Question

When a person is a "radical"

HOW do you associate them with ANY group?

IF you're a "radical" that's ALL you are?

Someone looking for something to change/destroy?

Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: When a person is a "radical"
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: When a person is a "radical"
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Clarification Request
Do you mean
is or is referred to as a radical? More often I hear the word used as an adjective rather than a noun. I'd say that the word "radical" has little meaning without being associated with something else. That something might be presumptive in some cases depending on the nature and context of the conversation. As an example, a conversation about members of a particular party that referred to one member as being a radical, would be properly taken as being a reflection of that person's political attitudes rather than their enthusiasm for some sport.
- Collapse -
Response

Put "radical" in front of anything and you are no longer part of that group.

RE: enthusiasm for some sport.

There's a term/app for that.

Phillie RADICAL?

OR

Phillie FANATIC/PHANATIC?

- Collapse -
OK, so it was an imperfect comparison

and doesn't necessarily imply visible enthusiasm as much as obsession with some thinking or desire for considerable change in our heading. Radical actions can be as simple as returning to one's fundamentals or denying/discarding them in favor of a new beginning. Didn't our president once say that he wanted to 'fundamentally transform America'? If so, would he fit the definition of being a radical?...And of what group would that make him no longer a part? Those who still respect the constitution, perhaps?

- Collapse -
RE:Didn't our president once say
Didn't our president once say that he wanted to 'fundamentally transform America'?

We decided that we couldn’t put this statement to the Truth-O-Meter, since the definition of "fundamentally transform" is too vague.

Obama answered by saying, "I don’t think we have to fundamentally transform the nation."


In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street. 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."

IF you believed that was a "fundamental transformation" you would have to believe that "policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street." were in place.

In five days, you can turn the page on policies

turn the page
to begin to behave in a more positive way after a period of difficulties

So he made 2 claims in one speech..."fundamentally transform" and "turn the page"...that's why the truth-o-meter broke....Just wait till they hook that device up to The Donald.
- Collapse -
You can also look up whether or not Obama

said that our original constitution was flawed and find that he's indicated as much that it is. Whether that means he'd try to change anything in it is up to speculation and his early comments in that regard surely fueled such speculation in many corners of the US. Still, my question remains as to whether or not President Obama would fit the definition of being either a radical or having radical views. I'd answer "yes" when it comes to existing law and constitutional issues.

As for Trump, I know the man is on your radar and you're seeking to get a lock on that target. I've not defended him but I have noticed one thing about the man that I cannot say about his presumptive opponent. Unlike Ms. Clinton, he's not been prone to continually bash the opposition party. He will bash by name and do so on a regular basis. That gets tiring regardless of from whom it comes but party bashing is not my idea of how we seek to unite a congress in an effort to work together. It's the party bashing on both sides that maintains the animosity between them that causes them to act spitefully rather than in concert. Thus far, I've not seen Mr. Trump engage heavily in that kind of rhetoric and I do wish Ms. Clinton would adopt that same behavior.

- Collapse -
RE:He will bash by name and do so on a regular basis.
- Collapse -
He does attack their policies

I'd say that referring to their accomplishments as being failures is an attack on policy. As well, personal attacks are nothing new in politics and Trump is not unique in what he does but only in how he does it. He's very direct and often crude. He doesn't use subtle or well crafted language in order to confuse their meaning to those not adept at decoding political rhetoric. Instead of leaving one asking "What did he just say?", he leaves them remarking "Did he really say that?" Quite a number of people seem to find that to be refreshing.

- Collapse -
RE:not unique in what he does but only in how he does it.
- Collapse -
You can stop worrying about Trump and start worrying

about all of the people who seem to have found something in him that they like. My guess is that, unless Ms. Clinton is stopped due to legal or serious health issues, she's going to the White House. Her trouble with Trump won't end there. She won't need to deal with Donald directly but she'd be wise to not summarily dismiss all of those who supported him. A US president is responsible to all US citizens and not just those who cast ballots in their favor. She'll also need to show some respect for those who did not.

