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 The17sss This ad hominem type of statement is nothing less than typical from a left winger who simply parrots what the liberal media tells him.

Because real life Rush is sooooooo different. Poor guy gets such a bad rap.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Because real life Rush is sooooooo different. Poor guy gets such a bad rap.

Apparently 17 doesn't see the parallel between that statement and just cut and pasting huge blocks of text verbatim from his favorite right wing blogs.

When are you liberals ever going to see and admit the blatant double standard? First, we find the poll from 2006 that 51% of Democrats wished for Bush to fail. Now we find yet another story buried by the protectionist media that the bald headed weasle Carville told the press he wanted Bush to fail the morning of 9/11 right before the terror attacks. When will the light bulb go off that the moral high ground is not held by these leeches?


Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
-Bill Sammon

quote:

The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed." Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. "We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted. The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails." Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!" The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail. That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic. "The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently. "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress." Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies. "The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country. "I deal in principles, not polls," Limbaugh added. "Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It's not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?" Carville told Politico that focusing on Limbaugh is a deliberate strategy aimed at undermining Republicans. "The television cameras just can't stay away from him," he said. "Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we're going to succeed." Greenberg added: "He's driving the Republican reluctance to deal with Obama, which Americans want."

hypocritical, filthy scumbags.

Speaking of hypocrisy...

quote:

Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democrat from California, has been a leading critic of his party leadership's response to the banking crisis. Over the past month, however, he's been aiming for a new target: Rush Limbaugh. Except Rush won't play along. In early February, before Limbaugh had become the public face of the GOP, Sherman began making attempts to arrange a debate on Rush's popular radio show, his office said. When Sherman got no response, he sent Rush a letter. "If you had any confidence in your position, you would agree to my request to have me on your show--where I'm sure I could demonstrate the merits of my views," he wrote. "You are a coward," he assessed. "Very truly yours, Brad Sherman." Limbaugh has yet to respond, said a spokesman for Sherman. Limbaugh's producer, Kit Carson, told the Huffington Post he hadn't seen the letter, but that he couldn't speak for Limbaugh. The radio talk-show host, who Democrats portray as the leader of the GOP, is taking the next two days off, said Carson, and will return Monday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/...e_n_174046.html

quote:

The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail.

lol. im sure if carville had 20 million listeners tuned in to his radio show his comments might have received wider exposure.

im not quite sure what the relevance of 911 is here, was he meant to be another who should have foreseen the attacks?

And it should also be said that Carville is kind of an idiot too...

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Speaking of hypocrisy... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/...e_n_174046.html

It's rediculous to think that Rush would publicly call for Obama to come on his radio show for a debate on the issues, but is too much of a "coward" to debate no-name democratic Rep. Brad Sherman. If he responded to every call for "debate" or every "outraged" elected official demanding answers, he wouldn't have time to take a piss. I'm sure he has no interest, if he's read the letter, to give Mr. Sherman a platform that has millions of people listening to elevate him as a martyr of his own cause. Pure political expediency on Mr. Sherman's part, and Rush won't take the bait.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol. im sure if carville had 20 million listeners tuned in to his radio show his comments might have received wider exposure. im not quite sure what the relevance of 911 is here, was he meant to be another who should have foreseen the attacks?

At the time, he was the Democtats' leading political strategist and a bunch of reporters were there when he said it... should have been reported. But they didn't do their job after Carville asked them not to when the attacks went down that morning (which I guess is the relevance to 9/11 being mentioned).

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss If he responded to every call for "debate" or every "outraged" elected official demanding answers, he wouldn't have time to take a piss.

Well, the point of his show is to debate issues, no? According to Rush, discussion of policy is what his show is all about... or is he afraid that debate won't leave much time for demagoguery?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Well, the point of his show is to debate issues, no? According to Rush, discussion of policy is what his show is all about... or is he afraid that debate won't leave much time for demagoguery?

That sounds very "fairness doctrinesque". If you listened to his show, you'd know that he takes calls every day from people trying to argue with him. He also has big name guests to discuss policy. But it's not about equal time; it's his show and decides the format. And again, why would he give some peon representative (who called him a coward) with political aspirations a huge platform to make a name for himself? It looks like he wants to ride the wave of "anti-Rush" sentiment to benefit himself, and Rush is right to ignore him.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss That sounds very "fairness doctrinesque". If you listened to his show, you'd know that he takes calls every day from people trying to argue with him. He also has big name guests to discuss policy. But it's not about equal time; it's his show and decides the format. And again, why would he give some peon representative (who called him a coward) with political aspirations a huge platform to make a name for himself? It looks like he wants to ride the wave of "anti-Rush" sentiment to benefit himself, and Rush is right to ignore him.

So despite the fact that this is a Democrat who wants to debate substantive policy issues, and one that is not only a part of leadership on this issue, but also one that has taken exception to Pelosi's strategy on the stimulus, he somehow isn't relevant enough for Rush to "waste" time on?

