2012 WTF #25: When is a “Quote” Not a “Quote”? When Given by President Obama
2012 WTF #25: When is a “Quote” Not a “Quote”? When Given by President Obama –
OBAMA SAYS:
Earlier this week during a speech at the University of North Carolina, Mr. Obama said:
“I’m going to quote this because I know you guys will think I’m making it up, she (Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.)) said she had ‘very little tolerance for people who tell me they graduate with debt because there’s no reason for that.’”
Which would be outrageous, except it’s not quite what she said.
For whatever reason, President Obama chose to leave out a couple of key words in his “quote” (making it a paraphrase, not a quote as he stated) because what she actually said while on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show was that she had “very little tolerance for people who tell me that they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt because there’s no reason for that”.
It looks to me like she was saying you could choose a lower cost education and not graduate with $200K in debt if you chose to (nobody MADE you go to an ivy league college just because they accepted you), not that she thought graduating with ANY debt was bad.
In that interview she goes on to say that she reminds people that the Declaration of Independence promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — stressing the word “pursuit.” Adding that “You don’t sit on your butt and have it dumped in your lap” Amen, sister!
Then at the University of Iowa, Obama said, “You’ve got one member of Congress who compared these student loans — I’m not kidding here — to a ‘stage-three cancer of socialism’”.
No Mr. President, you’re not “kidding”, just misleading.
ACTUAL QUOTE:
Now, even though the president didn’t name him by name, this comment can be traced back to a comment made by Congressman Todd Akin, Missouri, in a recent debate with Republican senate candidates. When asked about the student loan issue, Akin slammed the government for taking over college loans in a 2009 bill.
So it appears his comment about “stage 3 cancer of socialism” is NOT about student loans, per se, but about the government taking over the student loan program as part of a number of national debt increasing moves instead of leaving it in the hands of the financial institutes better suited to handle financial matters.
I’m sorry, but if you are going to “quote” somebody, it’s supposed to be word for word, and hopefully in context, not mostly what they said, reworded in a way to fit your agenda.
COME ON ALREADY, I AM CALLING SHENANIGANS HERE!
SOURCE ARTICLES:
Socialist Party of America Releases The Names of 70 Democrat Members Of Congress Who Are Members Of Their Caucus | The Obama Hustle
Well, I guess Allen West knows what he’s talking about. Of course I never doubted him. Most of the names are not surprising and I’m sure most of you will recognize them. Here’s a hint at one. “And guess what this liberal will be all about. This liberal would be all about Socializi…uh, um…will be about…would be about…basically, (pause) taking over, and the government running all of your companies.” Give up? Her initials are Maxine Waters.
MA Socialist Party of America Caucus
“This should come as a surprise to absolutely no one. The radical Marxist-progressives (communists) took control of the democrat party some time ago. They’ve only become more emboldened with the election of Barack Obama, who was raised as a communist from birth.
With their new found leader, Barack Obama, the Socialist Party of America felt secure enough to announce the names of 70 democrats in Congress that belong to their caucus.”
MA Members of the Socialist Party of America Caucus are as follows:
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Read here for the whole article. There’s a whole lot more. It’s amazing!!
Agenda 21 Is Repackaged Socialism, Unsustainable Development
Agenda 21 Is Repackaged Socialism, Unsustainable Development
Just what we need, a Nation that adopts Sustainable Development that is doomed to fail. This is socialism , that never works, along with sustainable development that’s unsustainable. You betcha, that’s what I want in my neighborhood. This would give the government even more administrative power. More regulations and less rights for us. I don’t want to be Europe.
Europe’s debt is so great there are riots in the streets. They want us to spend so much money on sustainable development, we can’t afford to live and pay taxes. Our tax money will go to pay off the deficit and the cost of this ‘sustainable’ development, and it will compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
In the meantime, we lose our individual rights. Oh yeah, that sounds great! Maybe it won’t be so bad being like Europe. Oh wait, they suck!! Tell me what you think. The following are excerpts from a great article at Big Government.
From Big Government.com:
This year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nation’s Brundtland Report, which defined Sustainable Development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” But aristocratic socialists have corrupted the sustainable development movement into a vehicle to achieve vast administrative power for themselves. Nations that adopt Sustainable Development are doomed to fail at meeting the needs of the present generation and through debt accumulation from deficit spending will consign future generations to a life as debt slaves.
Through the early 1980s, socialist Latin American economies powered growth by quadrupling their indebtedness from $75 billion to $315 billion. With aristocrats controlling government, while the poor had no voice in these loan matters, nor did they benefit from them as most of the loan proceeds were siphoned off to benefit the aristocrats and their crony amigos.
When Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980, the U.S. economy had suffered a decade of stagflation, turning our Midwest manufacturing base into the Rust Belt. Reagan was determined to regain international economic dominance by reasserting our Founding Father’s demand for limited government and maximum personal liberty. Reagan viscerally believed what John Adams wrote:
the moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence
Reagan’s relentless focus overcame the bi-partisan drumbeat to continue the socialist expansion of the money supply to promote growth. He then leveraged monetary restraint with the largest income tax cut in American history to power the American economy to sustained growth with low inflation.
kurtsloan
soapmama99
LaMar's Loud Daughter 