- Collapse -
Too vague???
- Collapse -
You took 15 seconds from

"Now, Mizzou, I just have two words for you tonight: five days. Five days. After decades of broken politics in Washington, and eight years of failed policies from George W. Bush, and 21 months of a campaign that's taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

"In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street. 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."


YOUR "source"?

Is that a pic of someone that looks like TheRUMP in a Nazi style uniform?

- Collapse -
FWIW...it's the word "fundamentally" that spooks people

It refers to the foundation and not the structure on top of it. The phrase used by the (now) president could be unsettling to those who might have thought we could use a little repair or remodeling but were looking at moving to an entirely new neighborhood that we knew nothing about.

- Collapse -
I gave you an exact quote from BO, but

you want something else entirely, as usual.

As for your statement in quotation marks.....the past seven and a half years have proven that what it says isn't true at all. Under his administration Wall Street investors have gotten much richer than they were thanks to his Treasury, the middle class have fallen into the low income bracket by losing income and jobs (the most jobs that he 'created' have been government jobs rather than the private sector types....and the private sector jobs that have been counted by his Labor Department numbers include those with part time jobs only and others who work for perhaps less than a day a week or even a month through a day labor work force), the economy has grown at a pathetically slow pace compared to every other President (except for Carter) before him, inflation has risen to new highs while income has dropped considerably hurting the poorest classes the most, and I could go on.

- Collapse -
RE:you want something else entirely, as usual.

Yes...I want the entire statement......

I could take THIS headline and run with it

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. John McCain said Thursday that President Barack Obama is "directly responsible" for the mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, because of the rise of the Islamic State group on the president's watch.

And disregard the next line in the story. Just as you have with Obamas statement..."too vague" describes the situation perfectly..

"fundamental change", to me, would be the male of the species giving birth instead of the female. "turning the page" is just another day in paradise.

- Collapse -
But your entire statement

doesn't include the ACTUAL statement from BO himself, which I gave you. You prefer to cherry pick what YOU want rather than what HE said. YOU claimed with your link that it was 'too vague'.....I pointed out that HE EXACTLY stated what he wanted to see and there was NO vagueness about it all.

- Collapse -
RE:But your entire statement
But your entire statement doesn't include the ACTUAL statement from BO himself, which I gave you

Your "trigger finger" too sore to click the link in THIS thread in my post dated June 15, 2016 12:18 PM PDT ? heading RE:Didn't our president once say

I figured IF/SINCE you didn't read in MY POST in this thread which you referred to as "TOO VAGUE"

I'll RE-Post it and underline it

Here’s Obama’s original statement, in an October 2008 campaign visit to Columbia, Mo:

"Now, Mizzou, I just have two words for you tonight: five days. Five days. After decades of broken politics in Washington, and eight years of failed policies from George W. Bush, and 21 months of a campaign that's taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

"In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street. 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."
- Collapse -
I wasn'[t the one

who said it was 'too vague'....your LINK did.....I only questioned that statement with a question mark, IF you bother to actually LOOK at the posts, yours, mine, and others, JP.

As for your statement AGAIN...."we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." YOU claimed he didn't say it and ONLY wanted to discuss "turn the page".

Oh well...typical JP babble when you can't debate any further....

- Collapse -
RE:.I only questioned that statement with a question mark,

You didn't "say it was too vague" you just questioned it?

Does that mean you agree with me and Politifact ...it WAS "too vague" to call?

"Fundamentally change" and "turn the page"?

As for your statement AGAIN...."we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." YOU claimed he didn't say it and ONLY wanted to discuss "turn the page".

I've NEVER claimed he didn't say "fundamentally transforming the United States of America."...I said he said a different definition (in my/and others opinion) of "fundamentally transforming" in the next paragraph.

THAT's the reason the Truth-O-meter made the "too vague" claim.

Oh well...typical JP babble when you can't debate any further....

Toni H & JP Bill...2 babblers?

CNET Forums