No one noticed. But I did.
Back in 2008 Barack Obama said
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqN4NIEtOY[/youtube]
Then when confronted Obama denied it:
O’Reilly: OK. I got a letter from Kathy LaMaster, Fresno, Calif. I said I would read one letter from the folks, all right?
Obama: All right.
O’Reilly: “Mr. President, why do you feel it’s necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity and success?”
Obama: I don’t think we have to fundamentally transform the nation.
Yes, you do, you liar.
The Obama worshipping minions of Politifact couldn’t figure out what Obama meant by “fundamentally transform” the US.
We decided that we couldn’t put this statement to the Truth-O-Meter, since the definition of “fundamentally transform” is too vague.
So let’s help.
2. of, relating to, or affecting the foundation or basis:
“a fundamental revision.”
1. to change in form, appearance, or structure; metamorphose.
2. to change in condition, nature, or character; convert.
3. to change into another substance; transmute.
By definition what Obama said was that he wanted to change the foundation of the country. This country is fundamentally a democratic republic and that is what Obama wants to change. The Obama sycophants at Politifact are so heavily burdened with bias that they were unwilling to be honest.
Let’s now jump ahead to Obama’s SOTU 2015:
Fifteen years into this new century, we have picked ourselves up, dusted ourselves off and begun again the work of remaking America.
There it was again. When he was sure everyone stopped paying attention he let it fly.
1. to make again or anew.
He said we needed to fundamentally transform America, then denied it, then said again that we need to do “remake” America.
For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone believes anything that liar says. One cannot ever forget that Obama was steeped in Alinskyism:
“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.”
That pretty much sums it up. Any denials on the part of Obama or his water carriers will only offer concrete proof that this is absolutely accurate. (DrJohn’s Law)
“In five days, you can choose policies that invest in our middle class, and create new jobs, and grow this economy, so that everyone has a chance to succeed, not just the CEO, but the secretary and janitor, not just the factory owner, but the men and women on the factory floor.”
Ever stop and ask yourself what that means? Ever ask yourself what it means when everyone fares equally despite disparate investment in education and effort?
From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. I’ve heard this somewhere before.
The election (twice) of Barack Obama could either be a learning experience or the beginning of the end of the US as a democratic republic.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Rich Wheeler:
I notice you didn’t supply a link. Don’t bother to link to Soro’s Fact Check or Snopes. We all know they”re in the tank.
The Ill bar says michelle’s is suspended by court order.
Call it what you like, Revoked they are.
@Rich Wheeler:
Really? in 1993?
@Redteam: Your obsession with Obama is frankly a little weird RT.
I’m gonna take a break from our frenetic back and forth. Nothing being solved. Feel it’s a waste of my time .
Don’t forget Valentine’s Day Ck. in with your wife.
I did get a good laugh out of “urban legends” website
@Greg:
I suggest you look up a few words. One is “reality”. Another would be “excuses”. Oh, this would would help you as well… “propaganda”. In other words, answer the question of how in the hell to you believe (or think you could get anyone else to believe) that a start-up, struggling, little-known cable news outlet would be influential in getting Clinton impeached? Clinton did that when he lied under oath. Even today, with Fox the most popular and most respected cable news network, they are but one, as opposed to 8 or so left wing cheerleading networks that either distort the stories or suppress them altogether. I repeat, Greg, of all the lame-ass, weak, silly, last-ditch excuses for Obama’s failure, that one has got to be the weakest!! You have proven yourself (or whomever feeds you such stupid ideas) truly desperate for excuses!
@Bill, #205:
Presumably you’re aware that the GOP’s Monica Lewinsky circus officially ended on February 12, 1999, when Clinton was acquitted of both articles of impeachment. The republican-majority U.S. Senate rejected the charge of perjury and failed to uphold the charge of obstruction of justice. The objective was the damaging political effects of the long-running production, of course. The final act wasn’t really what the show was all about.
The word “facilitate” was used in connection with FOX News and the events leading up to 1999.
The definition of “instrumental” suggests that FOX News had considerably more influence in the matter of selling the Invasion of Iraq to the American people. FOX News did. The period we’re talking about in this second situation was late 2001 through 2003.
With those two different time frames in mind, you might find this chart plotting the viewing audiences of FOX News vs. the other cable news outlets instructive—assuming, of course, that your visual comprehension is somewhat better than your apparent reading comprehension. (That was a return insult. Perhaps you should consider dropping them, so I won’t feel the occasional need to respond in kind.)
Some might speculate that FOX News achieved it’s ascendancy by fanning the flames of fear to near hysteria and by pitching a “preemptive” attack on Iraq as the solution. They continued to grow in subsequent years by exploiting populace fears and angers, when they did much to expand. Consider, for example, the long run of conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck. They were instrumental in widening the divide in the national consciousness in the process—a thing that they continue to exploit.
@Greg:
So, Fox convinced all those Democrats to support the intelligence that showed that Hussein was pursuing more weapons of mass destruction, was maintaining the capability to quickly ramp up his WMD industry and had close ties to terrorists? Fox convinced Hussein to ignore 17 UN resolutions?
Your argument is getting weaker and weaker and sillier and sillier.
@Bill, #207:
Actually, bogus intelligence is what convinced “all those Democrats” to support Bush’s call to preemptively invade and displace the government of a nation that hadn’t attacked us, had no capability to do so, and had no real prospects of attaining such a capability—even if had it made a bit of sense for them to do so to begin with.
Perhaps on the right, the reaction to Obama really is all about Bush.
@Greg:
But not acquitted of smoking Monica Cigars.
long run? 2 years is a long run? He wasn’t even on Fox until 2009. He had nothing to do with Fox viewer numbers increasing. They are about same now as o9.
@Greg:
Hmmm, really. So, why did the support of such Democrats as Bill and Hillary, Allbright, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi, Berger, Daschel, Levin, Graham, Byrd, Waxman, Rockefeller exist… BEFORE 9/11, Bush and Fox’s evil influence?
The accusations against Bush and Fox are actually all about Obama and failure.
Weaker and sillier still. Weaker and sillier.
@Greg: #208
After Clinton took office, he reduced the funding for the military AND THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES to the point that the agencies had to bring back to the USA a lot of their agents. We had 2 agents in Iraq at the time, and BOTH OF THEM were called home. From then on, the USA had to rely on information FROM OTHER COUNTRIES, which wasn’t always reliable.
The military was reduced down so much that we wouldn’t have been able to fight two wars at the same time, like we were before. The tanker fleet for ships was reduced to 1/2 the amount they had. Military personnel didn’t get a raise in pay for several years. My son is one of them. This is how Clinton balanced the budget.
If you have been keeping up on current events, you know that WMD have been found in Iraq. If Sodom didn’t have them, how did he gas his own people?
@Bill, #210:
You simply ignore anything that doesn’t support your own views. There’s little point trying to argue with someone’s defense mechanisms.
@Greg: I sure do. Especially when it lacks the benefit of being true. There is absolutely no point in arguing the point to me that “lies” generated by Bush led us to war with Iraq. THAT is the lie. About time you figured it out.