The Rep called Rush a coward only after Rush ignored him for three weeks. And honestly, if Rush is going to use that line of thinking on the President of the United States, a person who has substantively more to do with his time than sit around and listen to a demagogue (you know, like MAKE policy), then he's fair game when he ignores the chance to debate someone with a substantive policy-related profile on the issue of his own choosing.

Why are you people feeding the troll supporters of Rush. Fuck that pill popping lil boy fucking ENTERTAINER!! He Is A fucking ENTERTAINER for god sakes!!

just ignore that fat fuck and all of the pathetic ass holes that support him or even give him an inch of credibility.

jeeeeez!!!!

"I do think that the Republican Party right now hasn't sort of figured out what it's for," Obama said in a White House interview with The Courier-Journal and reporters from five other newspapers. "And so, as a proxy, they've just decided 'we're going to be against whatever the other side is for.' That's not what's needed in an economic crisis."

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps...D=2009903240386

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov "I do think that the Republican Party right now hasn't sort of figured out what it's for," Obama said in a White House interview with The Courier-Journal and reporters from five other newspapers. "And so, as a proxy, they've just decided 'we're going to be against whatever the other side is for.' That's not what's needed in an economic crisis." http://www.courier-journal.com/apps...D=2009903240386

... but what definately IS needed in a crisis, evidently, is more power for the government to take over private industry, scare the shit out of the investor class from investing (who would want to accept bailout money after what just happned with AIG?), and spend our grandchildren's pensions.

Just ask your boy Paul Krugman... "certain to fail" I believe is his take

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/.../23/195005.html

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov "And so, as a proxy, they've just decided 'we're going to be against whatever the other side is for.' That's not what's needed in an economic crisis."

BTW... Republicans ARE offering alternatives. Obama/Pelosi/Reid just don't want anything to do with them. They just pass what they want to pass, then lie to the public that there's no bipartisanship because Republicans had nothing to offer; unless an idea caves in to their wants, it is not considered an idea.

from Boener's press conference today:

quote:

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today held a press briefing in advance of President Obama�s news conference scheduled for this evening. At the briefing, Boehner challenged the President�s assertions about Republicans and noted that the GOP has presented alternative ideas directly to the President on every major issue where there has been disagreement this year � and will offer a better budget solution later this week. �I think a lot of Americans believe that our economy is in a crisis. Americans are looking to Washington for solutions. The President has offered a budget that will, in my opinion, hurt our economy and destroy the very jobs that we�re trying to save and to try to create. And I believe Republicans were offering better ideas to the President in hopes of building a better budget. �This is today�s front page the Louisville Courier-Journal. If you read it you probably won�t be surprised that the President will probably say this again tonight in his press conference. With all due respect, Mr. President, the statement is not true, plain and simple. Your budget spends too much, it taxes too much and borrows too much from our kids and grandkids, and I believe Republicans are offering a better solution. �Last week, I released a video � a YouTube video outlining our budget principles and laying the groundwork for the alternative budget that we will release later this week. Our alternative will create jobs by allowing American families and small businesses to keep more of what they earn, ensure that the federal budget doesn�t grow faster than the family budget, expand access to health care while preserving Social Security and Medicare, end the bailouts to protect taxpayers and reform the financial system, encourage an all-of-the-above energy strategy to make us energy independent, and to fight inflation so the prices of goods and services that American depend upon will remain stable. �Now, this isn�t the first time we�ve offered better solutions, and the President knows that. Eric Cantor and I personally delivered to the President our stimulus proposal at the White House in January. Our plan would create twice as many jobs at half the cost as the President�s plan, and that�s even according to an economic analysis by his chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. And what was the response? The White House pretended they never even saw it. �At a time when our economy is in serious recession, I think Americans deserve better. They need solutions, not distortions. The fact is the President�s budget spends too much, taxes too much and it borrows too much. It raises taxes on every American family and small business. It includes irresponsible levels of spending, reaching $5.1 trillion 10 years out. And if you look at the spending in this budget, you can begin to see how out of control this spending cycle is, and it doubles the debt on our kids and grandkids over the next six years. If you look at these debt figures, you can see this. This is all of the debt through 2008 that�s been accumulated in our country by 43 Presidents in 220 years in our history, and the President�s budget will double that over the next six years. �I just think that this may be the most irresponsible piece of legislation I�ve seen in my legislative career. It�s an irresponsible plan that only makes the crisis we�re in worse. But when it�s all said and done, I think it�s time for a do-over. We need to start this budget process all over again. And I will hope that the President will work with us to build a responsible budget that will help strengthen our economy and put Americans back to work again.�

Of course, the liberal readings will not mention such alternatives being offered... they must support Obama's words at all times and not question the Deal Leader.

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