the opinion, the fact - that we didn't nationalize the banks, and that nobody is proposing that we nationalize the health care industry, you're still going to insist that we did, and that I'm wrong. Way too much credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Nationalizing the health care industry would mean a single payer system. That's not what's being proposed, or even close to what is being proposed. Having over 70% of Americans continue to get their insurance from private health insurers is not a nationalization plan. And the partial nationalization of the auto industry is temporary as a means to preserve it through bankruptcy. And the banks were never nationalized. It's not my fault that you guys don't know what these terms mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 come on heck less than 2% of all industry is nationalized so we must be going toward the socialism monster.... Yes "bank" nationalization.... sure IndyMac must not have been sold back to private ownership after the EMERGENCY takeover that was temporary....The TARP funds being paid back so Banks can do what they want must not be happening either because the big bank Obama socialist monster must be blocking that also...... Ford must be being forced to stay private because Obama wants to "take" over all of the Auto industry also nevermind that the same administration is allowing Fiat to buy Chryslers assets and emerge from bankruptcy or helping GM with the same intent... No the Obama monster wants a COMPETITIVE NON PROFIT insurance option to force EFFICIENCY and COST SAVINGS on the private for profit OBVIOUSLY skyrocketing costs of health care management..... Sure he is nationalizing everything... lmao What a terrible thing to want a more modern efficient health care system with a Non profit check against HMO's who basically have a stranglehold on our countries system with no recourse.... sure unchecked power to deny health care while increasing costs is ok..... good god the "deficit" spending monster was no issue when Bush and the same republicans were in majority rule when they increased Medicare spending MASSIVELY and 3 tax cuts in a 2 country war and occupation... Of course the massive Privatization of military services to again spend tax payer money on mercenaries and laundry/mail/transportation/food for the military was ok. Not a peep from these right wing conservatives than. seriously you "conservatives" and republicans need to stop the politically driven PR garbage. Obama has some legitimate things to poke on like his promises of transparancy and lobbyists is bunk and should be called out. The Move into escalating Afghanistan is another Iraq quagmire when the people nor the "government" can sustain itself nor really wants us there. His total lack of decisive political actions and riding the middle bench because he is maneuvering for his second term reelection already. there are some legitimate things to nail him on, instead of this PR drivel that is just political talking points. In some ways Obama is just as Bad as Bush Jr. in controlling the media, I really like the guy but he is definately a politician and I dont mean that as a compliment. He is smooth....TOO smooth and his actions by using proxies and third parties by influence is no different than any other major politician so his whole change mantra is just that... a mantra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Obama has not impressed me as a leader at all. His phony meeting as I type this with the Cambridge Police Officer and the Black dude doesn't impress me at all. He is a phony. A typical "Chicago Politician" as I stated back in October last year. He hasn't accomplished anything except making our country weaker, in my opinion or course. This "love" of him is also dying a slow death in the National Polls. People are beginning to see him as he really is. A political BS artist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 My apologies to all ! I thought I had deleted the html font entries, but didn't save it. And, it is a very good article, and I did muck it up by adding my "buttock" hit on Obama. My bad. but what Krauthammer makes points about, it's very hard to just diss it with out considering the legit merits of what Kraut is saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 That's right, Steve. Drastic and wholesale change is different from change. I'm sure this is too subtle a difference for you, even though it's not that subtle. Way too much credit. I see you added wholesale to the definition. Hey your lack of understanding here does taint the rest of your pompous lecturing. So going from the worst administration in US history rife with greed war crimes and theocracy to the wonderous and brilliant healing Obama team is not a drastic change in your eyes. OK. A simple "damn I hit send too soon" would have been OK. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Drastic and wholesale change is different from change Heck ********************************************* Yes, Heck, and a nickle change is different than change for a twenty. We know, oh pompous one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobuo Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 brilliant healing Obama team I hope you're being sarcastic, but in case you're not... Do you really call planning to spend over a trillion dollars healing? Where do you think that money is coming from? It's coming from your pocket and my pocket. Mortaging our children and our grandchildren to dump money into failing companies (see General Motors) that will still fail when the money runs out is anything but healing. Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 I hope you're being sarcastic, but in case you're not... Do you really call planning to spend over a trillion dollars healing? Where do you think that money is coming from? It's coming from your pocket and my pocket. Mortaging our children and our grandchildren to dump money into failing companies (see General Motors) that will still fail when the money runs out is anything but healing. Ugh. Actually I'm just describing the opinions of many here who really disliked the Bush administration and seem to ber very very high on the obama team. It would seem to be a "drastic" change to those who adhere to that view. Yeah it was sarcasm too. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Hahaha. Yes, we're really going to pretend that "revolution" and "change" mean the same thing. "A dramatic or wide-reaching change in the way something works or is organized or in people's ideas about it." Sounds a bit like "drastic or wholesale change" to me. And that's the third definition, after the one about the violent overthrow of the government. But again, distinctions were never your strongpoint. Why should we imagine you could understand the difference between "change" and "revolution"? Obama, for instance, wants to change the top tax rate. He doesn't want revolutionary change in the top tax rate. Was that so hard? Do I really have to waste my time on this? Do you have to waste your time on this? Clearly, the claim is that Obama wants revolutionary change, and that's what I'm saying is ludicrous. He's not upending capitalism, or the tax code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobuo Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Actually I'm just describing the opinions of many here who really disliked the Bush administration and seem to ber very very high on the obama team. It would seem to be a "drastic" change to those who adhere to that view. Yeah it was sarcasm too. WSS Okay good. Scared me there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Hahaha. Yes, we're really going to pretend that "revolution" and "change" mean the same thing. Uh they are. That was the battle cry. Was that so hard? Do I really have to waste my time on this? Do you have to waste your time on this? No it wasn't hard. You f*cked up. You shot off your mouth not knowing a definition and now are trying to spin your way out. I'll ask but you won't answer. So, Heck, the Change mantra in the Obama campaign meant only the top tax rate? That's what the election was over? Yes? No? Blahblahblah? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 No, Steve, that was an example of the difference between change and revolution. Obviously, I wasn't trying to encompass every aspect of Obama's agenda in that single sentence, and only a moron would think I was. And I can't believe we're having this argument. This is probably the last straw for me. You're actually going to stick to your definition when I just gave you the definition from the first dictionary I found and it adheres exactly to my definition, not yours. Now you're claiming I made some sort of error and I'm trying to "spin" out of it. By using the actual definition of the word. If you went from a size 32 waist to a size 34, that would be a change. It would not be a revolution. They mean different things. Just when you think you've reached rock bottom, you go lower. I simply won't waste any more time with you. This is beyond submental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 ROF,L ! "If you went from a size 32 waist to a size 34, that would be a change. It would not be a revolution. They mean different things. "HECK Just when your pompousness ? goes over the edge, it catches fire, Heck. NOW you've stooped to comparing radical social and governmental change to the waist size of a pair of pants? "HECK, if you go out into the garden, and you see a pretty little bug crawling on a bloom on one of your plants, that is NOT social revolution." ROF,LMAO ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 No, Steve, that was an example of the difference between change and revolution. Obviously, I wasn't trying to encompass every aspect of Obama's agenda in that single sentence, and only a moron would think I was. And I can't believe we're having this argument. This is probably the last straw for me. You're actually going to stick to your definition when I just gave you the definition from the first dictionary I found and it adheres exactly to my definition, not yours. Now you're claiming I made some sort of error and I'm trying to "spin" out of it. By using the actual definition of the word. If you went from a size 32 waist to a size 34, that would be a change. It would not be a revolution. They mean different things. Just when you think you've reached rock bottom, you go lower. I simply won't waste any more time with you. This is beyond submental. Good idea. You're just wrong and you know it. And you (and others) have been bleating about the huge and wonderful change we have from Bush to Obama. (if degree of "change" is your new wild goose. That's not wide ranging? Not dramatic? You want to avoid admitting a simple mistake on your part. But I agree. it is submental. Even for you. But if you care to, do a Google search for Obama revolution or Obama revolutionary and see how many hits you get and count the ones from his supporters. Then put the asshat back on. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 Weird thing about Heck, when he's wrong, he arrogantly insists he right, he wears an asshat, and he arrogantly insists that he is superior. But the telling tale of Heckleberry's stupidity, is his idea that he somehow may have been funny on this board once in years. THAT is another reason Heck wears the asshat around here. He's boring, and his cya is all over the place. And that doesn't mean he's covering his asshat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.