TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Rush Limbaugh - "I hope Obama Fails"
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 »

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy It's not the size, it's the functions.

it couldn't be both could it? yes, it can and should be. this is the President's failure not realizing this simple fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo it couldn't be both could it? yes, it can and should be. this is the President's failure not realizing this simple fact.

You think it's far too big, I think it's far too small - it's safe to say the President would have been "wrong" regardless of the size of the stimulus.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well then the media's obviously done their job, havent they?

Did the media make him a pill popping egomaniac with a history of marital problems?

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Did the media make him a pill popping egomaniac with a history of marital problems?

no, but do you think Ted Kennedy is a good, intelligent and thoughtful person? seriously.



...for the record, i do

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no, but do you think Ted Kennedy is a good, intelligent and thoughtful person? seriously. ...for the record, i do

To a point yes. I still don't understand why he left a woman to die in a car he crashed and then lied about it. But when Kennedy is on the floor or in an interview he does appear more thoughtful than someone like Rush.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no, but do you think Ted Kennedy is a good, intelligent and thoughtful person? seriously. ...for the record, i do

One man has selflessly dedicated his life to government service. The other is a polarizing figure shouting nonsense over the radio to gain attention.

Are you really trying to compare these two people?

What are Rush Limbaugh's redeeming qualities?


* other than giving fractions of his ridiculous salary to charities

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 One man has selflessly dedicated his life to government service. The other is a polarizing figure shouting nonsense over the radio to gain attention.

...Ted Kennedy isn't a polarizing ELECTED POLITICIAN that doesn't shout from the podium of the Senate who's head isn't larger than the state of Masschusetts?

quote:

[re you really trying to compare these two people?

why not? according to your standards of decency being a drunken vehicular manslaughtering, philandering alchoholic means nothing now, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis What are Rush Limbaugh's redeeming qualities? * other than giving fractions of his ridiculous salary to charities

well i'm pretty sure you're not going to find those qualities on the pages of wikipedia. c'mon dude

see you're proving my point about media driven perceptions.

i'm done with this though. if you're convinced he's an indecent, horrible, stupid monster of a man then fine. who am i to convince you otherwise? i'm not Kieth Olbermann. just keep in the back of your mind you may run the risk of being intellectually hypocritical with the people you choose to admire

>LINK<

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well i'm pretty sure you're not going to find those qualities on the pages of wikipedia. c'mon dude see you're proving my point about media driven perceptions. i'm done with this though. if you're convinced he's an indecent, horrible, stupid monster of a man then fine. who am i to convince you otherwise? i'm not Kieth Olbermann. just keep in the back of your mind you may run the risk of being intellectually hypocritical with the people you choose to admire

My perception of Rush Limbaugh is entirely based on what I've heard come out of his mouth.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo >LINK<

NICE Link.............!

I am suprised that FOX News hasnt exploited that Madoof is a Democrat and huge contributer to that party with obvious stolen money. I guess he was just spreading the wealth.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo ...Ted Kennedy isn't a polarizing ELECTED POLITICIAN that doesn't shout from the podium of the Senate who's head isn't larger than the state of Masschusetts? why not? according to your standards of decency being a drunken vehicular manslaughtering, philandering alchoholic means nothing now, right?

What exactly are you implying here? You can't honestly be insinuating that Ted Kennedy is a bad person. Obvious vices aside, the man serves his country with distinction. Limbaugh rants into a golden microphone.

Show me some actual accomplishments of Rush that make this a better country.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well i'm pretty sure you're not going to find those qualities on the pages of wikipedia. c'mon dude see you're proving my point about media driven perceptions.

LOL you're impossible. Anytime the world doesn't conform to your warped view you blame the drive-by media for their "perceptions" rather than rethink your beliefs. No scientific peer reviewed evidence showing global warming for the hoax it is? Blame the media. Can't find anything documenting the redeeming qualities of Limbaugh? Its the media. You're living in a bubble of denial.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo >LINK<

Unable and unwilling to admit the differences in generalities and blatantly announcing these things over a national radio show.

And what about those of us who don't watch cable television? Are we influenced by the pundits as well?

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 What exactly are you implying here? You can't honestly be insinuating that Ted Kennedy is a bad person.

