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 Clovis How is it nonsense. My reasoning is that he absolutely despises anyone who doesn't agree with him or doesn't fit his mold of what 'America' should be, I would say that he only likes and agrees with about 5-10% of Americans. He hates blacks, the disabled, anyone with a criminal record, anyone who uses drugs, liberals, hippies, foreigners, immigrants etc...the list goes on...

It's nonsense because that's about as all-American as you can get.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On It's nonsense because that's about as all-American as you can get.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On It's nonsense because that's about as all-American as you can get.

In the historical sense, I think you're right. Hating everything that makes America itself is a very American trait.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Rush is about as anti-american as they come.

didn't you forget? conservative america is the only real america. liberals, all those who have opposed the direction this country has headed for the past 8 years...those...those are the real anti-americans

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis He hates blacks, the disabled, anyone with a criminal record, anyone who uses drugs, liberals, hippies, foreigners, immigrants etc...the list goes on...

Unless they're immigrants working for him or he's the one using the drugs.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Then he should have had the same thing to say when Bush pushed the first half of the bailout.

No man I agree with you on that, and he did flip out about the first half of the bailout. He wanted NO bailout period. It's just getting seriously amplified because he's attacking someone who's popularity is immense right now, unlike Bush for the last... however long.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss No man I agree with you on that, and he did flip out about the first half of the bailout. He wanted NO bailout period. It's just getting seriously amplified because he's attacking someone who's popularity is immense right now, unlike Bush for the last... however long.

it's really easy for someone who has already made over $200 million and has another 400 million in contract to say he doesn't want a stimulus package to save american jobs. regardless of how the average american is doing, his fat ass will be poppin as many oxycontins as his chunky fingers can get a hold on.

i'm not a big fan either, but when 6 of the largest companies announced today the loss of 70K jobs, i'm very very concerned. being a lawyer, which is supposed to be a recession proof job, i'm getting very anxious about my job. i would rather have upfront spending to prevent a huge catastrophe, with future reduction in spending to offset the current spending. it's just how it has to be. I'm not talking about bailing out failed companies. i'm talking about investing in growth, i.e., technology, infrastructure, etc... we may need to let the weakest companies fail, but we need to do something to create or save jobs. i'm actually a pretty strong believer in free markets. this past few months have killed me in how much intervention is necessary (yes, necessary!)

hear, hear!

This is spot on:

quote:

Rush Limbaugh Is Hot Under the Collar by Michael Wolff Rush Limbaugh is worried. His anxiety might have something to do with his precipitous weight gain. Also, his speech patterns are showing stress. The normal enthusiastic, even jovial, oom-pa-pa of the instrument has become labored, dogged. It�s a hinge moment for the Limbaugh career. The advent of the Obama administration and the sweeping gains of the Democratic Party, together with the disorganization and enfeeblement of the Republican Party, could be an incredible opportunity for Rush. He could become the remaining voice of the right. On the other hand, he could be marginalized out of existence. If the economy trumps ideology, if Obama makes progress neutralizing the political wars, that�s bad news for Rush. Right now Rush is being played. The Obama dinner with conservative columnists, shortly before his inauguration, was as much about excluding Rush as coddling the columnists. Not only did the conservatives fawn, but Rush fumed. It got under his skin. Indeed, the rumor that he might in fact be there (likely coming from the Obama camp), and then his evident lack of an invitation, highlighted the slight. He�s tried to make it out to be a political point ever since, but mostly he sounds like a guy who�s hurt he didn�t get invited to the hot party. Then, there was the president�s throw-away line suggesting that Republican lawmakers, in the midst of the greatest modern financial crisis, were glued to their radios listening to Rush rather than hard at work. It was deft suggestion, not so much about ideology but about seriousness. Rush isn�t. He�s out on a limb, Rush. His current themes are about Obama�s radicalism, which, with every day of the new administration, seems a less and less sellable image, and�say-again?�the new president�s racism. Obama�s the racist, you see, in one of those message inversions coded so as to speak to actual racists. (�Racism in this country is the exclusive province of the left.�) It�s an unaccustomed verbal flailing: �Most of these guys came alive in the Civil Rights battles of the Sixties�� (When Barack Obama was under seven). Obama is being forced on us by a left-wing, racist, homosexual conspiracy: �We�re being told we have to bend over and grab the ankles.� The game the president is playing is to make a testy, easy-to-arouse, fun-to-rankle Rush come to stand for an odd-ball, tone-deaf, blowhard far right that the rest of the desperate-to-be-liked Republican Party will eagerly distance itself from (if Rush is trying to capitalize on the panty-waist demeanor of so many of his fellow Republicans, he�s also got to suspect that they�ll sell him out.) Rush�s game is to try to stay in the game. To find some plausible way to characterize and ridicule the president, which will justify the $400 million what-were-they-thinking contract he signed with Clear Channel over the summer. The pressure is on. **** Speaking of conservative careers, William Kristol�s has apparently ended with a whimper at the New York Times op-ed page. �This is William Kristol�s last column,� reads the strange footer, appended today to Kristol�s meandering, and not a little bizarre, paean to Barack Obama and the triumph of liberalism. I am pleased to point out that Kristol�s demise was explicitly predicted in this column on Nov. 3 in a post titled: "NYT's Neocon Is Fading Fast." It seems germane to add that Kristol�s appointment to the op-ed page was another in a series of spectacularly tone-deaf, lame, and embarrassing moves by Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.