Teddy is just an example. what i'm implying is that your standards of decency and what you think makes a smart, intelligent and thoughtful person seem to end when they don't conform to your political ideologies.

quote:

Show me some actual accomplishments of Rush that make this a better country.

what you and i think is better for this country are two, sadly irreconcilabe, different things.

quote:

Anytime the world doesn't conform to your warped view you blame the drive-by media for their "perceptions" rather than rethink your beliefs. No scientific peer reviewed evidence showing global warming for the hoax it is? Blame the media. Can't find anything documenting the redeeming qualities of Limbaugh? Its the media. You're living in a bubble of denial.

sometimes yes. modern media is a very powerful thing. sometimes powerful to a fault.

quote:

Unable and unwilling to admit the differences in generalities and blatantly announcing these things over a national radio show.

i have no idea where you are going here.

that link establishes clear hypocricy of some on the left. i'm not saying you, just whoever wants to elevate this Rush - "I hope Obama fails" - ridiculousness into more than what it is without reconsidering their past opinions

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And what about those of us who don't watch cable television? Are we influenced by the pundits as well?

i don't know dude, are all the pundits on cable?

this coming from someone that routinely and almost exclusively links from liberal websites like HuffPo, TPMCafe, Kos, ect. to get their points across.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i don't know dude, are all the pundits on cable? this coming from someone that routinely and almost exclusively links from liberal websites like HuffPo, TPMCafe, Kos, ect. to get their points across.

I don't think I've ever linked from Kos (considering I don't even read it) and I only link AP articles from HuffPo, never commentary. The majority of commentary I post is from Andrew Sullivan or Josh Marshall, two people that have hated this Rush story from the beginning. Other than that, I generally stick to accredited policy people that write op-eds. For God's sakes, the last article I quoted in this thread was a Reagan-appointed economist.

I don't know why you pick pointless fights like this, especially when you don't have your facts straight.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Teddy is just an example. what i'm implying is that your standards of decency and what you think makes a smart, intelligent and thoughtful person seem to end when they don't conform to your political ideologies.

i would have said the same about you. there are plenty of people i have respect for and admire, despite maybe not sharing their ideologies.

i think Reagan was a great president and leader for his time. Reagan was all about governing and making the country a better place. he had his beliefs but still spoke out against things like the Briggs Initiative because he thought it would erode personal liberties. having lived in california i think Schwarzenegger has done a better job of following his example than other major players in that party. Schwarzenegger hasnt been afraid to go against his party and has done a lot to advance progress on issues like climate change.

as Frum said in the Newsweek article, Reagan would be ashamed of the party right now, consumed with division and blame. Reagan was a different time and that message has become skewed. everyone is trying to lay claim to the legacy in a party on the verge of collapse because its unable to adapt in a new environment. evolution shows creatures unable to adapt to change go extinct, not surprising from a base that doesn't believe in evolution. do you honestly see minorities in a republican future? i don't. too bad because they need it if they are to remain viable

enter you trying to compare Ted Kennedy with Rush Limbaugh as if to say nothing TK has done is admirable. i shouldn't even waste time on such tripe. that is the kind of rigid bullheadedness you accuse me of

quote:

sometimes yes. modern media is a very powerful thing. sometimes powerful to a fault.

funny for someone to talk about media "perceptions" from a party whos official media outlet is Faux News. if you want to talk about distortions i'm more than happy to discuss that network. im not saying any of the other networks are better but to default to a "its the media" defense on anything you cant prove... thats not a rational mind thats a conspiracy theorist or the obstinance of a perception unable to cope with reality

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo trying to understand you, i don't think anyone here is expecting to see anything but a negative impact from current policy, whether forcasting from the last two quarters or this one.

It's grossly ludicrous to even suggest the stimulus package is a failure at this point in time because no such data even exists to portray that picture. Plus given the nature of the economic impact of fiscal stimulus you won't even BEGIN to see any of that data that might provide an indication of such a thing for several months if not a year.

quote:

just out of curiosity, wtf happened in mid '05?

Yup katrina.

And now House Republicans are joining the chorus:

quote:

GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry, a key player in helping craft the Republican message, has offered an unusually blunt description of the Republican strategy right now. McHenry�s description is buried in this new article from National Journal (sub. only): �We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010,� said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., an outspoken conservative who has participated on the GOP message teams. �Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint.� McHenry�s spokesperson, Brock McCleary, tells me his boss is standing by the quote. McHenry�s description of his party�s goal � to �bring down approval numbers� for Nancy Pelosi and House Dems � is being much talked about today among Congressional Dems. It�s likely that Dems will grab on to the quote today to bolster their charge that Congressional Republicans aren�t interested in playing a constructive role in governing and see their hope for political revival in the eventual failure of the Democratic majority�s policies.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/h...mbers-for-dems/

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And now House Republicans are joining the chorus: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/h...mbers-for-dems/

Doesn't seem to be working.

Congress' Approval Rating Jumps to 31%

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo >LINK<

Funny, isn't it, Q?

quote:

"Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?"

51% of Democrats said they wanted him to fail....DURING A WAR. This poll was asking people what they want, not for a prediction. But it's unpatriotic and supposedly treasonous for Rush to want Obama's policies to fail. Another hypocricy swept under the table by Obama's media surrogates.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Did the media make him a pill popping egomaniac with a history of marital problems?