http://blog.newser.com/post/2009/01...the-Collar.aspx

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 it's really easy for someone who has already made over $200 million and has another 400 million in contract to say he doesn't want a stimulus package to save american jobs. regardless of how the average american is doing, his fat ass will be poppin as many oxycontins as his chunky fingers can get a hold on. i'm not a big fan either, but when 6 of the largest companies announced today the loss of 70K jobs, i'm very very concerned. being a lawyer, which is supposed to be a recession proof job, i'm getting very anxious about my job. i would rather have upfront spending to prevent a huge catastrophe, with future reduction in spending to offset the current spending. it's just how it has to be. I'm not talking about bailing out failed companies. i'm talking about investing in growth, i.e., technology, infrastructure, etc... we may need to let the weakest companies fail, but we need to do something to create or save jobs. i'm actually a pretty strong believer in free markets. this past few months have killed me in how much intervention is necessary (yes, necessary!)

Let me rephrase- he wanted no stimulus package as it was laid out. Rather, he wanted a stimulus for the American people via tax cuts in capital gains and corporate taxes, but of course we knew that wasn't going to happen.

Anyway, I'm starting to get nervous about my job too, even though I'm working in such a specialized field with little competition in my area. It's hard to say intervention is "necessary" because by definition, markets correct themselves when left alone. I don't get it man... Bush was treated like the devil when it came to deficit spending (which was warranted), but now it's like they can't spend it fast enough.

If spending like drunken sailors is a good idea, why are we in this mess now? Do you realize that only 3% of the stimulus is actually going to "infrastructure" (If you want the link I'll provide it). I just read that in this new stimulus package, there is 650 million going towards the "analog to digital" tv converter program, 600 million going towards govt. redoing their vehicle fleet in hybrid cars (which is double what they spend now), 400 million for NASA on climate change research, 8 billion for wireless and broadband deployment... plus these gems:

1) Dep of agriculture 44 million for facilities,
2) Dept of agriculture 29 million for research buidlings
3) Dept of agriculture 245 million for IT modernization (that's an assload of money to upgrade an IT department)
4) Rural community program 5.838 billion (whatever the fuck that is)
5) 22 billion for "rural housing insurance fund," 18 of which is for unsubisdized loan guarantees and the other 4 billion direct loans... which basically means they want to spend billions to make sure farms and rural areas have high speed internet access?
6) Welfare stuff: 100 million for WIC and 50 million to distribute Food bought for WIC programs.
7) 350 million for salary and expenses for National Telecommunications and Information Administration salaries and expenses
8) 150 Million for the Smithsonian...lol
9) 6 million for colleges and universities, most of which have huge endowments.
10) 32 new government programs will be created, which equates to 1/3 of the total package.
11) 4 billion to community organization groups like ACORN... or, funding Obama's army in other words.

This sounds a lot like a government stimulus package plan to me. For creating jobs, don't you think cutting corproate taxes would be a real stimulus? This is crazy.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss by definition, markets correct themselves when left alone

Q@#K$JLB:LKQ#AW$YKL:zdf

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss For creating jobs, don't you think cutting corproate taxes would be a real stimulus? This is crazy.

We've been doing that for the last fucking 8 years man.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Unless they're immigrants working for him or he's the one using the drugs.

I'm pretty sure he still hates those immigrants and hates himself for not being able to control his addiction.

He's just about the saddest individual in America.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Do you realize that only 3% of the stimulus is actually going to "infrastructure" (If you want the link I'll provide it).

This is a huge bone of contention among progressives. We'd like to see this number MUCH higher, but unfortunately Republicans are crying "earmark" whenever the word infrastructure is brought up. You want to know why this number is as low as it is? Those tax cuts that were thrown in after consulting with Republican House leadership took its place.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Let me rephrase- he wanted no stimulus package as it was laid out. Rather, he wanted a stimulus for the American people via tax cuts in capital gains and corporate taxes, but of course we knew that wasn't going to happen.

i agree corporate tax rates need to be lower - say 25%. I don't necessarily agree that capital gains rates should be lower though because people need to invest excess capital in any event, so the whole incentive argument is flawed. Additionally, why do we give preference to income earned through capital over income earned through personal services? please justify that!

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Bush was treated like the devil when it came to deficit spending (which was warranted), but now it's like they can't spend it fast enough.

bush's deficit spending was to fight wars, and give tax cuts that would do nothing for long term economic growth.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss If spending like drunken sailors is a good idea, why are we in this mess now?

that's absolutely correct. Spending too much is what caused this problem, and we need to spend an amount that is in line with income. However, if possible, we need to soften the blow. Hopefully, smart investments can accomplish this.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Do you realize that only 3% of the stimulus is actually going to "infrastructure" (If you want the link I'll provide it).

i agree with Leb that it should be much higher. More should be invested in education, modernizing essential portions of the economy, etc....

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I just read that in this new stimulus package, there is 650 million going towards the "analog to digital" tv converter program, 600 million going towards govt. redoing their vehicle fleet in hybrid cars (which is double what they spend now), 400 million for NASA on climate change research, 8 billion for wireless and broadband deployment... plus these gems: 1) Dep of agriculture 44 million for facilities, 2) Dept of agriculture 29 million for research buidlings 3) Dept of agriculture 245 million for IT modernization (that's an assload of money to upgrade an IT department) 4) Rural community program 5.838 billion (whatever the fuck that is) 5) 22 billion for "rural housing insurance fund," 18 of which is for unsubisdized loan guarantees and the other 4 billion direct loans... which basically means they want to spend billions to make sure farms and rural areas have high speed internet access? 6) Welfare stuff: 100 million for WIC and 50 million to distribute Food bought for WIC programs. 7) 350 million for salary and expenses for National Telecommunications and Information Administration salaries and expenses 8) 150 Million for the Smithsonian...lol 9) 6 million for colleges and universities, most of which have huge endowments. 10) 32 new government programs will be created, which equates to 1/3 of the total package. 11) 4 billion to community organization groups like ACORN... or, funding Obama's army in other words. This sounds a lot like a government stimulus package plan to me. For creating jobs, don't you think cutting corproate taxes would be a real stimulus? This is crazy.

while i don't agree with some of the spending, you have to put the numbers into perspective. 6 million (for schools) is 0.000694% of 865billion. Also, just because we don't like the use of those funds doesn't mean it won't contribute to the economy. Most of the money will eventually flow from the government to a private enterprise at some point in the economic cycle.

has 17sss had his eyes shut for the past 18 months?

haha... nah man I've been unhappy about politics since about 2005 when Bush went off the rails and began going against everything the GOP used to stand for, then when a Democrat congress took over, and the final insult was having McCain become the nominee of the party. Dark days lie ahead for me man.. dark days.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss haha... nah man I've been unhappy about politics since about 2005 when Bush went off the rails and began going against everything the GOP used to stand for, then when a Democrat congress took over, and the final insult was having McCain become the nominee of the party. Dark days lie ahead for me man.. dark days.