This ad hominem type of statement is nothing less than typical from a left winger who simply parrots what the liberal media tells him. Jim Cramer, a liberal Democrat, who vehimantly supported Obama, is in a tizzy because he can't for life of him understand why he's getting the shit kicked out of him in the media. He strangely finds himself as the target of people like you who don't engage in productive debate, but instead go the character assination route to discredit the person.

From Jim's Op Ed today-

quote:

Suddenly, bloggers, opinion people, columnists and, yes, pundits who haven't paid attention to anything I have been saying or writing for the past 18 months are all over me. Suddenly, I find myself in the center of a firestorm over Obama's economic policies, taking enfilading fire from the "liberal" media (from serious columnist Frank Rich to entertainer Jon Stewart) while being defended by Rush Limbaugh, the standard-bearer for the Republicans. I'm uncomfortable being in the crosshairs of columnists and comedians I enjoy, and I find the embrace of Rush Limbaugh most certainly strange if not antithetical to many of my viewpoints. So, why after toiling in the cable wilderness for four years with Mad Money am I the target of the wrath of the Obama clan, and the darling, albeit surely momentary, of the Obama-critics? After all, my criticism of Obama's handling of the economic crisis is a lot less pointed than my withering August 2007 "They Know Nothing" meltdown against the previous regime's handling of the economic crisis. The answer lies in the way the two administrations handled criticism. The Bush administration, I believed, simply chose to ignore my warnings, perhaps because of a brutal combination of ideology, fecklessness and complacency. Publicly, it was easy to ignore a carping Democrat, even as most of my insight came from apolitical people who ran many of the major trading desks and were simply worried about the sure-to-come tsunami spawned by subprime mortgages. The Bush administration's endless "fundamentals are sound" observations seemed ridiculous in the face of what most chief executive officers from Main Street companies and all executives of the top investment banks knew to be the case. Ben Bernanke didn't seem to understand the urgency, perhaps because of his academic background. Tim Geithner, the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the most important regulator of Wall Street, didn't seem to get the importance of a consistent policy in the face of frightened and confused participants in the capital markets. Hank Paulson confused me the most. He ran Goldman Sachs, for heaven's sake. He had to know better, but he didn't. When Paulson and Geithner wrongly euthanized Lehman Brothers, the consequences pretty much spelled the end of finance as we know it. Saving Lehman was well within their capacity, even though they refuse to admit it or say it was even a mistake. The markets have never recovered. Their hands-off policies ended after Lehman. Two days later, when worries about moral hazard went out the window, they did a total about-face and began what is now an endless bailout of AIG. President Obama's team, unlike Bush's team, demonstrates a thinness of skin that shocks me. When I somewhat obviously and empirically judged that the populist Obama administration is exacerbating the crisis with its budget and policies, as evidenced by the incredible decline in the averages since his inauguration, I was met immediately with condescension and ridicule rather than constructive debate or even just benign dismissal. I said to myself, "What the heck? Are they really that blind to the Great Wealth Destruction they are causing with their decisions to demonize the bankers, raise taxes for the wealthy, advocate draconian cap-and-trade policies and upend the health care system? Do they really believe that only the rich own stocks? What do they think we have our retirement accounts in, CDs? Where did they think that the money saved for college went, our mattresses? Do they think the great middle class banks at the First National Bank of Sealy and only the wealthiest traffic in the Standard & Poor's 500? They exacerbated their insensitivity when President Obama proclaimed that he wasn't worried about the averages, dismissing them as traffic polls that go up and down in the short term. Ah, if only they went up occasionally and not down endlessly then I would believe the President's logic. Don't get me wrong, Obama was dealt a terrible hand by the previous croupier. But this administration's handling of the banking crisis, something that has brought Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and even JPMorgan Chase to their knees, has been devastating. The indecision of Geithner, who has floated to the media every single idea in his head, only to announce none orally, has created a vacuum that has allowed short-sellers to dictate policy. As someone who just wants to help people preserve capital and help it appreciate when the time comes when it is not too risky to do so, I am appalled at the attack and badly want to engage in the issues and tone down the rhetoric. What's the point? The country's in crisis. We need to stop the lurching nationalization of banks, something that's come about because the Treasury and the Federal Reserve have not been able to regain control of the banking system from the short-sellers who seek to wipe out the common equity and "win" by placing all banks in receivership. The pundits won't engage in the merits of, say, favoring Tier 1 capital for the banks vs. common equity, or forbearing on the banks to work the situation out over time because the banks can be profitable if we have some patience. They just attack me. Take Frank Rich and Jon Stewart. Both seize on the urban legend that I recommended Bear Stearns the week before it collapsed, even though I was saying that I thought it could be worthless as soon as the following week. I did tell an emailer that his deposit in his account at Bear Stearns was safe, but through a clever sound bite, Stewart, and subsequently Rich -- neither of whom have bothered to listen to the context of the pulled quote -- pass off the notion of account safety as an out-and-out buy recommendation. The absurdity astounds me. If you called Mad Money and asked me about Citigroup, I would tell you that the common stock might be worthless, but I would never tell you to pull your money out of the bank because I was worried about its solvency. Your money is safe in Citi as I said it was in Bear. The fact that I was right rankles me even more. I never said the same thing about Lehman, where your accounts weren't safe. I expect a skewering from the comedian Stewart. I was shocked, however, that the rigorous Rich wouldn't investigate further and relied on the show's truncation of the truth. After all, how many times were the pull quotes from reviews by Rich used against him when he may have been panning a play in his former role as entertainment critic?

As Rush can attest, "Shazam, Jim, you find out personally that your liberal media buddies take sound bites out of context? Really? Who knew, Jim? Jim, this is what happens on a daily basis to people on my side of the aisle. Now that you find yourself on our side of the aisle in that you question whether Obama's policies are gonna light a fire under the private sector, you're getting the same treatment. This has been part and parcel of people like me's career and day for 20 years."

Continued.....

quote:

After the White House briefing, Rush Limbaugh defended me as a wayward leftist who has seen the light. I am always glad to have any allies and defenders, but I do favor almost all of Obama's agenda, right down to having the rich pay more of their freight in this great country. It's just not the right time. We need to declare a war on unemployment and solve it before we let it get out of hand. We need to stop house-price depreciation. Neither the pork-laden stimulus plan nor the confusing mortgage proposal put forward by Obama will defeat either enemy. When Obama trounces both unemployment and house-price depreciation, he will have the power to enact anything he wants. But all the initiatives he wants to rush, like tax hikes, changes in health care, tinkering with the mortgage deduction -- good grief, right now in the midst of the worst housing downturn ever -- and the tough cap-and-trade rules, will derail any chance we have of turning this economy around. Instead, they put the Second Great Depression smack on the nation's table. The markets thought he could stop it; hence the giant relief rally when he was elected. But in fewer than 50 days of his ascendancy, the markets' hopes were totally dashed and the averages are now forecasting the worst decline since the Great Depression. As someone who listens to what the averages are screaming, I think they are accurately predicting the future. (Oh, and memo to Bill Maher: Stop insulting my faux great-great-uncle Vlad Lenin. I am using him to dramatize the point of a failed nationalization and confiscation of the banks at the hands of the people. It is funny how the right is certainly very civil as my old friends and new allies as of last week, Fred Barnes and Sean Hannity, don't hold my left wing social view against me when they talk about my criticism of the president! I always love anyone from Fox on the team because they are fierce in their defense with much less gratuitous slamming.) It's time to get serious. It's time to take the issue from the pundits and from the left and right, and put it where it belongs: serious non-ideological debate to put out the real firestorm, the collapse of the economy from Wall Street to Main Street and the ensuing Great Wealth Destruction for all. But if it stays ad hominem, we will all be betrayed and the train wreck will become inevitable.

The advice for Jim Cramer by Rush is simple: get used to it if you have the very nerve to actually question "The One":

quote:

See, I thought those of us on the right were always the mean-spirited ones, and you're finding out it's your buddies on the left who are the mean-spirited ones and you're finding out that people don't hold all of your views against you when they agree with a couple or three of them. See, Jim, we're talking about the country here, and that's why you're welcomed by people on our side because we generally fear for the kind of country we've known. We fear for what it's going to become. We fear a total transformation from a country based on individual liberty and capitalism and free markets to Central Planning, control of outcomes, and general expansion of the welfare state, all for the purposes of expanding the power of a particular political party, and in this case President Barack Obama. So there's no strange fact that we welcome anybody to our side on this who agrees with us in our thinking, and who cares whatever else you believe about things. Those things come into play down the track, but we've got priorities here now. Count on it to stay ad hominem, Jim. You've never noticed it because it's not ever been directed at you, but this is how Democrat White Houses and Democrat media deal with their enemies. They demonize them, they villainize them, they never discuss the merits of their issues, Jim. They never talk about substance, it's always discredit the image, the reputation of whoever is an effective, in their minds, critic. You have joined the club of effective critics, so you're not to be engaged and debated. You are to be cleared away; you are to be disreputed, disrespected; you are to be impugned, and your reputation is subject to assault and attack, which is happening now. The more you keep it up, the more the assaults will continue on your reputation and the effort to demonize you and distance you from the people who you've always thought were your friends.

I feel like I miss out on knowing what in God's name half of your outrages are about simply because I don't watch TV. C'est la vie.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I feel like I miss out on knowing what in God's name half of your outrages are about simply because I don't watch TV. C'est la vie.

even if you could, would you really want to?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.