There'll be no end in sight if you keep listening to Rush.

quote:

Obama: Quit Listening to Rush Limbaugh if You Want to Get Things Done Obama warned Republicans to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats, during a White House discussion on his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts. "There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."

fuck, that is a dangerous game Obama is playing there. If the Republicans call his bluff and then his plans don't turn the economy around the Democrats could have a disaster on their hands in the 2010 elections with 30+ Senate and 70+ House seats up for grabs. If the economy is in the toilet still after two years people are going to hold the Democrats responsible and Obama could end up a virtual lame duck fighting against a hostile Republican Congress halfway through his first term.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX fuck, that is a dangerous game Obama is playing there. If the Republicans call his bluff and then his plans don't turn the economy around the Democrats could have a disaster on their hands in the 2010 elections with 30+ Senate and 70+ House seats up for grabs. If the economy is in the toilet still after two years people are going to hold the Democrats responsible and Obama could end up a virtual lame duck fighting against a hostile Republican Congress halfway through his first term.

You said it. It is going to be a very interesting time in this country's history.....


//grabbing some popcorn

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX fuck, that is a dangerous game Obama is playing there. If the Republicans call his bluff and then his plans don't turn the economy around the Democrats could have a disaster on their hands in the 2010 elections with 30+ Senate and 70+ House seats up for grabs. If the economy is in the toilet still after two years people are going to hold the Democrats responsible and Obama could end up a virtual lame duck fighting against a hostile Republican Congress halfway through his first term.

I honestly think Pelosi is the biggest threat to the Democrats hold of power/Obama's reign.

quote:

Originally posted by verndogs I honestly think Pelosi is the biggest threat to the Democrats hold of power/Obama's reign.

I think she can do a lot to hurt the Democrats, but I think the biggest threat to the Democrats right now is the economy. Right now the country has handed the Democrats the presidency along with majorities in both the House and the Senate with the assumption that they will "fix" the country because Bush and the Republicans "broke" it. This is a really dangerous position for them to be in because I can only see massive success or total failure come out of it, not really much middle ground.

I feel like Obama was elected with near impossible expectations for him as a President, that somehow he is going to come in and fix everything. To help him get things done his party was also given control of both houses of congress. He talked a good game in the election but if his/the Democrats policies are not successful in turning around the economy people will put the Republicans back in office just as fast as they threw them out this time. If they are successful then I think we could see a long run of Democrats in power.

Not that it is a picnic to be a Republican right now either. You either have to go along with a porkfilled stimulus bill that goes against your core values as a Republican or you could be seen as someone who isn't doing what's "right" for the country. Or you could come out of it looking like someone who was standing up against a policy which was ultimately a failure when it wasn't popular to do so. It all depends on how things go the next two years.

Obama needs to remember that he does not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate before he makes comments like this. I'd hate to see all the hope for bipartisan cooperation and "reaching across the isle" that we heard about in the election evaporate thanks to statements that Republicans could see as "vote for our pork or else"

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX You said it. It is going to be a very interesting time in this country's history..... //grabbing some popcorn

Both for your country, and the rest of the world.

This is one of tose watershed moments in time, and in a perverse way, we're lucky to live through it and watch it unfold. We have the benefits of information and hindsight, combined with the very immediate access to current information (and mis-information!).

It's like watching history unfold, though we're running through glue. Everyone is quick to react and throw in their $0.02 but it takes a relative lifetime for any of these ideas/packages/plans/opinions/guesses etc to actually play out in the real world.

I find it fascinating, but don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not getting any enjoyment out of it at all.

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse Both for your country, and the rest of the world.

true

New from Rush:

quote:

RL: Within the confines of our Constitution, and the political arena of ideas, they must be stopped. I don't care why they see this country the way they see it. I don't care why a murderer does it. I don't care why a rapist does it. I don't care why this Muslim guy offed his wife's head. The NOW gang is out there saying 'oh, that's not domestic violence, that's just, uh, that's just...' what do they call it? 'Culturally honor killing. Or this woman was going to divorce him, that's against the law. That's his diversity.' I don't care, I don't care why anymore. If I figure it out, I'll be glad to tell you because it's interesting to know, but it doesn't matter in terms of defeating them.

Hmm...

c0r version: "I hope Obama fails, cause he's a Democrat, and that's like being a murderer or a rapist or a radical Muslim."

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